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

74–728PDF 2012

THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY: EXAMINING 

PRIORITIES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF 

THE NATION’S SCIENCE POLICIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112–91 

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 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, June 20, 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 ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 13 

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

Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

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

and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

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

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 36 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy ............................ 67 

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record 

Prepublication Copy: Managing for High-Quality Science and Engineering 

at the NNSA National Security Laboratories: National Research Council ..... 90 

(1) 

THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY: 

EXAMINING PRIORITIES AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 

NATION’S SCIENCE POLICIES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order, and I say good morning, and welcome to 

today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The Office of Science and Technology Policy: Examining Priorities and Effectiveness of the Nation’s Science 

Policies.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony— 

and thank you for your testimony ahead of time—biography and 

Truth in Testimony disclosure of today’s witness, Dr. John Holdren. 

We will have our opening statements, and I will begin with my 

opening statement. 

Dr. Holdren, thank you for joining us today. In your dual role as 

the President’s Science Advisor and as Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, you have the President’s ear, and 

that is very important, and as such, you have a real, far-reaching 

influence on this Administration’s direction in science and technology, probably for this Committee, not a more important position 

on the Hill. 

We may not always agree with the advice the Director provides 

to the President, but science and technology have played a vital 

role in the making of this Nation and is going to continue to fulfill 

that role in the future, and as such, I doubt you would find anyone 

here who would challenge the need for science and need for technology advice in this White House or in any White House. 

Throughout the history, that advice has come through both informal and formal methods. 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy that we know today 

is a result of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, which formally created both the 

office and established the roles of the Director. The House Committee on Science and Technology was instrumental in the passage 

of this Act, and it is our responsibility to make sure that the office 

continues to function in a way that is beneficial to American citizens. 

And while Directors historically have joined us annually to review the Administration’s budget request and have appeared before 

us on specific issues from time to time, this is the first time this 

Committee has met to focus primarily on oversight of OSTP since 

it was created in statute. 

In addition to reviewing its responsibilities, operations, and management, we will also look at its function in shaping our Nation’s 

policies. It should come as no surprise that I remain concerned 

about a number of this Administration’s science and technology policy issues, ranging from an unprecedented emphasis on clean energy at the expense of other priorities to a larger focus on applied 

research at the expense of basic scientific research to the lack of 

a clearly identified and compelling long-term mission for human 

spaceflight. Further, there are other areas still awaiting action 

from OSTP and the Administration. These include transparency 

and data access issues, a position on the transfer of the Joint Polar 

Satellite System from NOAA to NASA, a position statement on 

INKSNA, and a strategic plan for STEM Education. 

Dr. Holdren, I know you take your role seriously, and as the 

House Committee responsible for Science, Space, and Technology, 

we also take our oversight role seriously. Today, we look forward 
13 

to receiving your testimony and learning about the current organization and priorities of OSTP and the Administration as part of 

this Committee’s oversight responsibilities. 

I thank you, and I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

Dr. Holdren, thank you for joining us today. In your dual role as the President’s 

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

have the President’s ear, and as such, you have a real, far-reaching influence on this 

Administration’s direction in science and technology. 

We may not always agree with the advice the Director provides to the President, 

but science and technology have played a vital role in the making of this Nation 

and will continue to fulfill that role in the future. As such, I doubt you would find 

anyone here who would challenge the need for science and technology advice in any 

White House. Throughout U.S. history, that advice has come through both informal 

and formal methods. 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that we know today is a result of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act 

of 1976 (P.L. 94–282), which formally created both the Office and established the 

roles of the Director. The House Committee on Science and Technology was instrumental in the passage of this Act, and it is our responsibility to make sure that the 

Office continues to function in a way that is beneficial to American citizens. While 

Directors historically have joined us annually to review the Administration’s Budget 

Request and have appeared before us on specific issues from time to time, this is 

the first time this Committee has met to focus primarily on oversight of OSTP since 

it was created in statute. 

In addition to reviewing OSTP’s responsibilities, operations, and management, we 

will also look at its function in shaping our Nation’s policies. It should come as no 

surprise that I remain concerned about a number of this Administration’s science 

and technology policy issues, ranging from an unprecedented emphasis on clean energy at the expense of other priorities to a larger focus on applied research at the 

expense of basic scientific research to the lack of a clearly defined and compelling 

long-term mission for human space flight. Further, there are other areas still awaiting action from OSTP and the Administration. These include transparency and data 

access issues, a position on the transfer of the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) 

from NOAA to NASA, a position statement on INKSNA, and a Strategic Plan for 

STEM Education. 

Dr. Holdren, I know you take your role seriously, and as the House Committee 

responsible for Science, Space, and Technology, we also take our oversight role seriously. Today, we look forward to receiving your testimony and learning about the 

current organization and priorities of OSTP and the Administration as part of this 

Committee’s oversight responsibilities. 

Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

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

opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning. We are pleased to have the second hearing with Dr. 

Holdren at the Committee. 

As you know, every year we invite the Director of the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy to appear before the Committee to 

help us understand not just that year’s R&D budget but others as 

well. 

We live in an increasingly complex world, and the challenges we 

face will be both impacted by and hopefully alleviated by science 

and technology. As Americans, we should celebrate the fact that a 

highly respected scientist such as Dr. Holdren has the ear of the 

President and is truly part of his inner circle of advisors on matters 

of science and technology. We in Congress also can benefit from 
14 

good advice on matters of science and technology policy, and I am 

looking forward to your testimony today. 

The truth is that OSTP has been asked to do a lot by both Congress and the President. In addition to your more visible initiatives, I know that you have to carry out necessary interagency coordination, a job that probably goes underappreciated and undervalued by all of us. The work of OSTP staff helps to minimize unnecessary duplication in research and development programs 

across the government and ensure that significant research gaps 

are addressed. 

Dr. Holdren, you have been asked to testify about the structure, 

function and funding of your office, as well as the two hats you 

wear as both Science Advisor to the President and Director of the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. You face many challenges, 

some of which you inherited, such as the NOAA satellite program, 

and others that are more recent, such as the arm-twisting you 

probably had to do to get agencies to complete their scientific integrity policies. I think we forget sometimes that your actual authority 

is limited and that much of what you accomplish is through your 

leadership, persuasion and persistence. 

As you know, I care deeply about the need to ensure that we remain competitive in a challenging world economy as well as improve the quality of life for all our citizens. Research and innovation are essential ingredients of any effort to meet those two goals, 

as is STEM education. You have a number of initiatives underway 

related to STEM education, and I would like to hear how those are 

faring and any issues that you are facing. 

With respect to research and innovation, I would like to hear 

about your efforts to promote innovation and to move new technologies towards commercialization. I know that the Administration has a number of initiatives underway in that regard, such as 

the Startup America Initiative, and I would like to get your assessment of how well those initiatives are working and what additional 

steps may be needed. 

And finally, in addition to hearing about your key priorities and 

goals for your office, I would like to hear what you might need from 

Congress, whether it is related to a general function of your office 

or to a specific goal or task. You have an important responsibility, 

and we want you to succeed. 

Dr. Holdren, I look forward to your testimony and I yield back 

the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

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

the Committee for the second time this year. As you know, every year we invite the 

OSTP Director to appear before the Committee to help us understand not just that 

year’s R&D budget request but also your office’s role in the federal R&D enterprise. 

We live in an increasingly complex world, and the challenges we face will be both 

impacted by and—hopefully—alleviated by science and technology. As Americans, 

we should celebrate the fact that a highly respected sceintist such as Dr. Holdren 

has the ear of the President and is truly part of his inner circle of advisors on matters of science and technology. We in Congress also can benefit from good advice 

on matters of science and technology policy, and so I am looking forward to your 

testimony today. 
15 

The truth is that OSTP has been asked to do a lot by both Congress and the 

President. In addition to your more visible initiatives, I know that you have to carry 

out necessary interagency coordination—a job that probably goes underappreciated 

and undervalued by all of us. The work of OSTP staff helps to minimize unnecessary duplication in R&D programs across the government and ensure that significant research gaps are addressed. 

Dr. Holdren, you have been asked to testify about the structure, function, and 

funding of your office, as well as the two hats you wear as both Science Advisor 

to the President and Director of OSTP. You face many challenges, some of which 

you inherited, such as the NOAA satellite program, and others that are more recent, 

such as the arm-twisting you probably had to do to get agencies to complete their 

scientific integrity policies. I think we forget sometimes that your actual authority 

is limited and that much of what you accomplish you do through leadership, persuasion, and persistence. 

As you know, I care deeply about the need to ensure that we remain competitive 

in a challenging world economy as well as improve the quality of life for all our citizens. Research and innovation are essential ingredients of any effort to meet those 

two goals, as is STEM education. You have a number of initiatives underway related 

to STEM education, and I would like to hear how those are faring and any issues 

that you are facing. 

With respect to research and innovation, I would like to hear about your efforts 

to promote innovation and to move new technologies toward commercialization. I 

know that the Administration has a number of initiatives underway in that regard, 

such as the Startup America Initiative, and I would like to get your assessment of 

how well those initiatives are working and what additional steps may be needed. 

Finally, in addition to hearing about your key priorities and goals for your office, 

I’d like to hear what you might need from Congress, whether it’s related to a general function of your office or to a specific goal or task. You have an important responsibility, and we want you to succeed. 

Dr. Holdren, I look forward to your testimony and I yield back the remainder of 

my time. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

At this time, if there are Members who have opening statements, 

they will be added to the record. 
16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS CHAIR JERRY

F. COSTELLO
17 
18 
19 

And at this time, I would like to introduce our witness. Dr. John 

Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, 

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

and Technology. Prior to joining the Administration, he taught at 

Harvard and was Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. 

Chairman, as our witness should know, spoken testimony is limited 

to five minutes, but you are a very important and valuable witness. 

We will be a little more lenient with that with you if you need 

such, and I say that; if I didn’t say it, Ms. Johnson would insist 

on it, so it is easier for me just to take that position, so we are 

going to be fair with you is what I am trying to tell you. After that, 

the Members are going to have five minutes each to ask questions 

and the Chair is able to provide some flexibility, as I said, as you 

are the only witness today, Doctor. I thank you for your testimony. 

