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

73–121PDF 2012

OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

Serial No. 112–61 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Friday, February 17, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 44 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy ..................................................................................................................... 68 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Website link EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of recently released mercury rule 

as submitted by the Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science 

and Technology Policy .......................................................................................... 92 

(1) 

OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall [Chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

u.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

An Overview o/the Administration's Federal Research and 

Development Budget/or Fiscal Year 2013 

February 17,2012 

9:30 a.m. to II :30 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witness List 

Dr. John P. Holdren 

Assistant to the President for Science and Tcchnology and Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

All Overview of the Administratioll's Federal Research and Development Budget 

for Fiscal Year 2013 

1. Purpose 

Friday, February 17,2012 

9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Friday, February 17,2012, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will 

hold a hearing to examine President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2013 (FYI3) budget request 

for research, development. demonstration, and commercial application programs. Dr. John P. 

Holdren. Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). will review the proposed budget in the context of the 

President's overall priorities in science, space. and technology and will describe the mechanisms 

the Administration uses to determine priorities across scientific disciplines and the mechanisms 

uscd to coordinate scientitlc research and technical development activities across federal 

agencies. The Committee will hold separate hcarings to examine the FYI 3 budget requests of 

individual agencies within its jurisdiction over the next few weeks. 

2. Witness 

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

of the Office ofScicnce and Technology Policy. He also serves as Co-Chair of the President's 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Prior to joining OSTP, Dr. Holdren 

was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program 

on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of 

Government, as well as Director of Woods Hole Research Center. 

3. Table of Contents 

Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2 

Interagency Research Activities .................................................................................................... 3 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ............................................................ 5 

Department of Energy .................................................................................................................... 7 

National Science Foundation ....................................................................................................... II 

National Institute of Standards and Technology .......................................................................... 14 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .................................................................... IS 

Department of Homeland Security .............................................................................................. 16 

Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................... 17 

STEM Education Across the Federal Government... ................................................................... 18 
4 

4. Overview 

Overall Budget 

Under the President"s proposed budget for FYI3, overall discretionary spending decreases from 

$1.2 trillion to $1.15 trillion to meet the caps as agreed to in the Budget Control Act of2011. 

However. the budget calls for "strategic increases in the U.S. research and development (R&D) 

enterprise and a strong focus on science, technology, engineering. and mathematics (STEM) 

education."} As such, the budget request includes discretionary funding increases for all 

agencies within the Commitlee'sjurisdiction, with the exception of NASA which is reduced by 

$59 million (or.3 percent). Specifically. funding increases percentages are as follows: 

Department of Energy R&D (8 percent), Department of Energy Ol1ice of Science (2.6 percent). 

the National Science Foundation (4.8 percent), the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (14.1 percent). the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (3.3 percent), 

the Environmental Protection Agency (1.2 percent). the Department of Homeland Security 

Science and Technology Directorate (24.5 percent). and the Department of Transportation (14 

percent). 

Research and Development (R&D) Budget 

Overall Federal Research and Development Spelldini (dollars in millions) 

FYll FY12 FY13 

Agency Actual Estimate Request 

artment of Defense 7750( 7273! 7120< 

nt Of Health and Human Services 3118{ 3115 311~ 

ofEnemv , Hl613 1101! ~ . 1190 •..... 9099 . c., ~9399 .~Q~ 

tion . . " 5486 • 561)( 500< 

Deoartment of Agriculture 2135 2331 229 

I DeI.lattment Of Commerce .. .. 1275 ... 125jl 257~ .. 

D~liartmen~ ofT..arislX>rtation ...• 

~ ... 107€ : .. Oecbartn,ent of Homeland Securltv 12~ 

Department of Veterans Affairs 116C 116 116c 

Deoartment of the Interior 757 791 854 

Envli'pnment;ljP;otectlon Allency 584 , ...... 500 .. SSC 

Department of Education -;;r 392 3ec 

Smithsonian Institution 24 24 

Patient·Centered outcomes Research Trust 

Fund 4C 12C 31 

Other 581 486 57£ 

Totals: 142714 138869 140820 

Shadmg mdlcates agencies wlthm the SCience, Space, and Technology Comnllttee sJlmsdlctlOn 

I OSTP FYI3 R&D Budget Press Release. 

(http://www . whitehouse.gov!s ites! default!filesim ierositesl ostp/fY20 13 rd _press _ re lease. pdf) 

2 Fiscal Year 2013 Analytical Perspectives, Budget a/the U.S Gorernment, OMI3, p. 370. 

2 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY12 Enacted 

$ % 

(1535) -2 

247 1 

.:.8114 ' .. , . 8 

--'- 2Q3 . ' .2 

224 . 4 

(34) -1 

1315 105 

.'. 132 . .. ,', 14 

152 26 

2 0 

58 7 

12 2 

6 2 

0 0 

192 160 

93 19 

1951 1 
5 

The President's FY13 budget proposes a total of$140.8 billion for research and development 

(R&D) across all agencies. a $1.9 billion or one percent increase over the FY12 enacted level. 

The budget would decrease defense-related R&D spending by $1.5 billion or two percent to 

$71.2 billion and increase health-related R&D by $439 million or 1.4 percent to $31.7 billion.} 

Therefore, the total non-defense R&D budget request is $69.6 billion. but the total FY13 budget 

request for all other non-defense and non-health specific R&D, an overwhelming majority of 

which is in the Committee's jurisdiction. is $37.9 billion or a 8.7 percent increase over the FY 12 

level. This amount includes basic and applied research. development, and facilities and 

equipment. 

The President's proposed FYI3 budget does not treat R&D uniformly, but rather provides 

significant increases in priority areas, while reducing or freezing spending in other arcas. 

Therefore, aggregate numbers mask the wide variation in individual agencies and programs. The 

budget request provides $13.1 billion for the three physical science research agencies included in 

America COMPETES - research funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF). internal 

programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of 

Energy's Ottice of Science (DOE). With the exception of the Department of Commerce. which 

receives a significant increase of 105 percent; the Department of Homeland Security Science and 

Technology Directorate, which receives a 24.5 percent increase; the Department of 

Transportation, which receives a 14 percent increase; DOE R&D. which receives an eight 

percent increase; and NSF, which receives a four percent increase; all other agencies within the 

Committee'sjurisdiction receivc modest increases of two percent or less. 

5. Interagency Research Activities4 

Interagemy Research Activities Spending (dol/an; m milhom) 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY12 Estimate 

Interagency ProQram Actual Estimate Request $ % 

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) 1845 1696 1766 70 4.1 

Networking and Information Technology R&D 

(NITRO) 3725 3738 3807 69 1.8 

US Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP) 2448 2427 2563 136 5.6 

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) 

The Science, Space. and Technology Committee was instrumental in the development and 

enactment of the 21" Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of2003 (P.L. 

108-153). which authorized the NNJ. 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. Thcre are currcntly 25 federal agencies that participate in NNI, with 15 of those 

agencies reporting a nanoteclmology R&D budget. 

} This includes a budget request of $312 million (160 percent increase) for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 

Trust Fund as mandated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

4 Budget numbers and details for the NNI and NITRD programs are taken from the R&D Summary Fact Sheet 

provided by OSTP. (http://www.whitehouse.gov!sites/defaultlfiles!microsites/ostp/fv2013rd summarv.pdf). 

Details may change with the release oflhe Supplement to the budget for these programs, 

3 
6 

The FY13 budget request for NNI is $1.8 billion, an increase of $70 million or 4.1 percent over 

the FY121evei. The Administration's budget request continues funding for three signature 

initiatives: Nanoclectronics for 2020 and Beyond; Sustainable Manufacturing: Creating the 

Industries of the Future: and Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion. The 

DOE contribution will increase to $443 million, a $127 million or 40.3 percent increase. 

Likewise, EPA sees an 11.8 percent increase, NIST receives a seven percent increase, NSF a two 

percent increase, and the Department of TranspOliation a 100 percent increase from $1 million to 

$2 million. All other agency funding is reduced by a total 0($76 miJlion. 

Networking and Information Technology R&D (,l\fITRD) 

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee was also instrumental in the development of the 

multi-agency 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, including high-end computing systems and software, 

networking, software design, human-computer interaction, health IT. and cybersecurity and 

inforn1ation assurance research activities. Infonnation technology research continues to playa 

critical role in U.S. economic strength. Currently, 14 federal agencies contribute funding to the 

NITRD program and additional agencies participate in planning activities. On February 7, 2011, 

the Committee ordered to be reported H.R. 3834, Advancin:; America '.I' Networking and 

Information Technology Research and Development Act of 20J 2. This measure updates and 

further codifies the NITRD program and is similar to H.R. 2020 lrom the III th Congress that 

passed the House twice, but was not enacted. 

The FY13 NITRD budget request is $3.8 billion. a $69 million or a 1.8 percent increase over the 

foY12 level. The Administration request includes a focus on research to improve our ability to 

derive value and scientific inferences from enonnous quantities of data, and continues to 

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

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

reliable. The DBS request includes a significant increase of36.2 percent; the Department of 

Commerce is increased by 16.4 percent, NSF by 6.1 percent, and DOE by 5.9 percent. All other 

agency funding is reduced by a total of$71 million. 

U,S. Global Challge Research Program (USGCRP) 

The FY13 budget request is $2.6 billion for the interagency USGCRP, a $136 million or 5.6 

percent increase over FY 12 level, bringing federal climate research funding to the highest level 

ever. Started in 1989, the USGCRP is an interagency effort comprised of J 3 departments and 

agencies. Activities ofthc 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 infonnation and decision support tools that are useful to policymakers and the general 

public. Participating agency budgets for the program arc as follows: USGS is increased by 15.3 

percent, DOE by 9 percent, NOAA and NIST collectively by 7.'2 percent. NASA by 5.7 percent. 

EPA by 5.3 percent, Agriculture by 3.6 percent, and DOT by 200 percent from $1 million to $3 

million. NSF, NIH, and the Smithsonian funding requests remain !lat. 

4 
7 

6. Agency R&D Highlights 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Spell ding 1111 (0 ars 111 1111 /I) IO/1S --

FY13 Request versus 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY12 Estimate 

Account Actual Estimate Request $ % 

Science Mission Directorate 4919.7 5073.7 4911.2 (162.5) -3.2 

Earth 1721.9 1760.5 1784.8 24.3 1.4 

Planetary 1450.8 1501.4 1192.3 (309.1) -20.6 

Astrophvsics 631.1 672.7 659.4 (13.3) -2.0 

James Webb Space Telescope 476.8 518.6 6276 109.0 21.0 -' 

Heliophysics 639.2 620.5 6470 26.5 4.2 

Aeronautics 533.5 569.4 551.5 (17.9) -3.1 

Space Technology 456.3 573.7 699.0 125.3 21.8 

Exploration 3821.2 3712.8 39~ ~ 220.0 5.9 

Exploration Systems Development 2982.1 3007.1 2769. (237.7J -79 

Commercial SpacefliGht 606.8 406.0 829.7 423.7 104.3 

Exploration R&D 232.3 299.7 33~~ 34.0 11.3 

Space Operations 5146.3 4187.0 4013. (173.8) -4.1 

Space Shut1le 1592.9 556.2 70.6 (4856) -87.3 

International Space Station 2713.6 2829.9 3007.6 177.7 6.2 

Space and Flight Support 839.8 800.9 935.0 134.1 16.7 

Education 145.4 136.1 100.0 (36.1) -26.5 

Cross Agency Support 2956.4 2993.9 2847.5 (146.4) -4.8 

Center Management &Operation 2189.0 2204.1 2093.3 (110.8) -5.0 

AGency ManaGement & Operations 767.4 789.8 7542 (356) -4.5 

Construction & Environmental 

Compliance 432.9 487.0 619.2 132.2 27.1 

Construction of Facilities 373.3 441.3 552.8 111.5 25.3 

Environmental Compliance 59.6 45.6 66.4 20.8 45.6 

.J.I1.spector General 36.3 38.3 37.0 (1.3) -3.4 

Totals: 18448.0 17770.0 17711.4 (58.S) -0.3 

Note: In several mslances. numbers may not add due to roundmg. 

The FY 13 budget request for NASA is $17.7 billion. a $58.6 million or .3 percent decrease from 

the FY12 estimate. In FYI\. NASA received $18.4 billion; and in FY10, the agency was funded 

at $18.7 billion. For FYI3, NASA is authorized to receive $19.9 billion. 

The budget request for NASA's Science Mission Directorate is $4.91 billion, which is $162.5 

million less than FY12 level. As expected, the Jamcs Webb Space Telescope (JWST) receives a 

generous increase to reflect the newly established baseline targeting a launch date of October 

2018. This resulted from a lengthy re-plan process completed by NASA in 2011 after 

experiencing extensive cost and schedule overruns. Consistent with the re-plan. JWST would 

receivc $627.6 million. an increase of over 20 percent when compared to the FY12 estimate of 

$518.6 million. 

5 
8 

Earth Science and Heliophysics receive modest increases, and Astrophysics receives a modest 

decrease. The Planetary Science budget request for FY13, however. is $1.19 billion. a decrease 

of$309 million or 20 percent from the $1.5 billion FY121eveL In particular. the Mars 

Exploration Program sees a precipitous drop in funding. declining from $587 million in FY12 to 

$360.8 million for FY13. The proposed budget effectively ends the planned joint NASA -

European Space Agency (ESA) 2016 and 2018 Mars missions. According to NASA, etIorts will 

begin immediately to re-plan the Mars Exploration program in an effort to deliver a new. lcssexpensive architecture to Congress for consideration by late spring 2012. 

NASA's Exploration budget request assumes operation and utilization of the International Space 

Station through at least 2020 and proposes $3 billion in FY 13 for ISS operations. maintenance. 

research, Soyuz crew transportation and commercial cargo delivery. The budget also requests 

$71 million for the final disposition of Space Shuttle assets. 

NASA's FYI3 budget proposes $1.34 billion for the continued development of the Spacc 

Launch System, which is II percent or $162 million less than the FY12 leveL The budget also 

proposes $1.024 hillion for the Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle, which is 14.6 percent or $175 

million less than was appropriated in FY12. The NASA Authorization Act of 201 0 (P.L 111-

267) articulated Congressional intent that NASA develop the Space Launch System and Multi 

Purpose Crew Vehicle as soon as possible to ensure U.S. access to the International Space 

Station in case commercial crew and cargo capabilities fail to materialize. However, under the 

current program NASA will not have the SLS/MPCV system operational until 2021. 

For Commercial Crew Development activities. NASA's FY13 budget proposal diverges fi'om 

previous Congressional direction by requesting $830 million, which is $424 million or 104 

percent more than the FY 12 level. NASA asserts that this higher level of annual funding is 

required in order to develop a commercial crew capability by 2017. 

6 
9 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

Department of Energy (DOE) Spelldillg (dollan m nil/hom) 

FY11 

Program Actual 

Office of Science' 4897.3 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research 410.3 

Basic Energy Sciences 1638.5 

Biological and Environmental Research 595.2 

Fusion Energy Sciences 367.3 

High Energy PhysiCS 775.6 

Nue/ear Physics 5277 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EEREJ' 1771.7 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies 95.8 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems 180.0 

Solar Energy 259.6 

Wind Energy 78.8 

Geothennal Technology 37.0 

WaterPower 29.2 

Vehicle Technologies 293.2 

Building Technologies 207.3 

Advanced Manufacturing" 105.9 

Nuclear Energy R&O*** 401.0 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 

R&D 138.2 

Fossil Energy R&D 434.1 

ARPA-E 179.6 

Loan Guarantee Program Office 179.5 

Totals: 7998.0 . Mmor and non-S& l-r~lakd aC\:Qunb <\t SC lliid EcRE an:: Illlt shm\1l 

* "'Fonncriy known as Industnal Tcchnol()gic~ Program. 

FY12 FY13 

Enacted Request 

4873.6 4,992.0 

440.9 455.6 

1688.1 1799.6 

609.6 625.3 

401.0 398.3 

790.9 776.5 

547.4 526.9 

1809.6 2337.0 

103.6 80.0 

199.3 270.0 

289.0 310.0 

93.3 95.0 

379 65.0 

58.8 20.0 

328.8 420.0 

219.2 310.0 

115.6 290.0 

450.9 382.4 

139.1 143.0 

346.7 420.6 

275.0 350.0 

6.0 9.0 

7892.6 8561.1 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY12 Enacted 

$ % 

118.4 2.4 

14.7 3.3 

111.5 6.6 

15.8 2.6 

(2.7) -07 

(14.3) -1.8 

(204) -37 

527.4 29.1 

(23.6) -22.8 

70.7 35.5 

21.0 7.3 

1.7 1.9 

27.1 717 

(38.8) -66.0 

91.2 277 

90.8 41.4 

174.4 1509 

(68.5) -15.2 

3.9 2.8 

73.9 21.3 

75.0 27.3 

3.0 50.0 

668.5 8.47 

***lnctudcs Reactor Concept<; RD&D, Fuel Cycle R&D, Integrated University Program, L\\'R SMR Licensing T~chnica! Support International 

"Nuclear Energy CooperatIOn's, and Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologics. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a wide range of research. development, demonstration, 

and commercial application activities within the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's 

jurisdiction. 

Office of Science (SC) 

The Office of Science (SC) total budget request for FY13 is $5 billion, a $118 million o[ 2.4 

percent increase over the FY 12 level. The mission of SC is the "delivery of scientific 

discoveries and major scientific user facilities and tools to transfonn our understanding of nature 

7 
10 

and to advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States."s SCs 

responsibilities are in three main areas: selection and management of research: operation of 

world-class, state-ot:the-art scientific facilities: and design and construction of new facilities. 

In support of its mission, SC funds basic research through six primary programs: advanced 

scientitic computing, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fllsion 

energy sciences, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. The Basie Energy Sciences (BES) 

program is proposed to receive the bulk of the overall growth in SC funding, increasing $111 

million or 6.6 percent from FY12. 

Advanced Research Projects Age/1cy - Energy (ARPA-E) 

The Administration request for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) is 

$350 million, a $75 million or 27.3 percent increase over FYI2. Established in 2007 by the 

America COMPETES Act (P.L.ll 0-69), ARPA-E is statutorily charged with developing energy 

technologies that result in "(i) reductions of imports of energy from foreign sources: (ii) 

reductions of energy-related cmissions. including greenhouse gases: and (iii) improvement in the 

energy efficiency of all economic sectors." The DOE budget request states that "ARPA-E 

sponsors specific high-impact transformational research and development projects that overcome 

the long-term technological barriers in the development of energy technologies to meet the 

Nation's energy challenges. but that industry will not support at such an early stage. ARPA-E is 

funding transformational research to create revolutionary technologies that will fuel the 

economy, create new jobs. reduce energy imports, improve energy efliciency, reduce energyrelated emissions, and ensure that the U.S. maintains a technological lead in developing and 

deploying advanced energy technologies." 

Initially provided with $400 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

(P.L.111-5) funding, ARPA-E did not receive a direct appropriation in FYI 0, though it did 

receive a $15 million transfer from the Office of Science. In FYll and FYI1, ARPA-E received 

appropriations of$180 and $275 million. respectively. In total. ARPA-E has now issued twelve 

funding opportunity announcements and funded over 180 projects in energy technology areas 

such as wind, solar, batteries, biomass, and carbon capture. 

DOE budget documents state that in FY13. ARPA-E proposes to "increasc the number of 

programs in two broad areas: Transportation Systems and Stationary Power, with a priority on 

Transportation Systems including advanced manufacturing and vehicles research and 

development. Additionally, ARPA-E will continue to build on the already strong cooperative 

relationship with the U.S. Department of Defense to develop advanced clean energy 

technologies."" 

Nuclear E/1ergy 

The primary mission of the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is to '·advance nuclear power as a 

resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy, environmental, and national security needs by 

resolving technicaL cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, 

5 Department of Energy, "Department (?f Energy FY ]013 Congressional BU((z,el Request: Budget Highlights." 

February 2012. P. 18. Accessible at: http:!.www.cfo.doc."oy/buda ct/l;lbudgetfContentfHighli"htiJo..ill 

6 DOE Budget Highlights, p. 26. 

8 
11 

development, and demonstration as appropriate:,7 NE "conducts research and development 

activities for nuclear energy generation. security, materials, systems, safety, and waste 

management technologies and tools. and operates and maintains nuclear infrastructure in a safe 

and compliant manner to support achievement of national energy, climate. and non-proliferation 

goals:,g 

The FYI3 budget request for NE is $770.4 million. a $5.1 million or 0.7 percent increase from 

FY12 levels. NE's primary R&D programs arc Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies. or 

NEET. ($65.3 million): Light Water Reactor Small and Modular Reactor Licensing Technical 

Support ($65 million): Reactor Concepts RD&D ($73.6 million); and Fuel Cycle R&D ($175 

million). The NE research accounts total $382.4 million, a $68.5 million or 15.2 percent decrease 

from FY12. The majority of this decrease is proposed to come out of the Reactor Concepts 

program (-$41.2 million), including the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) 

(-$19.2 million), advanced small modular reactors (-$9.5 million), and advanced reactor concepts 

(-$9.5 million). 

The budget request consolidates funding previously provided in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriation "Other Defense Activities" account into the NE funding line. Thus, 

the budget requests $95 million for security at NE's primary national research facility, Idaho 

National Laboratory, as a part ofNE, rather than part of"defense activities:' 

Ellergy EYficiency alld Renewable Ellergy (EERE) 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) supports clean energy research, 

development. demonstration, and deployment activities on technologies and practices that help 

achieve national security, environmental, and economical goals in order to meet its mission to 

"strengthen the United States' energy security, enviromnental quality. and economic vitality in 

public-private partnerships. ,,9 

The Administration requests $2.34 billion for EERE in FYI3, a $527.4 million (29.1 percent) 

increase above FY12lcvels. This reflects the President's continued emphasis on "clean energy" 

programs. as highlighted in recent State of the Union speeches. Many of the EERE programs 

receive significant proposed increases. such as Geothennal Technologies ($27 million or 71 

percent increase), Biomass and Biorcfinery RD&D ($70 million or 35.5 percent increase), 

Advanced Manufacturing, formerly known as the Industrial Technologies Program ($174.4 

million or 150.9 percent increase), and Building Technologies ($90.8 million or 41.4 percent 

increase). The budget request proposes reducing the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology 

program by $23.6 million or 22.8 percent, and Water Power R&D by $38.8 million or 66 

percent. 

Electricity Delivery alld Ellergy Reliability 

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) "Ieads national efforts to 

modernize the electric grid, enhance security and reliability of energy infrastructure, and 

7 Depanment of Energy, "Office alNuclear EnerJ;Y: Our Mission," Accessible at: 

http://nuclcar.energy.govJneMission.html 

8 DOE Budget Highlif,hlS, p. 43. 

(} Department of Energy, "'EERE Program Plans, implementation, & Results." Accessible at: 

http://wwwI.eere.energy.goY/pir/corporate.html 

9 
12 

facilitate recovery from disruptions to the energy supply."IO The fY13 budget request includes 

$103.4 million for OE R&D, an increase 01'$4.3 million or 4.3 percent above FYl2 enacted 

levels. OE supports clean energy transmission and reliability. smart grid. and energy storage 

R&D activities. OE's FYI3 budget request proposes a new $20 million "Electricity Systems 

Hub" to "address the critical issues and barriers associated [with Jmodernization of the electric grid.~~11 

Fossil Ellergy 

The DOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE) supports R&D focused on coal (including clean coal 

technologies), gas, and petroleum and also oversees the federal government's Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve. The President's total FYI3 budget request for the FE is $650.8 million. Of 

this amount, $420.6 million is for R&D. an increase 01'$73.9 million or 21.3 percent from FY12 

levels. The FY12 level 01'$533.7 million included a rescission 0[$187 million resulting from 

termination of a major carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) demonstration project funded in a 

previous fiscal year. The base budget request for FE R&D, before accounting for this rescission, 

represents a decrease 01'$113 million, or 21 percent. 

