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

80–558PDF 2013

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S FY 2014 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR SCIENCE AGENCIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013 

Serial No. 113–19 

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. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Witnesses: 

Hon. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 28 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Hon. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President .................................................................................. 61 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letter to Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations, Committee on Foreign Affairs, From Charles F. Bolden, 

Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............. 76 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S FY 2014 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR SCIENCE AGENCIES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

[:ongrcss of the tinitcd ~Ultcs 

'!tonsc of 1Rfprrnrntatiucs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFACE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-<5371 www.science.house.gov 

Committee on Science, Space, and fecbnology Hearing 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

A Review ojthe President's FY 2014 Budget Requestfor Science 

Agencies 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

10:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the 

President 
3 

Purpose 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COlVIMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, .4.J.'il) TECID<OLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

A Review of the President's FY 2014 Budget Request/or Science Agencies 

\Vednesday, April 17, 2013 

10:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Teclmology ",'ill 

hold a hearing to review President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2014 (FY14) budget request for 

programs and science agencies under the Committee's jmisdiction. 

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

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

of the President's overall priOlities in science, space, and technology and will describe how the 

Administration determined priorities for funding across scientific disciplines and agencies. The 

Con:unittee will hold separate hearings in the coming weeks to review the FYl4 budget requests 

of science agencies within its jurisdiction. 

Witness 

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

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

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

was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Env'lromnental Policy and Director of the Program 

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

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

The following web links are highlights ofthe President's FY 2014 budget req\lest: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sitesldefaultlfileslmicrositeslostp/2014 R&Dbudget overview.pdf 

http://www.whitehouse.O'ov/sitesidefaultlfiles/micrositeslosto/20 14 R&Dbudget agencies.pdf 

The following web link provides highlights U.S. Global Change Research Program, rene'\vllble 

energy programs, and climate change preparedness in the President's FY 2014 budget request: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultlfileslmicrosites/ostoI2014 R&Dbudget climate.pdf 

http://WW\v.whitehouse.!!ovlomblbudgetlfactsheetlbuilding-a-clean-energv-economy-improyingenergv-securitv-and-addressin!!-climate-change 
4 

The following web link provides highlights of the Administration's proposal to consolidate 

STEM education programs in the President's FY 2014 budget request: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultlfileslmicrosites/ostpi2014 R&Dbudget STEM.pdf 

The follovving web link provides highlights of the Administration's proposals for manufactoring 

R&D programs in the President's FY 2014 budget request: 

http://www.whitehouse.aov!ombibudgetifactsheetlmaking-america-a-magnet-for-manufactoring-

~ 
5 

Chairman SMITH. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

will come to order. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s 

hearing, a Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for Science Agencies. I will recognize myself for an opening 

statement and then the Ranking Member. 

The topic of today’s hearing is the President’s budget request for 

the coming year. It is the first of several hearings to examine the 

$40 billion in annual federal R&D spending within the Science 

Committee’s jurisdiction. Each Subcommittee will examine the request for the science agencies under their jurisdiction in the coming 

weeks. 

However, at the outset of this series of hearings, I would like to 

say that these budget hearings are about something far more important than simply numbers on a ledger. The budget choices for 

federal research and development investments we choose will affect 

research and technology for many decades to come. 

This Committee was first created in 1957 in response to the 

threat of the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik. At that time, Americans were fearful of what this small spacecraft represented. The 

threats we face today are far more diverse and complicated. But in 

many ways, the same fundamental concern remains today as when 

this Committee was first created: Is America still a leader in 

science, space, and technology or are we falling behind? How does 

America stay ahead in the race for global competitiveness? How 

can we measure the benefits of such research investments when 

the payoff might be many years later? And how can American 

innovators better leverage these Federal Government investments 

to benefit the American people? 

These questions are the prism through which the President’s 

budget request and Congress’ policy and budget decisions must be 

viewed. It is less a matter of dollars and cents, but more about 

finding common-sense solutions. 

Here are some of the decisions this Committee faces with the 

President’s budget before us. 

• Today, the United States pays Russia $63 million to take each 

of our astronauts to the International Space Station we built 

with the now-retired Space Shuttle. How best can we develop 

the new systems to once again launch American astronauts on 

American rockets? How can we better utilize the research capabilities of the International Space Station over the next decade? 

• Beyond low-Earth orbit of the Station, where are the next destinations for our astronauts to explore? Is it an asteroid, as the 

President suggested three years ago? Or is the Earth’s Moon 

a more compelling place for American astronauts to return 

rather than finding an asteroid to pull into the Moon’s orbit? 

• In his inaugural address last January, the President spoke 

briefly about climate change and the ‘‘overwhelming judgment 

of science.’’ His budget proposes $2.7 billion spread across 13 

different federal agencies for climate science. How does this 

high level of spending affect other research priorities? Is some 

consolidation of research effort needed here? 
6 

• Today, China and other countries are using the very same 

Internet computer connections America invented and built over 

decades to spy on high-tech American companies and laboratories to gain our know-how and intellectual property. They 

might even attempt to cause physical damage using the computer systems that drive our society today. What is the best 

way to defend against cyber attacks and intrusions? 

These are only a handful of the decisions before us as we consider the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for federal research and development. American ingenuity and perseverance in 

the face of adversity is what makes our country great. We have 

many challenges before us—technological, scientific, and budgetary—but we will face them with the same determination Americans have in our past. 

And that concludes my opening statement. And the gentlewoman 

from Texas, Ms. Johnson, and the Ranking Member of the Committee is recognized for her opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

The topic of today’s hearing is the President’s budget request for the coming year. 

It is the first of several hearings to examine the $40 billion in annual federal R&D 

spending within the Science Committee’s jurisdiction. 

Each Subcommittee will examine the requests for the science agencies under their 

jurisdiction in the coming weeks. However, at the outset of this series of hearings, 

I would like to say that these budget hearings are about something far more important than simply numbers on a ledger. The budget choices for federal R&D investments we choose will affect research and technology for many decades to come. 

This Committee was first created in 1957 in response to the threat of the Soviet 

Union’s launch of Sputnik. At that time, Americans were fearful of what this small 

spacecraft represented. 

The threats we face today are far more diverse and complicated. But in many 

ways, the same fundamental concern remains today as when this Committee was 

first created: Is America still a leader in science, space, and technology, or are we 

falling behind? How does America stay ahead in the race for global competitiveness? 

How can we measure the benefits of such research investments when the payoff 

might be many years later? And how can American innovators better leverage these 

Federal Government investments to benefit the American people? 

These questions are the prism through which the President’s budget request and 

Congress’s policy and budget decisions must be viewed. It is less a matter of dollars 

and cents, but more about finding common-sense solutions. 

Here are some of the decisions this Committee faces with the President’s budget 

before us: Today, the U.S. pays Russia to take each of our astronauts to the International Space Station we built with the now-retired Space Shuttle. How best can 

we develop the new systems to once again launch American astronauts on American 

rockets? How can we better utilize the research capabilities of the International 

Space Station over the next decade? 

Beyond low-Earth orbit of the Station, where are the next destinations for our astronauts to explore? Is an asteroid the next destination, as the President suggested 

three years ago? Or is the Earth’s Moon a more compelling place for American astronauts to return to, rather than finding an asteroid to pull into the Moon’s orbit? 

In his inaugural address last January, the President spoke briefly about climate 

change and the ‘‘overwhelming judgment of science.’’ His budget proposed $2.7 billion spread across 13 different federal agencies for climate science. How does this 

high level of spending affect other research priorities? Is some consolidation of research effort needed here? 

Today, China and other countries are using the very same Internet computer connections America invented and built over decades to spy on high-tech American 

companies and laboratories to gain our know-how and intellectual property. They 

might even attempt to cause physical damage using the computer systems that 
7 

drive our society today. What is the best way to defend against cyber attacks and 

intrusions? 

These are only a handful of the decisions before us as we consider the President’s 

FY 2014 budget request for federal research and development. American ingenuity 

and perseverance in the face of adversity are what make our country great. We have 

many challenges before us—technological, scientific, and budgetary—but we will 

face them with the same determination Americans have in our past. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much and good morning. And welcome, Dr. Holdren. It is good to have you back before the Committee and as we begin to digest the President’s fiscal year 2014 

R&D budget proposals. 

I am pleased that the President remains committed to 

prioritizing investments in research and development and STEM 

education in his request. Even in these fiscally challenging times, 

we must set priorities, and there are few more important investments that we can make for our Nation’s brainpower. 

The scientists, engineers, and innovators of today make discoveries and develop technologies that generate whole new industries 

and jobs, improve the quality of life and the security of our citizens, 

and keep our Nation thriving in a competitive world economy. They 

also help to give our children the grounding in science and technology they will need to become the innovators of the future or simply to be prepared for the highly skilled jobs of the future. 

Specifically, I applaud the President’s continued commitment to 

keeping the budgets of NSF, NIST, and DOE’s Office of Science on 

sustained, upward trajectories initiated in the America COMPETES Act. These agencies, among others, help to ensure our longterm economic growth through their support for cutting-edge, basic 

research and STEM education. 

I am also pleased with the Administration’s increased support for 

advanced manufacturing. The last few years have proven that we 

cannot be just a service economy and continue to grow. We must 

also maintain a strong base of American manufacturing. While we 

will have questions about some of the specific initiatives as we proceed with the series of agency budget hearings, I firmly believe 

that the key to maintaining and rebuilding our manufacturing capacity is through strategic investments in advanced manufacturing 

R&D and workforce development. 

I also support the increased funding for the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. Scientists are telling us that the climate is 

changing, and I do not understand why some of us keep fighting 

that. The significant increase in extreme weather events across the 

globe—it snowed in Texas last week, as it was 80 degrees here in 

recent years and the empirical records of increased global temperatures and greenhouse gas concentration should be evidence enough. 