Reminding Members of the Committee that rules limit our questioning to five minutes, and I surely will adhere to that. 

We recognize you at this time while I look for my testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, 

ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY, AND DIRECTOR OF THE 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Mr. HOLDREN. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here with you today to 

discuss the organization that I lead in the Executive Office of the 

President, namely the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

As you know, science, technology, and innovation have been at 

the core of the American success story since the days of the Founding Fathers. Advances in agronomy, electrification, mechanized 

transportation and wireless communication, among others, have 

each in their time brought waves of economic growth, generated 

new opportunities industries and jobs while also raising policy 

challenges. It was in recognition of the importance of these domains and challenges that Congress in 1976 created OSTP to advise the President on the scientific, engineering and technological 

aspects of the issues before him and to help coordinate, lead and 

develop budgets for federal R&D programs. 

Today, OSTP’s work is accomplished by a staff of about 100 people spread across four divisions and the Director’s Office. Almost 90 

percent of these are science and technology professionals, many of 

them detailed to us from agencies. This diversity of talent is essential, given the scope of the intellectual terrain that we cover and 

the wide range of our oversight, coordination and support functions, which include running the National Science and Technology 

Council and the major interagency initiatives that fall under it, for 

example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, as well as supporting the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in the development of its reports for the President. 

I have submitted for the record a detailed summary of OSTP’s 

activities, and in my brief remarks this morning, I will highlight 

just a few of these. 
20 

First, reflecting the Administration’s strong focus on jobs and the 

economy, OSTP has been active in efforts to leverage science and 

technology for economic growth. We partnered with the Council of 

Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council to develop 

the Administration’s Strategy for American Innovation, and we 

launched such jobs-focused initiatives as Startup America, focused 

on small businesses and entrepreneurs, the Advanced Manufacturer Partnership, which brings together universities, industry and 

others to invest in emerging technologies that have the potential to 

create high-quality domestic manufacturing jobs, and most recently, U.S. Ignite, aimed at accelerating availability to U.S. users 

of ultrafast Internet and new products and services based on it. 

Second, in support of the Administration goal that the United 

States lead the world in clean energy technology, we have 

prioritized budgetary support for basic and applied research in this 

important domain and have pushed the development of advanced 

materials, in part through the Materials Genome Initiative, which 

is another public-private partnership combining the comparative 

advantages of both sectors. 

Third, OSTP has very actively supported science, technology, engineering and math education. We worked with the President and 

the Domestic Policy Council to launch Educate to Innovate, a public-private partnership to improve K–12 STEM education that has 

attracted more than $700 million in corporate and philanthropic 

commitments to work in classrooms across the country to improve 

instruction in science and mathematics and Change the Equation, 

a nonprofit organization that is mobilizing the business community 

to improve STEM education across the United States. And we have 

been aggressively addressing STEM education tasks specified in 

the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, including completion of a comprehensive inventory of federal STEM education programs. 

Fourth, I want to mention OSTP’s leading role with other White 

House offices in the implementation of the President’s Open Government Initiative. Under the leadership of U.S. Chief Technology 

Officer, Todd Park, we have been opening the workings of government to the American people and focusing heavily on making government data a driver of private-sector innovation and job creation. 

In closing, let me simply say that with continuing support from 

our partners in Congress, OSTP is working every day to ensure 

that the policies and proposals emanating from the Executive 

Branch are informed by the most up-to-date and objective insights 

about the relevant science and technology and to strengthen the 

U.S. science, technology and innovation enterprise and the benefits 

to the Nation that flow from it. 

I look forward to continuing to work with this Committee to 

these ends, and I will be pleased to answer any questions that the 

Members may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holdren follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, sir, and I will start out with some 

questions for you. 

OSTP released a fact sheet highlighting some of the President’s 

energy priorities, and the opening sentence of that fact sheet states 

that ‘‘We now face a make-or-break moment for the middle class 

and those trying to reach it.’’ However, it is unclear whether the 

President’s energy agenda is actually good for the middle class. The 

Administration is working to advance these policies, policies to restrict oil and gas exploration and production, and rejected the Keystone pipeline, which would enhance domestic energy security; an 

avalanche of EPA regulations on coal plants, on refineries, on automobiles and numerous other industries that ultimately will raise 

energy prices for all Americans; and a ‘‘Clean Energy Standard’’ 

that would mandate Americans buy electricity from more expensive 

and less reliable sources such as wind and solar power, which are 

both good but not as reliable. 

How does the ‘‘regulate at any cost’’ approach to energy policy 

benefit the middle class and the overall American community, not 

just the middle class but all of us? Explain that to us, if you would, 

sir. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, the President and 

the Administration have what the President has described as an 

all-of-the-above energy strategy in which development of our domestic resources of oil and gas and coal plays an important part, 

nuclear energy plays an important part, renewable energy, which 

you have mentioned, plays an important part, and increasing energy efficiency plays an important part. We recognize that we need 

all of these energy options to secure our energy future, and we are 

working to enable all of them and lift all of them to their highest 

potential. We do not have a policy of regulation no matter what the 

cost. In fact, regulations are reviewed very carefully in light of the 

science evidence that is available before they are put forward, and 

I think we have been doing a good job in this Administration of 

only putting forward regulations that are strongly based in solid 

science. It is certainly our intention to provide an energy future in 

which the United States imports less energy, therefore pays less to 

other countries for its imported energy, and relies on a wide diversity of domestic energy sources to provide the affordable and reliable energy supply that our economy needs, that our consumers 

need, including, of course, the middle class. 

Chairman HALL. Well, I don’t totally agree with you there, and 

I think some of his indications, evidence of disdain for energy, he 

certainly declared war on agriculture early and got around to energy. We have enough energy and enough energy access to be selling energy rather than buying it. I think it is kind of a sad situation when we are in the situation we are in here. 

In July or August—I accept what statements you made. I just 

don’t agree with it. In July and August, NASA’s Commercial Crew 

Program is going to select the next round of companies for the 

third phase of domestic development known as the Commercial 

Crew Integrated Capability Program. NASA plans to give $300 million to $500 million each to two and possibly three companies using 

Space Act Agreements instead of more typical government contracts, and according to NASA’s Office of General Council, Space 
37 

Act Agreements don’t permit NASA to impose design or safety requirements on the contracts. 

With regard to NASA’s use of Space Act Agreements on the Commercial Crew Program, how can we be assured that NASA is developing safe systems if it is prohibited from levying any design requirements, prohibited from demanding performance tests from the 

companies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Before I turn to that NASA question, let me just 

mention, Mr. Chairman, that our energy imports have been sharply 

declining under this Administration. We are moving in exactly the 

direction that you also endorse, which is moving toward importing 

less, and I think that is very beneficial. 

On the NASA question, it is my understanding that NASA has 

in fact been able to apply its International Space Station visiting 

vehicle requirements to the cargo transportation development efforts that have been taking place. The contracts that will be awarded in the next phase of commercial cargo and commercial crew will 

also very clearly allow NASA to specify safety requirements and to 

oversee them. So I am certainly confident, the President is confident that we will continue to maintain NASA oversight of safety 

in these operations. 

Chairman HALL. I surely hope so, but my time is expired. 

I now recognize Ms. Johnson for five minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. You forgot to look to see who is over here—Ms. 

Woolsey. 

Chairman HALL. I am going to make about a five-minute speech 

about Ms. Woolsey. We are going to lose her, and I am going to 

miss her. I recognize you, and if Ms. Johnson is here, I would recognize her. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. I have to be more careful. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, you do, more discerning about your women. 

So Dr. Holdren, thank you for all you do. We put a lot of importance on your office and we expect a lot, and we get a lot. 

How is the United States stacking up as compared to the rest of 

the world in our support for science and technology and the policies 

that we put in place? And feel free to tell us where we could do 

better. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, I would say that the United 

States continues to lead the world in science, engineering and innovation across a very wide array of crucial fields of fundamental research and applied research. The United States leads the world. 

We remain by far the largest funder of research and development 

in the world. The sum of our expenditures on R&D in the public 

and private sector together is over $400 billion a year. That is in 

the vicinity of 30 percent of all of the world’s expenditures on R&D. 

We continue as well to lead the world in space, although sometimes 

the contrary is asserted. Our planetary exploration programs have 

absolutely no peer. We have missions on the way to or at seven out 

of the eight officially designated planets and more. The Voyager is 

now reaching the edge of the solar system; we have missions to asteroids. No one is even close. 

When you look at the firsts in space, some people say gee, China 

is overtaking us. Well, China just put its first woman in space a 
38 

few days ago. We put our first woman in space, Sally Ride, in 1983. 

One can go on through the list. China is talking about maybe being 

able to land someone on the moon after 2020. We did it in 1969. 

The one area where I think we need to work much harder is one 

I have already mentioned, the area of STEM education, where the 

United States that used to lead the world in most indices of performance in STEM education has now fallen to the middle of the 

pack. That is a bad trend and one we are working very hard across 

a wide variety of fronts to help remedy. 

At the same time, I would argue that across the board, we cannot 

afford to be complacent. One of the areas that is clearly crucial in 

linking science and technology and innovation to the economy is 

the translation of discovery from laboratories in research universities and our great national laboratories, accelerating the translation of those discoveries into commercial products and services 

and new processes, and there the American Manufacturing Partnership, the Materials Genome Initiative, the Startup America Initiative are all aimed at accelerating and making more efficient the 

processes by which we turn scientific and engineering advance into 

economic advantage. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. So because we are increasingly on the cutting 

edge of science and there is intersections of multiple disciplines, 

what are the challenges that you face involving different federal 

agencies, academia and industry in the efforts of our country to go 

forward with science and technology? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you for that question. Let me answer 

it in two parts. First is the question of interagency engagement and 

coordination, and there, as mentioned at some length in my testimony, OSTP has the responsibility and I have the responsibility as 

its Director to oversee and lead efforts to coordinate science, technology and innovation initiatives that cross agency boundaries, and 

for that purpose, we have the National Science and Technology 

Council, which is nominally chaired by the President but in practice usually I chair it. It has five standing committees, one on 

science, one on technology, one on STEM education, one on national security and international affairs, and one on environment, 

natural resources and sustainability. Under those standing committees are many subcommittees. This entity is exceedingly active, 

and the departments and agencies are stepping up and participating energetically in cooperative efforts to build these interagency initiatives that have to draw on the competencies and the 

resources of the wide range of agencies that we have engaged. 