Within the FE R&D program. the budget request reduces coal R&D to $275.9 million, a decrease 

of$92.5 million or 25.1 percent below FYI21eve!s. The Natural Gas Technologies R&D 

program request is $17 million, $12 million of which is proposed for a new interagency R&D 

initiative by DOE, EPA. and the U.S. Geological Survey to "understand and minimize the 

potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of shale gas development through hydraulic 

fracturing .. .including the key research recommendations received from the Subcommittee of the 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board."12 The Coal and Coal Biomass to Liquids. Solid Oxide 

Fuel Cells. and Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies programs are all eliminated in the 

request. 

Energy lllnovatiollllubs 

The FY13 budget request proposes funding six Energy Innovation Hubs throughout various DOE 

accounts. This includes continuation offive hubs currently funded at levels between $20 and 

$25 million per year through the Sc. EERE, and NE accounts, as well as a newly proposed hub 

on battery and energy storage to be supported by OF. Energy Innovation Hubs arc intended to 

bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers to speed research and "shorten the path 

from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly 

promising energy-related technologics.,,13 

Loan Guarantee Program Office 

Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of2005 authorizes DOE to make loan guarantees to encourage 

early commercial use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects. Projects 

supported must avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of 

greenhouse gases: employ new or significantly improved technologies; and offer a reasonable 

prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on the guaranteed obligation. 

According to the budget request, the Loan Guarantee Program has awarded over $16 billion in 

loan guarantees for 26 renewable energy projects, and has made additional commitments that 

10 DOl: Budget Highlights. p. 32. 

II Ibid, p. 33. 

"Ibid. p. 51. 

!3 lbid. p. 6. 

10 
13 

have not yet closed totaling over $10 billion. The FYI3 budget requests $38 million for 

administrative operations '·to focus on portfolio management and monitoring activities on the 

existing portfolio as well as originating ne\>,; loan guarantees to utilize remaining loan authority 

in the nuclear power, front-end nuclear, fossil. and renewable and energy etIiciency sectors." 

The Administration proposes to offset requested spending with an equivalent amount of fee 

collections for a net-zero budget request. 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

Natiollal Sciellce Foulldatioll (NSF) Spelldillg 

(d oars /I 111//1/ /I) J(ms 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY12 Estimate 

Account Actual Estimate Request $ % 

Research and Related Activities (RRA) 5608.4 5689.C 5983.3 294.3 5.2 

Biolooical Sciences (BIO 712. 712. 733.f 21.5 3.0 

Computer and Info Science and Engineerin5 

(CISE 636.1 653.0 709.7 56.1 8.6 

Enoineering (ENG 763. 826. 876.3 50.2 6.1 

Geosciences (GEO 885 885 906.4 212 2.4 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MSP 1312. 1308.S 1345.2 36.2 2.8 

Social, Behavioral. and Economic Science~ 

(SBE) 247. 254 259.0 5.3 2.1 

Cyberinfrastructure (OCI 300.< 211.( 218. 6.6 3.1 

Intemational Science and Engineering (OISE 49.( 49. 51. 1.4 2.9 

Polar Proorams (OPP 440. 435.~ 449. 13.9 3.2 

Integrative Activities (lA 259.t 349 431.5 81.9 23.4 

US. Arctic Research Commission 1.t 1. 1,4 (01) -4.1 

Education and Human Resources (EHR) 861.0 829.0 875.6 46.6 5.6 

Major Research Equipment & Facilities Const 

(MREFC) 125.4 197.1 196.2 (0.9) -0.4 

Agency Operations & Award Management 299.3 299.4 299.4 0 0 

National Science Board (NSB) 4.5 4.4 4.4 0 0 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) 14.0 14.2 14.2 0 0 

Totals: 6912.6 7033.1 7373.1 340 4.8 

The FYI3 budget request for NSF is $7.4 billion. a $340 million or 4.8 percent increase over the 

FYl2levcL NSF provides over 20 percent of federal support for all basic research at U.S. 

colleges and universities and is second only to National Institutes of Health (NIH) in support for 

all academic research. It is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic research, 

providing over 60 percent of all federal support, and serves as a catalyst for science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education improvement at all levels of education. 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 alld Related Activities (RRA) 

The FYI3 budget request includes over $5.9 billion for Research and Related Activities (RRA), 

an increase of$294 million or 5.2 percent over FYI2. RRA is made up primarily of six 

II 
14 

disciplinary directorates: non-biomedical life sciences (BIO); computer sciences (CISE); 

engineering (ENG): geosciences (GEO): math and physical sciences (MPS); and social, 

behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE). Each of these directorates receives an increase in the 

FY13 budget request ranging from 2 percent for SBE to nearly 9 percent for CISE. RRA also 

houses several NSF Offices, including the Office of Polar Programs which is requesting a 3.2 

percent increase, and the Office of Integrative Activities (lA) which is requesting $431 million. a 

23 percent increase from FY12. 

Beginning in FY13, NSF plans to enable seamless operations across organizational and 

disciplinary boundaries through a new One.:--.JSF Framework. The OneNSF Framework 

encompasses a set of currently funded investments to "create new knowledge. stimulate 

discovery, address complex societal problems. and promote national prosperity.,,]4 OneNSF 

Framcwork prioritics for FYI3 include: $257 million tor Cyber-Enabled Materials, 

Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS) to transform static systems and processes into 

adaptive "smaJt" systems; $106 million for Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21 st Century 

Science and Engineering (CIF21) to address the science-driven integration of 

cyberinfrastructure; $49 million for Expeditions in Education (E2) to establish a partnership with 

EHR and the Department of Education to integrate and expand STEM education research; $19 

million for NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) to assess opportunities to transition emerging 

technologies into new products; $63 million for Integrated NSF SUppOlt Promoting 

Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) to integrate existing interdisciplinary 

investments with new Foundation-wide activities: and $110 million f()r Secure and Trustworthy 

Cyberspace (SaTC) to align Foundation investments with the national cybersecurity strategy; 

OneNSF Framework priorities also incorporate the existing Science, Engineering and Education 

for Sustainability (SEES) program, which crosses all NSF directorates and has a goal of 

advancing "climate and energy science, engineering, and education to infonn the societal actions 

needed for environment and economic sustainability and sustainable human well-being." The 

FYI3 budget request for SEES is $202.5 million, an increase of$45.5 million or 29 percent. 

The overall budget request for OneNSF Framework activities is $807 million, an increase of 

$291 million or 56 percent oyer the FY12 level. 

In addition to OneNSF FraJJ1ework investments, the FYl3 NSF RRA budget request also 

illustrates the manner in which NSF plans to advance alllields of science and engineering and 

educate the workforce of tomorrow through their portfolio. NSF will continue investments in a 

number of multifaceted programs. including a $335 million investment in Clean Energy. a $149 

investment in Advanced Manufacturing, a $216 million investment in the Faculty Early Career 

Development program (CAREER). a $243 million investment in the Graduate Research 

Fellowship program (GRF), and a $158 million investment in the Experimental Program to 

Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). 

Education and Human Resources (EHR) 

The FYI3 budget request for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is $845.6 million, a $46.6 

million or 5.6 percent increase over the FYl2 level and the largest percentage increase for the 

agency. 

14 FY 13 NSF Budget Request /0 Congress, p. 3. 

12 
15 

Significant increases in the FY 13 budget request include $20 million, a $12 million or 150 

percent increase over FY 12, for the Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidencebased Reforms (WlDER)/E2 program and $20.5 million for a new Expeditions in Education (E2) 

initiative to engage, empower, and energize learners in STEM. 

The FY13 budget request continues to flat fund the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program 

(NOYCE) at $54.9 million and decreases funding for the federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for 

Service/Cybercorps (SFS) program by 44 percent to $25 million. Likev.·ise, the Administration's 

budget request continues to place a high priority on Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) by 

increasing the funding to $121.5 million, a 10.8 percent increase over the FYI2 level. while 

significantly reducing funding for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 

Program (IGERT) to $22.9 million, a 26.7 percent cut. 

Several new or reprogrammed initiatives are to be carried out in conjunction with the 

Department of Education (ED), OSTP, and other federal science mission agencies to address 

national priorities in STEM education through a coordinated STEM education investment 

strategy. The budget request includes threc specific NSF EI-IR collaborations with ED in FYI3, 

including tlatlining the NSF Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program at $57 million and 

aligning it with ED's Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM initiative (fOlmerly ED's MSP 

program). 

The l'Y13 request also calls for fundamentally reframing the EI-IR investment porti()lio into three 

categories: Core R&D, Leadership, and Expeditions. The Core R&D investments include four 

divisions: STEM learning, STEM learning environments, broadening participation and 

institutional capacity in STEM, and STEM professional workforce preparation. A new $5 

million "Core Launch Fund" to allow a first round of grant awards will shape each division. The 

Leadcrship investments will focus on the ncxt generation of STEM researchers and educators. 

And finally, the Expedition investments will be a key component for EHR to partner with other 

NSF directorates and offices and with the U.S. Department of Education to take on specific 

challenges over defined periods oftime. 

Major Research Equipment and Facilities COllstructioll (MREFC) 

The FYI3 budget request includes $196.2 for the Major Research Equipment and Facilities 

Construction (MREFC) account. This is a slight 0.4 percent decrease froml'YI2. The request 

includes funding lor four existing projects: I) $91 million for the National Ecological 

Observatory Network (NEON); 2) $25 million for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope 

(A TST); 3) $15 million for the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory 

(AdvLIGO); and $65 million for the Ocean Observatories Initiatives (001). The lceCube 

Neutrino Observatory (IceCube) and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) no longer 

require MREFC funding. 

13 
16 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Natiollal Illstitutejor Stalldards alld TecJlIlology (NIST) Spellding (i )/h s n II 0 1';) " 1r 11111 II, 

FY 13 Request 

versus 

FYll FY12 FY13 FY12 Enacted 

Account Actual Enacted Request $ % 

Scientific & Technical Research and 

Services (STRS) 507.0 567.0 648.0 81.0 14.3 

Construction of Research Facilities 

(CRF) 69.9 55.4 60.0 4.6 8.3 

Industrial Technology Services (ITS) 173.3 128.4 149.0 20.6 16.0 

Technology Innovation Program 

(TIP) 69.9 0 0 0 0 

Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP) 124.7 128.4 128 (0.4) -0.3 

Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia (AMTech) -- -- 21.0 21.0 100.0 

Baldrige Performance Excellence 

Program' 9.6 0 0 0 0 

Totals: 750.2 750.8 857.0 106.2 14.1 

*1l1 f} 1] funded under STRS accounr 

In FYJ3. the Administration has requested a fimding level of$857 million or a 14. J percent 

increase from FY12 funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The 

budget request would provide $648 million for NISI's core Scientific and Technical Research 

and Services (STRS); $60 million for Construction of Research Facilities (CRF); and $J 49 

million for Industrial Technology Services (ITS) programs. including $128 million for the 

Manutacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. and $21 million for the Advanced 

Manufacturing Technology (AMTech) Consortia Program. 

Research alld Facilities 

The FY13 NIST budget request for Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) is 

$648 million. an increase of $81 million or 14.3 percent over the FY 12 level. and contains an 

increase 01"$45 million in measurement science research for advanced manufacturing. The 

budget request also includes $20 million to establish four competitively selected Centers for 

Excellence in measurement science areas defined by NISI. Under this program. grants would be 

awarded to multi or single university centers for five to seven years to provide an 

interdisciplinary enviromnent where NlST, academic. and industry researchers can collaborate 

on basic and applied research focLlsed on innovations in measurement science and new 

technology development. 

The FY13 budget request for Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) is $60 million. an 8.3 

percent increase over the FY12lcvel. CRF funding would support maintenance and repair of 

existing NIST buildings ($48.2 million) as well as continue the interior renovation efforts of 

Building I on the NlST-Boulder campus ($11.8 million). 

Illdustrial Techllology Services (ITS) 

The FY13 budget request for Industrial Technology Services (ITS) is $149 million, an increase 

of$20.6 million or 16 percent over the FY12 level. 

14 
17 

The $128 million request for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is a $0.4 

million or 0.3 percent decrease from the FY12 level. The MEP program is a public/private 

partnership run by Centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico that provides technical assistance for 

small and medium-sized manufacturers to modernize their operations and adapt to foreign 

competition. MEP Centers are supported by equal contributions from federal funds, state funds. 

and industry client fees. 

The FYI3 budget request includes $21.0 million for the proposed Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia (AM Tech) Program. This program was also requested in the FY12 

budget but did not receive funding. Modeled after the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative 

(NRI). a partnership between NSF. NIST, industry, and universities across the nation, the 

AMTech program would establish industry-led consortia to identify and prioritize research 

projects supporting long-tenn industrial research needs. The program would provide costshared funding to consortia that are focused on developing advanced technologies to address 

major technical problems that inhibit development and widespread adoption of advanced 

manufacturing capabilities in the United States. 

Natiollal Networkfor Mallufacturillg Illnovatioll 

The FYI3 budget request includes a $1 billion proposal to revitalize U.S. manufacturing through 

the establishment of a National Network l()f Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). The NNMI 

would represent a collaboration between NIST, the Department of Defense, DOE, and NSF to 

promote the development of manufacturing technologies with broad applications. 

Wireless Illnovatioll FUlld 

In FY 13. the Administration has included a plan to invest broadband spectrum auction proceeds 

in a variety of areas, including providing NIST with up to $300 million for a Wireless Innovation 

(WIN) Fund to establish a competitive grant program designed to award grants for public safety 

communications research, development, and demonstration projects. NISI's participation is a 

piece of the $7 billion National Wireless Initiative included in the American Jobs Act. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Natiollal Oceallic and Atmospheric Admillistratioll (NOAA) Spelldillg 

(dollars in miilio/H'j 

FY 12 Request 

versus 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY11 Enacted 

Account Actual Enacted Request $ % 

National Ocean Service 487.6 477.8 458.5 (19.3) 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 428.4 386.9 413.8 26.9 

National Weather Service 988,4 997.2 972.2 (25.0) 

National Environmental Satellite Data 

Information Service 1.451.7 1,875.0 2,041.4 166,4 

National Marine Fisheries Service 858.7 794.2 807.8 13.6 

Program Support 473.5 431.2 446.6 15.4 

Other Accounts and Financing 38.7 51.7 38.7 

Totals: 4,727 5,014 5,179 165.0 

15 

-4.0 

7.0 

-2.5 

8.9 

1.7 

3.6 

3.3 
18 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) budget request for FYI3 is 

$5.2 billion, an increase of$165 million or 3.3 percent above the FYI2 level. Unlike the FYI2 

request, NOAA's FY 13 budget request does not include a reorganization or a climate service. 

NOAA Line Offices 

The FY13 budget request for the National Ocean Service is $458.5 million, a decrease of$19.3 

million from the FY121eve! of$477.8million. This amount includes funding for the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 

The President's request for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is $413.8 million, a 

$26.9 or 7.0 percent increase above the FY12 level. Of this amount, almost $213 million is for 

climate research activities. and less than $15 million is requested for the weather research 

program such as advanced radars. It also includes more than $6 million for ocean acidification 

research. 

The FYI3 budget request for the National Weather Service is $972.2 million, a $25 million or 

2.5 percent reduction from FY J 2 levels. National Weather Service funding supports warnings 

and forecasts in addition to the maintenance of weather observation networks. 

The President's FY 13 request for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Infornlation 

Service is $2,041.4 million, a $166.4 million or 8.9 percent increase above FY 12 levels. More 

than 90 percent of the funding for this line office goes to support the development and 

deployment of satellites, including the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite system. Although the JPSS program hit a major milestone 

last October when NOAA launched the first satellite into space. the Agency is still predicting a 

data gap of up to 18 months before the next satellite will bc prepared to launch. 

Department of Homeland Security (DIIS) 

Department of Homela11d Security (DHS) Spendillg idoflan III mJllrOf)s} 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY12 Enacted 

FY11 FY12 FY13 

Account Actual Enacted Request $ % 

Science and Technolo!lY Directorate 827.6 668.0 831.5 163.5 24.5 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 341.7 290.0 328.0 38.0 11.6 

Totals: 1169.3 958.0 1159.5 201.5 17.4 

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over all R&D within DHS. 

which is carried out by the Departmcnt of Homcland Security Science and Technology 

Directorate (DHS S&T) and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). The S&T 

Directorate, created through language developed by the Science, Space, and Technology 

Committee in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), funds research, development, 

testing and evaluation (RDT&E) to improve homeland security and works to transfer relevant 

technologies to federal, state and local govemments and the private sector. The Domestic 

Nuclear Detection Office was established by National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-43 

and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-14 to provide a focal point addressing 

16 
19 

nuclear and radiological preventative measures. DNDO is dedicated to both the development and 

enhancement of the global nuclear detection architecture. the coordination of nuclear detection 

research and development. and the establishment of procedures and training for end users of 

nuclear detection equipment. 

Science and Technology Directorate 

The FY13 budget request for D1IS S&T is $831.5 million. an increase of $163.5 million or 24.5 

percent from the FY12 level. 

The proposed increase is focused on the Research. Development. and Innovation (RD&I) 

account. which increases by $202.3 million compared to the FYI2 estimate. The increase to the 

RD&l account includes R&D for the DHS operational components as well as increases for 

S&T's stated priorities: biological threat security ($135.4 million). cybersecurity ($64.5 million). 

explosives/aviation security ($119.7 million). and first responder technology development ($49.3 

million). 

The FYI3 DHS S&T request reduces the Acquisition and Operations Support account by 37 

percent and the Laboratory Facilities account by 26 percent. 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

The FYI3 request of$328 million for the DNDO is a $38 million or 11.6 percent increase from 

the FY12 level. The funding increase would include support for the Transformational Research 

and Development (TAR) account at DNDO. In FYll and FYI2, the Administration had 

proposed transferring the TAR account to the S&T Directorate in order to consolidate all DIlS 

basic research within S&T. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Spending 

(d(Jl/an in lillI/10m) 

FY11 FY12 FY13 

Account Actual Enacted Request 

Total Agency 8682.1 8449.4 8344.5 

Science and Technology' 813.5 793.7 807.3 

Office of Research and Development 581.7 568.0 575.6 

Superfund R&D 26.8 23.0 23.2 

"Doc:, no! mc!udc {ran<;fcr irom Superfund aCt:ount 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY12 Enacted 

$ % 

(104.9) -1.2 

13.5 1.7 

7.6 1.3 

0.2 1.0 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FYI3 budget request for Science and Technology 

(S&T) programs is $807.3 million. an increase of$13.5 million or 1.7 percent above FYI2. The 

S&T budget request incorporates funding for the OtTice of Research and Development (ORD) as 

well as science and technology programs in other line offices. The ORD FY13 budget request of 

$575.6 million represents an increase of$7.6 million or 1.3 percent above the FYI2 level of 

$568 million. This request includes $14 million in FY 13 to conduct an assessment. in 

coordination with the Department of Energy and the United States Geological Survey. of 

"potential air. ecosystem. and water quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing." 

17 
20 

7. STEM Education across the Federal Government 

Federal STEM Education FU11ding By Agency (dOllarS , n m1l11 ( ms) 

FY13 Request 

versus 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY12 Estimate 

Agency Actual Estimate Request $ % 

Department of Agriculture 91 8E 91 3 3.5 

Department of Commerce 58 55 44 (11) :20.0 

Department of Defense 15 164 153 (11) -6.7 

DePlirtment pfHomeland Sec.urily 2 ". 2. 6 4 

~ Department of Education 561 51 628 111 

DepartmentofEnergy 49 48 37 (11) 

Envlr<:>ntiierital Protection Agency 20 26 20 (6) 

Department of Health and Human Services 560 560 554 (6) 

Department of Interior 1 1 1 - - NASA 15 14~ 117 (32) -21.5 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 1E < (11) -68.7 

I=CieiltleFOUndaliOn 1148 1154 119<i 39 3.4 

nt of Transportation 100 98 101 3 3.1 

Totals: 2910 287 2951 74 2.6 

Shadtng mdlcates agench::s \\ Ilhm the SCience. Space, and Tcchnolog) Committee S JUrISdictiOn 

The FYI3 budget request proposes $3 billion across the federal government for STEM 

education. a 2.6 percent increase over FY 12. Beyond the scope of what is described under the 

agency sections. Administration priorities also include $775 million for NIH awards to prepare 

individuals for careers in the biomedical. behavioral. and social sciences; $80 million for training 

an additional 100.000 effective STEM teachers over the next 10 years through the Department of 

Education (ED); and $176 million for minority programs at ED. NSF, and NASA. 

Pursuant to Sec. 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. the National 

Science and Technology Council Committee on STEM Education has submitted its first annual 

report. including an inventory of federal STEM education activities, in conjunction with the 

FYI3 Budget Request. A full 5-year strategic plan is expected in Spring 2012. 

The annual report identified $967 million or 28 percent of all federal STEM education funding as 

being spent on activities that target the specific workforce needs of science mission agencies. 

The remaining 72 percent of funding is spent on broader STEM education efforts primarily at 

NSF (47 percent) and ED (40 percent). Orthe 252 federally-funded STEM activities identified 

in the report. none were found to have the same objectives, target audiences. products, or STEM 

fields of tocus. The report acknowledges that "this conclusion should not be interpreted to mean 

there are no opportunities for improving the alignment. deployment, and efticicncy of federal 

STEM education investments.,,15 

15 Coordinating Federal Science, Techn%~', Engineering. and ,Mathematics (..'iTElvf)Educafion Inl'estments: 

Progress Report. Committee on STEM Education. National Science and Technology Council, p. 10. 

18 
21 

Chairman HALL. Okay. The Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology will come to order. I say good morning to everyone. I 

know that you know what we are here for. It is entitled ‘‘An Overview of the Administration’s Federal Research and Development 

Budget for the Fiscal Year 2013.’’ And in front of you are packets 

containing the written testimony, biography, and Truth-in-Testimony disclosures for today’s witness, Dr. John P. Holdren. I didn’t 

forget the word energy; I just have to recognize myself for five minutes, opening statement. 

Dr. Holdren, I certainly want to thank you for appearing with us 

today. I know it has been a busy week with the late release of the 

budget just coming out on Monday. As the President’s Science Advisor and as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

you are in a unique position to have a real and tangible influence 

on the Administration’s direction in science and technology, so we 

appreciate you being here to discuss the Administration’s R&D priorities and to answer our questions. 

Today’s hearing obviously will cover a great deal of ground, so I 

will try to be brief with a few points before we hear from you but 

we will hear from you shortly. All told, the budget is not much different than your previous budget, so you will understand that my 

remarks are not much different than the ones I made last year. Our national debt a year ago was just over $14 trillion dollars. Our debt today is nearly $15.4 trillion dollars, and our national 

budget deficit has increased by 190 percent between 2008 and 

2012. In his three years of office, President Obama has accumulated more debt than every President from George Washington to 

Bill Clinton combined, and yet the budget we received earlier this 

week asks for an additional 3.8 trillion, or 23.3 percent of GDP. 