I hope we act before it is too late to direct our Nation’s great brainpower to developing solutions to reduce the warming and mitigate 

the impacts of our most vulnerable communities. 

At the same time, I am concerned that in a number of cases, 

agencies are being given increased responsibilities without being 

provided the necessary additional resources. NASA is a case in 

point, with some climate responsibilities previously assigned to 

NOAA being shifted to NASA without the out-year budget being 

adjusted accordingly. In addition, NASA is now being asked to 

carry out an ambitious asteroid retrieval mission which, while 
8 

making use of some existing projects, will clearly also require significant new development work to be undertaken. 

In both of these cases, is the Administration going to provide to 

NASA the additional resources required to successfully carry out 

the mandates that have been given, or is it going to require NASA 

to cannibalize other important activities? 

And finally, I want to address the Administration’s sweeping proposal to reorganize federal STEM education programs. I support 

the Administration’s effort to develop a coherent vision and strategy for federal investments in STEM. I firmly believe in a federal 

role in STEM education, but I also believe that we must hold ourselves and our agencies accountable for these investments. We need 

to prioritize and we need to focus on outcomes, not outputs or dollars spent. This is exactly what we asked you to do in 2010 COMPETES Act, and I am happy that you took the task seriously. 

At the same time, the release of this proposal before we have the 

strategic plan in hand makes it difficult for us to understand and 

evaluate all of the decisions and realignments. I hope, Dr. Holdren, 

that you will be able to elucidate more of this for us today, and I 

urge you to prioritize getting us the full report. I am supportive of 

your process and I want to be supportive of your outcome, but the 

longer you wait to share your detailed plans and justifications, the 

greater the chance that Member and stakeholder concerns will 

grow and your tremendous efforts will be set back at least a year, 

if not longer. 

That being said, we will have some concerns and disagreements 

about the federal R&D budget proposal, but let me be clear. This 

is a good budget for research, innovation, and education. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the 

months ahead to work toward the goal of making sure that the fiscal year 2014 authorization and appropriations bill that this Congress will eventually pass will continue to reflect the need to invest 

in our future. 

Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for being here today. And thank you for 

letting me go over 51 seconds. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE

JOHNSON

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

It’s good to have you back before the Committee as we begin to digest the President’s FY 2014 R&D budget proposals. 

I am pleased that the President remains committed to prioritizing investments in 

research and development and STEM education in his request. Even in these fiscally challenging times, we must set priorities, and there are few more important 

investments we can make than in our Nation’s brain power. 

The scientists, engineers, and innovators of today make discoveries and develop 

technologies that generate whole new industries and jobs, improve the quality of life 

and security of our citizens, and keep our Nation thriving in a competitive world 

economy. They also help to give our children the grounding in science and technology they will need to become the innovators of the future, or simply to be prepared for the highly skilled jobs of the future. 

Specifically, I applaud the President’s continued commitment to keeping the budgets of NSF, NIST, and DOE’s Office of Science on the sustained upward trajectories 

initiated in the America COMPETES Act. These agencies, among others, help to ensure our long-term economic growth through their support for cutting-edge basic research and STEM education. 
9 

I am also pleased with the Administration’s increased support for advanced manufacturing. The last few years have proven that we cannot be just a service economy 

and continue to grow. We must also maintain a strong base of American manufacturing. While we will have questions about some of the specific initiatives as we proceed with a series of agency budget hearings, I firmly believe the key to maintaining 

and rebuilding our manufacturing capacity is through strategic investments in advanced manufacturing R&D and workforce development. 

I also support the increased funding to the U.S. Global Change Reserach Program, 

including the purposed increase for NASA’s climate research. Scientists are telling 

us that the climate is changing, and I don’t understand why some of us keep fighting them. The significant increase in extreme weather events across the globe in recent years and the empirical records of increased global temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations should be evidence enough. I hope we act before it is too 

late to direct our Nation’s great brainpower to developing solutions to reduce the 

warming and mitigate the impacts in our most vulnerable communities. 

Finally, I want to address the Administration’s sweeping proposal to reorganize 

federal STEM education programs. I support the Administration’s effort to develop 

a coherent vision and strategy for federal investments in STEM. I firmly believe in 

a federal role in STEM education, but I also believe we must hold ourselves and 

our agencies accountable for these investments. We need to prioritize and we need 

to focus on outcomes, not outputs or dollars spent. This is exactly what we asked 

you to do in the 2010 COMPETES Act, and I am happy that you took this task seriously. 

At the same time, the release of this proposal before we have the strategic plan 

in hand makes it very difficult for us to understand and evaluate all of the decisions 

and realignments. I hope, Dr. Holdren, that you will be able to elucidate more of 

this for us today, and I implore you to prioritize getting us the full report. I am 

supportive of your process, and I want to be supportive of your outcome, but the 

longer you wait to share your detailed plans and justifications, the greater the 

chance that Member and stakeholder concerns will grow and your tremendous efforts will be set back at least a year, if not longer. 

That being said, we will have some concerns and disagreements across the federal 

R&D budget proposal, but let me be clear. This is a good budget for research, innovation, and education. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the months ahead to make sure that the FY 2014 appropriations bills 

that this Congress will eventually pass continue to reflect the need to invest in our 

future. 

Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for being here today, and thank you for your contributions to ensuring continued U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Also, if other Members have opening statements, they will be 

made a part of the record at this point. 

I am going to introduce our witness, but Ms. Johnson just saying 

that she went over a few seconds reminds me to let Dr. Holdren 

know that if he goes beyond the usual five minutes for witnesses, 

that is fine, too. You are the only witness here, and so if you need 

to take more time, that would be perfectly fine. 

Our witness today is the Honorable John Holdren. Dr. Holdren 

serves as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, where he is both the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Co-Chair of the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 

Prior to his current appointment by President Obama, Dr. 

Holdren was a professor in both the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth Science at Harvard. Previously, 

he was a member of the faculty at the University of California, 

Berkeley, where he founded and led a graduate degree program in 

energy and resources. Dr. Holdren graduated from MIT with degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics. 

As our witness knows, he is normally limited to five minutes, 

and as I have just mentioned, please take more if you need to. And 

Dr. Holdren, we look forward to your testimony. 
10 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOLDREN, 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, 

Members of the Committee, I am certainly happy to be here with 

you today to discuss the civilian science and technology components 

of the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget. 

The President, in his most recent State of the Union address, articulated three overarching priorities: making America a magnet 

for new jobs in manufacturing; unlocking the promise of American 

energy; and educating our citizens with the skills and training to 

fill the jobs of the future. The President’s 2014 budget supports 

these three priorities by investing strategically in science and engineering research and in STEM education. 

We know from decades of experience that these are the kinds of 

investments that will pay off for the Nation in the years ahead. 

They are the kinds of investments that a forward-looking nation 

must maintain even in economically trying times. By building and 

fueling America’s engines of discovery, these investments promise 

to expand the frontiers of human knowledge, revitalize America’s 

manufacturing sector and promote sustainable economic growth, 

cultivate a clean energy future for the Nation, improve health care 

outcomes for more people at lower cost, manage competing demands on environmental resources while addressing global climate 

change, and strengthen our national security. 

Importantly, the President’s budget does so without adding to the 

federal deficit, balancing increases in some areas with decreases in 

others and doing so strategically rather than with the blunt tool of 

sequestration. The numbers have been out for about a week now, 

so I am not going to take a lot of time going through them in detail, but as you know, the President’s budget proposes $142.8 billion for federal research and development in fiscal year 2014. That 

is an increase of 1.3 percent over the 2012 enacted level and proposes $69.6 billion for nondefense R&D, which would be an increase of 9.2 percent. These increases are offset, as I mentioned, by 

strategic cuts. 

For example, the $71.5 billion proposed for development, the D 

in R&D in the 2014 budget, represents a decline of $3.8 billion in 

that category. Because the final 2013 appropriations were so recently enacted, the comparisons in the budget and those I will 

make here today are between the 2014 proposals and the enacted 

2012 appropriation. And I use current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. If you want to adjust them for inflation, the estimate for 

inflation between 2012 and 2014 is estimated to be 4.0 percent. 

Among the particular highlights of the budget, it provides targeted support for three agencies repeatedly identified as especially 

important to the Nation’s continued scientific and economic leadership: the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s 

Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology laboratories. The increase there is 8.0 percent for those 

three combined. They total $13.5 billion. 

The budget provides $17.7 billion to NASA, including funds for 

the continued development of the Space Launch System and the 
11 

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle to enable human exploration 

missions to new destinations, including an exciting mission in the 

planning stages that would bring an asteroid within range for a 

human visit. 

Within the Department of Energy, the budget proposes an Energy Security Trust to support research into transportation technologies to shift our cars and trucks off oil and insulate American 

families from volatile gasoline prices. And it provides $379 million 

for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, or ARPA–E, to 

support transformational discoveries and accelerate development of 

clean energy technology. 

The budget also supports several high-priority interagency 

science and technology initiatives, including the Networking and 

Information Technology R&D Program, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

as mentioned by the Chairman. Finally, the budget proposes $3.1 billion for STEM education programs. That is a 6.7 percent increase, and it would reorganize the 

welter of small STEM ed programs spread across the mission agencies into about half the current number to improve focus, coordination, and evaluation. 

In closing, let me emphasize the long-standing bipartisan cooperation that has characterized the Federal Government’s work to 

maintain America’s global leadership position in science, technology, and innovation over many administrations. My colleagues 

and I in the Obama Administration look forward to continuing to 

work with this Committee and the rest of Congress to strengthen 

the Nation’s science and technology portfolio in order to sustain 

and expand the economic and other societal benefits that that portfolio underpins. 