USGRCP, the Global Change Research, Program, for example, has 

13 agencies engaged. Similarly, National Nanotechnology Initiative, 

the Networking and Information Technology R&D Initiative both 

have large numbers of agencies and they are stepping up. Even in 

tight budget times, they understand that we cannot afford to ignore 

these crucial interagency collaborations. 

With respect to the private sector and the academic sector, the 

other part of your question, it is really remarkable and inspiring 

to me the extent to which private companies and universities are 

stepping up. Folks from coalitions of private companies and universities are in my office almost every day asking how they can help, 

how they can do more, and we have engaged them across the range 
39 

of these partnerships that I have already mentioned. I think the 

private sector is particularly interested in being sure, number one, 

that we maintain the foundation of basic research on which the private sector needs to draw for the research and development of a 

more applied nature that they primarily undertake. They are also 

very interested in helping with and helping us maintain our emphasis on STEM education because they are well aware of the need 

to maintain the pipeline of the next generation of innovators, inventors, makers, discoverers but also the skilled workforce that 

they need across the board in our high-tech industries in order to 

continue to compete and succeed. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

I recognize Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California, for 

five minutes. 

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

I am noticing that the Department of Energy in their nuclear 

program still seems to be focused on light-water reactors, and I 

would like to ask you your view on that, and it seems that what 

we have been doing, at least from what I can see from budget requests, that the DOE is basically going from 25 percent of its nuclear energy program aimed at the fact-spectrum reactors and the 

new high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. We have been spending 

25 percent of our research money on those and now it is going 

down to 15 percent while the spending on light-water reactors, 

which is essentially old technology, is being increased in the budget 

requests. Is this a matter of policy coming out of the Administration? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, let me say first of all that the light-water reactor investments that the DOE is making are not investments in 

old technology. They are investments in advanced light-water reactor technology including modular light-water reactors, which we 

think have an enormous potential to contribute not only to energy 

supply in this country but to a substantial export market. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Basically it is an old concept but a new approach. Is that a—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. When you say it is an old concept—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is 60, 70 years old. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Congressman Rohrabacher, with respect, fast-spectrum reactors are also a very old concept and have 

been explored and deployed for a very long time. We are of the 

view that if you want nuclear energy to be an expanding contributor to low-emission energy supply in this country in the near future, that is going to happen largely on the basis of advanced lightwater reactors, and we need to make sure that succeeds in order 

to provide a continuing base—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Then will leave us with reactors 

rather than the new reactors that I am referring to that would 

somewhat solve the nuclear-waste problem or at least from many 

scientists are telling us that as compared to the light-water reactors that you are now suggesting that you approve of in that direction. Would they not lead the same nuclear-waste problem that we 

have? 
40 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, I approve of light-water reactors of advanced varieties, and the Secretary of Energy does for the next 

phase. We have a multiphase—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would those reactors that are you now approving for the next phase leave us with the same nuclear-waste 

problem that we have been having so much trouble dealing with? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The problem would be the same if we didn’t take 

steps to solve it but—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Unless we focus on a completely new approach in which 97 percent of the waste is consumed rather than 

having so much left over. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are, Congressman, focusing on research and 

development on those new approaches looking for possibilities that 

would help us—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You are focusing on it, but you are decreasing the spending on that and increasing the spending on the nuclear program that actually leaves us with the same old problems. 

I would like to shift this now, because I only have a couple minutes here. It is very clear in the Appropriations Act of 2011 that 

we have, that Congress has directed the Administration not to be 

cooperating on science projects with China. We have the world’s 

human rights abuser, a country that still murders religious believers, a country that its government has mandated a massive technology theft program towards our country and is using that technology that they are stealing with us to try to leapfrog us in a 

number of technological areas. Are you—is your office complying 

with this law that is suggesting that you should not be engaged in 

cooperating with the Chinese on scientific matters? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Rohrabacher, the current law does 

not say that we should not be cooperating with China. It says that 

when we do, we must notify the Congress 14 days in advance and 

assure the Congress that we are not in the course of this cooperation surrendering national security secrets or corporate secrets or 

dealing with people who are directly involved with human rights 

violations. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, the GAO doesn’t agree with you. I will 

quote a GAO report. ‘‘The plain meaning of Section 1340 is clear. 

The OSTP may not’’—and this is a quote from the GAO here— 

‘‘may not use its appropriations to participate, collaborate or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China.’’ You are suggesting that 

the GAO is wrong? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The GAO was right at the time it wrote that. That 

language has been superseded by the subsequent appropriations 

legislation, which clearly specifies that we may cooperate with 

China subject to the conditions that I was mentioning, and so we 

are in complete compliance with the current law on that subject. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Why is it that you feel, this Administration 

feels so compelled to reach out to the world’s worst human rights 

abuser that is already in the process of stealing so much from us 

and who we have examples over and over again that scientific cooperation has turned into a transfer of wealth and technology to 

our adversary, to what appears to be economic if not military and 

political adversary? 
41 

Dr. HOLDREN. First of all, the Administration is no admirer of 

the human rights policies in China and when we travel to China 

for whatever purpose, raise the human rights issues with them. We 

also raise with them the issue of the theft of intellectual property. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. When you raise issues like that, when you go 

to China, don’t your actions speak louder than your words because 

you are there to find ways to cooperate with the people who you 

are now saying we are very concerned about this, now we met that 

responsibility, so let us go do this. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Actually, Congressman Rohrabacher, the point 

that I make with my interlocutors in China is cooperation in which 

we are engaged, which is cooperation carefully selected to be beneficial to us as well as to China, is jeopardized by China’s human 

rights abuses and intellectual property theft and that if those activities do not stop, that these beneficial activities, mutually beneficial activities, will not be able to continue. That is an explicit 

point that I make. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I don’t think you are going to get the answer 

that you expected to get, Mr. Rohrabacher. I, too, have seen our 

President bow and scrape to the enemy on many occasions. 

The Chairman recognizes Ms. Bonamici for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, for your testimony and for the work that you do. 

You describe one mission of your office as advising the President 

on the application of science and technology to matters of national 

importance. One matter of serious importance in my district and to 

the Nation more generally is the aftermath of the devastating tsunami that hit Japan last year. The Oregon coast has beaches and 

a coastline that thrives on tourism and the fishing industry. Oregon is the only State where the entire coastline is public. Three 

weeks ago, a 66-foot-long dock washed up onto the shore from 

Japan, and thus far it is the biggest piece to land on our shores, 

but we have seen an increase in smaller debris. Scientists at NOAA 

are predicting that more is on the way. 

Last week, I held a roundtable discussion to discuss the coordination of efforts to detect, mitigate and clean up the debris resulting 

from the tsunami. It is an effort that involves multiple federal 

agencies but also State and local governments and even the public 

at large. Additionally, the cost of the debris removal is looking certain to stretch the budgets of our State and local governments. But 

beyond the sheer cost of the debris, the potential for the debris to 

carry invasive species from Japan such as those that were discovered on the dock poses a challenge to our scientists who have to 

assess the threat to the marine ecosystems. 

The two other federal agencies that have been working on the detection and monitoring from the tsunami are the EPA and NOAA. 

Considering your office’s coordination with federal agencies on 

science matters and the potential impact of the debris on our coastal ecosystems, where do you see your office fitting in to the response effort at a federal level? Please describe any efforts that you 

have taken thus far on this issue. Thank you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you for that question. My office is, of 

course, advisory and analytical more than operational, and so we 
42 

try to work with the departments and agencies that have operational responsibilities to be sure that what they are doing is coordinated and consistent with the best understandings of science as 

we know them. We are in close coordination in that sense with 

both NOAA and EPA in their responsibilities around the coast including the responsibilities for monitoring and responding to what 

reaches us from Japan as a result of that devastating tsunami. 

We have been particularly engaged in my office in conducting 

and overseeing assessments of the levels of radioactivity that have 

reached or could reach the United States, and the reassuring thing 

I can say about that is that although our ability to monitor is so 

good that we are able to detect even very tiny concentrations of radioactivity, the radioactivity that has, in fact, reached the United 

States so far is all in that very tiny category and does not reach 

levels of public health concern. But we will continue to work with 

NOAA and EPA to monitor particularly that radioactivity aspect of 

what reaches our coast, but also other aspects. 

I will say that I think NOAA, as with many agencies, has been 

struggling with 20 pounds of missions in a 10-pound budget, and 

we all struggle with that challenge today. I think NOAA would tell 

you, if Administrator Lubchenco were here today, that while they 

are working very hard at fulfilling these responsibilities, it would 

be easier to do if they had a little more money. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that, Dr. Holdren, and I must say 

that many people around the table understood that this is something unprecedented, and not knowing what and when and where 

the debris will wash up has been challenging. 