This level of spending is simply not sustainable, and to be perfectly 

blunt, it is not creating jobs, growing the economy, or improving 

the lives of the American taxpayer. 

I continue to believe that while it is true that prudent investments in science and technology, including STEM education, will 

almost certainly yield future economic gains and help create new 

jobs of the future, it is also true that these gains can be hindered 

by poor decision-making. Hard-working Americans expect and deserve better. With our unemployment still hovering above eight 

percent, they expect us to reduce or eliminate these programs that 

are duplicative and wasteful and examine ways to advance real job 

creation and economic growth, not just spend their hard-earned 

money on what the government assumes is best for them. The 

budget before us today makes a lot of assumptions about what is 

best for the American taxpayer. 

American ingenuity will determine our future. The President 

said in his recent State of the Union address that ‘‘Innovation demands basic research.’’ And he is right; however, blanket increases 

even for our federal science agencies are not the same as prudent 

investments and do not guarantee innovation. As stewards of the 

taxpayers’ dollars, we have to curtail runaway spending and 

prioritize programs that lay the foundation for entrepreneurial success, and we must do that without picking winners and losers. 

All of the agencies within the Committee’s jurisdiction, with the 

exception of NASA, receive modest increases in the fiscal year 2013 
22 

request. In better economic times, I could support such increases, 

but even then, I would hope that these investments would be prudently made. The increases in this budget are devoted mainly to 

new, unproven programs or provide significant increases in those 

areas that are, in my opinion, making assumptions for the American taxpayer. I remain concerned that a disproportionate amount 

of the increase to the fiscal year 2013 R&D budget, at least as it 

pertains to a majority of the agencies within the Committee’s jurisdiction, is directed toward climate change, reducing resources available for higher leverage investments. This continued focus for the 

Federal Government’s limited research dollars slows our ability to 

make innovative and perhaps life-altering advances in other equally, if not more important, disciplines. 

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

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are all funding remarkable research that seeks to improve the way we live our lives. 

While we should continue to study our changing climate and continue to work toward keeping our air and water clean, we have to 

closely examine the billions being spent on climate change programs with an eye toward effectiveness. To date, we have already 

spent $40 billion with absolutely nothing to show for it. We are 

drowning in red ink, and we need to better prioritize and develop 

limited R&D dollars to areas that will drive innovation and economic growth. 

I also want to reiterate my disappointment with the President’s 

budget as it relates to other energy and environmental policy. The 

budget doubles down on DOE’s expensive and troubled green energy programs while flat funding priority basic research at the Office of Science and cutting R&D aimed at advancing traditional domestic energy exploration and production. 

Meanwhile, the President delivers a wink and a nod to EPA as 

it continues to regulate affordable energy out of existence, often on 

the basis of shaky and secretive and faulty science. These efforts 

contribute to higher energy prices throughout the economy and represent misplaced priorities that I hope and expect Congress will reject. 

And lastly, with regard to NASA, contrary to the favorable treatment received by the bulk of our government’s civil R&D endeavors, NASA seems to have been singled out for unequal treatment. 

No matter that its top-line number is virtually the same as this 

year’s funding, NASA’s science enterprise suffers a 3.2 percent reduction, while the Planetary Sciences taking a grossly disproportionate cut of 20 percent, bringing to a conclusion for the foreseeable future one of the Agency’s most exciting and visible science 

programs. 

Further, this budget continues to slow-roll development of a new 

heavy-lift launch vehicle. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010, 

signed into law by the President, stipulated that the Space Launch 

System and the Orion crew capsule be used as a back-up capability 

for supplying and supporting the International Space Station crew 

and cargo requirements. Instead, NASA is pacing development of 

these systems to be operational in 2021, which could occur after 

International Space Station retirement. America’s continued lead-
23 

ership in space, and even our national security, depends in large 

part on developing and maintaining this critical capability. I cannot 

stress enough the importance of accelerating the launch system to 

ensure we have an alternative method to transport people and 

cargo to ISS as well as the ability to launch missions beyond lower 

earth orbit. 

Dr. Holdren, we remain open to working with you as we move 

forward but respectfully ask that you take the message back to the 

President that to say that we continue to have significant concerns 

with his priorities for our Nation’s very precious and limited research and development dollars is a vast understatement. 

We thank you and look forward to hearing from you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

Dr. Holdren, thank you for joining us today. I know it’s been a busy week with 

the late release of the budget just coming out on Monday. As the President’s Science 

Advisor and as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, you are in 

a unique position to have a real and tangible influence on the Administration’s direction in science and technology, so we appreciate you being here to discuss the 

Administration’s R&D priorities and to answer our questions. Today’s hearing obviously will cover a great deal of ground, so I will try to be brief with a few points 

before we hear from you. 

All told, this budget is not much different than your previous budget, so you will 

understand that my remarks are not much different than the ones I made last year. 

Our national debt a year ago was just over $14 trillion dollars. Our debt today 

is nearly $15.4 trillion dollars, and our Nation’s budget deficit has increased by 190 

percent between 2008 and 2012. In his three years of office, President Obama has 

accumulated more debt than every President from George Washington to Bill Clinton combined, and yet the budget we received earlier this week asks for an additional $3.8 trillion, or 23.3 percent of GDP. This level of spending is simply not sustainable, and to be perfectly blunt, it’s not creating jobs, growing the economy, or 

improving the lives of the American taxpayer. 

I continue to believe that while it is true that prudent investments in science and 

technology, including STEM education, will almost certainly yield future economic 

gains and help create new jobs of the future, it is also true that these gains can 

be hindered by poor decision-making. Hard-working Americans expect and deserve 

better. With our unemployment still hovering above 8 percent, they expect us to reduce or eliminate those programs that are duplicative and wasteful and examine 

ways to advance real job creation and economic growth, not just spend their hardearned money on what the government assumes is best for them. The budget before 

us today makes a lot of assumptions about what is best for the American taxpayer. 

American ingenuity will determine our future. The President said in his recent 

State of the Union address that ‘‘Innovation.demands basic research.’’ And he is 

right; however, blanket increases even for our federal science agencies are not the 

same as prudent investment and do not guarantee innovation. As stewards of the 

taxpayers’ dollars, we must curtail runaway spending and prioritize programs that 

lay the foundation for entrepreneurial success, and we must do that without picking 

winners and losers. 

All of the agencies within this Committee’s jurisdiction, with the exception of 

NASA, receive modest increases in the FY13 request. In better economic times, I 

could support such increases, but even then, I would demand that those investments 

be prudently made. The increases in this budget are devoted mainly to new, 

unproven programs or provide significant increases in those areas that are, in my 

opinion, making assumptions for the American taxpayer. 

I remain concerned that a disproportionate amount of the increase to the FY13 

R&D budget, at least as it pertains to a majority of the agencies within this Committee’s jurisdiction, is directed toward climate change, reducing resources available 

for higher leverage investments. This continued focus for the federal government’s 

limited research dollars slows our ability to make innovative and perhaps life-altering advances in other equally, if not more important, disciplines. The National 

Science Foundation, DOE’s Office of Science, the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are all 
24 

funding remarkable research that seeks to improve the way we live our lives. While 

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

keeping our air and water clean, we must closely examine the billions being spent 

on climate change programs with an eye toward effectiveness. To date, we have already spent $40 billion with nothing to show for it. We are drowning in red ink, 

and we need to better prioritize and direct limited R&D dollars to areas that drive 

innovation and economic growth. 

I also want to reiterate my disappointment with the President’s budget as it relates to other energy and environmental policy. The budget doubles down on DOE’s 

expensive and troubled green energy programs while flat funding priority basic research at the Office of Science and cutting R&D aimed at advancing traditional domestic energy exploration and production. Meanwhile, the President delivers a wink 

and a nod to EPA as it continues to regulate affordable energy out of existence, 

often on the basis of shaky and secretive and faulty science. These efforts contribute 

to higher energy prices throughout the economy, and represent misplaced priorities 

that I hope and expect Congress will reject. 

And lastly, with regard to NASA, contrary to the favorable treatment received by 

the bulk of our government’s civil R&D endeavors, NASA seems to have been singled out for unequal treatment. No matter that its top-line number is virtually the 

same as this year’s funding, NASA’s science enterprise suffers a 3.2 percent reduction, with the Planetary Sciences taking a grossly disproportionate cut of 20 percent, 

bringing to a conclusion for the foreseeable future one of the agency’s most exciting 

and visible science programs. Further, this budget continues to slow-roll development of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010, 

signed into law by the President, stipulated that the Space Launch System and the 

Orion crew capsule be used as a back-up capability for supplying and supporting 

the International Space Station (ISS) crew and cargo requirements. Instead, NASA 

is pacing development of these systems to be operational in 2021, which could occur 

after ISS retirement. America’s continued leadership in space, and even our national 

security, depends in large part on developing and maintaining this critical capability. I cannot stress enough the importance of accelerating this launch system to 

ensure we have an alternative method to transport people and cargo to ISS as well 

as the ability to launch missions beyond lower earth orbit. 

Dr. Holdren, we remain open to working with you as we move forward, but respectfully ask that you take the message back to the President that to say that we 

continue to have significant concerns with his priorities for our Nation’s precious 

and limited research and development dollars is a vast understatement. 

Chairman HALL. At this time, I recognize Ms. Johnson for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin my statement, I would like to welcome a new 

Member to the Committee, Suzanne Bonamici, who is from the first 

district of Oregon. The last Member that occupied that seat was 

also a Member of this Committee, Mr. Wu. and I want to welcome 

her. 

Now, if you start me back at five because it might take me ten. 

Chairman HALL. I will give you the gavel if you ask for it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, let me thank you for holding this hearing 

and I want to welcome Dr. Holdren to the Committee as we take 

our first look at the President’s 2013 R&D budget proposals. 

Investments in research and development and STEM education 

are critical to fostering innovation and maintaining our Nation’s 

competitive edge, but these are also fiscally challenging times, and 

looking through the President’s R&D and STEM education budget, 

it is noticeable to me that the agencies are trying hard to be more 

efficient and achieve the most they can with modest increases and 

in many cases having to absorb cuts. Many of these cuts represent 

difficult choices and some of us are going to have some disagreements over those choices. 

But I commend the President for setting priorities and following 

through with his R&D budget request. It is imperative to our fu-
25 

ture that we continue to prioritize investments that will advance 

our knowledge, create new industries and jobs, give our children 

the grounding in science and technology they will need to succeed 

in a competitive world economy and improve the quality of life of 

all of our citizens. I believe that the President’s budget really does 

that. 

Having said that, I want to talk a few minutes in which I have 

some questions. First, I have concerns about some of the funding 

for the disaster warning, prevention, and mitigation. 2011 was the 

costliest year ever in terms of economic losses from natural catastrophes. In the United States alone weather in climate-related disasters in 2011 are estimated to have cost us $55 billion. More than 

a thousand people lost their lives in these weather-related events 

and an additional 8,000 were injured. The R&D we carry out to insure that our buildings withstand these disasters and our citizens 

have the information they need to be safe is necessary to protect 

both lives and property. As of 2011 show these things really do 

matter. 

There is one picture that sticks in my head from the 2008 Hurricane Ike in Galveston and that is a single white house that was 

still standing after everything around it was destroyed. The owners 

of that house talked about how they had built it using the latest 

design and technologies to make their house resilient. These technologies and engineered designs are based on R&D. Much of it is 

supported by our federal agencies. 

I am pleased that NIST’s budget request for 2013 prioritizes this 

area of research. The modest increase in funding proposed by NIST 

will help communities recover rapidly from natural disasters with 

minimum loss of life, damage, and business disruption. But we also 

need to maintain and continue to improve our prediction capabilities and be able to communicate to local authorities when disasters 

are looming. 

I am pleased that NOAA’s GOES–R Satellite is getting a substantial increase in its budget to keep it on track for 2015 launch. 

But I have questions about the small cut to the long-troubled JPSS 

satellite and how that will affect the program’s progress and development of the instruments. 

I also worry that the proposal in the budget to close many of 

these small regional and national weather service offices will hamper communications with local authorities and increase the risk of 

the loss of life. I hope the Administration will address these concerns before they start to move on any of these plans. 

Second, the NASA budget proposes some significant changes and 

reductions, including to—Mars exploration. I have questions about 

how the proposed cuts to the Mars science program will affect U.S. 

leadership and critical capability in landing and operating spacecraft on the surface of Mars. I am also worried about the perception this plan may create that the United States is an unreliable 

partner in international collaboration and how this might affect the 

potential for future collaborations. I recognize the fiscal constraints 

that we are now in, but in some cases, international collaboration 

is the best way to both maintain U.S. leadership and get the most 

out of our investments. 
26 

Finally, let me say a few words about STEM education. In December, Dr. Holdren, you sent us an inventory of federal investments in STEM education. It is the most comprehensive such inventory we have seen and it has been very helpful and we thank 

you for that. 

Earlier this week, we received a preliminary report on a federal 

strategic plan for STEM education. I am also very happy to see 

good progress on the strategic plan that we asked for in COMPETES. But in the meantime, this budget will propose significant 

cuts to the STEM education budgets of several of our science agencies. Without the detailed strategic plan to point to, I worry that 

these cuts lack sufficient justification. Our science agencies contain 

a wealth of intellectual capital and research infrastructure that can 

and have inspired, attracted, and educated students and the public 

in STEM for generations. We need to make some tough choices and 

we need to make some wise choices. Let us just make sure we can 

clearly justify all of those choices. 

We will have some concerns and disagreements but let me be 

clear. This is a good budget for research, innovation, and education 

under our circumstances. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the months 

ahead to come. We need to make sure that the appropriations this 

Congress will eventually pass properly reflect the need to invest in 

our future. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Hall, for holding this hearing and 

thank Dr. Holdren for being here today. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Hall, for holding this hearing and welcome, Dr. Holdren, 

to the Committee as we take our first look at the President’s FY 2013 R-and-D 

budget proposals. 

Investments in research and development and STEM education are critical to fostering innovation and maintaining our nation’s competitive edge. But these are also 

fiscally challenging times. In looking through the President’s R-and-D and STEM 

education budget, it is noticeable to me that the agencies are trying hard to be more 

efficient and achieve the most they can with modest increases and in many cases, 

having to absorb cuts. 

Many of these cuts represent difficult choices and some of us are going to have 

some disagreements over those choices, but I commend the President for setting priorities and following through in his R-and-D budget request. 

It is imperative to our future that we continue to prioritize investments that will 

advance our knowledge, create new industries and jobs, give our children the 

grounding in science and technology they will need to succeed in a competitive world 

economy, and improve the quality of life of our citizens. And I believe the President’s budget does just that. 

Having said that, I want to talk about a few areas in which I have some questions. 

First, I have concerns about some of the funding for disaster warning, prevention, 

and mitigation. 2011 was the costliest year ever in terms of economic losses from 

natural catastrophes. 

In the United States alone, weather and climate related disasters in 2011 are estimated to have cost us $55 billion. More than 1000 people lost their lives in these 

weather-related events and an additional 8,000 were injured. 

The R-and-D we carry out to ensure that our buildings withstand these disasters 

and our citizens have the information they need to be safe is necessary to protect 

both lives and property. As 2011 showed, these things really matter. 

There’s one picture that sticks in my head from the 2008 Hurricane Ike in Galveston, and that’s of a single white house still standing after everything else around 
27 

it was destroyed. The owners of that house talked about how they had built it using 

the latest designs and technologies to make their house resilient. 

Those technologies and engineering designs are based on R-and-D, much of it supported by our federal agencies. I am pleased that NIST’s budget request for FY 2013 

prioritizes this area of research. The modest increase in funding proposed by NIST 

will help communities recover rapidly from natural disasters with minimal loss of 

life, damage, and business disruption. 

But we also need to maintain and continue to improve our prediction capabilities, 

and be able to communicate to local authorities when disasters are looming. I am 

pleased that NOAA’s GOES-R satellite is getting a substantial increase in this 

budget to keep in on track for a 2015 launch. 

But I have questions about the small cut to the long-troubled JPSS satellite and 

how that will affect the program’s progress and development of the instruments. 

I also worry that the proposal in the budget to close many of the small regional 

National Weather Service offices will hamper communication with local authorities 

and increase the risk for loss of life. I hope the Administration will address these 

concerns before they start to move on any of these plans. 

Second, the NASA budget proposes some significant changes and reductions, including to Mars exploration. I have questions about how the proposed cuts to the 

Mars science program will affect U.S. leadership and critical capability in landing 

and operating spacecraft on the surface of Mars. 

I’m also worried about the perception this plan may create that the United States 

is an unreliable partner in international collaboration and how this might affect the 

potential for future collaborations. I recognize the fiscal constraints that we are in 

now, but in some cases international collaboration is the best way to both maintain 

U.S. leadership and get the most out of our investments. 

Finally, let me say a few words about STEM education. In December, Dr. 

Holdren, you sent us an inventory of Federal investments in STEM education. It 

is the most comprehensive such inventory we have seen, and it has been very helpful, so thank you. 

Earlier this week we received a preliminary report on a federal strategic plan for 

STEM education. I am also very happy to see good progress on the strategic plan 

that we asked for in COMPETES. 

But in the meantime, this budget would propose significant cuts to the STEM 

education budgets of several of our science agencies. Without the detailed strategic 

plan to point to, I worry that these cuts lack sufficient justification. 

Our science agencies contain a wealth of intellectual capital and research infrastructure that can and have inspired, attracted, and educated students and the public in STEM for generations. We need to make some tough choices, and we need to 

make some wise choices. Let’s just make sure we can clearly justify all of those 

choices. 

We will have some concerns and disagreements, but let me be clear. This is a good 

budget for research, innovation, and education under the circumstances. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

in the months ahead to make sure that the appropriations this Congress will eventually pass properly reflect the need to invest in our future. 

Thank you Dr. Holdren for being here today and thank you for your contributions 

to ensuring continued U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

Chairman HALL. We thank you for your good statement. 

And I want, on behalf of the Republican side here, to welcome 

Ms. Bonamici and I know we will have your assignments worked 

out to your satisfaction and look forward to working with you. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements of course will be added to the record 

at this point. 

And at this time, I would like to introduce our witness, a good, 

honorable man, Dr. John Holdren is President Obama’s Science Advisor, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology. 

Prior to joining the Administration, he taught at Harvard and 

was Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. As our witness 

certainly should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, 
28 

but you are the Committee today and we won’t put the time on 

you. We thank you for your very valuable time. We know it takes 

time from things you need to do; it takes time to be here and to 

plan your speech for us and then to give it to us and then answer 

questions. That is asking a lot of you. But each of us will have five 

minutes to each ask questions and ask you to hold your statements 

to as close to five or ten minutes as you can do so. Dr. Holdren, 

I recognize you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, 

ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP) 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Committee, I thank you for inviting me to testify today on the Civilian Science and Technology components of 

the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget. 

The President in his most recent State of the Union Address 

called on all of us to help create an American economy that is built 

to last. He called on us to work toward an America that leads the 

world in educating its people, that attracts a new generation of 

high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs, and that takes control of its own energy. The President’s 2013 budget reflects those 

aims. It includes continuing investment in science and engineering 

research, as well as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education—the kinds of investments that have long been at 

the core of America’s capacity to innovate, to prosper, and to remain secure. 

A detailed description of the President’s 2013 R&D budget has 

been provided in my written testimony, and in these brief remarks 

I will only hit a few highlights. The budget proposes $140.8 billion 

for federal R&D. That is a 1.4 percent increase over fiscal year 

2012 enacted in current dollars. I will be using current dollars for 

all my comparisons here but you can easily convert to constant dollars if you like using the projected rate of inflation from 2012 to 

2013 which is 1.7 percent. 

Within the $140.8 billion total, the budget proposes about $65 

billion for nondefense R&D. That is an increase of five percent over 

the 2012 enacted level. As you know, the R&D total fits within an 

overall discretionary budget that would be flat at 2011 enacted 

level for the second year in a row consistent with the Budget Control Act agreed to by Congress and the President last August. To 

get there, we had to make some tough choices. 

Even aside from defense, which saw decreases in applied research and in development, not all of the science and technology 

agencies got increases. But those that did included the three agencies that have been identified by this Congress and other distinguished groups as especially important to the Nation’s continued 

economic leadership. The National Science Foundation, the primary 

source of support for academic research in most non-biomedical disciplines, got a 4.8 percent increase to $7.4 billion. The DOE Office 

of Science went up 2.4 percent to $4.6 billion, and the NIST laboratories, which play a huge role in U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by supporting research and laboratory facilities in 
29 

advanced manufacturing and in other critical domains went up 

13.8 percent to $708 million. The 2013 NASA budget of $17.7 billion essentially flat with last 

year is consistent with the bipartisan agreement between Congress 

and the Administration that balances the Agency’s several crucial 

missions. The budget funds continue development of the Heavy-Lift 

Space Launch System and the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle to 

enable human exploration missions beyond Earth orbit. It also 

funds the operation and enhanced use of the International Space 

Station, the development of private sector systems to carry cargo 

and crew into low Earth orbit, a balanced portfolio of Earth and 

space science, including a continued commitment to new satellites 

and programs for Earth observation, a dynamic space technology 

development program, and a strong aeronautics research effort. It 

also continues support for a scheduled 2018 launch of the James 

Webb Space Telescope. 

The President’s budget also proposes to expand, simplify, and 

make permanent the Research and Experimentation tax credit in 

order to spur private investment in R&D and it maintains momentum to enlist the private sector in our economic renewal through 

such programs as the Startup America Partnership, a nonprofit alliance of successful business owners, major corporations, and service providers. The budget also addresses the overarching importance of STEM education by investing $3 billion in STEM ed programs across the Federal Government, a 2.6 percent increase guided by a soon-to-be-released STEM education strategic plan that 

shows the way to cutting back on lower priority programs to make 

room for targeted increases in the programs that work best. 

In summary, this Administration has presented a budget aimed 

at insuring that America remains at the center of the global revolution in scientific research and technological innovation. I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of that 

budget proposal a reality. And I will be happy to try to answer any 

questions that the Members may have. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holdren follows:] 
30 

Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Executive Office of the President of the United States 

to the 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

on 

Research and Development in the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 

February 17,2012 

Chairman Hall. Ranking Member Johnson. and Members of the Committee. it is my 

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

components of the President's tiscal year (FY) 2013 Budget. 

Administration Initiatives in Innovation, Education, and Infrastructure 

President Obama, in his most recent State of the Union address. called on all of us to help 

create an American economy that is built to last. He called on us to work toward an America 

within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people, An America that attracts 

a new generation of high-tech manulacturing and high-paying jobs. An America in control of our 

own energy. He called on us all to do what this Nation does best - investing in the creativity and 

imagination of the American people. In order to be globally competitive in the 21 st century and 

create an American economy that is built to last. we must not only put this Nation on a 

sustainable Jiscal path. but also create an environment where invention, innovation. and industry 

can flourish. 

The President's 2013 Budget does exactly that. It includes continuing investment in 

science and engineering research that can turn ideas into realities. And it provides support tilr the 

creation of new technologies. products. businesses, and industries that, despite barely having 

been imagined a few years ago, promise to become essential and even iconic. 