Thank you very much. I think I am just a few seconds over. 

[The statement of Mr. Holdren follows:] 
12 

Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Executive Office of the President of the United States 

to the 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

on 

Research and Development in the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 

April 17, 2013 

Chainllan Smith, Ranking Member Johnson. and Members of the Committee. it is Illy 

distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss the civilian science and technology (S& T) 

components of the President's fiscal year (FY) 2014 Budget 

A World-Leading Commitment to Science and Research 

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

help create a growing American economy built on a solid fOlmdation of free enterprise, 

individual initiative, and opportunity for evelyone. He called on the American people inside and 

outside of govenul1ent to work toward that vision. and he committed his Administration to doing 

its PaJt by setting clear and aJnbitiolls priorities and investing in domains that will support broadbased and long-tenll growth. 

He alticulated in paJticular three priorities: making Amellca a magnet for new jobs aJld 

manufacturing: unlocking the promise of American energy: and educating our citizens with the 

skills aJld training to fill the jobs of the future. lie called upon Americruts to create aJ1d sustain aJl 

economic aJld social environment where invention. innovation, and industry CaJl flomish. and 

where a growing middle class could thrive. 

The President's 2014 Budget supports that vision by investing in science and engineering 

research that can tum gallle-chaJlging ideas into life-chaJlging realities. And it provides supp0l1 

for the creation of new technologies. products. aJld industries that--despite barely having been 

imagined a few years earlier---have the potential to create some of the biggest businesses and 

best jobs of the future. 

At the salllc time. thc 2014 Budget recognizes today's tiscal constraints and makes tough 

but discriminating choices. linliting spending in lllaJlY areas that in other times would likely be 

deemed worthy of greater support_ But the Budget also focuses on and shows confidcncc in the 

future. By building aJld fueling America's engines of discovely. it promises to exprutd the 

frontiers of human knowledge: promote sustainable economic gro\\1h and good middle-class 

jobs by revitalizing Amelica's 1l1aJIIlfacturing sector: cultivate a deaJl-energy fhtlll'e for the 

Nation: improve health-caJ'e outcomes for more people at lower cost maJlage competing 

demands Oil environmental resollrces while addressing global climate-change challenges: and 

strengthen our national security. 

As past budgets from this Administration did. the President's 2014 Budget proposes to 

invest intelligently in research. llmovation. education. and intrastmeture to lay the tOlmdations 

for the industries, jobs, workforce, and environmental aJld national-security benefits of 
13 

tomon-ow. But. of course. we need the continued support of the Congress to get it done. I say 

"continued support" because much of the President's Federal research and education investment 

pottfolio enjoyed bipattisan suppOtt during the fU'st telll! of the Administration. C ollgress has 

reco!!nized that retaining America's !!lobal leadership position in science, technolo!!y. and 

illliovatioll is not a pattisan issue--and not an issue to gamble with. We hope to extend and to 

build on this mutual tmderstanding and appreciation in the second tel111. in our interactions with 

both the Senate and the Honse. so we can continue to strengthen the Nation's science and 

tecJUlology pOltfolio and all the economic and other societal benefits it lmdetpins. 

In the remainder of this testimony. I will elaborate 011 how the science and technology 

components of the President's 2014 Bud!!et support this agenda. 

The Federal R&D Budget 

Histoty has shown that one of the most effective and etliciellt ways to invest ill 

Alllerica-one of the best ways to aSSlU'e that the Nation remains a magnet for new jobs and 

manufacturing and a feltile training !!round lew a new generation of inllovators and 

entrepreneurs-is to invest in reseat'ch atld development (R&D). The President's Fiscal Yeat· 

2014 Budget proposes $142.8 billion for Federal research and development (R&D) to do just 

that-to build American innovation in manufacturing, to promote c1eatl Americatl energy. atld to 

nurture a highly-skilled American workforce. To aSSlU'e continued U.S. leadership in the 

increasingly competitivc knowledge-based economy, the 2014 Budget proposes a substantial 

increase in non-defense R&D to $69.6 billion. an increase of 9.2 percent over the 2012 enacted 

level, appropriately offset elsewhere in reco!!nition of fiscal Iimits_ 

Specifically, the Obama A.dministration's investments in research, ilmovatioll. education. 

atld illli'astJUc!ure fit within an overall discretionary budget capped at Budget Contwl Act of 

2011 levels. The Budget reflects strategic decisions to foclls resources 011 those at'eas where the 

payoff for the American people is likely to be highest. and allows for cuts in areas of lesser 

leverage. For exatllple. the $71.5 billion proposed for development - the "D" in "R&D" - ill the 

2014 Budget represents a decline of$3.8 billion compared to 2012 enacted tlUlding levels. l 

Budgets of Science Agencies 

Thl'ee agencies have been identified as especially impOltallt to this Nation's continued 

scientific and economic leadership by the President's PllUl for Science and Imlovation, the 

America COMPETES Act of 2007. the Administration's Innovation Strategy. and the America 

C01v!PETES Reauthorization Act of 2010: the National Science FOlmdation (NSF). a primat)' 

source of funding for basic curiosity-driven academic research that leads to discoveries. 

inventions. and job creation: the Depattment of Energy's OfTtce of Science. which leads 

nllldamental research relevant to energy and also builds and operates much of the Nation's major 

research infrastmclllre--advatlced light somces. accelerators. supercomputers, and facilities for 

making nanomaterials-on which our scientists depend for reSeat-dl breakthroughs: and the 

, All comparisons in the testimony are between the 2014 Budget and enacted 2012 appropriations. The testimony 

discusses chanl'es in CUlTent dollars. nol adjusted for inflation. The latest economic projections show inflation of 1.9 

percent between 2013 and 2014 for the economy as a whole. usinl' the GDP deflator. The inflation projections show 

economy-wide inflation at 4.0 percent for the two years between 2012 and 2014. All budget fil'ures exclude the 

potential effects in FY 2014 of budge I sequestration. as established by Ihe Budget Control Act of201!. 
14 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories, which SUppOlt a wide range 

of tec\mically and economically essential pursuits, ii'om accelerating standards development for 

health infomlatioll technology to conducting measlU'ement-science research to enable net-zeroenergy buildings and advanced manufacturing processes. These three agencies were authorized 

through FY 2013 in the America CO.l'vfPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. I look forward to 

working with this Committee in coming months on reauthorizing the CO.I'vfPETES legislation. 

In recognition of the leverage these three agencies ofier and their key role in maintaining 

America's preeminence in the global marketplace. Congress and this Administration have 

worked together to increase filllding for these agencies significantly over the past 4 years. The 

2014 Budget maintains the commitment to increase flUlding for these agencies with an 8.0 

percent increase between 2012 aud 2014 for the three agencies' combined budgets, totalin!1 

$13.5 billion. I want to emphasize that the proposed increases for these agencies are prut of a 

fiscally responsible budget focused on deficit reduction. lI1eanin!1 these increases are fully offset 

by cuts in other progrrullS. 

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

agencies tulder the jurisdiction of the Committee. Therefore. I will not provide details of the 

defense R&D p0l1folio (the Depm1ment of Defense and DOE's defense pro!1rams) or the bud!1ct 

of the National hlstitutes of Health (NIH). 

National Science FOlUldation (NSF) 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of support for academic 

research for most non-biomedical disciplines, and it is the only Federal agency dedicated to the 

support of basic research ruld education across all fields of science and engineering. NSF has 

always operated under the belief that optimal use of Federal funds relies on two conditions: that 

its research is aimed - and continuously re-ainled - at the frontiers of llllderstmlding: and that 

funds arc best awarded thrOlI!1h competitive, merit-review processes tlnol1!1h time-limited 

awm·ds. When these two conditions ru'e mel. the Nation gets the most intellectual ruld economic 

leverage from its research investments. In reco!1llition of the strong COllllection between NSF's 

investments in fllndamental science and engineering research and education and the 

technological innovation and technical workforce that filel tomon-ow's job-creating compruues. 

the 2014 Budget request for NSF is $7.6 billion. an increase of 8,4 percent above the 2012 

funding level. 

NSF puts the !1reatest shru'e of its resources into the Nation's colle!1es mId lUliversities. 

Universities perfoml over half of all basic research in the United States. Basic research fiUlding 

such as that provided by NSF is impOltaut not only because it leads to new knowledge 3l\d 

applications but also because it trains the researchers ruld the tecllllical workforce of the filture. 

ensuring the Nation will benefit from a new generation of makers and doers. hI order to 

maximize this dual benefit to society and NSF's special contribution, the 2014 Budget provides 

$325 million to NSF for a new. enhanced National Graduate Research Fellowship program. The 

Bud!1et also proposes to consolidate a number of science, technolo!1Y, engineering. and 

mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education activities into a new NSF program. which will 

promote evidence-based refonns, These proposals are pal1 of a govemmellt-wide reorgrulizatioll 

of STEM education programs that I discuss latcr in my testimony. 