In the minute that I have left, would you please discuss some of 

the work that you are doing on increasing STEM education? We all 

understand the importance of it, but could you discuss the deficiencies in our skilled workforce and promoting STEM education 

among young people in this country? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would mention, since time is short, just a 

couple of things. One is that the President’s 2013 budget proposal 

calls for $3 billion in programs across the government in STEM 

education, which has a 2.6 percent increase over 2012 enacted, and 

a considerable part of that investment is in two specific critical aspects of the education system. One is K–12 teacher effectiveness, 

teacher preparation where we are working very hard to prepare 

100,000 new high-quality STEM ed teachers at the K–12 level over 

the next decade, and the post-secondary STEM education domain 

is one in which we currently lose about 60 percent of the students 

who enter college intending to get a STEM degree, only 40 percent 

who enter do get a STEM degree. And the PCAST, the President’s 

Council and Advisors on Science and Technology, among many others, has studied this question and we conclude that there are two 

basic reasons for it, both of which we are working to fix. One is the 

math gap where students enter college without sufficient math 

preparation to succeed in college-level science, math and engineering courses, and the other is what you might call a teaching effectiveness gap, where the introductory courses in science, engineering and math are often so boring that they drive even very good 

students into other majors. We have a variety of programs addressed at both of those problems. 
43 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, and my time is expired. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palazzo, the gentleman from Mississippi, for five minutes. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, I kind of agree with the comments you have been 

saying on STEM education, especially in light of the less than 15 

percent of Americans actually pursue STEM where other countries 

such as China, more than 50 percent of their youth are pursuing 

STEM education, and Mississippi actually recognizes the global implication of this, and through public and private contributions, we 

just recently opened a $30 million Infinity Science Center with the 

sole purpose to educate, challenge and excite young people to consider studies in STEM education and it ties in very well with the 

affiliation with NASA’s Stennis Space Center on the role of science 

and math and exploration across history. 

Now, my first question is, as you are probably aware, in order 

to continue buying seats on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to ferry 

U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station and to buy certain engineering services to keep ISS operational, the Iran, North 

Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act, commonly called INKSNA, must 

be extended beyond the current 2016 expiration date. Late last 

year, the House passed an INKSNA bill enabling our reliance on 

the Russians through 2020 but the prospects of its enactment 

would be greatly enhanced if the Administration would put forth 

a policy statement on INKSNA. Do you anticipate the White House 

putting out a position statement on INKSNA, and if so, when? And 

would you agree it would be far, far better to address the issue now 

versus waiting until the last moment? And given House passage of 

the bill, I would think the White House would attempt to capitalize 

on this opportunity. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Congressman Palazzo, I agree with the importance of getting a modification to the Iran, North Korea and 

Syria Nonproliferation Act for the purpose you indicate, and it is 

clear that that is going to be required. It is clear that sooner is better than later. The Administration has been studying the options 

for just how to modify it, and we’ll certainly be working closely 

with the Congress to get that issue resolved. I expect that there 

will be some more specific statement forthcoming in the future but 

we clearly recognize the need and we recognize that sooner is better than later. 

Mr. PALAZZO. In the near future? Can you give a possible 

timeline? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t want to put a timeline on it, but I know 

a lot of attention is going to it in the Administration. It is obviously 

not mainly my domain, but I expect that there will be a close interaction with the Congress on how to fix this, and it will happen 

soon. 

Mr. PALAZZO. So you will definitely carry back our concerns 

about sooner better than later? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will carry back that concern. And let me just 

add, by the way, to your comment on the science center in Mississippi. I have been enormously impressed in my time in this job 

with the importance of science museums, science centers, and the 

connectedness of science centers to some of our science-rich agen-
44 

cies and the effectiveness that they have in inspiring kids. I have 

had my own grandchildren into a number of these centers in different parts of the country, and I can tell you firsthand, it works. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Well, they convinced me to buy a brick to help fund 

it. 

A follow-up on Chairman Hall’s question where we were discussing NASA’s use of Space Act agreements in the Commercial 

Crew Program. What recourse does the government have if these 

companies fail to perform or go out of business? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, there is always a risk in any public or private enterprise that companies will fail to perform. What 

is happening so far in the commercial space operation is extremely 

encouraging. The companies involved have met most or all of their 

milestones. As you know, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon 

capsule just pulled off an extraordinary first in docking with the 

International Space Station, carrying cargo up there and returning 

to earth bringing cargo and garbage back down. The other competitors are I think close on their heels at meeting their milestones. 

Obviously, one can never rule out a failure, a shortfall, but so far 

we are doing well. 

Mr. PALAZZO. And last, what, if anything, will NASA own after 

making these expenditures? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The idea is not for NASA to own something. The 

idea is for the private sector to own something from which NASA 

can purchase services to carry crew and cargo to the International 

Space Station. This is basically an increasing privatization of this 

particular mission of carrying cargo and crew to low earth orbit, 

and we believe that the efficiencies obtainable from the private sector and from competition in the private sector are going to be a 

great national benefit in which NASA’s investments in the early 

phases are basically a public investment in a long-term private enterprise that is going to be a great success and that is going to enable us to carry out these missions more efficiently and less expensively but still very safely. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Of course, we don’t wish any business to go out of 

business and we want them to succeed, but just say if one does, 

does NASA obtain the intellectual property or the hardware created to date? And we can wrap up my time. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would have to refer you on that to the legal counsel at NASA. I can’t answer details what the fate of intellectual 

property might be in the contracts. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Does that give you the answer you wanted? 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Edwards from Maryland for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, for your testimony and your work today. 

You know, I know, I have heard from the Administration and 

from the President and really can see a commitment even in tough 

fiscal times to the need for our Nation to invest in innovation. It 

is very clear in the President’s speech last week. He talked rather 

extensively about the importance of investing in basic research and 

innovation and technology and advanced manufacturing. So I have 

a question as to how we decide what our priorities are. The Na-
45 

tional Academies comes out with its decadal surveys, and sometimes it seems to me, particularly when it comes to an innovation 

agenda and especially at NASA, that the recommendations of priorities that the Academies spend an awful lot of time putting together and exploring don’t really match the Administration’s budgets and the priorities that we then set here in the Congress. And 

so I wonder if you could tell us how our science priorities are lined 

up in keeping with recommendations that come out of the surveys. 

And then related to that, with respect to the Mars program, it 

does seem to me that, you know, some time ago fears were expressed at a hearing of this Committee about cuts to planetary 

science and to Mars missions and those were confirmed by the Administration’s budget submission in the 2013 budget request and 

especially the collaboration between NASA and the European 

Space Agency ExoMars mission was terminated, and as a result, 

we won’t be participating. We won’t participate in the development 

of the Mars organic molecule analyzer instrument, and it leads me 

to wonder if the Administration is placing a priority over the long 

term on this kind of science why our budget recommendations don’t 

line with the priorities. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you for that question. The Mars program 

remains robust, notwithstanding our deciding under serious budget 

constraints not to proceed with 2016 and 2018 Mars missions that 

had been under discussion with the European Space Agency. We 

concluded with respect to those particular missions that there was 

no way under foreseeable budgets for NASA that our participation 

in them and in the very expensive follow-on mission that would actually be necessary to return samples, which was the ultimate idea. 

No way that that was going to be feasible under foreseeable NASA 

budgets. 

The decadal surveys that we get from the National Academy are 

very valuable. We look at them very closely. In the case of the 

decadal survey on planetary exploration, while they put a high priority on that flagship set of Mars missions, they also specified what 

we should do in the event that budgets did not permit carrying 

through with adequate support for that flagship mission. And in 

fact, in the fallback position that we developed, we actually followed very closely what the decadal survey said we ought to do if 

budgetary constraints prevented us doing plan A, and that in general is what we do. We give a lot of weight to those decadal surveys 

because they represent a huge amount of work by the top level of 

the wider science community in those domains. 

But we have not by any means given up on our leadership in 

planetary exploration. As I mentioned before, we remain by far the 

world’s leader. We will remain the world’s leader in planetary exploration. We have the most complex, largest and most capable 

planetary rover that ever landed anywhere on its way to Mars, expected to land there in August. We have a follow-on mission called 

Maven investigating the upper Martial atmosphere to develop 

knowledge that will be necessary when ultimately we send humans 

to Mars. We are investigating a number of small and medium-sized 

Mars missions that could be afforded under the kinds of budgets 

we have going forward and we have, as I mentioned before, a wide 
46 

variety of other planetary and asteroidal probes heading outward 

or scheduled for launch. 

So while we determined that we couldn’t afford these particular 

flagship missions, we very much intend to maintain our commitment to lead in the exploration of Mars and the exploration of the 

solar system more widely. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And I will just finish by saying, just 

leave you with this thought, and for our Committee: You do not 

science and research by jumping in and out, by not knowing from 

one year to the next year what your budgets are going to be, and 

it seems to me that if the Administration and this Congress has 

a real commitment to science, to research, to advanced manufacturing, to making sure that our students have some place to go if 

we are encouraging them to engage in STEM, then we darn sure 

better figure out how to do this from year to year, letting our researchers know what the future looks like, and it is very frustrating, and I know it is frustrating for all of the agencies as well, 

to do science on a hit-or-miss, year-to-year basis, and it really is 

unacceptable, and frankly, at the end of the day, it just makes us 

spend more money. Thank you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I agree, and I would love if it we could—— 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady’s time has expired. She gives 

you good advice, and I think she ought to give that advice to the 

EPA. 

Chair now recognizes Mr. Hultgren from Illinois. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, appreciate you being here. 

I just was reading this morning in Space News an article about 

their statement that in the last four years they were arguing that 

we have gone from first place to probably third place as far as nations in the forefront of space exploration. I think that is a shame. 

I want to focus my comments mostly on something else. You 

were here back in February and I appreciate you coming back 

today. Following the hearing that we had back in February, I had 

submitted a couple of questions to you, the answers which I just 

recently received from your office. One of the questions I asked you 

in February started by pointing out that particle physics has become a global field that it is now entering an extremely exciting 

phase and then I asked what you thought what role the United 

States should play in that. I asked if you thought the United States 

should be building world-class physics facilities and bringing partners to the United States to collaborate here as the Europeans, 

Japanese, Italians, and Chinese are all now currently doing in 

their own countries. Your answer was, ‘‘I think the U.S. should 

continue to play a leadership role in the field as the U.S. is doing 

even for experiments that are taking place in facilities abroad. I am 

confident that U.S. researchers can continue to be at the forefront 

of particle physics and other scientific disciplines.’’ 