The 2013 Budget recognizes today' s difticult economic circumstances and makes tough 

choices. limiting spending in many areas that in other times would be deemed worthy of greater 

support. But the Budget also focuses on and shows confidence in the future. By building and 

tueling America's engines of discovery. it will expand the frontiers of human knowledge. 

promote sustainable economic growth based on a revitalized American manufacturing sector, 

cultivate an American clean-energy future. improve health-care outcomes for more people at 

lower cost, address global climate-change challenges, manage competing demands on 

environmental resources, and reinforce our national security. This Budget is designed to ensure 

that America will continue. in the President's words. to "out-innovate. out-educate. and out-build 

the rest of the world." 

As past budgets from this Administration did, the President's new 2013 Budget proposes 

to invest intelligently in innovation, education. and infrastructure today to generate the 

industries. jobs, workforce. and environmental and national-security beneJits of tomorrow. 

Obviously. we need the continued support of the Congress to get it done. I say "continued 

support" because much of the President's Federal research and education investment portfolio 

enjoyed bipartisan support during the first three years of the Administration. We hope to extend 
31 

this partnership, with both the Senate and the House, across the entire scicnce and tcchnology 

portfolio. 

In the remainder of this testimony, I elaborate on the reasons the Administration is most 

hopeful you'll provide that support. 

The Federal R&D Budget 

In his State of the Union address, the President outlined a vision of working together to 

create an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, and skills for American 

workers. We can help spur innovation to accomplish these goals by investing in research and 

development. The President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget proposes $140.8 billion for Federal 

research and development (R&D) to do just that-to build American ilIDovation in 

manufacturing, to promote clean American energy, and to nurture a highly skilled American 

workforce for the future. To strengthen U.S. leadership in the 215t century's high-tech, 

knowledge-based economy within difficult budget constraints, the 2013 Budget proposes a 

substantial increase in non-defense R&D to $64.9 billion, an increase of 5.0 pcrccnt over the 

2012 enacted level. 

(My testimony discusses changes in current dollars, not adjusted for int1ation. The latest 

economic projections show int1ation of 1. 7 percent between 2012 and 2013 for the economy as a 

whole, using the GDP deflator.) 

This five percent increase notwithstanding, the Obama Administration's investments in 

innovation. education. and infrastructure fit within an overall discretionary budget that would be 

t1at at 201 1 enacted levels for the second year in a row, consistent with the Budget Control Act 

agreed to by Congress and the President last August. The Budget rellects strategic decisions to 

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

while imposing hard-nosed fiscal discipline on areas lacking that kind of promise. For example. 

the $74.1 billion proposed for development in the 2013 Budget represents a decline compared to 

the 2012 funding level. Across government, important programs will have to make do with less. 

as noted in several of the program descriptions below. And the Administration's commitment to 

making tough choices is not limited to development funding. The total (defense and nondefense) 

R&D hudget would be $140.8 billion. 1.4 percent above the 2012 enacted level but well below 

the $142.7 billion enacted total for fiscal year 2011. 

Budgets of Science Agencies 

Three agencies have been identified as especially important to this Nation's continued 

economic leadership by the President's Plan for Science and Innovation. the America 

COMPETES Act of 2007, the Administration's Innovation Strategy, and the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 enacted last January. Those three jewel-in-thc-crown 

agencies are the National Science Foundation (NSF). a primary source of funding for basic 

curiosity-driven academic research which leads to discoveries, inventions, and job creation; the 

Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science, which leads fundamental research relevant 

to energy and also builds and operates much of the major research infrastructure-advanced light 

sources. accelerators. supercomputers. and facilities tor making nano-materials-----on which our 

scientists depend for research hreakthroughs; and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) lahoratories. which support a wide range of technically and economically 

2 
32 

essential pursuits from accelerating standards development for health information technology to 

conducting measurement-science research to enable net-zero-energy buildings and advanced 

manufacturing processes. 

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

maintaining America's preeminence in the global marketplace, Congress and this Administration 

have worked together to put total funding for these agencies on a donbling trajectory. New 

funding levels set in thc Budget Control Act of 2011 mean delaying the original target 

completion date for doubling these budgets. But the 2013 Budget maintains the doubling 

commitment with a 4.3 percent increase between 2012 and 2013 for the three agencies' 

combined budgets, totaling $13.1 billion. I want to emphasize that the proposed increases for 

these agencies arc part of a fiscally responsible budget focused on deficit reduction, meaning 

these increases are iully offset by cuts in other programs. 

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

agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Therefore, I will not provide details of the 

defense R&D portfolio (the Department of Defense and DOE's defense programs) or the budget 

of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of support for academic 

research for most non-biomedical disciplines, and it is the only Federal agency dedicated to the 

support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. NSF has 

always operated under the belief that optimal use of Federal funds relies on two conditions: 

ensuring that its research is aimed - and continuously fe-aimed at the frontiers of 

understanding; and certifying that every dollar goes to competitive, merit-reviewed, and timelimited awards with clear criteria for success. When these two conditions arc met, the Nation 

gets the most intellectual and economic leverage from its research investments. In recognition of 

the time-proven truth that today' s NSF grants are tomorrow's job-creating companies, the 2013 

Budget request for NSF is $7.4 billion, an increase of 4.8 percent above the 20121lll1ding level. 

NSF puts the greatest share of its resources into the Nation's colleges and universities. 

Universities are the largest performers of basic research in the United States, conducting over 50 

percent of all basic research. Basic research funding such as that provided by NSF is important 

not only because it leads to new knowledge and applications but also because it trains the 

researchers and the technical workforce of the future, ensuring the Nation will benefit from a 

new generation of makers and doers. In order to maximize this dual benefit to society and NSF's 

special contribution, the 2013 Budget provides $243 million to sustain the number of new NSF 

Graduate Research Fellowships at 2,000. The 2013 Budget also includes $64 million for the 

Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program to promote partnerships between highereducation institutions and employers to educate technicians for the high-technology fields that 

drive our nation'S economy. 

Thc 2013 Budget expands NSF's efforts in clean-energy research, advanced 

manufacturing, wireless communications, cyberinfrastructure, and other emerging technologies. 

NSF proposes to increase research funding to promote discoveries that can spark innovations for 

tomorrow's clean-energy technologies with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability 

science. The Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) portfolio will 

3 
33 

increase to $203 million in the 2013 Budget for integrated activities involving renewable energy 

technologies, green chemistry, and complex environmental and climate processes. NSF supports 

job creation in advanced manufacturing and emerging technologies with $257 million in Cyberenabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS) for multidisciplinary research 

targeted at new materials, smart systems, advanced manufacturing technologies, and robotics 

technologies. To encourage interdisciplinary research for the bioeconomy of the future, the 2013 

Budget provides $30 million for research at the interface of biology, mathematical and statistical 

sciences, the physical sciences, and engineering in the BioMaPS program. The 

Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21 $I Century (CIF21) portfolio will expand to $106 million in 

the 2013 budget for accelerating research, workforce development, advanced computing 

infrastructure, and new functional capabilities in computational and data-enabled science and 

engineering. The Budget proposes $51 million for the NSF's Enhanced Access to the Radio 

Spectrum, or EARS, to support research into new and innovative ways to use the radio spectrum. 

NSF also proposes $110 million for Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTe), a cybersecurity 

basic research initiative. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

The 2013 NASA Budget reatIirms the Administration's commitment to a bold and 

ambitious future for NASA, consistent with the bipartisan agreement between Congress and the 

Administration regarding the importance of NASA and its many programs. These critical efforts 

not only advance grand and inspirational undertakings such as space exploration, scientific 

discovery, and aeronautical research, but also provide an indispensable platform from which to 

study and understand our planetary home. Moreover, NASA's programs drive new technology 

development and innovation and help advance new products, services, businesses, and jobs with 

great potential for economic gro\Vih. In keeping with such considerations and the provisions of 

the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (the Act), the 2013 Budget funds continued development of 

the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) to enable 

human-exploration missions beyond Earth's orbit; the operation and enhanced use of the 

Intemational Space Station (ISS), whieh has been extended through at least 2020; the 

development of private-sector systems to carry cargo and crew into low Earth orbit, thus reestablishing a U.S. human spaceflight capability and shortening the duration of our sole reliance 

on Russian launch vehicles for access to the ISS; a balanced portfolio of space and Earth science, 

including a continued commitment to new satellites and programs for Earth observation; a 

dynamic space-technology development program; and a strong aeronautics research effort. 

Within the context of a diflicult budget environment and the Budget Control Act's 

spending caps freezing discretionary spending at 2011 levels for the second year in a row, 

NASA's budget request for 2013 is $17.7 billion, a decrease of $88 million from the 2012 

enacted level. This budget incorporates difficult choices that honor the priorities of the Act while 

providing a balanced program of science, research, technology development, safe spaceflight 

operations, and exploration. The budget for the .lames Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is $628 

million in 2013 in support of a scheduled 2018 launch, thus assuring NASA the opportunity to 

continue work on this transformative facility, which will expand and deepen our understanding 

of how the first stars and galaxies formed after the Big Bang, planets around other stars and dark 

energy. The budget for Mars exploration reflects an integrated strategy that ensures the next 

steps for the robotic Mars Exploration Program that support science and long-term human 

exploration goals. The 2013 Budget maintains Earth-science research funding levels consistent 

with the 2012 Budget. The Budget also provides $1.9 billion in FY 2013 funding for the SLS 

4 
34 

and $1.0 billion for the Orion MPCY, advancing the continued development of these systems 

that will enable exploration to deep-space destinations beyond today's reach. In these activities 

NASA will build on the configuration and acquisition decisions that it has made over the last 

several months. Similarly, thc Budget provides a solid foundation for the commercial crew and 

cargo transportation programs that arc necessary to provide safe and cost-effective U.S. access to 

low Earth orbit, and will allow us to stop paying Russia for astronaut transport to the ISS. 

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

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

running smoothly depends on largely invisible but critical support in the fields of measurement 

science and standards. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories 

stand at the core of this Nation's unparalleled capacity in these areas, promoting U.S. innovation 

and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. 

Reflecting NISI's vital role in supporting the economy and infrastructure, the 2013 Budget of 

$708 million for NIST's intramural laboratories and construction of research facilities amounts 

to a 13.8 percent increase over the 2012 enacted level. That increase will support highperformance laboratory research and facilities for a diverse portfolio of investigations in areas 

germane to advanced manufacturing, nanotechnology, cybersecurity, and disaster resilience. For 

NISI's extramural programs, the Budget includes $128 million for the Hollings Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership and $21 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia 

program, a new public-private partnership that will develop road maps of long-term industrial 

research needs and will fund research at leading universities and government laboratories 

directed at meeting those needs. The Budget also proposes $300 million in mandatory NISI 

funding for a Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund to develop standards, technologies. and 

applications to support the development of an interoperable broadband network lor first 

responders. All of these NIST programs are important components of A National Strategy.for 

Adml7ccd Alanu/acfuring, a comprehensive strategic plan to guide Federal advanced 

manufacturing R&D investments that will be released this month. 

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

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

marine habitats which directly and indirectly are enonnous sources of economic activity. The 

NOAA budget of $5 billion allows NOAA to strengthen the scientific basis tor environmental 

decision-making; improve critical weather and climate services that protect life and property; 

invest more heavily in restoring our oceans and coasts to ensure their ongoing ecological stability 

and commercial vigor; and ensure satellite continuity. 

The 2013 Budget provides $1.8 billion to continue the development and acquisition of 

NOAA's polar-orbiting and geostationary weather satellite systems, as well as satellite-borne 

measurements of sea level and potentially damaging solar storms. The Budget includes funding 

to continue work on the instruments and spacecraft for the Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS. 

NOAA will also conduct Arctic research (including bellwether studies of changing conditions), 

improve regional projections of climate change, and support research on coastal and marine 

resources and development of marine sensor technologies to address harmful algal blooms and 

ocean acidification. 

5 
35 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

The Department of Energy (DOE) 2013 Budget positions the United States to lead in the 

clean-energy economy of the future with an R&D portfolio that totals $11.9 billion, an increase 

of$884 million or 8.0 percent over the 2012 enacted leveL (This docs not include DOE's nonR&D cleanup, weapons, and energy-deployment programs.) The Administration's clean-energy 

R&D priorities focus on developing cutting-edge technologies with rcal-world applications to 

advance a clean-energy economy, increase energy efficiency in industry and manufacturing, 

reduce energy usc in buildings, and reach the goal as soon as possible of having 1 million 

advanced technology vehicles on the road. 

The 2013 Budget invests in DOE's clean-energy programs to reduce dependence on oil 

and to move toward a clean-energy future, including $2.3 billion for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE). Within this total, the Budget provides $290 million to expand 

activities on innovative manufacturing processes and advanced materials to enable U.S. 

companies to cut manufacturing costs by using less energy. The Budget also moves closer to the 

goal of I million advanced technology vehicles on the road by investing $420 million within 

EERE to advance vehicle technologies and to make electric vehicles cost competitive, and by 

enhancing advanced vehicle tax incentives. The Budget also includes $12 million for DOE as 

part of a $45-million priority research and development initiative by the Department of Energy, 

the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency to understand and minimize the potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of 

natural gas development through hydraulic fracturing (fracking). 

The 2013 Budget provides $350 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency -

Energy (ARPA-E) within DOE to suppOli transfonnational discoveries and accelerate solutions 

in the development of clean energy technology. ARP A-E performs high-risk, high-reward energy 

research with real-world applications in areas ranging from grid technology and power 

electronics to batteries and energy storage. First funded as part of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), ARPA-E is a signature component of the America COMPETES Act, 

and was reauthorized in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of2010. 

The 2013 Budget also supp0l1S research through Energy Innovation Hubs funded in 

2012 to solve specific energy challenges as part of DOE's overall research and development 

strategy. Each of the five Energy Innovation Hubs focuses top scientific and engineering talent 

on a specific problem: improving batteries and energy storage, reducing constraints from critical 

materials, developing fuels that can be produced directly from sunlight, improving energyefficient building systems design, and using modeling and simulation for advanccd-nuclearreactor operations. The Budget proposes $20 million to create a new Energy Innovation Hub on 

Electricity Systems to focus on grid systems, emphasizing the interface between transmission 

and distribution systems. Each of these Hubs will bring together a multidisciplinary team of 

researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to 

technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-related 

technologies. Complementing the Hubs, the Department plans to continue coordination with the 

Office of Science's Energy Frontier Research Centers, which tackle the toughest scientific 

hurdles to building a new 21 st century clean energy economy. 

The Department of Energy's Office of Science pursues fundamental discoveries and 

supports major scientific research facilities that provide the foundation for long-tenn progress in 

6 
36 

energy-related domains such as nanotechnology, the physical sciences, advanced materials, highend computing, cnergy supply and end-use efficiency, and climate change. The Ofiice stewards 

10 DOE National Laboratories and supports the research of more than 25,000 Ph.D. scientists, 

graduate students, and postdoctoral associates at over 300 universities and national laboratories 

nationwide. More than 27,000 researchers from academe, national laboratories, and industry 

make use of its advanced scientific user facilities each year, pursuing discoveries at the frontiers 

of science that enhance the Nation's energy sccurity and strengthen our economic 

competitiveness. The 2013 Budget of $5.0 billion for the Office of Science, 2.4 percent above 

the 2012 cnacted level. provides support for facilities and cutting-edge research. 

Environmental Protection Agencv (EPA) 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) R&D funding totals $576 million in the 2013 

Budget, $8 million more than thc 2012 funding level. With this investment. EPA will focus on 

enhancing and strengthening the planning and delivery of science in its restructured research and 

science programs, making these efforts more integrated and cross-disciplinary. The 2013 Budget 

supports high-priority research of national importance in such areas as potential endocrine 

disrupting chemicals, innovative chemical design, green infrastructure, computational 

toxicology, drinking water, and STEM fellowships. The 2013 Budget proposes a total of $14 

million for EPA Jor the above-mentioned collaboration with USGS and DOE on hydraulic 

fracturing. 

United States Geological Survev (USGS) 

The total budget of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Interior's lead science 

agency, is $1.1 billion, a $35 million increase from the 2012 enacted level. The 2013 Budget 

proposes $19 million for USGS for the above-mentioned collaboration with EPA and DOE on 

hydraulic fracturing. The Budget also sustains USGS funding for water and ecosystems science 

programs; research to mitigate natural hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, floods, and 

volcanoes; and climate change science. 

Department of Homeland Security (DIlS) 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D totals $729 million in the 2013 Budget 

up 26.3 percent from the 2012 enacted level in order to partially restore steep cuts enacted in 

2012 appropriations. The 2013 Budget funds important R&D advances in cybersecurity, nuclear 

materials and explosives detection, and biological response systems. The Budget does not fund 

construction of the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in 2013; rather, DHS will 

conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the need tor and cost of such a laboratory. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

The 2013 Budget provides $1.1 billion for Department of Transportation (DOT) R&D, a 

$132 million increase compared to the 2012 funding level. The Budget request includes funding 

for several R&D activities in the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Next Generation Air 

Transportation System, known as NextGen. The Joint Planning and Development Office 

coordinates this important effort, which strives to reduce delays, expand capacity, and improve 

the sarety and environmental impact of air transportation. The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHW A) also manages a comprehensive, nationally coordinated highway research and 

7 
37 

technology program, engaging and cooperating with other highway research stakeholders. 

FHW A perfonns research activities associated with safety, infrastructure preservation and 

improvements, and environmental mitigation and streamlining. 

White House Office of Science and Technologv Policy (OSTP) 

The 2013 Budgct requests $5.85 million for White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) operations, above the $4.50 million 2012 enacted funding level but 

12.0 percent below the $6.65 million 2011 enacted funding level. OSTP works with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to set S&T priorities for all the executive branch departments 

and agencies with S&T and STEM-education missions. OSTP also provides science and 

technology advice and analysis in support of the activities of the other offices in the Executive 

Office of the President and supports me in my role as the Assistant to the President tor Science 

and Technology, with the responsibility to provide the President with such intonnation about 

science and technology issues as he may request in connection with the policy matters before 

him. In addition, OSTP coordinates a wide array of interagency research initiatives with 

significant economic implications through administration of the National Science and 

Technology Council (NSTC) and serves as the lead White House ol1ice in a range of bilateral 

and multilateral S&T activities internationally. This work is accomplished with approximately 

27 full-time equivalent statT supported by the OSTP appropriation, which includes the OSTP 

Director, four Associate Directors (for Science, Technology, Enviromnent, and National Security 

and International Alfairs), additional technical experts, and a small administrative team. In 

addition, there are approximately 50 scientific and technical experts detailed to OSTP from all 

across the executive branch along with approximately a dozen other experts brought in under the 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act or various fellowship arrangements. This mix of personnel 

allows OSTP to tap a wide range of expertise and leverage a multitude of high-value resources to 

ensure that the science and technology work of the Federal government is appropriately 

supported, coordinated and amplified. The reduced 2012 OSTP funding level required significant 

reductions in staf1ing and support levels; the 2013 Budget would return OSTP personnel and 

support funding closer to historical levels. 

Interagency Initiatives 

A number of priority interagency S&T initiatives are highlighted in the President's 2013 

Budget. These initiatives are coordinated through the NSTC, whieh as noted above is 

administered by OSTP. 

Networking and Intonnation Technology R&D 

The multi-agency Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 

(NITRO) provides strategic planning for and coordination of agency research efforts in cyber 

security, high-end computing systems, advanced networking. software development highconfidence systems, infonnation management. and other information technologies. The 2013 

Budget provides $3.8 billion for NITRD, an increase of $69 million over the 2012 funding level. 

This initiative is celebrating its 20th anniversary this month. 

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

priorities, including supporting national and homeland security, retornling the healthcare system, 

understanding and responding to environmental stresses, increasing energy efficiency and 

8 
38 

developing renewable energy sources, strengthening the security of our critical infrastructures 

including cyberspace. and revitalizing our educational system for the jobs of tomorrow. The 

2013 Budget includes a focus on research in an area of ever-growing importance: how best 10 

derh'c value and scientific inferences from unprecedented quantities of data. It also continucs 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 2013 Budget provides $1.8 billion for the multi-agency National Nanotechnology 

Initiative (NNI), an increase of $70 million over the 2012 funding level. Research and 

development in the NNI focuses on the development of materials, devices, and systems that 

exploit the fundamentally distinct properties of matter at the nanoscaic--on the order of a 

billionth of a meter-and on environmental and health studies relating to nanomaterials. NNIsupported R&D is enabling breakthroughs in disease detection and treatment, manufacturing at 

or ncar the nanoscalc. environmental monitoring and protection, energy conversion and storage. 

and the design of novel electronic devices. Participating agencies continue to support 

fundamental research for nanotechnology-based innovation, technology transfer, and 

nanomanufacturing through individual investigator awards; multidisciplinary centers of 

excellence; education and training; and infrastructure and standards development, including 

openly-accessible user facilities and networks. Furthermore, agencies have identified and are 

pursuing Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives in the national priority areas of 

nanomanufacturing, solar energy, and nanoelectronics through close alignment of existing and 

planned research programs, public-private partnerships, and research roadmaps. 

The NNI agencies are guided by two strategic documents developed by the Nanoscale 

Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the NSTC. The 2011 NNI Strategic 

Plan aligns nanoscale science llild technology research with the NNI's four goals and includes 

specific, measurable objectives for each goal. The 2011 NNI Environmental. Health, and Safety 

Research Strategy delineates a research and implementation framework that will produce the 

information necessary to protect public health and the environment. foster product development 

and commercialization, and consider the ethical. legal, and societal issues associated with 

nanotechnology development. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program 

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

understanding that insights derived today will payoff with interest in the years and decades 

ahead as our Nation works to limit and adapt to shifting environmental conditions. Investments 

in climate science over the past several decades have contributed enonnously to our 

understanding of global climate. The trends in global climate are clelli', as are their primary 

causes, and the investments in this research arena in the 2013 Budget are a critical part of the 

President's overall strategy to mitigate U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions and move toward a cleanenergy economy even as we adapt to those changes that are inevitable. Specifically, the 2013 

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

(USGCRP)-an increase of 5,6 percent or $136 million over the 2012 enacted level-to 

continue its important work of improving our ability to understand, predict. mitigate, and adapt 

to global change, including but not limited to climate change. 

9 
39 

The USGCRP was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 

(P.L. 101-606) to improve understanding of uncertainties in climate science, expand global 

observing systems, develop science-based 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 plans to maximize research-dollar efficiencies and ensure that the program is aligned with 

the Administration's priorities and reflects agency planning. 

The 2013 Budget supports the four objectives set forth in USGCRP's new decadal 

strategic plan, to be released within the next few weeks, which are to (1) Advance Science: 

advance scientific knowledge of the integrated natural and human components of the Earth 

system; (2) Inform Decisions: provide the scientific basis to inform and enable timely decisions 

on adaptation and mitigation; (3) Conduct Sustained Assessments: build sustained assessment 

capacity that improves the United States' ability to understand, anticipate, and respond to global 

change impacts and vulnerabilities; and (4) Communicate and Educate: advance communications 

and education to broadcn public understanding of global change. 

Funding in the 2013 Budget will support an integrated and continuing National Climate 

Assessment of climate-change science, impacts, yulncrabilities, and response strategies, as 

mandated by Congress. 

Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Job Creation 

In addition to the investments in R&D I have described, the President's 2013 Budget 

targets strategic investments to spur innovation in the public and private sectors and to maximize 

the impact of the Federal R&D investment for innovation, with the goal of transforming the 

Nation's economy and improving the lives of all Americans. 