3 
15 

The NSF 2014 Budget suppOlis job creation in advanced manufactmillg and emerging 

teclmologies with $300 million in Cyber-enabled Matel1als, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems 

(CErvfMSS) for multidisciplinary research targeted at new materials. smatt systems. advanced 

manufacturing technologies, and robotics technologies. To encourage interdisciplinary reseat'ch 

for a future bio-economy, the Budget proposes $51 million for innovative proposals at the 

interface of biology, mathematics. the physical sciences, and engineering in the BioMaPS 

program. NSF intends to supp0l1 approximately 520 million ill FY 2014 ill reSeat"Cll to advatlce 

the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotecllllologies (BRAIN) initiative 

annoullced eat'lie-r this month by the President. NSF research could involve the development of 

molecular-scale probes that can sense and record the activity of neural networks: adVatlCes in 

"Big Data" that are necessary to analyze the huge amounts of information that will be generated. 

and increased Imderstanding of how thOllglltS. emotions, actions. and memolies are represented 

in the brain. NSF will collaborate on this initiative with NIH, the Depat111lent of Defense's 

Defense Advatlced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and private-sector partners. The 

Budget's proposal for NSF also includes 5155 million for the Cyberinfi'astmcture Framework for 

21" Century Science, Engineering. atId Education (CIF21) initiative. neat"!y double the 2012 

enacted level, to accelerate the pace of discovelY in all research disciplines by advancing high 

pelfol1llatlce computing, creating new research networks atJd data repositories, atld developing 

new systems to visualize data. The Budget proposes $25 million, an increase of $17 million 

above the 2012 enacted level, for the public-private Innovation COlpS (I-COlpS) progratn at NSF, 

which is aimed at bringing together the technological, entrepreneurial, and business know-how 

necessary to bring discoveries ripe for innovation out of the university lab. The Budget also 

provides $63 million to continue the Integrated NSF SUppOlt Promoting Interdisciplinary 

Research and Education (INSPIRE) initiative that is chanlIin!l- the way the agency solicits and 

fililds innovative cross-disciplillaty proposals. The 2014 Budget also proposes $372 million for 

filildatllental research that is directly relevant to filtme clean energy technologies such as solar 

power generation and energy efliciency. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administmtion (NASA) 

The 2014 NASA Budget reaflil111S the Administration's cOl1ll11itment to that agency's 

wide-ratlging and importatlt agenda, consistent with the bipaJ1isati agreelllent reached between 

Conlll:ess atld the Administration in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (the Act). NASA's 

prog'rams not only advance U.S. leadership in human and robotic space exploration, planetary 

science, astronomy, and cosmology, but tln'ough their contributions to aeronautical research and 

Earth observation they directly snppolt U.S. economic competitiveness and the Nation's capacity 

to deal with the challenges of a chatlging environment. Consistent with the provisions of the Act 

the 2014 Budget filllds continued development of the Space Lallllch System (SLS) atJd Orion 

Multi-Pm-pose Crew Vehicle (MP(,V) to enable human-exploration missions to new 

destinations; the operation atld enhatJced use of the Intemational Space Station (ISS), which has 

been extended througli at least 2020: the development of private-sector systems to CatlY cargo 

and crew into low Earth orbit, thlls re-establishing a cost-effective U.S, hlllllati spaceflight 

capability atld shOliening the duration of om sole reliatlce on Russiatl lallllch vehicles for access 

to the ISS; a halanced pOltfolio of space and Eat1h science, illcludiu!( a continued commitment to 

new satellites atld programs for Ealih observation: a dyuatuic space-tecllllology development 

program; and a strong aeronautics research eifoli. I look forward to working with the Connuittee 

this year on reauthorizing NASA for the next several yeat's. 

4 
16 

Within the context of a difficult budget environment and the Budget Control Act's 

spending caps, NASA's 2014 budget is $17.7 billion, a slight decrease ti-OUI the 2012 enacted 

level. The Budget provides $821 million in NASA fiUlding that ,viii be coupled , .. ith privatesector investments to develop new U.S. capabilities to transpOli hlUllan crews to the Intemational 

Space Station. It also provides S2.7 billion for the next-generation. deep-space crew capsule 

Orion MPCV and the heavy-lift SLS rocket that will send Inllllan-exploratioll missions to new 

destinations inclnding a bold plan to send Innllans to an asteroid - and it invests $9,tz million 

for the development of ilUlOvative new teclmologies that can expand the potential and lower the 

cost of ollr space science and exploration efforts as well as benefit other U.S. govemment and 

cOlllmercial space activities. NASA has unique expeltise in Ealtl1 observation satellite and 

sensor development, and the Budget makes best use of that expeliise, providing $1.8 billion to 

the Earth Science program. including lilllds to begin work on land imaging capabilities beyond 

the Landsat Data Continuity Mission; to study approaches to continue the long history of 

measurements of solar inadiance, atmospheric ozone, and Earth's radiation of ellel'!!y to space: 

aud to suppoli other Eat1h-scieuce efforts. The Budget fhlly filllds the Janles Webb Space 

Telescope. the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope that will be 100-tillles more capable, at 

$658 million to keep it 011 track for laullch iu 2018. 

To enhance U.S. capabilities to defend our planet against near-earth ol~jects (NEOs) snch 

as asteroids, the subject of Illy testimony before the COIllmittee last month. the Budget 

accelerates effolts to develop the capabilities to defend Earth fi'om asteroid impacts by 

identifying potentially hazardous objects and further iuvestigating their scientific attributes. This 

work will also SUppOlt NASA's new asteroid mission, which itself would serve as a key 

stepping stone to manned missions to Mars and other destinations. The Bndp,et provides a total of 

$105 million for initial investments in the asteroid mission. $78 million to develop needed 

technologies and study altemative approaches for a robotic mission to rendezvous with a small 

asteroid and redirect it and $27 million to accelerate ell011s to detect atld characterize potentially 

hazardous asteroids. 

Over the past yeat', NASA's Mat's exploration progranl has continued to advance our 

lmderstanding of Mars and engage the American people. patticnlarly through the feats of the 

Mars Science LaboratOlY Curiosity, roatuing the surface of 1\,1at·s and conducting previously 

Illlimaginable scientific studies there. The S1.2 billion 2014 budget for Planetat1" Science. 

including $234 million for Mars exploration. reflects an integrated strategy that ensures the 

robotic l'vlars Exploration Program supports both science and long-tenn human exploration goals. 

Department of Commerce National Institute ofStatldat'ds and Tec1ll1olo!Zv (NIST) 

The complex web of technolo!zy that keeps this Nation's equipment and economy 

l1lJlltillg smoothly depends on largely invisible but critical SUppOlt ill the tields of measurement 

science and standards. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories 

stand at the core of this Nation's uIlparalleled capacity in these areas, promoting U.S. iUllovation 

and industrial competitiveness by advatlcing meaSlIl'emenf science. statldat·ds. and teclmology. 

Reflecting NIST's vital role in snpportin!Z the economy atld infrastmctme. the 2014 Budget of 

$754 million for NIST's intratllurallaboratories atld construction of reseat'ch facilities atll01Ults 

to a 21 percent increase over the 2012 enacted level. That increase will SUppolt highperionnatlCe laboratory research atld facilities for a diverse portfolio of investigations iu at'eas 

gennatle to advatlced manufacturing, nanotec1mology. cybersecurity, disaster resilience. and 

forensic science. For NIST's extramural programs, the Budget provides a S25 million increase to 

5 
17 

the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to establish ManlI£1ctming 

Technology Acceleration Centers to assist manufactmers in adopting new technologies to 

improve their competitiveness. It also includes $21 million for the Advanced Manufactming 

Teclmology ConsOitia program, a public-private pw1nership that supports inllovative approaches 

to addressing cOIllIllonlllanufacturillg challenges faced by American businesses. 

And as stated by the President ill his State of the Union address. the Administration 

proposes a one-time, $1 billion investment to launch a network of up to 15 manufactming 

imlovation institutes across the cOllnhy in a National :-.retwork for tvlwmfactming Innovation 

(NNMI). Leveraging the strengths of a palticulw' region. each instihlte \l,lill bring together 

compwlies, lilliversities and conllUllllity colleges, and govenullent to co-invest in the 

development of world-leading manufacturing technologies and capabilities that U.S,-based 

manufacturers can apply in production, At the begimling of tlus yew', OSTP and Federal agency 

paltners released a Preliminwy Desip.n report for the NNML which provides p.reater detail on the 

proposaL In the meantime. in AUgllst 2012, the Admilustration latUlched a pilot institute ill 

Youngstown, Ohio, with a $45 million commitment from five Federal agencies, led by the 

Department of Defense, In his State of the Union address, the President stated that while 

Congress continues to consider the broader proposal, the Admillish'ation will ImUlch three new 

m3nufactnrinp. innovation institutes in 2013 with appropriated fuuds, NISI's proposals in 

manufacturing are pad of a Federal govenunent-wide $2,9 billion investment in advwlced 

manu£1cturing R&D, an increase of87 percent over the 2012 enacted leveL 

Depwtment of Commerce :-.rational Oceanic WId Atmospheric Admuush'ation (NOAA) 

NOAA plays a vital role suppOiting the monitoring WId stewardship of the EW1h '5 

oceans, atmosphere, WId marine habitats, which directly and uldu'ectly are en0I1110US sources of 

economic activity, The NOAA budget of $5.4 billion in appropriations, illcludillp. $733 million 

for R&D, strengthens SUppolt for critical weather satellite progrwllS. Ealth observations. and 

NOAA's other core science and stewardship responsibilities. 

The 2014 Budget provides $2,0 billion to continue the development ofpolar-orbitulg and 

geostationary weather satellite systems, as well as satellite-bome measurements of sea level aud 

potentially damaging solar SImms, The Budget includes significwlt investments in NOA.A's 

ocean and coastal research and observin!l pro!lfllms. while increasing snppol1 for stock 

assessments and habitat and species-conservation activities that are essential to restoring and 

maintaining healthy. sustainable fisheries. 

Depwtment of Energy (DOE) 

DOE's 2014 Budget positions the Uluted States to compete as a world leader in clewl 

energy and advanced manufacturing, and to respond to the threat of climate change, with the 

R&D portion totaling $12,7 billion, WI increase of $ L 9 billion or 18 percent over the 2012 

enacted lel,lel. Tlus excludes DOE's non-R&D cleanup, weapons, and energy demonstration Wid 

deplo}1uent programs. The 2014 Budget's priorities build on prollless made over the last fOll1' 

years in putting the United States 011 the path to a clewler and more secure energy nllure, SUlce 

the beginning of the Administration. responsible domestic oil and gas production has increased 

each yew', while net oil imports have fallen to a 20-year low; renewable electricity generation 

from wind, solar, and geothel111al sources has doubled: WId U.s, greenhouse gas emissions have 

6 
18 

fallen to their lowest level ill neaIly two decades. The Budget continues this approach that has 

been working for the economy. our encr!!y security. and thc environlllcnt. 