While I share your enthusiasm for U.S. leadership in these fields, 

you really didn’t answer my question. Not only did you not answer 

the question, you also seemed to imply that we would be just fine 

without having any world-class facilities in the United States. That 

really is troubling to me because—and I want to just ask for clarification on that if I am misunderstanding. And so, very clearly, I 
47 

would ask the question, yes or no. Does President Obama believe 

that we should build large-scale, world-leading physics facilities in 

the United States as we used to do? Or is he satisfied in spending 

our scarce research dollars on solar panels and wind turbine subsidies while the next generation of American students is forced to 

go abroad to study physics? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me start by saying on the space front I simply 

do not agree with the Space News formulation that the United 

States has fallen from first to third. By any respectable set of 

metrics I know of, the United States is still number one in space 

and intends to stay that way. 

On high-energy physics, it is not true that we are content to 

leave the future of high-energy physics and facilities for doing that 

to the rest of the world. We support fundamental research broadly 

and we support research in high-energy physics. The President’s 

2013 budget has $800 million for research and facilities at the 

high-energy, high-intensity, and cosmic frontiers, provides funds for 

new initiative at all three of those. There is an ongoing planning 

exercise in the Office of High-Energy Physics at the DOE for the 

development of new facilities at Fermilab in your State and I expect that there will be positive developments coming out of that. 

We are not giving up on high-energy physics, although again, we 

are constrained. Everybody in this room knows the budget challenges under which the government is operating. And within those 

challenges we intend to continue to invest in cutting-edge, high-energy physics in the United States, as well as in the participation 

of our scientists in cutting-edge facilities elsewhere when that is 

where they are. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, talk is very important but action is even 

more important. We have seen significant cuts under the President’s budget to many of our laboratories, much—significant increase going to some applied science that obviously the President 

supports. Dr. Holdren, I know you were able to train at MIT and 

Stanford, both here in the United States. You were also able to 

teach at Harvard and Berkeley, also here in the United States. You 

had a lot of opportunities and a very distinguished career. Wouldn’t 

you have thought differently about your own career path if you 

didn’t think there was an opportunity to have such an illustrious 

and accomplished career and that you had to leave the United 

States to pursue that career? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, the short answer is probably yes. If that had 

been my impression of the state of play, it is possible I would have 

done something else. But I don’t think that is a correct impression 

of the state of play today. I think the United States remains at the 

cutting edge of high-energy physics and a great many other fields. 

You continue to see that in U.S. preeminence in the awards of 

Nobel Prizes and other prizes, including some that are often awarded for work in the more recent past rather than the distant past. 

This is a leadership role that we are going to keep and I think we 

are determined to continue to inspire our young people to believe 

that there are exciting and rewarding careers in fundamental 

science in this country. 

We still have, by the way, enormous flows of the most talented 

and brightest students from countries all around the world eager 
48 

to study high-energy physics and other topics in our great universities. And I think we are unmatched in the world in terms of the 

attractiveness of our university system in general and the science 

focuses in our great research universities in terms of the 

attractiveness to students from around the world. 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time is running out, but I think we all need 

to ask the question—and, you know, are the President’s policies offering today’s students the same opportunities your generation of 

scientists had in terms of training, learning, and working in worldclass user facilities here in the United States? I think that is a real 

question I would say no. The opportunities are not the same. They 

are not as good. It is declining. Our space program is declining. 

While others are advancing, ours is declining. We have—I have 

heard firsthand from physicists in my district that they would certainly think twice about starting a career in a field where they 

would have no choice but to fly to China, Japan, or Europe all the 

time to be an active participant. 

That attitude of thinking that the President seems to have, the 

attitude that we shouldn’t build facilities here, is a sure way to 

keep our physics programs from being competitive, not to mention 

a deterrent to young people to get into those sorts of scientific 

fields, which I think is a huge failure for our future. 

Again, we talked about this ahead of time. I know these are difficult times but that is where difficult and important leadership 

must step up. And so I hope we can continue to do that through 

these difficult times, setting that type of vision for our young people that, yes, not only can you study here but you can apply it here 

because we are going to continue to grow and build new world-class 

facilities for basic scientific research. 

Again, my time is up. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. If you asked the question, you did a good job 

of answering it. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Miller, the gentleman for North Carolina. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

An issue that this Committee has dealt with in the last few years 

is rare earth and energy critical elements. The Investigations and 

Oversight Subcommittee held hearing—held a hearing after articles appeared in the press I think principally in the New York 

Times about the topic. And unusual for the Oversight Subcommittee, we developed legislation to address the problem that 

Kathy Dahlkemper introduced in the last Congress and I introduced in this Congress and there has been interest by Republicans 

on this Committee as well. 

Rare earths, of course, are something that most Americans have 

never heard of, or if they have heard of them, they maybe heard 

of them in high school chemistry and promptly forgot. But they are 

increasingly being used in sophisticated technologies and we are at 

a distinct disadvantage to the Chinese, who largely have a monopoly on many rare earths and energy-critical elements. And they are 

using those which, in many of the sophisticated technologies, are 

important to our national security. And they are leveraging their 

control of those elements to require that manufacturing using those 

be done in China. To some extent I understand that. I understand 
49 

they don’t want to have an extractive economy. They don’t want to 

be Angola. But it is certainly not acceptable from our point of view 

that we are closed out of that important manufacturing that would 

be a source of jobs, very highly skilled, well-paid jobs for American 

workers. 

But the problem with dealing with it is complex as I am sure you 

know. There is a variety of suggested programs and it does sound 

certainly like—it does certainly appear that we need a strong role 

by our government in coordinating those efforts. 

Dr. Holdren, what do you think are the appropriate activities for 

the government in this area? And what are the notable research 

gaps? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you for that good question. We have been 

paying a lot of attention to this challenge and the critical materials 

challenge and the challenge of rare earth minerals in particular. 

Let me just say as a start that China does not have a monopoly 

on resources of rare earth minerals, but they currently have a practical monopoly on the whole production system because they were 

able to undercut everybody else and so everybody else got out of 

the business. And this is something obviously that we need to fix. 

OSTP has been leading an interagency process on how to address 

the rare earth minerals and related raw materials issues that has 

involved the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, 

the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Defense. We 

have created several working groups to address different parts of 

the problem, including focusing on those resources that are particularly important either to our national security or our economic future. We have hosted roundtables with industry on this subject and 

looked into what we can do to encourage industry to rebuild some 

of these supply chains in the United States where we actually have 

the raw resources but have let the supply chains atrophy. DOE has 

been pursuing research and development that addresses material 

separation and processing and reducing the intensity of use of 

these materials in different applications so that we can make the 

materials that we do have go further. 

In the 2012 appropriation, DOE received $20 million for an innovation hub on critical materials. The 2013 budget requests a continuation of funding for that hub. Both DOE and EPA have announced small business innovation research, SBIR grants addressing processing of these critical materials. We also have an R&D 

program at DOE aimed at early stage technology alternatives that 

can reduce or eliminate the dependence we have on minerals that 

we are not in a position to produce in this country. So we have a 

lot going on in this domain. We understand its importance. We 

agree with you about that and we are putting money and resources 

into remedying the problem. 

Mr. MILLER. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mrs. Biggert, the gentlelady from Illinois. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Dr. Holdren, the Administration’s big data research and development initiative announced earlier this year focused on improving 

our ability to derive new insights and knowledge from large and 
50 

complex collections of scientific and other data. The growth of the 

big data and data-intensive computing is going to require comparable advances in high end or high performance computing platforms if we are going to effectively and efficiently and affordably 

extract value from large and growing volumes of data. The power 

demands alone will limit the development of larger and faster 

supercomputing systems and their ability to process big data. And 

I don’t view this as an either/or proposition. While the Administration is proposing new financial commitments to big data, we have 

yet received a report from the Administration on the strategy for 

achieving exascale computing. And it is my understanding that a 

report was due out in February of this year outlining the research, 

development, and engineering efforts to achieve exascale. And 

again that was due in February. So when can we expect to see it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me start by agreeing with your point that the 

future of computing is going to involve both what we call big iron 

and big data. And you are asking about the big iron part, the hardware development and the energy requirements. I will have to look 

into where in the process that exascale computing report is and 

how soon you can expect it. I will get back to you on that. But I 

know that we are paying a lot of attention to the needs in that domain and particularly the need that you mentioned to reduce the 

energy requirements of our fastest computers. And there have been 

some very important developments in that domain, which promise 

to substantially reduce the otherwise soaring requirements for 

power of petaflop computers and more. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I really—I worry about, you know, what is happening in the world and we are just on hold because of a report. 

But I was pleased to see that the IBM supercomputer at Argonne 

National Lab in my district ascended to number three as the fastest in the world, third and then behind the fastest computer is at 

Lawrence Livermore and behind that is a Japanese supercomputer. 

But I think that all of—the group at Argonne should be proud of 

their hard work, but clearly, the U.S. leadership is being challenged in this area. 

And as one article put it, the latest list marks the return of the 

European systems in force with the addition of two German systems and one Italian system. And the U.S.-based supercomputer 

that got the top billing in this latest report is now ranked at number six. And I have certainly been looking at this for a long time 

and we are facing stiff competition. And the value of supercomputing seems to be globally understood and we can’t let us fall behind if we are—and we have to have that plan for achieving 

exascale and I would urge you to see that it is completing and submitted to the Congress as soon as possible. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I agree and I will certainly get back to you on the 

report. We intend to stay number one. We can expect challenges 

from around the world in this domain and in others—— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Um-hum. 

Dr. HOLDREN. In high technology but we intend to stay number 

one. We recognize the importance of this one. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yeah. Well, it certainly has been—you know, 

there is—and now in the 2013 budget there has been a submission 

for $21 million for new data-intensive science efforts. But the 
51 

exascale remains on hold so we have got to get those two to be balanced. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren, gentlelady 

from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr. 

Holdren, for being here and for your good work. 

Recently, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report titled, ‘‘Managing for High-Quality Science and Engineering at the 

NNSA National Security Laboratories.’’ And I would ask, Mr. 

Chairman, unanimous consent to submit this report into the 

record. 

The report highlights—and it is a long report but basically it 

highlights the broken relationship between the National Nuclear 

Security Agency and the scientists at our research labs. One senior 

scientist at Los Alamos was quoted in the report as saying this: 

‘‘when I started as a young post-doc and then later in my career 

as a university professor and also here at the lab, there was a social contract which basically said you will never get rich in science 

but we treat you as adults, respect you for your commitment, and 

in turn you can pursue science and have fun.’’ Today, this contract 

is badly broken, an atmosphere of distrust, rigorous control, and 

checks. 