The Budget proposes a pennanent extension of the research and experimentation (R&E) 

tax credit to spur private investment in R&D by providing certainty that the credit will be 

available for the duration of the R&D investment. The 2013 Budget proposes to expand and 

simplify the credit as part of making it permanent. 

The 2013 Budget sustains the Administration's effort to promote regional innovation 

clusters as significant sources of entrepreneurship, innovation, and qnality jobs. These efforts are 

taking place in several agencies working together, including the Small Business Administration 

(SBA), DOE, and especially the Economic Development Administration (EDA) within the 

Department of Commerce. EDA will be pursuing several programs in research parks, regional 

innovation clusters, and entrepreneurial innovation activities, as authorized in the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act. And as mentioned earlier, the 2013 Budget continues to 

support the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) in NIST to disseminate the 

latest advanced manufacturing techniques and innovative processes to small- and medium-sized 

manufacturers around the Nation. It also supports an expansion of NSF's Innovation Corps (1-

Corps) program with $19 million to bring together technological, cntrepreneurial, and business 

know-how to move research discoveries toward commercialization. Taken together, these 

investments will help ensure that Federal investments in innovation, education, and infrastructure 

translate into commercial activity, real products, andjobs. 

10 
40 

That is why the Obama Administration believes that leadership across the frontiers of 

scientific knowledge is not merely a cultural tradition of our nation, but is also an economic and 

national security imperative, This Administration wants to ensure that America remains at the 

epicenter of the global revolution in scientific research and technological innovation that 

promises to generate new knowledge, create new jobs, and build new industries. 

I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of the President's 

FY2013 Budget proposal a reality. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Members may 

have. 

14 
41 

White House Science Fair, calling for the United States to establish a goal of training one million 

additional STEM graduates over the next decade. Federal agencies will contribute to this goal 

through programs designed to engage students and improve teaching and learning in STEM 

tields from early learning through K-12 and undergraduate levels. For example, the 2013 Budget 

proposes a signiticant boost in funding at NSF for undergraduate education, and improved 

coordination between undergraduate STEM education programs at NSF and ED. The Budget 

proposes $61 million for NSF's Transfonning Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) 

program, which will provide research and development funds to design, test, and implement 

more effective educational materials, curriculum, and methods to improve undergraduate 

learning and completion rates in STEM for a diverse population. The Budget also proposes $60 

million for a jointly administered NSF and ED mathematics education initiative that will allocate 

funds for early research. development. validation. and scale-up of etfective practices. Similar to 

ED's Investing in Innovation (i3) program. this initiative will support collaborations between 

researchers and practitioners to develop and test promising approaches and support widespread 

adoption of practices found to be effective through rigorous evaluations. 

These eft()rts are part of a broader Administration commitment to look carefully at the 

effectiveness of all STEM programs and find ways to improve them. To further this goal. last 

year I established a Committee on STEM Education under the NSTC. In December. the 

Committee released the most comprehensive inventory of all Federal STEM efforts ever 

compiled. The work of this Committee is closely aligned with the vision for STEM education 

outlined by Congress in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and has focused on 

improving the coordination and effectiveness of all Federal STEM education programs. In this 

spirit. the Administration released a description of a 5-year Federal STEM education strategic 

plan and an update to the Federal STEM inventory along with the Budget. The tinal strategic 

plan, to be released this spring. will outline a path to increase coordination and collaboration 

among the 13 agencies that support STEM education and increase the efficiency and impact of 

the Fcderal portfolio of STEM education programs. 

OSTP looks forward to working with this Committee on our common vision of 

improving STEM education for all of America's students. 

Clean Energy 

The Administration intends for the United States to lead the world in research and 

development of clcan-energy technology to help reduce dependence on oil and other cncrgy 

imports and to mitigate the impact of climate change while creating high-paying, high-skilled 

c1can energy jobs and new businesses. The Budget rellccts the Administration's comprehensive 

strategy on clean energy, which starts with basic and applied research to address some of the 

fundamental unknowns to advancing clean energy technologies. such as developing advanced 

light-weight, ultra-strong materials; followed by research and development to create clean energy 

products. like solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. wind turbines. and modular nuclear 

reactors; and thcn providing appropriate assistance to American cntrepreneurs to commercialize 

the technologies that will lead the world in new clean energy technology. 

The Budget dedicates nearly $6.7 billion to clean energy research, development, 

demonstration, and deployment to help accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy and 

position the United States as the world leader in clean energy technology. This increase of about 

$760 million is 13 percent above the 2012 enacted leveL 

12 
42 

21 Sf Century Infrastrncture 

In his Statc of the Union address, the President established a vision of rebuilding America 

for the 21st century. This vision is reflected in the 2013 Budgct in investments that will not only 

rebuild roads and bridges but will also help build the new infrastructure needed for America to 

remain competitive in this century. 

To build the infrastructure the U.S. needs to compete globally in the 21st century, to spur 

innovation in the public and private sectors, and to provide the foundational capacities that 

facilitate the gro'W1h of new jobs and industries, the 2013 Budget proposes to bring nextgeneration, wireless broadband Internet to all Americans; to invest in R&D for a smart, cnergyefficicnt, and reliable electricity delivery infrastructure; and to build a 21st century aviation 

system. 

The Budget proposes to invest $300 million from expected spectrum auction proceeds for 

a Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund to accelerate the research and development of cutting-edge 

wireless technologies and applications, as part of the effort to support an interoperable public 

safety broadband network. This will enable businesses to grow faster, students to learn more, and 

public safety otlicials to access state-of,the-art, secure, nationwide, and interoperable mobile 

communications. The Budget also proposes incentive auction authority and other spectrum 

rctonns to foster the conditions for the next generation of wireless teclmology, nearly doubling 

the amount ofwireJcss spectrum for mobile broadband. 

Conclusion 

This Administration's 20]3 Budget ret1ects a clear understanding of the critical 

importance of science and technology, STEM education, and 21" century infrastructure to the 

challenges the Nation fiKes. Recognizing the importance of responsibly reducing projected 

budget deficits and holding the line on government spending, the Administration has made 

disciplincd choices in order to maintain and in some cases increase critical investments that will 

payoff by generating the American jobs and industries of the future-all in the context of a 

discretionary budget that stays Ilat for a second year in a row. Indeed, the science and 

technology investmcnts in the 2013 Budget are essential to keep this eountry on a path to 

revitalized economic growth, rcal energy security, intelligent environmental stewardship, better 

health outcomes for more Americans at lower costs, strengthened national and homeland 

security, and continuing leadership in space. 

As this Committee has long cmphasized, the best environment for innovation in all 

technologies is a broad and balanced research program for all the sciences. Such a broad base of 

scientific research 'Will provide the foundation for a cornucopia of multidisciplinary 

discoveries-some expected and planned, others entirely unexpected"-with enonnous benefits 

for our society. This country's overall prosperity in the last half century is duc in great measure 

to America's "innovation system"-a three-way partnership among academia, industry, and 

government-and that same partnership will allow us to maintain that prosperity in the decades 

to come. 

13 
43 

That is why the Obama Administration believes that leadership across the frontiers of 

scientific knowledge is not merely a cultural tradition of our nation, but is also an economic and 

national security imperative, This Administration wants to ensure that America remains at the 

epicenter of the global revolution in scientific research and technological innovation that 

promises to generate new knowledge, create new jobs, and build new industries. 

I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of the President's 

FY2013 Budget proposal a reality. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Members may 

have. 

14 
44 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, sir. And I thank you for your testimony and remind all Members that the Committee rules limit 

questioning to five minutes. And at this time I will open with the 

questions and I will stay with the five minutes. We are on a close 

schedule today and our witness’ time is valuable and we are going 

to try not to delay the meeting if we have a vote. If somebody will 

take the Chair, I will go vote and come back. We will work that 

out as we go. 

I recognize myself for five minutes and I will stay within the five 

minutes. 

Dr. Holdren, NASA recently announced its intent to use Space 

Act Agreements for the next round of funding for the Commercial 

Crew Program, and I know you are familiar with that, aren’t you? 

And I know that you are as anxious as anybody or probably more 

so than most folks for the safety standards. But I have a problem 

with this. Under these agreements it is my understanding that 

NASA can’t require the companies to meet any safety standards. 

I don’t know how that could have been left out but how does the 

Agency intend to insure that these vehicles ultimately are going to 

be safe enough to take NASA astronauts to the International Space 

Station alone? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Chairman Hall, it is my understanding that 

NASA retains the responsibility for ensuring the safety of its astronauts whether the launches are commercial or government 

launches. I am not familiar with the level of detail in these particular agreements that you are referring to, but I can’t imagine 

that NASA does not retain that responsibility and that ability, and 

if there is a problem in the agreements that would jeopardize that, 

I am sure we will fix it. 

Chairman HALL. We will look closely at that. NASA as you know 

has to acquire assistance from the companies they deal with and 

a close reading of that escapes us if they can require the companies 

to meet any safety standards, but it is logical that they would. And 

we may address that to you later and would thank you. And I 

thank you for your answer to that and I understand it. 

In light of NASA’s decision to draw from the joint Mars mission 

with the European Space Agency in 2016 and 2018, I find your 

statement a little bit puzzling when you said ‘‘the budget for Mars 

exploration reflects an integrated strategy that ensures the next 

step for the Robotic Mars Exploration Program that support science 

and long-term human exploration goals.’’ Since we don’t have any 

apparent next mission to Mars, just what do you mean by that 

statement? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I think we retain—notwithstanding deciding that we do not have the budget to 

go forward with the 2016 and 2018 joint missions with the European Space Agency, we retain the most vigorous and forward-leaning Mars exploration program that there has ever been, the most 

forward-leaning in the world. We have a surface rover on Mars at 

the moment. We have the most sophisticated surface rover ever 

dispatched. The Mars Science Laboratory, en route, was launched 

in November, will land in August, is the size of an SUV. We have 

two satellites in orbit around Mars at this moment collecting the 

most extraordinary data, including recently a remarkable set of im-
45 

ages showing a landslide on Mars; a capability to observe that has 

never before existed. We have a 2013 mission to Mars Atmosphere 

and Volatile Evolution or MAVEN mission on the schedule and additional missions going forward. 

So I think we are in no way retreating from our commitment to 

have a vigorous program of Mars exploration, including laying the 

groundwork for human exploration. 

Chairman HALL. We want to certainly keep our work in space 

and we want to keep our access to our space station, and we feel 

endangered there by the lack of any certainty as to when we are 

going to go back there but we almost know we are going to do that 

and yet keep alive some hope for Mars, but I don’t see anything 

written that is stamped that we are going back to Mars anytime, 

have any program part other than a desire to. And we can’t spend 

any money going back to Mars. People can’t spend money to go to 

the grocery store, so the economy is going to pretty well instruct 

you and the President and those of us who support those missions. 

And I hope you agree with that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Mr. Chairman, the economy obviously has to remain priority one in this budget and going forward. We all understand that, but we also, as the President pointed out in his State 

of the Union message, cannot afford to neglect the investments in 

science, technology, innovation, and exploration that are going to 

be the basis of our future capabilities and our future leadership 

around the world. We are proposing to spend in this budget $1.88 

billion for the heavy-lift launch system, one of whose purposes is 

to enable missions beyond low Earth orbit, including missions to an 

asteroid as the President has described and eventually a mission 

to Mars. And that is in the budget statements that Mars remains 

our eventual destination with these capabilities. There is another 

billion dollars for the multi-mission crew vehicle which again has 

in mind those deep space missions. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you for that and I know you are available for future questions even if by mail. I have gone several seconds over my five minutes. 

I now recognize Ms. Johnson for her five minutes of questioning. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, you have done quite a bit of work on the mandated 

STEM inventory and we are to receive the rest of it soon. Now, in 

the meantime, the Administration’s budget for 2013 request includes 20 percent cuts in STEM education and activities at a number of our agencies, including NASA and NOAA, EPA, and DOE. 

How do we justify these cuts while the strategic planning process 

is still underway? I know that we have to be very frugal but I am 

worried about being penny wise and pound foolish. Can you comment on that a bit? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes, I can, Ranking Member Johnson. First of all, 

as you point out, we did do an extraordinarily thorough inventory 

of the STEM education programs and what they contain. We will 

be releasing shortly the full STEM education strategic plan and the 

Congress will have that available as it ponders its own conclusions 

about the budget. But we relied very heavily on the information developed in that inventory and in the preparation of the plan in 

making our decisions across the STEM ed domain. 
46 

As I have already indicated, we had really tough choices to make 

because under the overall constraints of budget discipline that are 

required, we obviously not only couldn’t increase everything; we 

had to cut some things to make room for increases in others. And 

what we tried to do is we tried to look for the highest leverage 

where an additional dollar could make the biggest contribution. 

Those are tough choices to make but we believe that the education 

programs that we propose to scale back have been less effective 

than the education programs that we propose to scale up. And that 

was the basis of the decisions. And I hope after you see the STEM 

education strategic plan that you will agree with us. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, thank you. Now, one other question. The satellites for weather and many other things really does protect and 

give warning, save lives. Do you think that we have the capability 

with this budget to maintain our solar satellite program and continue with our forward activity of protecting our public and keeping 

information readily available for our skies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, we in the Administration completely agree with you that these polar orbiting satellites for 

weather forecasting and climate monitoring, hurricane tracking are 

absolutely crucial, and we have been threatened for some time, in 

a gap that we inherited, with the possibility that the existing polar 

satellites will end their useful lifetime before the replacements are 

up there. We are doing everything possible to try to be sure that 

at very least we minimize that gap even if we don’t now have the 

capability to avoid it altogether. 

Last year, we didn’t get as much money appropriated as we requested those satellites. Neither did we get as much money as we 

asked for the previous year, and those gaps are hurting us. We are 

trying to make up for it in this year’s budget, and one of the reasons that NOAA’s R&D budget has gone down in the President’s 

proposal is precisely to make room for more money for those satellites to minimize that gap because this is absolutely crucial. And 

again it underlines the tough choices we had to make. Nobody 

wanted to reduce other aspects of the R&D portfolio at NOAA but 

we absolutely have to minimize the gap in coverage by the satellites. 

As you point out, they are crucial among other things to minimize the damage from extreme weather events by providing information to people that enable them to make preparations. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

We now recognize Members for their questions. We will start 

with Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California, for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

And thank you very much for being with us today. These discussions are always enlightening. Although we have some major disagreements, we can do so amicably. And I will start with one question that is not maybe such a major disagreement. 

I notice that the budget request for the DOD’s R&D budget request is 11.9 billion and Secretary Chu says that 770 million of 

that will go for nuclear energy. Those of us who think that nuclear 

energy should be playing a major role would suggest that might be 
47 

less money than what would be—less money than compared to 

other energy resources that we think are a little more esoteric. But 

I would like to talk to you specifically about that nuclear energy 

request. 

Sixty million dollars is intended for nuclear waste R&D that 

would go along with the Blue Ribbon Commission report which we 

had a hearing on here not too long ago. And, you know, it has been 

said that waste is our only resource that we are not smart enough 

to use yet, and I believe that that pertains directly to all of this 

‘‘nuclear waste’’ that we are confronted with. Well, there are several companies that are working right now on transformational fast 

neutron reactors. Toshiba’s 4S reactor, GE has a thing, prism reactor, and General Atomics has what they call the EM2. All of these 

can be used—waste as fuel and burn up to 97 percent more of the 

material. Well, the Blue Ribbon Commission of course sat here and 

talked to us about how they were supportive of spending billions 

of dollars to put waste in a hole. I would like to know are we going 

to be spending some of our resources to help develop this new technology rather than putting things in a hole that will help build this 

technology that can actually burn this waste and put it to good use 

and providing electricity—safe electricity for the American people? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman Rohrabacher, I always enjoy 

our friendly interactions. This is a very complicated topic. We could 

spend the rest of the hearing talking about it, but let me make just 

a few points. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. One is I think the Department of Energy’s budget 

for nuclear energy research is commensurate both with the promise 

and with the fact that nuclear energy is in many respects already 

a mature industry in the private sector. And you mentioned a number of the companies involved in cutting edge work there. The private sector does a lot of the work, as it should, in a domain that 

is this well developed. 

The second point I would make is I think all of us, my colleagues 

and I in OSTP, Secretary Chu and DOE are very interested in the 

potential of advanced nuclear energy technologies such as the type 

you mentioned. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But are you interested in it enough to make 

sure it is funded as compared to some of these other as I say more 

esoteric—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, again I think the government’s funding in 

this domain is appropriate given both the promise and given the 

role of the private sector which is large. But I would also point out 

that when you talk about burning nuclear waste, this doesn’t actually avoid the problem of ultimately having to put something in the 

ground. And the reason is that these fast neutron reactors burn the 

heavy isotopes in the nuclear waste—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —which to be sure have the longest half-lives. It 

is beneficial to burn those and get the energy benefit from them. 

But one still ends up with a rich array, if you will, of fission products—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —that do have to be disposed of. 
48 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This just makes the problem a lot smaller. 

And I would suggest that this be something that if we do end up 

disagreeing on this after some non-hearing discussions, I would 

suggest that that might be something that we will have to push 

from this side on because this issue is too important just to talk 

about putting things in holes, which we could do years ago. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, as I have just a few seconds left, let 

me be on the record as I am very concerned about Vice President 

Biden’s statement yesterday that we should speed up the transfer 

of technology to China, which is—I have no idea that the Vice 

President could say something as stupid that but he did and I am 

very interested in finding out whether or not that is the policy of 

this Administration. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I come to the gentleman’s rescue. The gentleman’s time has expired so you don’t have to answer that right now, 

Dr. Holdren. 

Do you insist on answer? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It would be nice if he could answer that. 

Chairman HALL. Can you answer that with a yes or a no? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will try to be approximate and brief. 

Chairman HALL. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I have not spoken with the Vice President about 

the particular statement but certainly there are some technologies 

where it is in our interest to share with China. We cooperate with 

China, for example, on influenza. That enables us to get more advanced warning of flu epidemics and to develop vaccines. We have 

shared technology with China on nuclear reactor safety because a 

nuclear reactor accident in China would be to our detriment as well 

as theirs, and there are certainly a number of domains in which 

it is in our national interest to help China address problems that 

are our problems, too. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We also gave China our canal down there. The former President 

did, that’s my recollection. 

Recognize Mr. Lipinski at this time for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr. 

Holdren for his service. It is an important role especially in these 

tough budget times. 

I want to first ask about—a question about the weather service. 

NOAA provides a severe weather and climate forecast that saves 

lives and property across the country every year. We all know the 

important job that they do. While I understand the tough choices 

that had to be made in this time of fiscal constraint, it concerns 

me that within the NOAA budget request, the National Weather 

Service line is one of the few line offices receiving a budget decrease. I am not sure this is a correct priority considering the increase in extreme weather that our country has experienced recently. So in these tight economic times, how does the Administration plan to balance the need to invest in promising innovations 

without sacrificing everyday essentials like the services provided by 

the National Weather Service? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would say for some of the details on that question I would want to consult Administrator Lubchenco, but I would 
49 

note that, first of all, what is crucial for the National Weather 

Service to do its job are the basic data coming from observations 

of what the atmosphere is doing. And if we cannot find the money 

to support the satellites from which those data come, then all the 

money in the world poured into the Weather Service won’t make 

up for the deficit. And again, I think part of the challenge in NOAA 

has been notwithstanding now a couple of years of appropriations 

falling short of what we thought was needed for the polar orbiting 

satellites. We are now trying to make up for that gap. 

But I also think that we are doing more in promoting symbiosis 

and synergism among the different components of Earth observation, satellite monitoring and so on among NASA, NOAA, the 

USGS. And if you look at the budget for the Global Change Research Program which brings together all of those capacities with 

13 agencies participating, it is increasingly focused on providing 

the sort of information that firms and individuals, businesses, 

farmers need in order to anticipate and respond to extreme weather events and climate change. So we are trying to do more in that 

domain overall. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I can appreciate the need to put the funding in 

for—to get the data. I think we just also need to be careful that 

we have the people on the ground who—and the offices on the 

ground to do what we need with that data. 

I want to take the rest of my time to move on to another issue 

and that is prize competition. As you know, the COMPETES Reauthorization included a prize competition initiative based in part on 

a GENIUS Act I introduced with Representative Frank Wolf. Last 

year, you told me you were enormously enthusiastic about the potential prizes and I was pleased to see the launch of Challenge.gov 

to highlight and promote this initiative. How has this new authority been used over the past year? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, we remain enormously enthusiastic about prizes and we have now authorized all of the departments and agencies to use competitions and prizes to achieve their 

goals, to advance their priorities. And—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Is there anything new on the horizon that you can 

talk about? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, in fact we have a full-time person in OSTP 

who does nothing but work with the agencies on prizes and competitions. And there is a bunch of stuff in the pipeline. I mean it 

would—again it would take the rest of this hearing to talk about 

all of the prize and competition activity that is going on, but I 

think this is one of the richest and most productive domains of getting more for less. And I thank you, Congressman Lipinski, for 

your role in pushing this forward. It is simply an enormous highleverage opportunity and we are exploiting it. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I appreciate that and I like to have the opportunity 

since I have only have 30 seconds left—I won’t be able to go into 

this more—but to discuss more with you where this is going and 

where the different agencies are taking this. But with that I will 

thank you and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from Oak Ridge, 

Mr. Fleischmann, from Tennessee, five minutes. 
50 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Dr. Holdren. I have a question in regard to the—actually two-part question in regard to fiscal year 2013. The R&D budget details efforts to strengthen our Nation’s competitiveness and 

long-run economic growth. My first question, sir, is what is the Administration doing to measure and evaluate the economic impacts 

of basic research funding? And my second question, sir, is what 

methods can the Federal Government use to prioritize funding 

areas of basic research both within the area of science and across 

areas of science? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Fleischmann, those are really tough 

questions as you know. We have been working on the STAR 

METRICS program to develop ways to better measure the effectiveness of our investments in research and development, but you mentioned in particular basic research. It is very easy to measure the 

success of basic research long after the fact such as the NSF grants 

to two Stanford graduate students named Brin and Page who subsequently, on the basis of the research they did, founded Google, 

which now has $64 billion in annual revenue and employs 20,000 

people. So we can look back and say, ‘‘gee, that was a great investment in basic research but it is the character of basic research,’’ 

that at the time you are funding it and the time you are doing it, 

you have no real idea what the benefits are going to be. 

And so we have to continue to rely, as we always have, on the 

competitive peer review process to try to identify the most exciting, 

interesting, and promising domains of basic research; but we are 

never going to be able to quantify in advance rather than retrospectively what is going to work versus what doesn’t. And at the same 

time I would say it is not stopping us from trying to get better 

through the STAR METRICS effort at understanding what works 

best in the way we go about prioritizing research. 

Your other question has to do with cross-agency, cross-department, cross-topic prioritization, and all I can say there in the brief 

time available, again, is that we try to think about it in terms of 

the greatest bang for the buck. Where will an additional dollar do 

the most good, relatively speaking? But it is fundamentally a very, 

very difficult task. And as you know, what actually emerges, 

emerges from an interplay between the Administration and the 

Congress that somehow integrates divergent views on where the leverage is. 

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

Chairman HALL. I thank you, and at this time we recognize Mr. 