The 2014 Bnd!!et invests in DOE's c1ean-ener!!y programs to accelerate R&D and flll1her 

increase the cost-competitiveness and deployment of renewable power. electric vehicles. nextgeneration biofhels, advanced energy-efficient manufacnuing. and other energy-efficiency 

tecllllologies, including $2.8 bilIion for the Office of Energy Etliciency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE). The Budget includes a new $25 million prize for the tlrst natmal-gas combined-cycle 

power plant to demonstrate carbon capture Rud stora!!e. The Budget also includes $12 million for 

DOE to continue a research initiative to understand and minimize the potential environmental. 

health, and safety impacts of natural gas development fi-olll hydraulic fracnuing, in collaboration 

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

As the President annOlUlced in his visit to the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois last 

month, the Budget also establishes an Energy Security Trust to support research into a range of 

tTanSpo11ation teclmologies that would shift OlU cars and tmcks off oil and insulate American 

families from volatile gas prices. The proposal. 5200 million in 2014 and $2 billion over teu 

years, would set aside and redirect some of the royalty revenues generated by oil and gas 

development in Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to fund this research. This 

proposal is designed to invest in breaktln'ougb research that will make funu'e teclUlologies 

cheaper and better through a reliable stream of nmding for research focllsed on developing costelTective transp0l1ation altematives to cunent vehicle technologies. Funding would support 

research into technologies such as advanced vehicles that nUl 011 elechicity, homegt'O\VlI bionlels. 

fuel cells, and domestically produced natural gas. 

The 2014 Budget provides $379 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Energy (ARPA-E) within DOE to supp0l1 transfolluational discoveries and accelerate solutions 

in the development of clean energy technology. ARP A-E perfomls sholt-tellu, high-risk, highreward energy research focused on creating real-world solutiolls in areas ranging from grid 

teclUlology and power eleeh'OIllcs to batteries and energy storage. First nmded as pmt of the 

American RecovelY and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), ARPA-E was first authorized in the 

America COMPETES Act, and was reauthorized in the America COMPETES Reauthorization 

Act of2010. 

The 2014 Budget also SUppOlts research through Energy llUlovatioll Hubs first nlllded in 

2010 to solve specific energy challenges as pa11 of DOE's overall research and development 

strategy. Each of the five existing Energy Innovation Hubs focuses scientilic and engineerin!! 

talent on a specific problem: improving batteries and energy storage, reducing consh'runts from 

critical materials, developing fuels that can be produced directly from slU1light, improvillp. 

energy-efiicient building systems desigtl, mid using modeling and simulation for advmlcednuclear-reactor design and analysis. The Electricity Systems Hub proposed in the 2014 Budget 

would focus on the interface between transmission mid dish'ibntion as the point where power and 

infOlmation flow intersect with maIkets mld regulations. Each of these Hubs brings together a 

multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to speed research lind shorten the path fi-om 

scientific discovety to teclmological development mId commercial deplo}1nent of highly 

promising energy-related teclmologies. 

The Depa11ment of Energy's Office of Science pm'sues fundamental discoveries mId 

SIlpp0l1s major scientific user facilities-inclndinp. larp.e-scale x-ray and neutron sources, plU1icle 

7 
19 

colliders, supercomputers. fusion devices, and sophisticated facilities for nltnoscience and 

genomic sequencing--- that are key to maintaining U.S. leadership in many areas of research. 

especially those related to energy, the environment, and climate change. The Office ofSeiellce's 

portfolio includes the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) which support multi-year. 

multi-investigator scientific collaborations focused 011 overcoming hmdles in basic science that 

block transfol1nationa! discoveries in energy science. The 2014 Budget includes funding for new 

EFRCs to replace some of the Recovery Act awards that will be completed. The Office of 

Science stewards 10 DOE National Laboratories and SUppOlts the research of about 25.000 Ph.D. 

scientists, graduate students. and postdoctoral associates, and engineers at over 300 IUliversities 

and national laboratories nationwide. Nearly 29.000 researchers from academe. national 

laboratories. and industry make use of its advanced scientific user facilities each year, pursuing 

discoveries at the frontiers of science that enhance the Nation's euergy sccmity alld economic 

competitiveness. The 2014 Office of Science Budget of S5.2 billion, an increase of 5.7 percent 

above the 2012 enacted funding level, increases flmding for both research and cutting-edge 

facilities and maintains the President's cOlllmitment to increase funding for tln'ee key science 

agencies. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

EPA R&D tlUlding totals $560 million in the 2014 Budget. a slight decrease ti'om the 

2012 fiUlding leveL With this investment. EPA will foclls on enhancing and strengthening the 

planning and delivery of science in its restl1lctured research and science programs, making these 

effolts more integrated and cross-disciplinary. TIle 2014 Budget suppOlis high-priority research 

of national imp011ance in such areas as potential endocrine dismpting chemicals, green 

chemistry, green intI-astmcture, computationaltoxico!ogy, and drinking water. The 2014 Budget 

proposes a total ofS14 million for EPA's research collaboration with USGS and DOE to reduce 

the potential health and environmental impacts of natural gas development using hydraulic 

fracturing. 

Department of the Interior and United States Geological Stuvev (USGS) 

The 2014 Budget for the Department of the Interior provides $963 million for R&D, an 

increase of 17 percent or $143 million over the 2012 enacted level. to invest in science to suppoli 

decision-making in the Department's resolU'ce management and trust responsibilities and to 

support other Federal, state, local, and u"ibal entities in making sOtUld, science-based decisions 

that affect environmental and human health and safety. TillS fimding Sllppolts scientific 

monitoring, research, and analysis to assist decision-making in resource management and the 

special b:ust responsibilities of Interior and other federally mandated and nationally significant 

programs. Specific science activities include energy pennittinjZ. ecosystem management, rapid 

response to natural disasters. climate change adaptation, oil-spill restoration, water and wildlife 

monitorinjZ, and tribal natural resource management. The total budget of Interior's United States 

Geological Smvey (USGS) is $1.2 billion, or a $99 million increase from the 2012 enacted level. 

The 2014 Budget proposes $19 million for USGS to continue its collaboration with EPA and 

DOE to conduct a research initiative to lmderstand and minimize the potential environmental. 

health, and safety impacts of natural gas development from hydraulic fi·acmring. 

8 
20 

Department of Homeland SeclU"itv (DHS) 

DHS R&D totals $1.4 billion in the 2014 Budget. up $893 million from the 2012 enacted 

level in order to restore steep cuts enacted in 20 II and 2012 appropriations and to fully flUId 

constlUction of a state-of-the-att biomedical-countenneasures facility. The 2014 Budget filllds 

impOltant R&D on cybersecurity. nuclear materials and explosives detection. and 

chemical/biological response systems. The Budget increases investments to develop state-of-theatt technologies atld solutions for Federal. State, atld local homelatld secm-ity operators. The 

Blld!!et also proposes S714 million to constmct the National Bio- atld A!!ro-Defense Facility 

(NBAF). a state-of-the-art laboratOlY to study and develop coulltel1neasures for foreign animal. 

emerging, and zoonotic diseases that threaten hlllllan health and our agricultm-al induslly. 

Depattlllent of TratlSpo11ation (DOT) 

The 2014 Budget provides $942 million for DOT R&D, an iucrease compat'ed to the 

2012 funding level. The Budget request includes f'tmding for several R&D activities in the 

Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System. kno\\11 as 

NextGen. The Joint Platming and Development Office coordinates this impoltatlt effOit with 

NASA and other paIiicipating agencies. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

manages a comprehensive. nationally coordinated highway reseat'eh atld teclmology prograIll. 

engaging and cooperating with other highway- research stakeholders. FHWA pelfol1l1S research 

activities associated with safety, illfi"astructurc preservation and improvcments. operatiolls. and 

envirollmental mitigation atld streamlining. Other DOT agencies conduct critical targeted 

research in 811PP011 of transpol1atioll safety !!03Is. 

Y!:Jl!te House Office of Science and Teclm910szy Policy (OST~ 

The 2014 Budget requests $5.65 million for operation of the White House Otlice of 

Science and Technolo!!y Policy (OSTP). This request is above the FY 2012 enacted level of 

$4.50 million but well below the S6.65 million atnount enacted in FY 201 L OSTP's budget 

SUpp01ts the Office's mission of coordinating science and technology efforts across the 

Executive Brauch. OSTP works with the Oflice of MaIlagement atld Budget (OMB) to set S&T 

priorities for all those executive branch depat1ments atld agencies with S&T atld STEM· 

education missions and provides science and technolo!!y advice and analysis in snpport of the 

activities of the other ofiices in the Executive Office of the President. OSTP staff also supports 

me in my role as the Assistant to the President for Science and Teclmology in providing the 

President with such iniol1nation about science and technology issues as he llIay request in 

cOllnection with the policy matters before him. TIll'ough the National Science atld Teclmology 

Council (NSTC). OSTP works closely with departments aIld agencies to coordinate a wide army 

of interagency science and technology initiatives to ensure that eff0l1s at'e complemelltaty. that 

data and facilities are appropriately shared. atld that the maxiIlluIll utility is gained from every 

research dollar. In addition. OSTP serves as the lead White House ofilce ill a range of 

intemational S&T activities. Tllis work is accomplished with approximately 27 filii-time 

equivalent staff SupPolied by the OSTP appropriation. which includes the OSTP Director, four 

Associate Directors (for Science, Technology. Environment atld Energy. and National Security 

and Intemational Affairs). and a small administrative staff; approximately 50 scientific and 

technical expel1s detailed to OSTP from all across the executive branch; approximately a dozen 

other expelts brought in under the hltergoVel1lmentai Persolmel Act or various fellowship 

arran!!ements; and a handful of intems. This mix of personnel provides OSTP with a wide range 

9 
21 

of expeltise and leverages a multitude of resources to ensure that the science and teciUlology 

work of the Federal govemment is appropliate\y supported. coordinated. and amplified. 