And the report went on to note the increasing operational formality of being dictated by the NNSA headquarters that had contributed to a bias against experimental work. And the report said, 

‘‘without a strong experimental program, the quality of scientific 

and engineering at the laboratories will be at risk, as will the core 

mission of these laboratories.’’ 

Since this report came out last year, are you aware of anything 

that NNSA has done to repair the distrust and the damaged relationships that the report outlines both with the directors and with 

the scientists at our national labs? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thank you for the question. First of all, I am very 

much aware of the report and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I know you are. 

Mr. HOLDREN [continuing]. As you and I have discussed offline, 

we have a taskforce in OSTP in the National Security and International Affairs division following up on that report’s recommendations looking at the health and adequacy of the way we are running our national security, science, technology, and innovation enterprise. I myself just two weeks ago visited both the Sandia National Labs and the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico, 

spoke with the directors of both labs, and I will be going to Livermore to talk to the management at Livermore about this set of 

problems, among others, and what we can do about them. And I 

have talked to Secretary Chu about it and with Administrator 

D’Agostino. And they understand that there is a problem and they 

are as determined as I am to address it. Obviously, we have to 

maintain the quality of the science and engineering at our national 

defense laboratories and excessive micromanagement is obviously 

not contributing to the attractiveness of continuing employment for 

our brightest scientists and engineers at these labs. So we are determined to fix that. 
52 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much for that report. That is very 

encouraging news and perhaps I can follow up offline with some of 

the details of that. I am so pleased that you are taking responsibility for this issue. 

As you know, I am very interested in inertial confinement fusion 

and I am aware that both you and Dr. Koonin, the former Undersecretary for Science, were instrumental in calling for the report 

from the National Academy of Sciences to assess our prospects on 

inertial confinement fusion energy. The National Academy released 

their interim report, and again, I would ask unanimous consent to 

put the interim report into the record. 

Chairman HALL. Excuse me. This is not a report that has been 

discussed with the other side. Normally, you know we do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, I wasn’t aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but 

I—— 

Chairman HALL. And it would be objection unless you want to 

work it out with them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is a National Academy of Science report. It is 

on the Internet so—— 

Chairman HALL. I understand it is a very big report and we are 

aware of it. The normal procedure is to have it worked out, and I 

think they would probably work with you if you would do it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. That would be fine, be happy to do that. 

But I would like to note that the report basically—it is a long report—but it is I would say enthusiastic about the prospects. Originally, the goal for ignition was 2014. Somehow, that morphed into 

2012 and as the report—the National Academy report indicates, 

there is no guarantee. This is science, not engineering. I mean we 

may get this this year; it may be next year. 

Would it be your belief, Dr. Holdren, that we should not—especially given that China and Russia are trying to overtake our lead 

in this matter that we should not give up, close as we are, on this 

quest for ignition at this point? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Certainly, I agree with that. And Secretary Chu 

agrees with it, I know. The NIF is a national resource, National Ignition Facility. It has the potential to achieve ignition although 

there are still obstacles in the way of that. We think that they can 

be overcome and that they should be overcome. So we remain committed to the use of that facility for that purpose as well as others. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time is up. I would just like to say, Dr. 

Holdren, it is a delight to have you here and to listen to your wisdom. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Brooks, gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In his State of the Union Address, the President reiterated his 

call to Congress to pass a ‘‘Clean Energy Standard’’ which would 

require utilities to produce and sell electricity from expensive 

sources such as wind and solar. You may also be aware that the 

Department of Energy has undertaken numerous analyses of the 

impact of Obama’s Clean Energy Standard on electricity prices, including one requested by our own Chairman Hall and another requested by Senator Bingaman. Both Department of Energy studies 
53 

found that Obama’s Clean Energy Standard would significantly increase electricity prices and result in heavy economic cost to the 

people of America. Dr. Holdren, do you agree that President 

Obama’s Clean Energy Standard will result in increased electricity 

cost to American consumers? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, let me note that the clean energy 

standard is not just about wind and solar. It is about nuclear energy, it is about fossil fuel energy with improved emission control 

technologies, and it is the view of the Administration that we are 

going to need all of those in increased measure in order to provide 

the reliable and affordable energy the country needs while addressing the need to reduce emissions, including emissions that are 

threatening to change global climate, that are changing global climate, which itself—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Dr. Holdren, please answer my question. Do you 

agree that the solar and wind aspects of Obama’s Clean Energy 

Standards will increase energy costs for American consumers, as 

has been determined by the Department of Energy in their studies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman, I have not personally read that 

study and so I don’t want to endorse or criticize its findings without having done so. But we are talking about a portfolio of energy 

sources that would fall under the clean energy rubric, and my assumption is that that portfolio will be pursued in a way to minimize impacts on energy prices and on American consumers. 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. Do you have a judgment as to whether the 

solar and wind aspects of Obama’s Clean Energy Standards program will increase cost to consumers? You still haven’t answered 

that question. You used the word ‘‘minimum.’’ I am asking about 

will there be an increase? Do you have a judgment? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think the answer depends on a lot of factors that 

I haven’t analyzed. But we know that at the present time both 

solar energy and wind are more expensive than some of the other 

options. At the same time, the prices of the other options are 

changing. 

Mr. BROOKS. Are you testifying, then, to this Congress that in 

your capacity with OSTP you have no judgment, no idea as to 

whether energy costs will go up or down should the President’s 

Clean Energy Standards with respect to solar and wind power go 

into effect? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The proposal is not with respect to solar and wind 

power alone. And what happens to prices depends on the portfolio. 

Mr. BROOKS. Dr. Holdren, I have limited time. You have already 

covered that it spans different parts. I have focused my question 

on the wind and solar part. That is where the focus is. I don’t want 

to go into everything else. I want your judgment if you have a judgment. And if you don’t have a judgment, that is fine in your capacity with OSTP. If you have no judgment whatsoever, that is fine. 

Say so. Do you have a judgment is the first question. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think it depends on what the alternatives are. 

I think it depends on—— 

Chairman HALL. Answer the question. He asked if you had a 

judgment. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do not have a judgment on the question he has 

posed to me. 
54 

Chairman HALL. That answers the question. Go ahead with your 

questions. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Inasmuch as he doesn’t 

have the background or knowledge to answer that question, I will 

go to another one. 

President Obama has made clean energy spending and the 

‘‘green jobs’’ associated with them a centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda. However, as we review and consider the impact of 

these programs, there has been some controversy regarding the Administration’s definition and accounting of what constitutes a 

‘‘green job.’’ This resulted in many headlines a mere two weeks ago 

when a senior Labor Department official testified to Congress that 

the following occupations constitute green jobs under the Administration’s definition: college professors teaching environmental 

courses, school bus drivers regardless of whether the bus is hybrid 

or an alternative, workers who fuel school buses, employees at bicycle shops, antique dealers because they sell recycled goods, Salvation Army employees, people who sell rare books and manuscripts 

because the items are used, hence recycled. 

Dr. Holdren, as the President’s top science and technology advisor, would you agree the Administration’s definition of green jobs 

is flawed and that it overstates a number of true green jobs that 

exist? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The definition as you just described it seems to me 

to be overly broad, yes. I was not responsible for producing that 

definition. I would be inclined to ask the Council of Economic Advisors how they would define green jobs. I don’t think the Administration as a whole as embraced a decision, but I do agree that the 

definition you read is overly broad. 

Mr. BROOKS. With respect to those seven different professions 

that the senior Labor Department official testified to Congress constitute green jobs under the Administration’s definition, are there 

any that you would consider to actually in fact be a green job of 

those seven? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would want to look at that in more detail. You 

went by the seven rather quickly and I have not focused on this 

issue. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, would you like me to go through them again 

or—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I think that would not be necessary. I would 

be happy to respond to you in writing following the hearing. 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. 

Dr. HOLDREN. But this is not a domain in which the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy has actually gotten involved. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, thank you for your agreement, then, that the 

senior Labor Department official, his view of what is a green job 

and the Administration’s view of what is a green job differs from 

yours. 

Dr. HOLDREN. His view may not be the Administration’s view. 

Mr. BROOKS. Chairman, I have no other questions. Well, now, 

wait a second. This resulted in many headlines two weeks ago 

when a senior Labor Department official testified to Congress that 

the following occupations constitute green jobs under the Administration’s definition. 
55 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman’s time is—— 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. You are over. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney. We will get back to that 

question before we leave. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, thank you for joining us today. In your testimony 

you mentioned a few new projects such as the website about manufacturing databases and the robotics initiative. Would you please 

discuss how these and other initiatives create jobs locally and how 

they advance our leadership in the world with regard to innovation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. All of the initiatives that we have been pursuing 

in this domain—advanced manufacturing, robotics, nanotechnology, 

and others—are aimed, as I mentioned before, at accelerating the 

transfer of fundamental advances and discovery in science and engineering into commercial processes, products, services, and therefore into economic growth and jobs. And the fact that all of these 

initiatives are constructed around partnerships with the private 

sector working together with the public sector and the academic 

sector is, in fact, leading to success in accelerating the transfer of 

these initiatives. 

We already see signs that manufacturing is moving back to the 

United States. We are already seeing benefits from this approach. 

And we are also seeing benefits from an approach in which we are 

working very closely between industry, government, and community colleges to increase the extent to which the coursework that 

students take in community colleges prepares them for jobs in the 

industries that exist in their regions. This I think is an extremely 

important concept that we have been pursuing and it is already 

bearing fruit. 

One of the striking aspects of our current economic predicament 

is that in spite of an overall unemployment rate of over eight percent, many high-tech firms cannot find the high skill workers that 

they need. They can’t find the fit between the jobs they actually 

have open and the people who are available in the unemployed 

labor force. And we intend to fix that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Well, as we all know, cybersecurity 

is an issue that is critically important to our national security and 

our national economic well being. How has your office created initiatives to help the cybersecurity effort and what has the OSTP 

done to strengthen our national cybersecurity? 