McNerney, gentleman from California, for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, you mentioned work on public-private partnerships 

and innovation in entrepreneurship. Would you be able to give an 

estimate as to how many jobs have been created by these startups 

say over a specific period of time like a year or so? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The short answer is at this time I would not. I am 

reluctant to make particular claims about numbers of jobs. I think 

those tend to be very squishy. You know, I think the data indicate 

certainly that we are moving in the right direction, but I think it 

is too soon—although my colleague Alan Krueger, the Chairman of 

the Council of Economic Advisors, might be able to come up with 
51 

a number. At this point I cannot. I will check with him and if he 

has got a number, we will certainly submit it following the hearing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And you feel that the current budget proposal 

has enough resources to continue that progress in the jobs creation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think it does, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Dr. Holdren, one of the greatest 

technical assets available to the Nation is the capability to maintain bio-national laboratories. The national laboratories such as 

Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory in California do provide a tremendous amount of expertise in areas critical like cyber security, high-performance computing and modeling, biosciences, and so on. Given the technical 

capabilities at the labs, do you see opportunities for leveraging the 

federally funded research and development centers to provide technical support to the Administration and other government agencies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The short answer is absolutely yes. The national 

laboratories are enormous resources, sources of discovery, invention, and innovation. We have many programs that are trying to 

beef up and accelerate the flow of ideas and prospective products 

from research universities and national laboratories into the private sector and into the marketplace. The energy innovation hubs 

that the Secretary of Energy initially proposed and have now been 

funded in considerable measure include linking national laboratories, research universities, and firms to get this translation done. 

And we need to do more of it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are you concerned about the capabilities of 

these labs considering possible future budget and funding? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman, I am concerned about the health of 

all of our R&D ecosystem, and in fact the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology, which I Co-Chair, is in the 

late stages of a study of what we need to do to maintain the quality 

of that R&D ecosystem across our country. And that includes the 

national labs, the research universities. It includes the pipeline 

from schools and community colleges to firms and enterprises. I 

think we have to be very attentive to the health of this enterprise 

and we have to make the investments or the sources of innovation 

that we are going to need aren’t going to be there. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank you for that answer and I share 

your concern. 

Dr. Holdren, this Committee has held several hearings on the 

safety of hydraulic fracturing. Does the budget in your opinion 

have enough resources devoted to research in this area to help address the growing public concerns about possible contamination of 

deep water supplies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman, the FY 2013 budget includes the 

proposal of the President to include $45 million for an interagency 

R&D initiative aimed at exactly those questions. That’s a 150 percent increase over the 2012 enacted level. The research will be coordinated among the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and the EPA. We are convinced that this resource can be 

exploited safely, but we have to make the investments to be sure 

that is the way it happens, because if we don’t ensure that it is in 
52 

fact developed safely with appropriate attention to the quality of 

our water supplies, among other environmental values, then the 

public is not going to let it happen. And we need that resource so 

we need to do it right and we are determined to do it right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for that answer. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair at this time recognizes Mr. Hultgren, 

the gentleman from Illinois, for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, one of my many constituent physicists recently reminded me that science comes in two forms. I like the way that he 

put this. He said that two forms of science are Edisonian science, 

the application of scientific principles to build stuff; and the 

Einsteinian science, the effort to discover the basic principles themselves. Our system of free enterprise does a very good job at the 

Edisonian science—Apple, General Electric, Intel, IBM are all examples of that. And since World War II, the United States has 

been a global leader in the public investment and Einsteinian 

science as well. But I am deeply troubled by the President’s budget 

request as it seems to be quite a pronounced departure from this 

half-century legacy of American leadership in fundamental research, especially when high-energy physics has made major concessions, in particular closing down the Tevatron. 

BES received $110 million of the increase where all other programs in Department of Science received 8 million—110 million to 

$8 million. I wonder, do you think that is an equitable distribution, 

particularly when Fermilab was cut by eight percent in the President’s budget request in the midst of an important transition to define a new vital U.S. role in particle physics? If you think this is 

equitable, I want to know what your plans are for Fermilab. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Hultgren, the concept of equitable is 

a difficult one to apply in making tough choices among competing 

scientific priorities. Again, we have gotten tremendous benefit out 

of Fermilab. We have gotten tremendous benefit out of the 

Tevatron, but I think in terms of the Tevatron, there are now other 

machines in which we participate that are more at the cutting edge 

and are yielding more cutting edge results than we can now get 

from the Tevatron. We could still get some good stuff from the 

Tevatron and in better times we would have more funding for it, 

but we made, as I said, some tough choices here. 

The Fermilab is a national asset. I want to see it maintained; I 

want to see it healthy. And—but I would simply reiterate that in 

this very demanding environment, we tried to make judgments 

about where the greatest value at the margin was for an additional 

dollar that could be added one place or another. And since we had 

to stay flat overall, dollars added one place had to be taken away 

in another. 

Mr. HULTGREN. First, I would say Fermilab has been incredibly 

cooperative as far as shutting down the Tevatron and also in 

Hadron and CERN, all the work that is going on there. I know they 

have been a great partner over there. But I also absolutely believe 

this is a devastating departure from what we have done historically, our commitment again to discovery. 
53 

Specifically, I want to get on to LBNE, Long-Baseline Neutrino 

Experiment. It has been extensively reviewed, including by the National Academy and has been part of the plans for the field for the 

last four years. The President’s budget request severely cuts LBNE 

and does not even provide the funds to sustain the ongoing operations at Homestake. What are the Administration’s intentions 

with regard to LBNE and how is this momentum-killing approach 

an effective use of taxpayer funding or helping to drive U.S. scientific leadership? 

Before you answer that, I do want to remind you of the following: 

that the PBR supports for the design of LBNE has been more than 

halved from fiscal year 2012 and Homestake mine is already operating at bare-bones efficiency and again the PBR cuts it further by 

33 percent to levels insufficient to maintain minimum operations. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman Hultgren, I have to say this is 

really painful. It is painful for me and painful for my colleagues to 

have had to engage in making these very tough choices. We are interested in keeping LBNE alive. It is, as you noticed—as you have 

pointed out—just limping along in this budget. I wish we could do 

better but to do a lot better we would have to take the money from 

someplace else, and our judgment was that the places we are putting it have at this point have higher potential on the margin. But 

I cannot tell you how much I sympathize with the view that important scientific projects in which we have invested in the past and 

would like to continue to invest in the future simply cannot be afforded under the current fiscal restraints. And we are constantly 

finding ourselves in this position where our friends in the Congress 

reiterate the dilemma that we already know we have, is that everybody wants to see the deficit shrunk and the overall budget smaller, and everybody at the same time wants to see the projects and 

programs with which they are most familiar and they know are 

valuable continued and expanded. And those views are simply— 

they can’t be completely reconciled. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I do want to continue to work with you on 

this. I just have to disagree. I think there are some things that we 

can’t afford not to do. This is something that has made America 

great. By us failing to do basic scientific research, we are failing 

our young people, we are failing our future. And again, there is 

huge discrepancy there when 110 million of increase goes to one 

program and 8 million goes to everything else. Something can be 

done to even that out to make sure that we are not absolutely cutting the legs out from programs that are doing good work that really are the promise for our future, future generations. So I do look 

forward to working with you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Fudge, the gentlelady from Ohio, five 

minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Dr. Holdren, for your testimony today. 

Certainly, I was pleased to see that the funding request for 

ARPA–E represents a $75 million increase from fiscal year 2012. 

For the record, would you please explain the importance of this 
54 

program and why the Administration chose to increase the funding 

by this amount? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, the whole point of ARPA–E is to 

invest in high-risk, potentially high-return research, transformational—potentially transformational research thinking outside the box. This is what the model of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency did with such huge success. We think 

ARPA–E has already shown a terrific track record in picking great 

ideas to support and it is our strong impression that there are 

more great ideas to support that have been supported up until now. 

And so we are trying to ramp the budget up. We didn’t actually get 

as much as we asked for in each of the past years, but hope that 

Congress will agree with us this year on this sum because they are 

doing a great job over there. And the future of America’s energy 

supply, the future of our capacity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, our capacity to provide affordable and reliable energy in 

ways that also respect the environment and reduce the risk from 

climate change, we have got to be doing this outside-the-box thinking and ARPA–E is the place where we are trying to do a lot of 

it. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. 

Second question, Dr. Holdren, during the Science Committee’s 

last hydraulic fracturing hearing, Dr. Goldstein from the University of Pittsburgh and a former Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at EPA explained that there are 

very few public health scientists engaged in research related to hydraulic fracturing, and more generally, the impacts of the current 

gas drilling boom. How will the initiative take public health impacts into effect and could it be helpful to include the National Institutes of Health in this new initiative? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, certainly the new initiative plans to look at 

potential health effects, particularly, of course, from water contamination and how to ensure to minimize those. The Environmental 

Protection Agency, of course, is very much involved and has that 

responsibility. They routinely draw on expertise not only within the 

EPA but outside it, including in the NIH when they need it. And 

I am sure they will be doing so in this case. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. As you may know, NASA’s fiscal year 2013 request for education is $100 million, a $36 million reduction 

from the appropriation for 2012. How can NASA make progress in 

improving the effectiveness of its education programs if the Agency 

is constantly reorganizing and restructuring its activities? 

Dr. HOLDREN. You know, we constantly have a big challenge 

with NASA; it is the same challenge I was describing a moment 

ago, namely, budget caps and too many great and important missions inside that agency to fit within the budget. We all wish, 

again, that we had more for virtually every program in NASA, but 

when we did the comparative evaluation that I mentioned before 

when we looked at STEM education programs all across the government and tried to figure out where the highest gain, highest leverage for additional dollars would be, where we should increase, 

where we should cut, the NASA program lost a bit in that domain. 

And that was partly the result of the comparative assessment 

across the STEM ed program and partly the result of the overall 
55 

pressure in NASA to do everything and to do everything well. 

Those are tough balancing acts. We did the best we could. I think 

it makes sense but I am sure that you in Congress will be having 

another look at it. 

Ms. FUDGE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stay in my five 

minutes. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. And I thank the lady. 

Recognize Mr. Cravaack, the gentleman from Minnesota, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, thank you for coming today. Dr. Holdren, when I 

was researching this, I came across something that was a little bit 

more chilling for me actually. Now, I am a member of Homeland 

Security Committee, as well as a 24-year Navy veteran, spent three 

years in the South China Sea. My experiences working in both 

these capacities has made me acutely aware of the threats that 

China poses to our national security. Thus, I am always concerned 

when I hear about the United States in any capacity collaborating 

with China on research projects, data sets, technology knowhow 

that could be used as dangerous strategic rival and adversary to 

our global influence. 

It is my understanding that your office decided to engage in 

these sorts of collaborations with China by participating in the 

U.S./China strategic and economic dialogue in May of 2010 despite 

knowing full well that there was language signed into law by President Obama prior to your engagement in those U.S./China dialogues that clearly prohibited NASA and OSTP from using federal 

funds to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute 

a bilateral policy program, order, or contract of any kind or participate, collaborate, or coordinate in this fashion. 

It is my further understanding that the GAO investigated this 

issue and on October 11, 2011, issued an opinion that OSTP violated the law under the Anti-deficiency Act, which is a fiscal statute that makes it illegal for federal agencies to spend funds that 

have not been appropriate by Congress. 

Therefore, Dr. Holdren, I have two questions for you, sir. First, 

does OSTP plan to continue to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally with the Chinese this year in the same manner 

that is found by the GAO to be in violation of the law? A simple 

yes or no will do, sir. 

Dr. HOLDREN. To that question a simple yes or no is not practical. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Please explain. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The 2011 appropriations language was deemed by 

the Office of Legal Counsel and the Department of Justice in a formal opinion to be inconsistent in part with the Constitutional prerogatives of the President to conduct foreign diplomacy. And I was 

so advised and I was advised that the opinions of the Department 

of Justice are binding on officials of the Executive Branch, including when GAO has a different opinion. 

The FY 2012 appropriations language is different. Under the FY 

2012 appropriations language, which now applies, we are allowed, 

both in OSTP and NASA, to engage in interactions with China provided that we supply the Congress with 14 days’ notice of our in-
56 

tention to do so and certify that we will not be transferring sensitive information either with respect to security or intellectual 

property in the course of those interactions. So, of course, in any 

interactions with China going forward, of which some are planned, 

the strategic and economic dialogue scheduled for May in Beijing 

and surrounding meetings of the Joint Commission on Science and 

Technology and the U.S./China dialogue on innovation policy, we 

have already notified the appropriate Members of Congress of our 

plans to participate and have certified that we will not either be 

transferring sensitive information or meeting with individuals who 

have been deemed to be directly involved in human rights violations. So we will be in our future activities within the current law. 

In terms of our past activities, the binding legal authorities in the 

Executive Branch were our guide as to what we should and should 

not do. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. With that said, sir, GAO did find that determining the constitutionality of the legislation, the providence is in 

the courts and also said ‘‘in our view, the legislation that was 

passed by Congress and signed by the president therefore satisfies 

the Constitution’s bicameralism presentment requirement that is 

entitled to heavy presumption in favor of the constitutionality of 

the rule.’’ And with that said, let me go—even with the Ranking 

Member saying that emphasis should be for us in the United 

States to succeed in competitive technology, and yet, notwithstanding the obvious, the serious legal implications of your continuation to do so in my opinion, why do you feel it is in the interest 

of the United States of America to share technology that may have 

a proliferation of technology that can be used for military purposes 

and research with the country that directly competes with the 

United States and is intent on stealing information quite emphasized on American technologies and innovations? I don’t understand that, sir. Could you explain it to me? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Sure. First of all, I do not believe in sharing with 

China technology or information that could give them an advantage 

in the security domain or in areas in which we compete with 

China. Our cooperation with China is strategic. It focuses on domains in which it is in our interest for China to improve its capabilities. It is in our interest to avoid nuclear reactor accidents in 

China. It is in our interest to avoid the theft of nuclear materials 

from Chinese facilities. It is in our interest to cooperate with China 

on influenza so that we get more notice of influenza strains that 

develop in that part of the world before they get here. It is in our 

interest to work with China to help them reduce their emissions of 

pollutants that affect our wellbeing. Those are the kinds of focuses 

in which we engage with China in a cooperative way. 

And I should add that the U.S./China Science and Technology 

Cooperation Agreement, under which we operate, was concluded in 

1979 and has been observed and expanded by every Administration 

since, Republican as well as Democratic, precisely because it has 

been recognized on both sides of the aisle that strategically focused 

cooperation with China is in the national interest of the United 

States. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I am out of time for a very long debate and I will 

yield back. 
57 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman for his good questions. 

Ms. Lofgren, we recognize you for five minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Dr. Holdren, for being here and for your good 

work on behalf of our country’s future. I wanted to learn more 

about the proposals in fusion energy and high energy physics generally. We have got the top line reduction, but it is hard to tell 

what that is going to mean on the ground. And I would just like 

to note that I think a better process for putting the budget together 

would be to actually involve the national labs at the very beginning 

in putting together the proposals rather than having them find out 

about the same time we do what the top line number is going to 

be. 

Lawrence Livermore Lab is not in the district I represent so— 

but it is something that has received—the National Ignition Facility has received bipartisan support for decades. We have spent billions of dollars to get the project to where it is today. And on January 26, the announcement was made that with a very high degree 

of confidence, they believed that ignition will be achieved within 

the next 6 to 18 months. I want to make sure that the budget that 

we have here doesn’t upend decades of work and billions of dollars 

that have been supported on a bipartisan basis to get where we are 

today when we are almost to the end of the effort. Can you enlighten us on this? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, let me say, first of all, that the national laboratories are involved in the budget process because of their close 

connections with the Department of Energy. The leadership of the 

laboratories consult with the leadership in the Department of Energy in determining that submission. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let us go back to that later. Could you get specifically to the NIF? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I can’t go specifically to the NIF because I don’t 

have in front of me that level of disaggregation of the budget. I 

have long and affectionate connections with Livermore having been 

on the staff there in the early ’70s. I was a consultant to the Inertial Confinement Fusion Program for about 20 years thereafter, so 

I recognize how important it is, how valuable the information from 

that facility is, but I can’t answer your question at this moment 

about the budget. But I will be happy to get back to you about it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Can you answer—I mean on the top level sheet, 

we have the—I have got to put my glasses on—the .7 and the 1.8 

reduction in fusion energy and high energy physics. Do you have 

any idea what that reduction is going to translate to in terms 

of—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, part of the reduction in fusion is that we are 

not going to be able to increase the U.S. contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor at the rate that was 

programmed in the ITER agreement, and we have already spoken 

with our partner countries about that. So there is some hit on the 

fusion side—the magnetic fusion side there. But I am simply not 

in possession off the top of my head of what the numbers are on 

the National Ignition Facility. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you do this—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will get back to you. 
58 

Ms. LOFGREN. —would you get back to me? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Because I think back on when a former Member 

of Congress, Bill Baker, and some may remember him, I mean this 

has been a rare bipartisan, you know, effort to make this work and 

it would just be a tragedy for the country to step back at the last 

minute when we are almost there. 

I will just shift now to the NASA budget. Given where we are 

in terms of the overall budget, I guess I am one who thinks that 

you have done a reasonably good job in trying to put something together that will work, and I want to compliment you for that. In 

terms of the international effort, you know, I remember being on 

the Committee in the ’90s and the arguments we had on the International Space Station, and I will say in terms of the money and 

the collaboration, it didn’t work out the way it was planned. It became really more of a foreign policy effort for U.S./Russia relations 

than it did for anything else. 

So I guess, you know, on a global level, when I look at what is 

happening in the economy and the EU, I have a high degree of 

skepticism about not just our involvement but ultimately their involvement. And so I think the proposal being made by the Administration is a prudent one and I think the overall NASA budget is 

a pretty solid one. I wanted to compliment you for that. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the lady for yielding back. 

Recognize Mr. Smith, the gentleman from Texas, for five minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, thank you for your service. Thank you for your expertise. 

I would like to first follow up on a couple of questions that you 

have already been asked. The Chairman, Mr. Hall, asked you a few 

minutes ago about the Administration’s commitment to going to 

Mars. You answered affirmatively. I wonder if that commitment 

means that you feel that there will be no more delays in the development of the SLS? As you know, there was a six month delay last 

year. Do you foresee us staying on schedule with the development 

of the SLS? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Smith, I have cloudy crystal ball 

when it comes to predicting whether or not further delays will be 

encountered, particularly in projects as complicated as rocket 

science. I did some rocket science early in my career and I know 

there are many pitfalls. So I cannot guarantee you that there will 

not be further hurdles that have to be overcome, but our expectation is to keep SLS on schedule. We want to have that capability. 

Mr. SMITH. You—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. We share that with the Congress. 

Mr. SMITH. You were not aware of any plans to delay it? Okay, 

thank you. 

To follow up on another question you were asked about fracking 

and no doubt you haven’t seen the report yesterday, but yesterday, 

at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science in Vancouver, there was an important report that was 

released showing that many of the concerns expressed about 
59 

fracking could be addressed, and I just hope you will take some 

time to look at that report and that might help you get beyond sort 

of the cautious approach to fracking in the future. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Look, it is also my view that the concerns can be 

addressed. I want to make sure that we do address them—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —so that we are able—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. —to benefit from that very important resource. 

Mr. SMITH. The report was given by a former head of the Geological Survey, so he has some credibility on the subject. 

Another question is this: the Environmental Protection Agency claims I think 12 or $13 billion in savings from their proposed mercury standards on utilities. Members of Congress have not been 

able to get our hands on the data or analysis that they relied upon 

after many months of effort. Can you get us that information as 

well as let us know who paid for the analysis? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I believe I can and I will certainly look into that 

as soon as I leave this hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And when would you be able to get us that information do you think? Within a week? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, my crystal ball is cloudy but I don’t see any 

reason that we cannot get that information for you, and so I will 

start working on it immediately. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Recognize Mr. Tonko, the gentleman from New York, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. Holdren, as an energy expert, I believe you would agree with 

me that the cheapest energy we are ever likely to get is through 

improvements in efficiency. We have made some progress in that 

area but I believe there is much more that we can do. Would you 

talk about the initiatives in the budget to improve efficiency in production, storage, and use of our energy supplies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Wow, that is a wonderful question. I was one of 

those who was saying actually in the 1970s that increasing energy 

efficiency is the cheapest, safest, fastest, cleanest, surest way to enhance our energy system and our energy prospects. And the renewable and efficiency division in the Department of Energy is proposed for very substantial increases in this budget exactly for that 

reason. If you look at the focuses of the energy hubs, which are one 

of the centerpieces of Secretary Chu’s innovation strategy in energy, there is a hub on improving battery and energy storage technology; there is a hub on building energy efficiency; and the sixth 

hub, which is now being proposed, is a hub focusing on the grid 

and the efficiencies that can be derived there. So we have a big emphasis on increasing efficiency precisely because of the leverage 

that you point to in that domain. It passes our test of where additional dollars do the most good. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. The President has also focused on 

strengthening our manufacturing sector, and by strengthening it, I 

believe we need to address again the sort of innovation and effi-
60 

ciency that is possible within manufacturing. There are those who 

believe in that investment; others would suggest that we are picking winners and losers and it becomes interventionist in design and 

unacceptable. Can you address areas where government sponsorship in your opinion of research could fill gaps that the private sector alone cannot? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman, I would answer that in two 

ways. First of all, we know that the private sector tends to underinvest in basic research for the very simple reason that the results 

are unpredictable, the rate of return cannot realistically be estimated, and many of the benefits are not appropriable by the investor. That is, the results of basic research propagate in ways that 

many different people benefit rather than just the folks who paid 

the bills. For that reason, it has always been the case that the government has had to be a leader in investment in basic research, 

and yet the flow of discovery that comes from basic research feeds 

the innovation that produces the next generation of products, process improvements, new techniques for manufacturing that ultimately benefit the economy. 

The second thing I would say is as opposed to picking winners, 

what the government is doing in the way of encouraging innovation 

beyond its strong investments in basic research, which is its historic responsibility in this domain, are cross-cutting systematic 

ways to encourage innovation in the private sector. So again we 

talk about simplifying and making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit. We talk about unlocking access to capital, 

including a $2 billion fund being proposed to match private funds 

investing in underserved markets and early-stage companies. In 

the Startup America Initiative we have a program for connecting 

mentors to entrepreneurs. So we take successful entrepreneurs who 

mentor emerging ones on what it takes to succeed to improve the 

success rate in entrepreneurship. 

We have been building up a variety of ways, as I mentioned before, to connect our research universities and their laboratories and 

the national laboratories to the private sector in a manner that will 

accelerate the flow of discovery into practical innovations in the 

private sector without respect to picking particular products or potential products or particular processes but strengthening the innovation ecosystem that produces these flows. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

Illinois, Ms. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

being here, Dr. Holdren. 

In your testimony you referred to the DOE Office of Science as 

a jewel-in-the-crown agency that is especially important to this Nation’s continued economic leadership. And you also note that the 

President remains committed to doubling the budget of key basic 

research programs at the Office of Science along with NIST and 

NSF. However, the budget request for the Office of Science is proposed to increase by only 2.4 percent. At that rate, it would take 

about 30 years to double the budget and that doesn’t even account 

for inflation and what would occur during that time. 
61 

And meanwhile, we have got some unproven maybe green energy 

programs within DOE such as EERE and ARPA–E, proposed to increase by 29 percent and 27 percent respectively. Why is the funding for the Office of Science such a low priority relative to other 

DOE programs? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, we are committed, we remain 

committed to keeping the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and the 

NIST laboratories on a rising trajectory. Clearly, the budget constraints under which we now operate have made the goal of doubling more difficult, and unfortunately, your arithmetic is correct. 