Interagency Initiatives 

A number of high-priority interagency S&T initiatives are highlighted in the President's 

2014 Budget. These initiatives are coordinated through the NSTC. which as noted above IS 

administered by OSTP. 

Networking and Infol1nation TeclUioloQ:y R&D 

The multi-agency Networking and Infollnatioll Techno\ogy Research and Development 

(NITRD) provides strategic planning for and coordination of agency research effOlts in cyber 

security, hi!!h-end computing systems. advanced networking. software development, highconfidence systems. infolluation management, and other infonnation technologies. The 2014 

Budget proposes $4.0 billion for the NITRD Program, an increase of 4.2 percent over the 2012 

enacted level. The 2014 Budget includes a focus on research to improve the ability to derive 

value and scientific inferences from lUiprecedented quantities of data ('big data") and continues 

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

design and engineering to address the goal of making Intemet comlllunications lllore secure and 

reliable. 

National NanoteclUiology Initiative 

The 2014 Budget proposes $1.7 billion for the multi-agency National N 8noteclmology 

Initiative (NNI}-a $159 million reduction from the 2012 enacted level. To accelerate 

nanotechnology development in support of the President's pliorities and innovation strategy, the 

NNI member agencies focus on R&D of materials. devices. and systems that exploit the lUlique 

physical, chemical, and biological properties that emerge in materials at the llanoscale 

(approximately I to 100 nanometers). Pmticipating agencies continue to SUppott fillldamental 

research for nanoteclmology-based iImovation, tec1mology transfer. and n8nomanufacturing 

through individual investigator awards; lIlultidisciphnalY centers of excellence; education mid 

training: mid infrastructure and standards development. including openly-accessible user 

facilities and networks. Fmihennore, agencies have ideutified and are pursuing Nanotechnology 

Signature Initiatives in the national-priority areas of 1131101uallufacturillg:. solar enel'gy. 

sustainable design of nanoengineered materials, nalloscale sensors, and nanoelectronics, t1u'ongh 

close alignment of existing and plmmed research programs, public-private prutnerships, and 

research roaclm8ps. 

U.S. Global Change Research Progrrun 

The Budget continues the commitment to global-change research, with the uuderstanding 

that insights derived today will pay off with interest in the yeru's ruld decades ahead as the Nation 

works to limit and adapt to shiftin!! environmental conditions. Investments in climate science 

over the past several decades have contributed enomlOusly to tUiderstalldillg of global climate. 

The trends in global climate are clear, as are their primary causes. and the investments ill this 

research arena in the 2014 Budget ru'e a critical part of the President's overall strategy to mitigate 

u.s. greenhouse-gas emissions and move towru'd a clean- energy economy even as the ;\fation 

adapts to those chan!!es that are inevitable. The 2014 Blld!!et provides $2.7 billion for the 1l1ulti10 
22 

agency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). an increase of 6.0 percent over the 

2012 enacted leveL 

The USGCRP was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 

(P.L. 101-606) to improve understanding of unce11ainties in climate science, expand global 

observing systems. develop science-based resources to support policymaking and resource 

management. and communicate findings broadly amollfl. scientific and stakeltoldel' cOlllnlllnities. 

TIlll1een departments and agencies pat1icipate in the USGCRP. OSTP and the Office of 

Management 31ld Budget (OMB) work closely with the USGCRP to establish research priorities 

and p1atls to maximize reseat-cll-dollar efficiencies and ensme that the progratn is aligned with 

the Administration '8 priorities and reflects agency plalming. 

The 2014 Budget supports the four objectives set fOl1h in USOCRP's 2012-2021 strategic 

plan, which are to (l) Advance Science: advance scientific knowledfl.e of the intefl.rated natural 

atld hUlllatl components of the E811h system: (2) Infol111 Decisions: provide the scientific basis to 

infollll and enable timely decisions on mitigation of and adaptation to global environmental 

change: (3) Conduct Sustained Assessments: build sustained assessment capacity that improves 

the United States' ability to llllderstand, atlticipate. atld respond to global-change impacts atld 

vulnerabilities; and (4) Commnnicate and Educatc: advance communications and education to 

broaden pnblic ullderstatldillg of global Chatlge. 

Fundinfl. in the 201,1 Bud!l-cI will support an illh~fl.ratcd and contilluin!l- :-.Iational Climate 

Assessment of climate-change science. impacts. vulnerabilities, and response strategies. as 

mandated by COII!l-rcss. In FY 2014, USGCRP agencies will fl.ive emphasis to research that 

adv31lces our uuderstanding of vulnerabilities ill lllUllatl atld natural systems atld their 

relationships to climate extremes, thresholds, and tipping pollltS. Specific areas where progress 

will be needed include promoting new and maintaiuing existing observations to detect treuds in 

extremes; integration of obselvation into models for prediction 31ld climate simulation at spatial 

and temporal scales conducive to decision makin!I. incllldiu!I enh81ICillg and makinfl. more 

effective use of supercomputing capabilities; reSeat-cl1 to better lUlderstatld atlIibution of Chatlge 

to human or natural causes: and deploying research fmdings atld National Climate Assessment 

outputs in a Global Ch81lge Iniol1nation System in slIpp011 of adaptation responses to chanp.infl. 

frequency and intensity of e}..ireme events. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and :\Iathematics (STI<~M) Education 

President Obama strongly believes that the United States must equip many more students 

to excel in STEM fields. That's why the President's 2014 Budget mvests $3.1 billion in 

programs across the Federal government on STEM education, a 6.7 percent increase over the 

2012 enacted funding level. The 2014 Budget includes critical investments ill several key areas 

that will benefit aspiring students: preparing and suppolting excellent STEM teachers: 

snpporting more STEM-focused high schools and districts; improving undergraduate STEM 

education: llllProving the reach of llifollllal STEM-leat1ung efforts: and lllVestmg III 

breakthron!Ih research 011 STEM teaching and leaming. 

In addition., the 2014 Bndget makes disciplined choices to consolidate and cut back 

lower-priority progr81l1S to make room lor targeted increases. This includes the proposed 

elimination or consolidation of 114 progratl1s, with approxlll1ately $180 million in savlllgs 

reinvested in new or existing STEM programs. This reorganization will substantially decrease 

11 
23 

the fragmentation of STEM programs across agencies, allowing potential for easier coordination 

and strong evaluations of what's working. The reorganization also includes increasing capacity 

at key agencies, including $5 million for a new Office of STEM at the Depat1ment ofEducatioll. 

The Administration is proposing to reorganize STEM-education programs into four key areas: K12 instruction: undergraduate education: graduate fellowships: and illfollllal education activities 

that typically take place outside the classroom. Each key area would have a lead agency. The 

Depat·tlllcnt of Education's role in K-12 education would be to develop STEM inllovation 

networks. suppOtt STEM Teacher Pathways to help reach the President's goal of preparing 

100.000 effective STEM teachers over the next decade, and create a STEM Master Teacher 

COlpS to build the STEM instructional skills of otllers. NSF would promote ret0l111 of STEM 

undergraduate education and enhance graduate fellowships to reach more students and address 

national needs. The Smithsoniatl Institution would improve the reach of classroom and inlollnal 

education materials atld activities by ensuring they are aligned with State statldards and are 

relevant to what is being taught in school. Effotis within the Department of Edl1cation, NSF, and 

the Smithsoniatl Institution will be closely coordinated with the activities atld assets of other 

Federal science agencies. 

In his 2011 State of the Union address. the President called for a new efto11 to prepare 

100.000 effective STEM teachers with strong teaching skills aud deep content knowledge over 

the next decade. That call had roots in a grOlUldbreaking atlalysis by the President's Council of 

Advisors 011 Science and Technology (PC AS T) and remains a priority for this Administration. hI 

this elTott. we have been assisted by a robust set of partnerships with the private sector. Last 

month, I hosted a roundtable of more than 30 professionals from inside atld outside govellllllent 

committed to the cause of improving the Nation's corps ofK-12 science and math teachers. That 

day, one of om pattners. the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), atlllOllllced that it would 

donate $22.5 million to the National Math and Science Initiative ~ISI) to accelerate the scaleup of the UTeach progratll in Americau uuiversities. UTeach, pioneered at the University of 

Texas-Austin, is a program that allows lUldergradliates to eatl1 simultatleollsly a teaching 

certificate atld a Bachelor's degree in a STEM field. Along with other initiatives such as 

100Kin10 (a collaborative eftort between nonprofit. philantlu'opic, and other priYate 

organizations), NMSI and UTeach are helping to achieve the President's goal of preparing 

100,000 effective STEM teachers over the next decade. In the 2014 Budget. the Department of 

Education is investing 580 million to suppol1 this goal. 