Dr. HOLDREN. OSTP has a number of responsibilities in the domain, particularly of national security and emergency preparedness 

communications. And cybersecurity, therefore, intersects our responsibilities in that domain. But more generally, on cybersecurity 

we work very closely with the National Security staff, the Homeland Security Staff, the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security in an interagency process that is 

aimed at strengthening cybersecurity across the United States. 

We also have a variety of bodies and boards in which these government agencies sit with the CEOs of the major communications 

internet service providers and the like to build the sort of coopera-
56 

tion that we need between the public and private sector to better 

protect our electronic systems from attack and from theft. As I 

think everybody in this room knows, this is an enormous challenge 

and it is a high priority for the Administration. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Well, moving on, then, you know, I 

am very interested in the STEM education initiatives. Would you 

please elaborate on how the STEM initiatives you discussed will be 

utilized in our individual districts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think going through the individual districts 

would be—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. A great challenge. Both Change the 

Equation and the Educate to Innovate strategy have a specific 

focus in scaling up models that have proven to work to a much 

wider variety of locations. So, for example, under the Change the 

Equation initiative, they have a program to transfer to 100 new 

sites around the country successful efforts at improving the quality 

of K–12 classroom education through better teacher preparation. 

All of these approaches are of course designed to work with educators at the local level because that is where it happens. 

Educate to Innovate is, among other things, bringing practicing 

scientists, engineers, and mathematicians from companies, from 

national labs, and from universities into classrooms all around the 

country to work with K–12 teachers in improving the classroom experience through more hands-on activities and also to serve as role 

models so that the practicing scientists and engineers and mathematicians can relay to the students the excitement and the opportunity available from STEM careers. So we are absolutely trying to 

do this on the ground across the country and taking models that 

have worked in particular places and translating them to many 

more. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Chair recognizes Mr. Quayle, gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for being here. Earlier this week, my 

colleagues and I sent you a letter seeking additional information on 

the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation that was included in the Administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. And 

NIST has been tasked with coordinating this interagency effort. 

The original budget justification stated that the Administration 

would propose legislation creating a mandatory account making 

available $1 billion but really few details have been made available. Now, my Subcommittee has subsequently held two hearings 

with NIST on their fiscal year 2013 budget request and another 

specifically on the NNMI proposal. And we have been really frustrated by the lack of information and the inability to receive answers on basic questions about the proposal’s funding and structure. We have been told that the Administration is leading this initiative, so I would like to follow up directly with you. 

And my first question is how did the Administration arrive at 

the funding level of $1 billion for the greater network? 
57 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, the basic answer to that question is we ex- pect, number one, that the $1 billion from the Federal Government 

over a period of five years will stimulate at least matching contributions from the private and philanthropic sector. So we are 

looking at a program which over five years would spend about $2 

billion in total. And the idea is to have 15 institutes for manufacturing innovation around the country which would spend about $30 

million a year each. So that is $450 million a year times five years 

is $2.25 billion. And basically that is where the $1 billion number 

came from. The government—— 

Mr. QUAYLE. Where did the estimates for the spending for each 

of those different institutes come from? I mean how are you basing 

those estimates? I am just trying to get an understanding. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I mean obviously it is a back-of-the-envelope calculation—— 

Mr. QUAYLE. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Designed to estimate about how much 

money it would take to make a dent in a regional institute with 

this focus. But, you know, I could not produce a sharp enough pencil to tell you that $30 million is exactly the right number—— 

Mr. QUAYLE. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Rather than $25 or $35. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. So it is a ballpark number that takes you to the 

ballpark number of a billion dollars from the government. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay. Now, the proposal states that it is a mandatory account which is interesting because most of the times these 

programs are discretionary. But the proposal states that it is a 

mandatory account and the authorizing legislation would be subject 

to PAYGO. Can you tell us the specific offsets that the Administration has identified for establishing this mandatory fund? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No specific offset has been identified to this program. It is offset within the mandatory policy changes proposed in 

the budget, but we have not tried to offset the program explicitly. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay. And then on March 9 of this year, the President held a public event in Virginia where he announced the creation of a pilot program supported by up to $45 million in fiscal 

year 2012 funds drawn from existing resources in multiple agencies, including some within this Committee’s jurisdiction. NIST, 

NSF, and the DOE more recently we heard that NASA will also be 

participating in the pilot program. Can you tell us specifically what 

activities at NIST, NASA, NSF, and DOE are going to be reduced 

in order to fund the pilot program? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t think any activities are going to be reduced. The agencies that are going to collaborate in the additive 

manufacturing pilot are advancing specific missions that they are 

already authorized to pursue and they are undertaking activities 

for which funds have been appropriated. But they are doing it 

under this overarching rubric. 

Mr. QUAYLE. So were the funds not necessary—did—are we overly funding these programs? Because it seems like we are actually 

extending and expanding what they are supposed to be doing by 

putting this additional money into new programs. Did they not 

need that money before and it was just excess? 
58 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think we are improving efficiency and coordination by focusing these efforts under this rubric. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay. Now, one other quick question is why would 

the Administration propose to fund the NNMI in fiscal year 2013 

when the pilot, which is supposed to serve as proof of concept for 

the greater network—and that won’t be completed until at least the 

end of fiscal year 2014—why the discrepancy there when you are 

asking for the funds in fiscal year 2013 when you are actually not 

even going to get proof of concept until the end of fiscal year 2014? 

It seems like you are putting the cart before the horse here. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, actually, the solicitation for the additive 

manufacturing pilot closed last week. We expect to announce an 

award in the coming month to six weeks, and we therefore expect 

that the pilot would begin to operate before the end of fiscal 2012. 

Mr. QUAYLE. But operation isn’t proof of concept. I mean you can 

have an operation and say that you are going to try to prove a concept—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, the proof of—— 

Mr. QUAYLE. You are going to be spending a billion dollars; you 

would think that we would want to put forth the proof of concept 

in the totality, not just, hey, we have started the process of a proof 

of concept, which seems what you are doing then if you are talking 

about those awards. That is not a proof of concept; that is just the 

beginning of that process. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think we are talking about a phased process, and we think that the order we have laid out makes sense. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Johnson from Texas for five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, I know that in terms of staffing, the OSTP experiences a high turnover both during the transition in leadership and 

throughout any given administration because of your heavy reliance on detailees from the agencies. But your day-to-day coordination duties carry on from one year to another and from one administration to another. So how many OSTP staff tend to carry over 

from one administration to the next or at least what are your 

own—what is your experience in it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, there is continuing turnover in 

these positions. When I took over the office upon my confirmation 

by the Senate in March of 2009, there were 40 some people who 

had stayed from the previous administration. The turnover in that 

group proceeded over the intervening three years and there are 

now probably more like 10 or 12 who have carried over from the 

previous administration. The continuity is obtained in a lot of 

ways, partly as the folks who are carried over, partly is the really 

extraordinary performance of OSTP directors from one administration to another in handing over to their successor an extraordinary 

degree of documentation about the activities and responsibilities of 

the office. I got a tremendous amount of valuable information from 

my predecessor, the late John Marburger, who served in this capacity in the Bush Administration, who in turn got a tremendous 

amount from his predecessors in the Clinton Administration. 
59 

There is also a continuity that comes from people coming in and 

out. That is, I was in and out of OSTP throughout the Clinton Administration in my role as one of President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology. So I actually knew quite a bit about 

what goes on in OSTP before I ever got the job. There are other 

folks who have been in OSTP before and are now back again but 

weren’t carried over from the previous Administration. There are 

a lot of ways we deal with continuity but I think we are doing well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The benefits—I know there are benefits and limitations of this current model, but I think what it does emphasize 

is that outcomes are not necessarily partisan; they are strictly 

based upon—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. I mean we think of science and technology 

policy as a domain that has largely been bipartisan over the years. 

I think it continues to be. There is wide bipartisan support for at 

least most of what we do and we don’t think of ourselves as a partisan office. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Does your budget adequately support the mix of 

staff and that you think might be best or do you get too much? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, of course, we took a 32 percent budget cut 

for fiscal year 2012. Unfortunately that caused a lot of stress and 

a lot of challenges to manage OSTP’s wide range of responsibilities 

with a budget cut of that magnitude. We are pleased that the appropriators both in the House and in the Senate have this year 

voted out the President’s full request of $5.85 million as opposed 

to the $4.5 we got in 2012 and we hope that ends up, obviously, 

in the final appropriations bill. It would put us in a much better 

position to cover the range of responsibilities we have. We really 

do a lot on a shoestring and we do it in part, as your question implies, with the help of a lot of detailees who come from the science 

reg agencies, they come from NSF, NOAA, NASA, DOE, DOD, 

NIH, and they bring insights about those domains and they enable 

us to cover the broad terrain in a way that we would not be able 

to cover if we had to do it all on our own budget. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Now, one last quick question. The current statute 

limits the office to four Associate Directors and makes them subject 

to Senate confirmation. And right now, you are taking advantage 

of all four slots but unfortunately all without any Senate-confirmed 

directors. Do you have any thoughts either on the number of directors or the requirement for Senate confirmation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think four Senate-confirmed Associate Directors correspond to the four divisions—Science, Technology, Environment and Energy, and National Security and International Affairs is the right number. We started out after some delays in confirmation having three of the four Senate-confirmed. The fourth, 

the President’s nominee for National Security and International Affairs, was never confirmed. He got an interim appointment that 

subsequently that expired and so he has left. But in the meantime, 

the Senate-confirmed Associate Director for Technology Aneesh 

Chopra has left just a few months ago. The Senate-confirmed Associate Director for Environment and Energy Shere Abbott left a little longer ago. And the Senate-confirmed Associate Director for 

Science, Dr. Carl Wieman, Nobel Laureate in Physics left just a 

couple of weeks ago for personal reasons—health reasons really. 
60 

And so we are currently in a position very late in the term, when 

the prospects of getting additional nominees through the Senate 

are very poor, we have one nominee, the President’s nominee for 

an Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs, Dr. Pat Falcone, has had her hearing and we hope she will 

be confirmed. But the other divisions are currently under strong 

leadership but leadership that I have delegated the responsibilities 

to on an interim basis. And I think it is—while we are working on 

the problem of finding people who would be Senate confirmed for 

those slots, I am not sure how many of those we will be able to get 

confirmed before the election. 