At that growth rate in the Office of Science it would take a long 

time for it to double. And we have made tough choices across NSF, 

DOE Office of Science, and NIST laboratories trying to look for the 

most promising opportunities to increase things. 

When you mention the unproven technologies in DOE that are 

getting attention, of course, it is precisely the unproven technologies that require government attention. The proven technologies will be pursued successfully by the private sector. And we 

think there is a large societal interest in getting some of the 

unproven technologies into the proven category because they will 

bring big benefits in reduced oil dependence, reduced import dependence, improved environmental characteristics, and so on. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What does worry me is that we have had, you 

know, the green energy—we could call it boondoggles I guess such 

as Solyndra, and that might signal that the DOE should make the 

well managed world class basic research at DOE a higher priority. 

But my next question is about a different subject and that is 

the—our Nation’s communication system is repeatedly threatened 

by cyber attacks making the protection of critical infrastructure a 

national priority. How does the Administration propose to use our 

supercomputing resources to spur new research that keeps us 

ahead of ever-innovating attackers? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would love to be able to answer that question, 

but of course a lot of what we are doing in that domain is understandably classified. But you can be sure that cybersecurity is a 

very high priority for this Administration. We understand the 

threat. We have a cybersecurity strategy. We are employing all 

manner of scientific and technical resources to try to stay on top 

of this threat, which is real and is large. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Can you say anything about how the research can 

be connected to industries and agencies that need to protect their 

systems? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely I can. Within the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology, which is set up to provide the 

Administration reach into the private sector, the academic sector, 

the philanthropic sector, we have the former CEO of Google, the 

Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft, and so on and so forth as 

members of PCAST. We have a PCAST working group on 

cybersecurity that is focused on exactly this question, but we also 

have within the government a variety of committees—the National 

Science and Technology Advisory Committee, NSTAC, which is 

composed of the leaders of the information industry—who come together in Washington and advise the Administration, Department 

of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, Central Intel-
62 

ligence, the White House on how we can coordinate our efforts in 

cybersecurity. So this is a big focus. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for five minutes. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much as well. 

And Dr. Holdren, thank you so much for being here with us. We 

appreciate the commitment to research and development and innovation as keys to America’s economic success. 

And Mr. Holdren, I want to jump right into the area that—I appreciate the questions that have come from our colleagues, the attention to the national labs from both sides of the aisle with Mrs. 

Biggert, Ms. Lofgren, as well as Mr. McNerney, and the explanation to Mr. Tonko with the innovation ecosystem. I think inherently therein lies the answers to many of America’s economic woes 

when we talk about innovation as well as economic strength are 

America’s national labs. Coming from a state that has both Sandia 

and Los Alamos National Laboratory, we understand the importance of that science and the research that takes place there. 

We would ask Mr. Holdren—or Dr. Holdren, now that you have 

had the ear of the President—and with Dr. Chu—that when we are 

talking about the Entrepreneurial Leave programs that many of 

our scientists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians, and experts 

at our national labs can engage in as well addressing the conflict 

of interest inherently associated with making them more available 

to small businesses, entrepreneurs out there—that we address that 

and look closely at that to see what can be done because there is 

good work that is being done and it looks good on paper, but all 

indications is there is dramatic room for improvement. And I really 

believe that once we unleash the power inherently therein from our 

national labs, we can solve those economic problems and not just 

stop there. There is promise across the country with physicists, scientists, and engineers at many of our national labs working with 

teachers and students and improving our educational system across 

America. 

And just in the way we would talk about an Entrepreneurial 

Leave program, I think we can talk about an educational leave program associated with many of those bright minds that we have 

within our national labs to help solve those problems. And I would 

suggest that it is part of our national security to be able to address 

many of these issues. 

Specifically, Dr. Holdren, a few months ago the President issued 

an executive memorandum urging the federal agency heads to step 

up their technology transfer activities. Could you please address 

the progress being made in this area and if any of this is reflected 

in the 2013 budget? And also the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a technology commercialization fund was created within the Department 

of Energy to promote promising energy technologies for commercial 

purposes, and I would like for you to share a little bit about that 

as well. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay. Big questions for a short time period. But 

let me say, first of all, I agree with everything you said about the 

importance of the national labs and the fact that there is more we 
63 

could still do to facilitate making those intellectual resources more 

widely available. The President’s Educate to Innovate Program, 

which he announced originally in November of 2009, has as one of 

its major features bringing practicing scientists, engineers, and 

mathematicians from national labs, research universities, and 

firms into classrooms, middle school, high school classrooms to 

work with science and math teachers to provide more hands-on activities and experiences that get kids excited about science and engineering and to serve as role models. I have already mentioned 

the innovation hubs that again are aimed at making sure the expertise in the national laboratories get applied in the private sector 

and in the marketplace. 

You mentioned the executive order on accelerating technology 

transfer activities and asked for a progress report. As far as I 

know, it is too soon to have any quantitative measures of how well 

that is working, but I will try to get back to you on it, see if we 

have anything on that already. But my guess is it is a little soon 

to judge the degree of success these programs are having. But I can 

certainly assure you that both in my office and in the West Wing 

of the White House there is a tremendous amount of interest in 

getting this right. The Jobs Council, which has met regularly with 

the President, is focused on this. OSTP is focused on it. I think the 

room for improvement is going to be exploited and we are going to 

improve. 

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you for that, Dr. Holdren. And the only thing 

I would add, in addition to thanking you and the team that is with 

you today as well as those that are probably tuning in, is as we 

talk about the contracts with the national labs, as those are coming 

up, that to the extent possible that we tie job creation as well as 

the technology commercialization, maturation, and transfer aspects 

associated inherently with those contracts so that way we can encourage that behavior as much as we possibly can. 

And I appreciate your attention to this in support of the national 

labs as well, sir. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. And I thank you for yielding. 

Now, the very patient Mr. Sarbanes is recognized for a quick five 

minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Thank you for your testimony today. There is a program under 

NIST called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which I 

know you are familiar with and it is a resource to manufacturers 

across the country to help sort of boost their opportunities and organize those opportunities, et cetera. And there is an initiative 

within the MEP program called the Supplier Scouting Program, 

which is—I don’t think it occupies a major line item in the budget, 

but it is a recent initiative that attempts to match small- and medium-size American manufacturers with these various supply chain 

needs that arise as a result of major infrastructure projects across 

the country. So it is a terrific idea and innovation because what it 

is doing is it is really helping make that connection so that when 

you have a major infrastructure project, you can get bidders and 
64 

vendors coming forward who are American manufacturers and they 

can get into that supply chain. 

And I really just wanted to commend NIST for this and the innovation that the MEP program has managed to put forward here 

with the Supplier Scouting Program. There has been a lot of 

progress with this with—the Department of Transportation, has 

taken a lot of initiative, the Department of Energy, the Defense Department, and I think it is a terrific model going forward for how 

you make these connections and just hope that, you know, the 

President will continue and you will continue to support that kind 

of initiative, particularly now as we are recognizing the real opportunities to boost American manufacturing going forward. This is 

something that we can take full advantage of and I just hope that 

that will continue to be a point of emphasis with you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, it is going to be a continuing point of emphasis. It gives me an opportunity to say that NIST is an amazingly 

agile and effective organization. Its head, Dr. Pat Gallagher, is one 

of my closest colleagues and collaborators in this domain of innovation in figuring out how to lift our game in promoting manufacturing and particularly high-tech advanced manufacturing in this 

country. The Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, which has been 

headed by Andrew Liveris of Dow; and Susan Hockfield, the President of MIT has been part of that linking industry, academia, and 

the government in some of these initiatives. And so I thank you for 

that comment. This is a high priority for us and we are going to 

keep pursuing it. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. Let me ask you another question. 

There is something called the National Science and Technology 

Council Committee on STEM Education, which recently, as you 

know, submitted its first annual report and apparently identified 

about 252 federally funded STEM activities across the government 

that are currently underway and noted that in many instances 

they have different objectives, they are focused on different products, they have different target audiences, et cetera, and recommended that there be a more efficient approach to this looking 

for better coherence among these multiple programs. And I wanted 

to get your comment on that. I think you were involved in some 

of those findings and I am also curious as to whether you think the 

efficiency we like to see there in terms of the way these programs 

work together and these initiatives work together is something we 

can rely on the agencies to undertake themselves or whether they 

could use a push from the President and his office to make that 

happen. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you. Yes, the National Science and 

Technology Council is a body that was created in order to make 

sure that all science- and technology-related activities across departmental and agency boundaries are appropriately coordinated. 

And I chair it on behalf of the President and all the agencies that 

have science and technology and STEM education missions are represented there. 

And so it has five standing committees under the Council, and 

one of those is the STEM Education Committee that is chaired by 

Dr. Carl Wieman, the physics Nobel Prize winner who is my Associate Director for Science in OSTP. And as you point out, they did 
65 

do a survey which established that there are well over 200 programs in STEM education spread across the agencies, but the idea 

was not that these all need to be consolidated. The idea was to determine to what extent there is overlap and duplication in their activities and their missions and to try to determine which ones are 

more effective and which ones are less effective. 

But we recognize and the NSTC STEM Education Committee 

recognizes that a lot of the diversity in those programs is fully warranted. These agencies and their programs have different focuses, 

different missions, different constituencies, different sets of kids 

and different levels of education on which they are focused. And 

our intention in following up those recommendations—and I mentioned there is going to be a strategic plan forthcoming shortly— 

is not to pretend that one size fits all in STEM education and 

scrunch these things altogether, but rather to coordinate and orchestrate the appropriate diversity of these programs in a way so 

that to the extent that there is duplication and to the extent that 

there are important missions that are left out altogether, we fix 

that. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. 

And Dr. Holdren, I thank you and we all thank you for your very 

valuable testimony and for the time you have given us. And I 

thank the Members for their questions. 

I might ask that the Members of the Committee have additional 

questions to you, Dr. Holdren, that they will submit to you, ask 

that you respond to them in writing when you can, as soon as you 

can. The record will remain open for at least two weeks for additional comments from Members. 

And with that, Dr. Holdren, you are excused and the hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

Appendix 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable John P. Holdren, 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 
69 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

Answer: 

Substantial reductions in OSTP appropriations for FY 2012 necessitated the 

movement of administrative support costs for peAST to thc Department of 

Energy's Office of Science, one of the Federal agencies that benefit from peAST 

recommendations and that has well-developed administrative practices for Federal 

advisory committees. Annual costs for peAST are approximately 8200K for 

personnel, 8300K for travel, and 8300K for administrative support, venue rental, 

audio/visuals, webcasting, and other logistics. Thc OSTP Director remains the coehair of the eouncil and OSTP remains responsible for setting priorities, providing 

policy oversight, and delivering peAST recommendations to the President. 

3. A recently released Congrcssional Rcsearch Service (CRS) report entitled "The 

President's Oftice ofSeience and Technology Policy (OSTP): Issues for Congress" states 

that of OSTP's current staff of 92 employees, 65 are supported as either detailces (49), 

fellows (6), Intergovernmental Personnel Agreements (l PAs, 9), or consultants (I). Please 

provide a summary of the funding sources associated with these 65 employees, including 

the entities that provide SUppOli (i.e. agencies and sub-agencies as appropriate) and the 

aggregate costs (by agency/sub-agency or entity) of those supported. 

Answer: 

In accordancc with our organic statutc, OSTP greatly relics on the scientific and 

technical expertise of experts from aeross the Exeeutive Braneh, the National 

Laboratories, and other organizations as appropriate. High-level expertise is 

required to addrcss the Nation's most diffieult ehallenges in areas such as scienee, 

technology, engineering, and math ("STEM") education, advanced manufacturing, 

human health, energy, spaee exploration, nuelear physics, national security, and 

many other areas. These arrangements provide the flexibility needed to address 

both on-going and emerging tcchnical and scicntific challenges while ensuring that 

OSTP retains only the most qualified experts. 

Federal detailees 

Agency 

Army 

CIA 

DARPA 

DOe 

DOE 

DOJ 

EPA 

FAA 

Fee 

NASA 

# of detailees 

3 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

2 

t 

1 

3 

Approximate annual eost* 

$400K 

130K 

150K 

150K 

1200K 

1l0K 

280K 

t80K 

150K 

450K 

2 
70 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

Navy 1 130K 

NIH 1 130K 

NIST 3 450K 

NOAA .. 600K 

NSF 10 1500K 

NTiA 2 300K 

State 2 250K 

USCG 1 150K 

USGS 2 300K 

VA I50K 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreements 

Organization (1 each) Approximate eost* 

George Mason University 

Carnegie Mellon University 

New York Law School 

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 

Morgridge Research Foundation 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Sandia National Laboratory 

140K 

2JOK 

120K 

220K 

130K 

230K 

130K 

180K 

212K 

American Association for the Advancement of Science (3) 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers Foundation 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus 

New York Law School 

280K 

60K 

30K 

80K 

OSTP's single consultant is a full-time employee paid directly by OSTP. The 

annual cost - salary plus benefits -- is approximately $180K. 

* - All costs are estimated and inelude benefits where relevant. 

4. What is the status of scientijic integrity policies at govenU11ent agencies and 

departments? (Agencies were supposed to submit these policies to OSTP by December 

17,2011). Have all agencies complied? Please identify those that have not and the 

reasons for non-compliance. 

Answer: 

All departments and agencies with science or engineering as a core component of 

their missions are in compliance with the scientific integrity directives that I have 

3 
71 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

posted to date. These include an initial directive, posted on December 17,2010, 

asking that such departments and agencies provide, within 120 days after that date, 

reports describing their progress toward the development of individualizcd 

scicntific integrity policies that meet the minimum standards described in my 

December 2010 Memorandum, as well as subsequent deadlines set by me to ensure 

continuing progress towards that goal of promulgating final policies. At this time, 

all 22 departments and agencies-covering the complete spectrum of science- and 

engineering-centric Federal entities-have either eompleted their final policies or 

have completed penultimate drafts that are in final review. Policies that havc been 

made public (either in final form or in draft form for public review) can be seen at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/librarv/scientificintegritv. 

5. As recognized by the DOE and industry. a critical factor in the availability ofrare earth 

elements is recycling and reuse. What are OS1P's budgetary initiatives to advance 

research and development of recycling and reuse technologies? 

Answer: 

The OSTP-convened interagency process has established three core objectives: (1) 

diversify the supply of critical minerals; (2) mitigate long-term risks associated with 

a dependence on critical materials with consideration for the full supply chain; and 

(3) inform government and industry decision making. Recycling, reusc, and more 

efficient use could significantly lower worldwide demand for newly extracted 

materials and is an important part of a long-tcrm risk-mitigation stratcgy. Research 

into recycling processes coupled with well-designed policies could help make 

recycling economically attractive. DOE is pursuing R&D that addresses materials 

separation and processing and reducing matcrial intensity, and developing 

substitute materials and approaches in energy technologies. In the FY2012 

appropriations, DOE received $20 million for an Energy Innovation Hub on Critical 

Materials. The President's FY2013 budget request sustains funding for this Hub. 

Both the DOE and EPA have announced Small Business Innovation Research 

(SBlR) grants that address processing of critical materials. DOE also has an R&D 

program aimed at early-stage technology alternatives that reduce or eliminate the 

dependence on rare earth materials. 

6. What is OS1P's role in promoting a private/public collaboration in the development of 

technical standards. guides and best practices for recycling technologies on rare earth 

minerals? 

Answer: 

In coordination with the OSTP-Ied interagency process, EPA and its stakeholders 

are exploring how standards might encourage recycling of rare earth materials at 

the end of some products' lives, and use of these recycled materials in new products. 

4 
72 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4/19/12 

The standard they are cxploring is under the IEEE 1680.1 standard for the 

Environmental Assessment of Personal Computcr Products, which is about to be 

updated. Products meeting this standard arc called EPEAT registered, and the 

Federal government is required to buy EPEAT-registered products by Executive 

Order 13514 and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). 

7. According to the White House's Transatlantic Economic Council Joint Statement of 

November 29.2011, "the United States and the EU will collaborate to advance the 

work ofthe OECD Working Party on Resource Productivity and Waste, particularly 

its work on sustainable minerals management (SMM)". What role is OSTP playing in 

this OECD eff0l1 to promote and increase materials recovery. resource ctlicicncy and 

greater realization of resource productivity? How is U.S. industry being engaged in 

this effort? 

Answer: 

OSTP has been an active participant in the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) 

discussions and will continue to engage in multilateral discussions with our 

international partners on this and other topics related to raw materials. 

To advance our understanding, U.S. industry has been aetivcly engaged in the 

OSTP-Ied interagency process through the activities ofthe Department of Energy 

(DOE), the Department of Commerce (DOC), and the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR). For example, OSTP has created several working groups as 

part of the broader interagency cffort. One working group is tasked with identifying 

critical resources that could contributc to future national economic prosperity and 

strategic security. That group, led by DOC, hosted an industry roundtable on 

March 23. 

8. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is used to make many food-contact and medical products that are 

regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Given the FDA's current "in-depth 

studies to answer key questions and clarifY uncertainties about the risks ofBPA:' what is 

the purpose and the federal government's interest in studies being funded by the National 

Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)? Is there redundancy and overlap 

that might exist with NIEHS funding? 

Answer: 

The FDA and the National Institutes of Health's NIEHS collaborate, along with the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), also a unit ofthe Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), on the National Toxicology Program (NTP). 

The NTP reports to the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health. Its mission is "to 

evaluate agents of public health concern by developing and applying tools of 

5 
73 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

modern toxicology and molecular biology," as expressed in its mission statement. 

To fulfill its mission, NTP coordinates the research efforts of FDA, CDC, and 

NlEHS on topics including Bisphenol-A (HP A) and has the power to conduct 

independent scientific peer review of studies. The NTP, assisted by its three external 

advisory groups (one of which includes representatives from Federal departments 

and agencies outside lUIS), is a well-functioning effort to coordinate Federal 

toxicology programs and to minimize overlap in Federal research. FDA, of course, is 

a regulatory agency with strong applied research capabilities, especially in FDA 

laboratories. NIEHS, part of NIH, has longstanding strengths in engaging with the 

academic research community on basic and applied research on the environmental 

health sciences and has a strong basic intramural research capability. Together, 

these complementary research efforts inform the Federal government's response to 

the potential human health impaets of ehemical agents. 

9. According to NIEHS in 2009, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that 

a significant portion of the BPA literature available was not able to be fully 

considered in NTP's scientific evaluation of BPA due to a variety of experimental 

limitations. Many of the studies that were of little value for NTP' s evaluation had 

been funded by NIEHS grants awarded before 2009. What steps has NIEHS taken to 

ensure that current and future research that uses federal funds will be useful to federal 

agencies such as NTP and FDA? 

What is the status of these various research projects funded through NIEHS? 

What impact do you see this research having on consumer safety and public 

policy moving forward? 

Answer: 

I would refer you to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIH's NIEHS for 

any questions that you may have regarding specific NIEHS research grants and the 

use ofNIEHS-supported research within HHS' National Toxicology J>rogram. 

10. For each of the Fiscal Years 2009-2013, please provide actual, estimated and 

requested funding as appropriate for each USGCRP centrally-funded entity/activity. as 

well as the amounts assessed each department/agency participating in the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP) using the following table as a template. 

Answer: (inserted into the template, in current dollars) 

6 
74 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4/19112 

VSGCRP FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 

Centrally-Funded Enacted Enacted Enacted Enacted Bndget 

Entity/Activity (Approved) (Approved) (Approved) (Approved) (Approved) 

VSGCRP 2,107,996 2,017,295 2,130,329 3,595,108 3,559,530 

(NCO) 

National Research 800,000 360,000 365,000 500,000 400,000 

Council 

International 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 

Programs 

IGBP 450,000 450,000 450,000 483,000 483,000 

lHDP 120,000 120,000 120,000 63,000 63,000 

WCRP 118,000 118,000 118,000 159,000 159,000 

DlVERSITAS 100,000 143,000 144,000 84,000 84,000 

ESSP 43,000 0 0 0 0 

START 569,000 569,000 569,000 611,000 611,000 

Other? (Please 0 0 0 0 0 

specify) 

IPCC 482,106 1,646,221 2,139,779 1,995,642 2,475,289 

!pee WGII TSU 268,091 1,317,953 1,526,548 1,528,443 1.594,786 

Travel for US 214,015 328,268 613,231 467,199 880,503 

Scientists 

Etc. 

Othu:NSF 175,898 216,000 243,627 420,494 431,000 

Administrative Costs 

Total, USGCRl' 4,966,000 5,639,516 6,278,735 7,911,244 8,265,819 

USGCRP Participatin" Department/Agency Assessments 

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 

DOe 731.600 913,700 1,309,800 1,650,000 1,22/.900 

DOD 0 0 0 0 0 

r&9E 393.700 439,700 I, ... 596300 Z51JOO 808,20.0 

001 80,600 ········]j6joo 159,700 20L200 226,000 

DOS 0 0 0 0 0 

DOT 3,100 3,400 7,100 9,000 3,800 

EPA 49,600 68,700 63,900 80,500 72,800 

HilS 15S,OOO 161,400 14,200 17,900 J5,300 

NASA 2,675,200 2,940.200 3,066,700 3,863,900 4,186,500 

NSF 635.500 704,100 780,900 983,900 1.275,500 

SI 18,600 20,600 21.300 26,800 30,600 

USAID 43,400 48,100 60.300 76,000 107,300 

USDA 179,800 223.300 198,800 250,500 317,900 

Total, Assessments 4,966,100 5,640,000 6,279,000 7,911,000 8,265,800 (ronnded) 

7 
75 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

11. Please provide the funding for the U.S. Govemment contribution to the IPCC Trust 

Fund for eaeh ofFY 2009-FY 2012, and the estimate for FY 2013. 

Answer: 

Department of State's contributions the IPCC Trust Fund 

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 

Core Budoet 1,500.000 1.982,425 2.332.845 

GCOS (*) 200.000 350,000 350.000 

Subtotal 1,700,000 2,332,425 2,682,845 

(*)The Department of State's contributions to Global Climate Observing System 

(GCOS), a separate organization that is also a sub-body of the World 

Meteorological Organization, have been made through fPCC for the sake of 

efficiency but are not part of State Department's contribution to the IPCC's core 

budget. 

FY12: The Department of State has not determined its final alloeation for 

II'CC/GCOS out ofthe $10 million FYt2 appropriation for UNFCCC, IPCC, and 

related bodies, but expectation is that the FY12 allocation will closcly approximate 

the amounts shown for FYI 1. 

FY13: The division offunding for IPCC/GCOS and other agencies within the FY13 

budget request for UNFCCC, IPCC and related bodies has not yet been determined. 

8 
76 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4/19112 

Questions for the Reeord 

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

An Ol'erViel1' of the Administration's Federal Research and Development Budget 

/iJr Fiscal Year 2013 

Friday, February 17,2012 

9:30 a,m, 

QUESTIONS FOR DR, HOLDREN: 

President Obama and some Congressional Democrats have lately been focusing energy 

policy on mandating a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). However, the 

Manhattan Institute recently released a report on RPS that found that seven states with 

such a mandate saw their electricity rates increase by 54.2 percent between 2001 and 

2010, which was more than double the increase in other coal-dependent states without an 

RPS, It goes on to say, "Put another way, the higher cost of electricity is essentially a de 

facto carbon-reduction tax, one that is putting a strain on a struggling economy and is 

falling most heavily, in the way that regressive taxes do, on the least well-off among 

residential users." 