In line with the govemment-wide STEM-education reorgatlizatioll, the Depat1ment of 

Education will also restmctme its existing effOlts to lead a cohesive and robust initiative MOlUld 

improving K-12 instruction. The Budget invests $150 million to help school districts. 

individually or in consortia. to build strategic pattllerships with universities. Federal science 

agencies, businesses, museums, skilled volunteers atld other educational entities. These 

pattllerships STEM Innovation Networks - will help district leaders hatuess local. regional. 

atld national reSOlU'ces to transfolUl STEM teaching and leaming by, for example. implementing 

innovative research-based practices, and building teacher capacity. Each network will engage in 

activities based on local needs. sHch as providing quality professional development to STEM 

teachers and developing atld evaluating instmctional models that help students meet STEMfocused, college atld cat'eer-ready standat·ds. The Inllovation Networks at'e modeled on 

successful State and local efforts such as the pattnership between the Ohio STEM Leaming 

Network. the Cleveland Metropolitan School District GE. aud MC2High School. This 

investment also includes $5 million to snppOlt a STEM Vutual Leanlulg Network, a nationaL 

online commuuity of STEM educators that will enable them to exchange STEM education 

12 
24 

materials and best practices, including those developed tlu'ough the Itmovation Networks. 

Additionally, Networks will leverage the expel1ise of the :"Iation's most talented science and 

math teachers-tlu'ough the Budget's $35 million investment in a new STEM Master Teachers 

Corps-to help improve instruction in their schools and districts, and to serve as a national 

resource for best practices in math and science teaching. This etIort builds Oil the fotUldation of 

the $150 million Math-Science Partnership program, which provides grants to every State to 

implement and improve STEM education. 

The President continues to sllppOli IInderll'raduate STEM education ref 01111 as a top 

priority. in prut to fulfill PCAST's most recent report on undergraduate STEM education, 

released last Febmary, calling for the United States to establish a goal of training one million 

additional STEM graduates over the next decade. To fitrther this goal, the Administration 

proposes consolidating dispru'ate STEM lmdergraduate-education activities into a new 

consolidated program at NSF. This reform will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of these 

investments by promoting implementation of evidence-based instructional practices and 

supporting an expanded evidence base. It also supports research on how new teclmologies Crul 

facilitate adoption and use of new approaches to instruction. The 2014 Budll'et provides $123 

million for this new progrrun. 

The Administration is also cOIllmitted to increasing the mnnber of college graduates with 

degrees in teclmical fields. Opportunities to work 011 real-world research problems can help 

inspire students to pursue such degrees. The 2014 Budget proposes $79 million. rul increase of 

$13 million above the 2012 enacted level, for NSF's Research Experiences for Undergraduates 

(REU). Since early opportunities to conduct research call be especially influential in mailltaillill!la student's interest in STEM fields, the progrrull will increase its investment in reseru'Cll 

experiences for those in their first or second year of collell'e. 

By reorganizing or eliminating smaller fellowship programs, the Budget will provide 

$325 million to expand ruld enhance NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship prognull, creatin!l- 11 

new National Graduate Research Fellowship. The progrrull will not ouly continue to supp0l1 the 

Nation's 1I10st promising students in any STEM field. but will also allow students to gain 

specialized experiences in areas of signilicrult national need or of particular interest to mission 

agencies. Reorgrulizing graduate fellowships will position the Administration to implement a 

national strategy for fellowships and for graduate education more broadly, streamline the 

application and award process, and reduce administrative costs. 

The Budget adds 525 million to the Smithsonian Institution to improve the reach of 

infollual STEM education by ensuring that materials ru'e aligned to what students are leaming in 

the classroom. The Smithsonian will work with Federal S&T agencies such as the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Dep3limellt of Agriculttu'e (USDA), 

the National llistitutes of Health (Nlli), and other science partllers to hamess their llllique 

expertise and resources to create relevrult materials ruld cUlTicula, oll-liue resources, and eflective 

delivery and dissemination mechrulisms to reach more teachers and students both inside ruld 

outside the classroom. 

The Budget also proposes additional steps to increase the capacity of the Department of 

Education to invest in breakthrongh illllOvation. The Budget proposes np to $65 million lor the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED) within the hlVesting in 

Innovation (i3) pro!l-rRm. ARPA-ED will catalyze the development and deployment of new tools 

13 
25 

and technologies to significantly improve student leaming. ARPA-ED will push the education 

research. development. and demonstration field fOlward by: sponsoring the synthesis and vetting 

of public and private R&D efforts: identifYing breakthrough development opportmuties: shaping 

the next wave of R&D: investinl< in the development of new education technolol<ies and tools: 

and identifYing and transitioning the best and most relevant R&D fi'olll other federal agencies. 

These eff0l1s are part of a broader Administration commitment to look carethlly at the 

effectiveness of all STEM-education programs and fmd ways to improve them, To nuther this 

l<oaL I continue to co-chair the Committee on STEM Education under the NSTC In December 

2011, the Committee released the most comprehensive inventory of Federal STEM efTolts ever 

compiled, The work of this Committee is closely aligned with the vision for STEM education 

outlined by Congress in the America COMPETES Rcauthorization Act and has focused on 

improving the coordination and effectiveness of all Federal STEM education programs. In this 

spirit, the Administration released a description of a 5-year Federal STEM education stratel<ic 

plan and an update to the Federal STEM inventOlY along with the 2013 Budget. The final 

strategic plan will be released this spring along with another update to the Federal STEMeducation inventOly. The strategic plan will outline a path to increased coordination and 

collaboration among the Federal agencies that invest in STEM education and increase the 

efficiency and impact of the Federal portfolio of STEM-education programs. 

OS TP looks forward to working with this C ollllllittee on om' comlllon vision for 

improving STEM education for all of America's students. 

Conclusion 

The Administration's 2014 Budget reflects the President's deep appreciation of the 

profollnd importance of continued progress in science and technology even as we work to reduce 

budget deficits and hold the line on govenllnent spending. To ac1ueve that balance. the 

Administration has made strategic choices in order to maintain and in some cases increase 

critical investments that will give rise to new industtles mid strengthen existing ones; generate 

well-paying and secure American jobs; help Americans enjoy longer and healthier lives: protect 

the global climate mid other essential environmental conditions and processes: enhmlce national 

security while suppolting open-ended exploration here 011 Earth mid in space: and educate mid 

train the inllovators of 101l10n·ow-.-.all in the context of a disciplincd approach to deficit 

reduction, 

As this COIllmittee has long emphasized, the best approach to supp0l1ing across-thebom'd illllovation and long-tel111 economic growth is to invest in a broad mid balmlced research 

pOl1folio-one that will produce not jnst the planned-for and predictable benefits to the Nation 

but also the entirely lUlexpected windfalls for society mid the world. This COlUltty' s overall 

prosperity in the last half century is due in great measure to America's pursuit of this f0l111Ula 

and its cOlllmitment to a three-way pmtnership inclnding academia, illduslly. mId govcllllllellL It 

is the Admitustration's goal that the 2014 Budget be applied to mid coordinated with these 

complementary scctors to maintain the momentum of America's prosperity for mmly decades to 

come. 

The Obama Administration recognizes that leadership across the fi'ontiers of scientific 

knowledge is not merely a cultural tt'adition of our Nation; it is an economic. environmentaL mld 

national-security imperative. This Administration is committed to ensuring that America remains 

14 
26 

at the epicenter of the global revolution in scientific research and teclmological iImovation-a 

revolution that promises to generate new knowledge, create new jobs, build new industries. and 

propel the Nation to a vibrant fhture. 

I look forward to working with this COlllmittee to make the vision of the President's 2014 

Budget proposal a reality. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Members may have, 

15 
27 

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 

Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Trained in aerospace 

engineering and theoretical plasma physics at MIT and Stanford, he is a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of 

Arts and Sciences, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London and a fonner 

President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Prior to joining the 

Obama administration, he was a professor in both the Kennedy School of Government and the 

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard, as well as Director of the Woods Hole 

Research Center. From 1973 to 1996 he was on the faculty of the University of California, 

Berkeley, where he co-founded and co-led the interdisciplinary graduate-degree program in 

energy and resources. 
28 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Holdren, thank you. I don’t know how you 

got so much in five minutes. And there will be a lot of questions 

on other subjects as well. 

And I will recognize myself for questions. And really, I think I 

had more observations than questions, and I would ask you to comment on them. 

First of all, let me go to NASA. Last December, a National Academy of Sciences’ review of NASA’s Strategic Direction made the following observation: ‘‘The Committee has seen little evidence that a 

current stated goal for NASA’s Human Spaceflight Program— 

namely, to visit an asteroid by 2025—has been widely accepted as 

a compelling destination by NASA’s own workforce, by the Nation 

as a whole, or by the international community. On the international front, there appears to be continued enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission. The President 

and the Administration are now proposing to capture a small asteroid and bring it closer to Earth as a destination for American astronauts.’’ 

I guess my question here is, it seems to me, that most of the scientific community would prefer some form of a return mission to 

the Moon. Why wouldn’t we follow their advice? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me say, first of all, that I think the situation 

has changed in a number of important respects since the National 

Research Council report, which you quote. It is true that there was 

a degree of lack of enthusiasm, a lack of excitement among some 

about the initially proposed mission to send U.S. astronauts to an 

asteroid by 2025, but the things that have changed and have 

changed that picture very substantially is, number one, NASA has 

developed an extraordinarily ingenious and cost-effective new approach to that mission, which entails sending a robotic probe to a 

small asteroid, towing it to a position about 40,000 miles outside 

the orbit of the Moon, and sending U.S. astronauts to visit there 

and to sample it and to return the samples using the Space Launch 

System and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle that are already 

being developed. 

And by the way, we were already planning to visit the location 

to which that asteroid would be towed, an equilibration point just 

beyond the orbit of the Moon— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. And Dr. Holdren, I— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. As a way station— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. For heading to Mars. 

Chairman SMITH. I know— 

Dr. HOLDREN. So we are now seeing a lot of enthusiasm. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me just interject real quick. I know this is 

a new mission, but it never appeared on any of the recommended 

missions by the Academies or by the various panels that were 

asked to make recommendations. So it is a new mission. Maybe we 

need to wait and see how it is received by the scientific community. 