Ms. JOHNSON. And it is even more of a challenge for the Nation. 

Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes Dr. Harris, gentleman 

from Maryland, for five minutes. 

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

And thank you, Dr. Holdren, for appearing in front of the Committee. 

Let me ask, you know, one of the issues that came up before my 

Subcommittee has to do with transparency, and in your testimony, 

you kind of brag about the first day in office the President signing 

the memorandum on transparency and open government. With that 

in mind, as the President’s Science Advisor, do you think it is a 

matter of principle that the Federal Government should make scientific data that it uses to justify regulatory actions public? Specifically, we have an issue with the EPA and some of their regulatory 

actions that they claim are based on scientific data but we have 

had a hard time getting them to release the original data upon 

which they base action. As a matter of principle, do you think we 

should expect that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. Would you work with the Committee to see 

that we get—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Be happy to do that. If there is a problem there, 

I would happy to work with you. I think the principle is—absolutely the data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions 

are based should be available to the Committee and should be 

made public unless there is a classification reason—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Right, and—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. It seems unlikely. 

Mr. HARRIS [continuing]. I imagine unlikely in that situation. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Unlikely in this case. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, thank you. Let me ask you, also in your testimony you talk about clean energy but when the President talked 

about clean energy in the State of the Union, he actually included 

natural gas as clean energy. You left it out of your testimony. Do 

you consider natural gas a clean energy source? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. On that—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. Is there a reason—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Natural gas—— 

Mr. HARRIS [continuing]. Why you left it out of your testimony? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No. Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuel 

resources—— 

Mr. HARRIS. So you think we should have—— 
61 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Inherently—— 

Mr. HARRIS [continuing]. Significant research and development 

into it as a clean energy source? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I think the natural gas business is so well 

developed that the private sector does most of the further R&D 

that is needed in that domain. I don’t think we need a large federal 

R&D program, although we do need federal R&D to ensure, for example, that hydrofracturing can be done in a way that protects 

drinking water and protects other environmental values. 

Mr. HARRIS. Is there—you are a scientist. Is there a documented 

case of contamination of drinking water from hydrofracturing? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is not. 

Mr. HARRIS. There is not. So as a scientist with 1.2 million applications of hydrofracturing, your testimony is that despite 1.2 million applications with no case of drinking water contamination, we 

should be expending monies in the Federal Government for 10 

agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrofracturing? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We are—— 

Mr. HARRIS. As a scientist now, 1.2 million applications, Doctor, 

you admit no documented case of drinking water contamination. 

Now, to me it looks like—that looks like a wild goose chase, but 

you might have a different opinion. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think it is very important that we develop 

hydrofracking in a way that the American public has confidence in 

it and can continue to rely on it. 

Mr. HARRIS. Do you think that—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think the danger is, Congressman—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Dr. Holdren, I am going to interrupt you for a second because I only have two more minutes and I have one more 

question. Do you think it is scientifically—that it is scientific integrity when the EPA issues a press release, a fear-mongering press 

release about the data from Pavillion study and basically has to go 

back and admit a few months later that we have to actually go 

back and collect some more data? Do you think that is good 

science? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t want to defend a particular press release. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I didn’t see it. 

Mr. HARRIS [continuing]. Dr. Holdren, I would suggest that part 

of the reason why the American public has no faith is that the scientific community in this Administration has not come out and said 

you know what? You ought to have confidence in a technique that 

has been used 1.2 million times with no documented case of 

water—now, we are going to look at it, but as a baseline it looks 

pretty safe. It is exactly 180 degrees from what scientists in the 

Administration have said. 

Now, finally, in my final minute, there is a conference going on 

in Rio de Janeiro this week, and Americans quite appropriately are 

pretty skeptical whenever we get together at international conferences and come to agreements because they are concerned that 

our taxpayers are going to bear the costs and economic burdens of 

any agreements that come from these. 

In 2007, at a Climate Change Conference in Bali, your response 

to an interview question asked about whether ‘‘Americans need to 
62 

reduce their living standards,’’ you said—and this is a quote and 

I need to know whether it is accurate—‘‘there is going to have be 

a degree of redistribution of how much we consume.’’ Is that an accurate quote of what you said in 2007? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I do not remember, sir, exactly what I said in 

2007, but it sounds to me that I would have been talking about distribution between clean energy technologies and dirty energy technologies and where we get our consumption, what the processes are 

more broadly by which we support our standard of living. 

Let me note as well that both the President has said, and I have 

said, that we believe that the country’s natural gas resources can 

be developed safely. We have both been clear on that. The question 

that you are getting at is whether the government needs to pay 

any attention at all to the range of potential environmental—— 

Mr. HARRIS. No, the question—my specific question is whether 

you said there is going to have to be a redistribution of how much 

we consume. And I will go back and pull the final quote whether 

we were talking about energy or whether we are talking about this 

perception that the government just thinks that Americans just 

consume too much and that maybe this is not fair somehow. Well, 

I would suggest that we—you know, if you think that what we 

ought to reduce our GDP, consume less, maybe have a lower GDP, 

that is certainly consistent with the President’s economic policies. 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is not—— 

Mr. HARRIS. We are at the—— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. What I think and it is not what the 

President thinks. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, thank—I am glad he doesn’t think it but, you 

know, when they continually revise down our GDP estimate and 

then we have folks in the Administration who have said a few 

years ago, well, you know, we ought to redistribute our consumption and you have other Administration officials say, well, you 

know, it would be nice if the price of gas were at European energy 

gas levels, then some people are skeptical of that. But with that— 

and that was just a rhetorical question. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Lipinski, the gentleman from Illinois, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for your testimony and for all the work 

that you are doing. I know it has been almost two hours now. A 

couple questions that I have here, the first is the America COMPETES Act and the reauthorization, I think, were very, very critical for our Nation and we need to remain committed to those. I 

am particularly interested in talking with you about innovation inducement prizes at federal agencies. OSTP recently released a report on prizes highlighting successes and best practices in federal 

prize programs. I was glad to see this report, and I am glad that 

you support the use of innovation prizes. Something I had originally been a part of is the creation of the H–Prize for hydrogen. 

I have continued to promote the use of innovation prizes. 
63 

So can you update us on what has been done with the prizes authority so far in 2012 and what OSTP is doing to promote the use 

of prizes at agencies like the National Science Foundation? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you for that question. First of all, we 

have issued a memorandum that went to all the departments and 

agencies making clear that they had the authority to use prize 

competitions to achieve the goals of the departments and agencies 

where that made sense. And we think—and I think you agree from 

your own background in this domain—that prizes and competitions 

are often an extremely efficient way to generate innovation because 

you end up only paying for success. You describe a goal but don’t 

prescribe the ways to get there, and you draw on the innovation 

of a very wide—or the creativity of a very wide community to find 

the innovations. 

We now have prize competitions going on in something like 40 

different departments and agencies, including the NSF, including 

the DOD, the VA, the Department of Transportation, and many 

others. And the ones that have already come to completion have 

shown some quite remarkable results. I mean one that I am sure 

you know about is the Automotive X Prize, which was corporate 

money but DOE orchestration of the prize competition. There was 

$10 million in prizes for folks who could construct and demonstrate 

a vehicle that gets more than 100 miles per gallon equivalent fuel 

economy. And three vehicles succeeded and split the prize money, 

but the interesting thing is the competitors invested $100 million 

in pursuit of $10 million in prizes. I call that leverage. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I thank you for that, and I think we both 

agree that it is certainly not a substitute for research grants but 

another way of trying to promote innovation in our country. 

A couple other things I wanted to touch on that were brought up 

earlier. First, very briefly I want to concur with Ms. Lofgren on the 

NIF and I am also very interested in NIF and what we are going 

to do in the continuation of that. And STEM education, as Co-Chair 

of the STEM Ed. Caucus, one thing particularly that I wanted to 

raise with you is the federal investment in formal science education, which has shrunk in recent years, and this year’s NSF 

budget request, for example, included 22 percent reduction in Advancing Informal STEM Learning grant program. So I just want to 

ask do you expect informal education programs, including grant 

programs, to be an important part of future federal STEM education portfolio or are we going to continue to see this going down? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I think it will continue to be an important 

part. We are in the late stages of producing a STEM Education 

Strategic Plan that draws on the results of the inventory I mentioned before where, for the first time, we conducted a comprehensive inventory of all the Federal Government STEM ed. programs 

across all departments and agencies that do these things. We are 

already benefitting from some of the insights from that inventory 

in finding ways to expand programs that are more cost-effective 

and shrink some of those that are less cost-effective. But I would 

certainly not expect the informal education programs to go away. 

I think when the STEM Education Strategic Plan comes out fairly 

shortly, those programs will continue to have a role. 
64 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I certainly encourage you to continue including informal STEM ed. I know how important that was for me personally and for a lot of others and I look forward to seeing the federal STEM Education Strategic Plan later this year. Anything else 

you could tell—anything more specific about when this may come 

out or anything else you could tell us about that plan very briefly? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I believe that STEM Education Strategic Plan will 

be out by fall. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

I thank Dr. Holdren for your testimony. And we may have other 

questions. I have some questions I will submit in writing and get 

them to you and hope within a couple of weeks we can leave the 

record open for that. 

And to Ms. Lofgren, it is my understanding that they have an 

agreement on the content of her request, and without objection, her 

request is granted. 

[The information may be found in Appendix 2.] 

Chairman HALL. And with that, Doctor, you are excused. 

This hearing is adjourned. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
65 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

(89) 

Appendix 2 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
90 

PREPUBLICATION COPY: MANAGING FOR HIGH-QUALITY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT

THE NNSA NATIONAL SECURITY LABORATORIES: NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Æ