1. Do you agree that a federal RPS would increase the cost of electricity for Americans 

and have the most burdensome effects on the poorest among us? Do you believe that we 

should be pursuing policies that will result in Americans paying more for energy while 

families are simultaneously doing everything they can to tighten their belts under already 

diffieult economic circumstances? 

The President has not "focused energy policy on mandating a federal Renewable 

Portfolio Standard (RPS)." Instead, the President has proposed a Clean Energy 

Standard (CES) to keep our energy supply c1can, affordable, and secure. A CES is a 

flexible, market-based approach with annual targets for electricity from diverse, 

domestic sources, including renewable energy as well as nuclear power, efficient 

natural gas, and clean coal. The policy would enable businesses and entrepreneurs 

to determine the best way to achieve the targets, ensuring that clean energy is 

produced wherever it makes the most economic sense. By establishing a market for 

domestic clean energy technologies, this policy would move billions of dollars of 

capital off of the sidelines and into investments that drive innovation and create 

jobs. The Administration is confident that a well-designed CES would promote 

innovation and investment in the clean energy economy while ensuring that all 

consumers throughout the country, regardless of income, continue to enjoy access to 

affordable, reliable electricity. 

With respect to a renewable portfolio standard, the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) has, over the past few years, analyzed several legislative 

9 
77 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4/19/12 

proposals for such policics. Through thcse analyses, EIA has found that numerous 

policy details can significantly influence the impact ofthe policy on key indicators 

such as the price of electricity, generation mix, cost to consumers, cost to industry, 

and even achievement of the targeted generation share. These key parameters 

include the existence and level of any limits on the price of renewable energy credits; 

exemptions for certain classes of utilities or exclusion of certain generation from 

requircments ofthe program; the ability to "bank" early compliancc crcdits; and 

the existence of "credit multipliers," "set-aside" targets, and tiered compliance 

systems that incentivize spccific technologies within the suite of eligible technologies. 

Because of the importance of policy design, it is impossible to characterize the 

impacts of a federal RPS policy in the abstract. 

The cited Manhattan Institute study shows results that are significantly at odds with 

prior studies on price impacts of State RPS policies. This study suffers from 

numerous methodological weaknesses, including but not limited to a failure to 

properly account for factors other than RPS policy that may affect differences in 

electricity prices among States and over time. In addition, it appears to attribute to 

RPS policy changes in pricc that occurred in certain states prior to the existence of 

any RPS policy andlor any significant RPS targets; failing to identify any plausible 

mechanism by which an RPS policy could affect prices prior to its introduction into 

law or prior to any significant generation requirements above baseline renewable 

generation levels. 

2. The President's budget proposes increasing the tax credit for purchasing electric 

vehicles to $10,000 from $7,500. Seeing as though the subsidy clearly did not succeed 

this past year - sales of the Chevrolet Volt were 33 percent below the target would it he 

wiser stewardship of taxpayer dollars to end this failed subsidy altogether? Do you 

believe that these subsidies (which only target wealthier Americans who can afford 

$40,000 Volts and $57.000 Teslas) send distorted market signals and create disincentives 

for the manufacturers to innovate and make their products viable on the marketplace? 

Answer: 

The President's FY 2013 Budget proposes to improve the current tax credit for 

electric vehicles by expanding cligibility for the credit to a broader range of 

advanced vehicle technologies, as well as by increasing the amount from $7,500, 

making it scalable up to $10,000; reforming the credit to make it available to 

consumers at the point-of-sale; and ramping down and eventually eliminating the 

credit at the end of the decade. Making the credit available to a wider range of 

technologies and allowing for a scalable credit up to a maximum of $10,000 will help 

increase production of advanced vehicles that diversify our fuel use and bring down 

the cost of producing such vehicles, supporting the goal of rcducing dependence on 

oil and leading to a reduction in oil consumption. Advanced vehicles offer the 

opportunity to transform America's transportation sector to reduce our depcndence 

on oil, to help protect consumers from high gas prices, and to promote U.S. 

leadership in manufacturing efficicnt vehicles. Electric vehicles can offer consumers 

10 
78 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

significant advantages over gasoline-powered vehicles, including savings on fuel 

costs and added convenience. American automakers and automotive suppliers are 

currently pioneering the way forward in getting the first wave of electric vehicles 

into the hands of a significant number of U.S. drivers. At the same time, we 

recognize that the prices of these cars are still out of reach for the majority of 

American families. To address this challenge, the Administration has proposed a set 

of new initiatives to support advanced vehicles, including: improving the tax credit 

for advanced vehicles; accclerating the deployment of alternative-fuel commercial 

trucks through a new tax incentivc; launching the National Community Deployment 

Challenge for communitics to encourage advanced vchicle adoption; and 

announcing the EV Everywhcre clean energy grand challenge. EV Everywhcre is a 

DOE initiative that aims to make electric vehicles affordable to the avcrage 

American family within a decade by targeting dramatic technological and cost 

improvements in batteries, electric motors, power elcctronics, light-weight 

structures, and battery-charging technoI06'Y. 

II 
79 

OSTP rcsponses House SST QFRs 4119112 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Mo Brooks 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research and Development Budget 

jeJl' Fiscal rear 2013 

Friday, February 17,2012 

9:30 a.m. 

QUESTIONS FOR DR. HOLDREN: 

1. In your testimony, you acknowledge that the Presidcnt's 2013 Budget Request expands 

NSF's efforts in clean-energy research, advanced manufacturing, wireless 

communications, cyber infrastructurc, and other emerging technologies. NSF proposes to 

increase research funding to promote discoveries that can spark innovations for 

tomorrow's clean-cnergy technologies with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability 

science. The Science, Enginecring, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) portfolio will 

increase to $203 million in the 20]3 budget request for integrated activities involving 

renewable energy technologies, green chemistry, and complex environmcntal and climate 

processes. 

I am sure you are aware that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) awarded the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency (EERE) $ 1 6.8 

billion for its programs and initiatives, approximately ten times the FY 2008 annual 

budget for EERE. In the context of such large increases, how can this Administration 

justify a budget increase for such programs at NSF? Which of these activities is being 

duplicated at other agencies, such as the Department of Energy? 

Answer: 

NSF's efforts in clean-energy researeh and other important priorities are clearly 

distinct from DOE EERE activities. NSF is the only federal agency with a mandate 

to support research and education in every discipline. NSF is also the primary 

source of support for academic research for most non-biomedical disciplines. NSF 

puts the greatest share of its resources into the Nation's colleges and universities. 

Universities are the largest performers of basic research in the United States, 

conducting over SO percent of all basic research. For these reasons, the 2013 Budget 

request for NSF is $7.4 billion, an increase of 4.8 percent above the 2012 funding 

level. 

Other Federal agencies support research toward these priorities of clean energy, 

advanced manufacturing, etc., but in complementary ways that are designed not to 

be duplicative. DOE's applied research and development in clean energy, for 

12 
80 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4i19112 

example, focuses on developing cutting-edge technologies with real-world 

applications. They do so primarily by harnessing the innovative capabilities of DOE 

national labs and industry, in contrast to NSF's primary focus on colleges and 

universities. 

13 
81 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

Questions tor the Record 

The Honorable Randy Hultgren 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

An Overview of the Administration's Federal Research and Development Budxet 

for Fiscal Year 20I3 

Friday, February 17,2012 

9:30 a.m. 

QUESTIONS FOR DR. HOLDREN: 

Dr. Holdren, as a constituent physicist of mine recently reminded me: Science comes in 

two forms: "Edisonian Science", the applications of scientific principles to build stuft~ 

and "Einsteinian Science", the etTortto discover the basic principles themselves. 

Our system of free enterprise does a very good job at Edisonian science: Apple, General 

Electric, Intel and IBM are all examples of that. And since the Second World War, the 

United States has been a global leader in the puhlic investment in "Einsteinian" science. 

I am deeply troubled by the President's Budget Request (PBR) as it seems to be quite a 

pronounced departure from this half:'century legacy of American leadership in 

fundamental research. Especially when High Energy Physics has made major 

concessions, particularly, e10sing down Tevatron. I have a few questions that are new and 

a few that were asked at the hearing that I would like for you to answer more 

comprehensively: 

1. Basic Energy Sciences received a $110 million increase out of the $118 million within 

the Office of Science. Do you think this is an equitable distribution, particularly when 

Fermilab is cut by 8 percent in the PBR in the midst of an important transition to define a 

new vital U.S. role in particle physics. Tryou think this equitable, what are your plans for 

Fermilab? 

Answer: 

I appreciate your concern for the state of fundamental rcsearch in the United States. 

As I said at the hearing, the concept of equity is a difficult onc to apply in making 

tough choices among competing scientific priorities. In this very demanding fiscal 

environment, the Administration tried to make judgments about where the greatest 

value at the margin was for an additional dollar that could be added to support 

research. 

I believe strongly that the 2013 Budget sustains the legacy of American leadership in 

fundamental research. As I noted in my testimony, within a budget proposal that 

holds discretionary spending flat for the second year in a row as agreed to by 

14 
82 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

Congress and the President last year in the Budget Control Act, the Administration 

has prioritized continuing increascs in Fcderal support for research. The Federal 

research portfolio totals $64.0 billion in the 2013 Budget, up $2.0 billion or 3.3 

percent compared to the 2012 enacted level. The 2013 Budget also maintains the 

President's commitment to three key science agencies, one of which is the 

Department of Energy's Office of Science. Within difficult funding constraints, 

DOE's Office of Science would receive a 2.4 percent increase to $5.0 billion in the 

2013 Budget proposal. 

As I said at the hearing, the United States has derived and continues to derive 

tremendous benefit out of Fermilab, supported by DOE's Office of Science. We have 

gotten tremendous benefit out of Fermilab's Tevatron, but there are now other 

Energy Frontier facilities where the U.S. conducts research that are more at the 

cutting edge and are yielding more cutting-edge results than we could have gotten 

from the Tevatron. Fermilab scientists are active participants in these projects, 

including the A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS (ATLAS) and Compact Muon Solenoid 

(CMS) detectors experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LlIC). While 

supporting participation in these exciting new research avenues, the 2013 Budget 

continues to support the aualysis of Tevatron data to ensure we fully exploit our 

investment. This analysis has already produced exciting results. During FY 2013, 

the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) beam line at Fermilab will be upgraded 

from approximately 400 to 700 kW. DOE expects the NOvA project will be in full 

operation in 2014 to cnable key measurements of neutrino properties. 

2. The Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) has been extensively reviewed. 

including by the National Academy and has been part orthe plans for the field for the last 

four years. The President's budget Request severely cuts LBNE and docs not even 

provide the funds to sustain the ongoing operations at Homestake. What are the 

Administration's intentions with regards to LBNE. and how is this momentum-killing 

approach an effective use of taxpayer funding or helping to drive U.S. scientific 

leadership? As a reminder, the PBR support for the design of LBNE has been more than 

halvcd from FY 2012 and thc Homcstake mine is already operating a bare bones 

efficiency, and the PBR cuts it further by 33 percent to levels insufficient to maintain 

minimum operations. 

Answer: 

DOE considered both LBNE's scientific opportunities and its cost and schedule 

estimates in thc context of planning for the overall Office of Science program. 

Based on these considerations, the Department determined it cannot support the 

LBNE project as it is currently configured. This decision is not a judgment about 

the importance of the science, but rather it is a recognition that the peak cost of the 

project as currently proposed cannot be accommodated in the current budget 

climate or that projected for the next decade given the discretionary funding caps in 

the Budget Control Act. To ensure that the U.S. continues its leadership in 

advancing this field while keeping our nation on a sustainable financial path, DOE 

15 
83 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119/!2 

requested that Fermilab lead the community in the development of an affordable 

and phased approach that will enhance scientific understanding in this important 

field at each phase. 

3. Particle physics has become a global field. It is now entering an extremely exciting 

phase with new discoveries from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and elsewhere. What 

role do you think the U.S. should play? Should it build and bring partners to build in the 

U.S. some major international facilities like either Europe or Japan or even Italy and 

China are now doing? 

Answer: 

I share your excitement at the new discoveries in the increasingly global field of 

particle physics coming from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the Daya Bay 

Neutrino Experimcnt, and elsewhere. I think the U.S. should continue to playa 

leadership role in the ficld, as the U.S. is doing even for experiments that are taking 

place in faeilitics abroad. I am confident that U.S. researchers can continue to be at 

the forefront of particle physics and other scientific disciplines. 

4. For the DOE. the President's Budget Request is focused on energy projects in a variety 

of contexts. The Office of Science. within DOE. has traditionally supported the broad 

fabric of science in the U.S .• not just effiJrts related to energy. Do you intend to maintain 

that broad spectrum of basic science, or are you working (0 narrow it down to 

applications to energy only? 

Answer: 

The Administration intends to continue supporting the spectrum of basic science 

that the DOE Office of Science currently supports and has done so in its policies and 

budgets. The Office of Science delivers scientific discoveries and major scientific 

tools that transform our understanding of nature and fulfill the DOE's mission to 

ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, 

and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. 

Thc Office of Science is both the lead Federal agency supporting fundamental 

scientific research for energy and the Nation's largest Federal sponsor of basic 

research in the physical sciences. 

5. Big Data: Scientific discovery increasingly involves making sense of massive 

quantities of data to find the unique particle in the enormous stream of particles flying 

around the Large Hadron Collider, understand the chemicals that make up the universe by 

analyzing signals from the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, or putting together the 

puzzle of a genome trom the jigsaw pieces provided by gene sequencing. We have many 

resources to tackle these challenges, such as the National Center for Supercomputing 

Applications at the University of Illinois. How does the budget request propose to 

leverage existing infrastructure to tackle these challenges and connect researchers across 

16 
84 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

disciplines? 

Answer: 

The 2013 Budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF) includes continuing 

funding for the Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and 

Engineering (CrF21) program. CIF21 will promote new research opportunities and 

partnerships across all science and engineering fields by providing integrated and 

scalable cyberinfrastructure that will leverage existing and new components. CIF21 

will also ensure long-term sustainability for cyberinfrastructure by creating 

communities of users and providers. It will also promote the development of a 

scientific workforce that will result in a greater number of scientific communities 

that can effectively use cyberinfrastructure to conduct research and education. This 

program, in coordination with the Networking and Information Technology 

Research and Development (NITRD) Big Data Senior Steering Group, will be 

issuing solicitations, running challenges, and facilitating collaboration across 

agencies on the type of big-data projects that you mention. The National Center for 

Supercomputing Applications is an example of the type of facility that will most 

certainly be leveraged in this effort. 

Another key agency is the Department of Energy (DOE). In DOE's Office of 

Science, ncw research efforts will be supportcd across the Advanced Scientific 

Computing Research (ASCR) portfolio with a focus on addressing the challenges of 

data-intensive science and the massive data expected from DOE mission research 

including currcnt and planned scientific user facilities. Therc are two broad 

categories in which DOE's missions lead to unique data-centric computing 

challenges that span the portfolios of ASCR and the other rescarch programs: 

DOE researchers routinely compute detailed models of time-dependent, threedimensional systems on some ofthe world's largest computers. These simulations 

generate enormous data sets that are difficult to extract and archive, let alone 

analyze. More comprehensive analysis of these data will help in the discovery and 

identification of unanticipated phenomena, and also help expose shortcomings in 

simulation methodologies and software. 

DOE manages the Nation's most advanced experimental resources, and these 

facilities generate tremendous amounts of data. Data sets generated at DOE's 

scientific facilities today significantly outstrip current analysis capabilities. Basic 

research in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, coupled to expertise from 

the facilities, is required to realize the significant potential that exists in DOE 

facilities data. 

6. Cybersecurity: With our nation's internet communications system under constant 

attack, advancing our cybersecurity is an urgent priority. How does the Administration 

propose to spur new research to stay ahead of ever innovating attackers, how will this 

research be connected with industries and agencies that need it to protect their systems, 

and how will you leverage existing resources such as the National Center for 

Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois? 

17 
85 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

Answer: 

To address evolving cybersecurity threats, we have increased Federal spending on 

research and development to foster innovative technologies that will thwart such 

threats. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 

(NITRO) initiative coordinates unclassified cybersecurity R&D for 15 Federal 

agencies, and one of NITRO's ma,jor substantive areas is Cyber Security and 

Information Assuranee (CSIA) research. (There is also a substantial Federal 

investment in classified cybersecurity R&D.) The 2013 Budget proposes $667 

million for the CSIA portion ofNITRD, up from $590 million for FY 2012. 

Additionally, in the December 2011 release of our Federal strategic R&D plan for 

cybersecurity, we set forth our vision for the research necessary to develop gamechanging technologies. With this overarching template, we are focusing the 

scientific community, including industry and university partners such as the NCSA 

at the University of Illinois, on a common set of problems, better leveraging and 

targeting our Federal R&D investments and accelerating the pace of bringing the 

positive results of our Federal R&D investments into practice in the marketplace. 

18 
86 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4/19/12 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Donna Edwards 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

An Overview of the Administration '.I' Federal Research and Development Budget 

,fiJr Fiscal Year 2013 

Friday, February 17,2012 

9:30 a,m, 

QUESTIONS FOR DR. HOLDREN: 

1. Forensic Science: As you may be aware, we just passed the 3rd anniversary of the 

release of the National Academies' report, Strcngthening Forensic Science in the United 

States: A Path Forward. In the wake of that report, a Subcommittee on Forcnsie Science 

was created at the National Science and Teclmology Council to assess the report and to 

advise the White house on how best to achieve the goals outlined in it. While J am very 

pleased that the NIST budget for FY 2013 includes additional funding to enhance the 

seientific validity of forensic science methods and practices. I am wondering whether we 

can expect the Subcommittee's work to result in any additional Administration efforts in 

this important area. 

Answer: 

The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is committed to improving forensic 

science. As you mention, the Cabinet-level, interagency National Science and 

Technology Council has a chartered subcommittee that has been developing 

approaches to respond to the specific recommendations in the 2009 National 

Academies report. That subcommittee has developed a number of draft 

recommendations for action that are in the process of being reviewed and finalized. 

19 
87 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119/12 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Frederica Wilson 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

An Overview of'the Administration's Federal Research and Development Budget 

for Fiscal Year 2013 

Friday, February 17,2012 

9:30 a.m. 

QUESTIONS FOR DR. HOLDREN: 

I am glad to have learned of the recent work of the President's Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology (PCAST) who released a report earlier this month on STEM 

education. As we digest this report and build our strategies, I would urge OSTP and the 

President to nol let a special emphasis on underrepresented minorities get "losl in the 

weeds." This banner needs to be raised up and waved quite boldly. 

We are at the point in time where everyone is "on the hook" - not only to produce more 

STEM graduates ... but more minority STEM graduates. K-12, Higher Ed, Science and 

Technology Industries, etc. Because the strategies and solutions need to rest with 

inspiring young minds at the youngest of years ensuring our K-12 science and math 

teachers are inspired scientists and mathematicians themselves; teaching by doing, 

touching, doing. experimenting (contextual learning); redesigning K -12 and higher ed 

classes so that we're not "weeding students ouC but bringing them into thc fold; and of 

course ensuring many pathways to internships early on and ultimately employment. 

And for all its worth. this is not a one-size-fits-all issue. Our undcnepresentcd minorities 

and communities serving them nced strategies that will work for them and meet the 

national need. 

I understand that the President will be setting up a special Presidential Council on STEM 

Education, a recommendation included in the report on Undergraduate STEM education. 

I would like to urge you to make sure that leaders who are especially focused on 

increasing diversity in the STEM fields are represented on the Council. I have been 

extremely impressed, for example, with the work that Mark Rosenberg has been doing in 

my own district as President of Florida International University, the largest HispanicServing University in the nation, but also one of the largest producers of STEM degrees 

for all minorities, including African-American engineers. 

I know your assistant Director Dr. Wieman had a chance to visit recently. 

At FlU, they are transfolTl1ing the STEM landscape: redesigning introductory courses 

across the board - Physics, Chemistry, Biology - to greater success, 20-30% increases in 

20 
88 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4119112 

some cases. And these are gateway courses - the PCAST report points out that focusing 

on the first two years is the cheapest and most effective way to meet our need. Physics 

graduates at FlU, for example in a majority minority community - have increased by 

350% recently. Not only are they producing more grads ... but more STEM teachers who 

are going into K -12 and helping changc the course by inspiring the youngest minds. And 

with everyone else at the table: K -12. Community Colleges. private sector. 

r believe that people like mark would offer a unique perspective and be a huge asset to 

the work of the Council. 

1. Could you tell me more about what the decision-making process will be and a potential 

timeline for appointments to the Council? 

Answer: 

Thank you, Congresswoman, for your thoughts on STEM education. I am pleascd to 

read your expression of support for PCAST's work on this topic. I assure you that 

we will not lose focus on the importance of improving STEM-education experiences 

and opportunities for underreprescnted minorities in our efforts. I have said on 

many occasions that the President called this point in time an 'all hands on deck' 

moment for STEM cducation, when we must do all we can to make sure that our 

students have the skills and educations needed to become the highly-skilled 

workforce of the future. And "all hands" means ALL hands. The Administration 

recognizes that the United States cannot win the future without all our students, 

especially the growing proportion of our students who are members of 

underrepresented minority groups. 

I agree that our underrepresented minority students come from distinctive 

backgrounds and communities, and thus need distinctive strategies rathcr than a 

one-size-fits-all approach. PCAST members and my OSTP colleagues have 

benefited greatly from learning about the many efforts underway in campuses 

across the nation to do better at attracting and retaining interested students in 

STEM fields, to improve teaching of STEM subjects, and to create supportive 

pathways to careers in STEM fields. Dr. Carl Wieman, OSTP's Associate for 

Director for Science, had occasion to visit Florida International University in your 

district reccntly, aud he speaks highly of the successful strategies FlU has employed 

to become one of our nation's top institutions for encouraging, retaining, and 

graduating minority STEM students. FlU is tbe largest Hispanic Serving Institution 

(HSI) in thc nation and, as you point out, one of the top institutions for AfricanAmerican STEM graduates. FlU's transformational strategies arc closely aligned 

witb tbe Administration's efforts to improve tbe Federal government's STEMeducation efforts. 

21 
89 

OSTP responses House SST QFRs 4/19/12 

As I stated in my testimony, I have submitted to Congress a progress report on our 

efforts leading toward the release of a Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan later 

this spring. The progress report and key proposals in the 2013 Budget for STEM 

education reflect some ofthe recommendations of the PCAST Undergraduate 

STEM Education report released in I<'ebruary. At this time, we are still deliberating 

on other reeommendations of the PCAST report such as the recommendation to 

establish a Presidential Council on STEM Education. Therefore, it would be 

premature for me to talk about plans for a Council at this time. I will, however, 

keep you informed of our ongoing responses to the PCAST report and look fon~'ard 

to working with you on improving STEM education and access to STEM careers for 

all Americans. 

22 

(91) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
92 

WEBSITE LINK TO EPA’S COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF RECENTLY RELEASED

MERCURY RULE AS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE JOHN P. HOLDREN, 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Æ