But it just seems to me to be a little bit of an afterthought when 

the first mission didn’t get supported by the international or by the 

scientific community. But I realize it is new, and we can weigh it 

as we go forward. 
29 

Another observation is this: as I mentioned in my opening statement, I think there are 13 agencies that engage in climate change 

research. There is only one agency, NASA, that is engaged in space 

exploration. Why not let NASA focus on its missions in regard to 

space and let the other 12 agencies focus on climate change, since 

NASA is the only one that deals with the space exploration? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would say, first of all, that NASA has long 

had a mission to planet Earth, a mission looking down as well as 

a mission looking out, and NASA has unique capabilities, as it does 

in other areas, including aeronautics and green aviation, next-generation air traffic control. NASA has long been a multi-mission 

agency with many important missions— 

Chairman SMITH. That is true but— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And our position is NASA needs to 

pursue all of those missions with the unique resources it has for 

those purposes. 

Chairman SMITH. The President—what concerns me is the President, I think, over the last year or two has shifted something like 

$300 million from space exploration into climate change research, 

and it just seems to me that one agency that does space ought to 

be allowed to continue to do space and focus on that. It may be just 

a difference of opinion that we have. 

My last observation is this, and that is that in regard to the National Science Foundation grants, many proposals are approved, 

and only one out of seven is approved, that seem to deal with subjects that might not rise to the level or meet the standards that 

most people would think that they should meet. A couple of examples would be one study was approved to, I think, analyze the animal pictures in National Geographic from 1988 to 2008. There was 

another National Science Foundation grant that was approved that 

I think dealt with Chinese women’s labor in the 16th century or 

something like that, and there have been a number that dealt with 

situations and cultural changes in China. 

I—help me if you will and suggest as to how we might make sure 

that those who decide to approve these grants might be persuaded 

to approve grants that seem to focus more on more helpful subjects, 

more scientific subjects, more basic research? 

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

I think there has been a lot of good and important research in the 

social sciences funded by the National Science Foundation. And I 

think you would probably agree. There has been research that has 

strengthened our democracy, that has increased the efficiency of 

our government, that has improved our foreign policy. 

Sometimes, it is hard to tell from the title of the project what its 

merit is, but I would also concede that as rigorous as NSF’s review 

processes are, there is always room for improvement, and I think 

some of the recent developments that have called into question 

some of the grants in the social sciences that NSF has funded will 

lead to increased scrutiny there as to how their review process can 

ensure that the social science work that they support contributes 

in evident ways to the national interest. But we would also not 

want to undermine the basic research dimension of what the National Science Foundation does, and we should be careful in the 

ways we intervene not to do that. 
30 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you for that. And I would like to 

continue to discuss the subject with you and maybe come up with 

ways to achieve our common goals in that regard. Thank you, Dr. 

Holdren. 

Ms. Johnson is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Holdren, I don’t think it is any surprise that I am very interested in STEM education. And I was enthusiastically supportive of 

looking at the 127 programs coming together from a number of 

agencies to see how we could better concentrate. And I do support 

the goals of the proposal. However, we don’t know what the program is now. I question about how this will all work because we 

are looking at a budget without the plan, and I wonder whether or 

not we can see the plan soon. 

For K–12 programs that are being transferred, how will the mission-specific needs and the decades of education and public outreach experience that built up at the mission agencies like NASA 

and preserved by Smithsonian, the development in the Department 

of Education? 

NASA has a long history of engaging students outside the classroom, and I have seen so much enthusiasm among students and I 

worry about the loss by transferring these programs, and I am specifically worried about consolidating too much in the Department 

of Education, which doesn’t have a long history with STEM. And 

so I am really concerned about not knowing what this restructuring 

is and how we can work toward achieving the goal of being successful in STEM education. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, that is a big set of questions, Ranking Member Johnson, but let me quickly try to address a couple of the main 

pieces of it. 

First of all, the reorganization that the budget contains leaves intact a great many programs, still over 100 programs spread across 

the mission agencies. So it by no means has taken, or is proposing 

to take away, all of the diverse programs out there. And there has 

been a very serious effort to make sure to preserve the programs 

that most leverage the unique assets of the mission agencies, to 

preserve the programs particularly that reach women and other 

underrepresented groups in STEM, and in the consolidation, to do 

it in a way where the additional resources that end up in the Department of Education focused on K through 12; and NSF focused 

on college, undergraduate, and graduate education; and in the 

Smithsonian Institution focused on engagement and outreach outside of schools. Those consolidations, those additions of resources, 

will be managed in a way that interact with the mission agencies 

and preserve aspects of the programs that they lost that are the 

most valuable ones. 

And we have commitments from the Department of Education, 

from NSF, from the Smithsonian that they are already doing that. 

They are in touch with the agencies. They are working to make 

sure that this consolidation, which provides more opportunities for 

coherence, for coordination, and for evaluation that was difficult 

with the very dispersed and often very small programs that are 

being consolidated, will all happen. 
31 

The second point I would make is the Department of Education 

is committed to expanding the staff dedicated to STEM education 

in order to be able to manage these additional responsibilities. And 

I have spoken with folks at NSF and Smithsonian as well, and they 

are all building up their capacity to deal with these additional responsibilities. 

On the Strategic Plan, we have the benefit in conducting this reorganization of the progress report on the Strategic Plan that was 

released in 2012 and which was provided to the Congress and posted publicly. But I can tell you that the final version of the Strategic 

Plan, which is due in May, is, I believe, going to be delivered in 

May. So you will have it next month and be able to evaluate what 

is being proposed against it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much. And I really sincerely 

hope that is something that is workable. In my experience—and I 

am in and out of schools all the time—many of the students are 

excited about external programs that are sponsored by NASA and 

some of the other groups. I have seen where there have been Title 

I teachers, for example, that is moving furniture around and not 

teaching students. So I am not so sure about the oversight that— 

and how close that is done as well as the other departments and 

the Department of Education. 

But thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, thank you, Chairman. And thanks for 

holding this important hearing. 

As you know, Dr. Holdren, the Keystone pipeline would deliver 

an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil a day to U.S. refineries and it 

would alleviate supply pressures that contribute to high gas prices 

enabling Americans to receive oil from our best ally in Canada instead of our foreign adversaries such as Venezuela. 

Last month, the State Department’s 1,500-page ‘‘Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement,’’ the SEIS, essentially affirmed 

the safety and environmental soundness of this pipeline, concluding 

that it was not an impact—it would not impact greenhouse gas 

emissions, which has been a key environmental objection. As President Obama’s Science Advisor with a background in environmental 

science, I presume that you have been involved in reviewing the climate science and pipeline technologies associated with the Keystone’s pipeline decision. Could you describe any official, unofficial, 

or official advice or guidance that you have provided the President 

on or the President of the Administration’s science agencies in their 

review of the Keystone pipeline? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman, first of all, as you know, the main 

locus of that decision ultimately will be the State Department. Obviously, the President is interested in it and is looking at it, and 

Secretary Kerry and the President are obviously committed ultimately to making the decision that is best for the country and best 

for the American people. The advice that I give to the President I 

give in my capacity as the Assistant to the President for Science 

and Technology, and I cannot discuss the content of that, but I can 

tell you that this has not been a major focus of my activity, and 

I have not in fact had any conversations with the President at this 
32 

point about the Keystone pipeline. He might in the future ask me 

about scientific aspects of it, but that has not happened until this 

point. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, let me ask you a question then. Do you 

share the perspective of the State Department report that the pipeline does not increase the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and 

if it is, it is a negligible amount? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We in the Executive Office of the President, again, 

have not been given the responsibility at this point to review that. 

I wouldn’t want to preview what we might conclude if the President asks us to look more closely at the science in that particular 

assessment. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Have you looked at the science? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I personally have started to look at the assessment, but I have not reached any conclusions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So another question that I had was when we 

look at, particularly, the satellite program for weather and that 

program has been plagued with a lot of mismanagement. In fact, 

I want to read something here that the JPSS weather satellite program is projected to cost, I think like $13 billion between now and 

2028. 

But last year, an independent review team called the Administration’s management of this program dysfunctional and recommended that NOAA refocus the joint JPSS system program on 

its primary mission—weather centers and not climate monitoring. 

Do you agree with the review team’s assessment about the dysfunctional management priority of the weather centers for the JPSS 

program? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I agree with the findings that there were serious 

management problems at the time the study was done. NOAA and 

the Commerce Department have taken those recommendations 

very seriously and have already implemented a great many reforms 

in the management of that program. And the JPSS is now on 

schedule, within budget, and has met a number of its milestones, 

and is, actually, ahead of schedule. I think that report of the independent review team was extremely useful. And again, it has 

helped put that program back on track. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So what are you doing to monitor that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, you know, Congressman, when I came into 

this position I was told in my confirmation hearing that one of my 

obligations was to fix the polar-orbiting satellite system, which was 

a mess. We spent a year and a half working with all the relevant 

agencies, with NOAA, with NASA, with the Department of Defense, and we believe we did basically put in place the ingredients 

of a fix. The IRT report was a course correction for the part of it 

that ended up at NOAA. We are monitoring that very closely. I continue to consider it my responsibility as the Director of OSTP to 

make sure that that program stays on track. We cannot afford a 

gap in our polar-orbiting satellite coverage of weather, and it is our 

intention to avoid a gap. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Do you get periodic reports on the progress? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. Could you furnish the Committee a copy 

of the most recent report on that? 
33 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I can certainly provide some relevant material to you. A lot of the reports that I get are in conversations with 

the Administrator of NOAA, currently the acting Administrator, 

Dr. Kathy Sullivan, and in discussions with the acting Secretary of 

Commerce, Dr. Becky Blank. So I can’t provide you transcripts of 

those conversations, but they have certainly been taking place frequently. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So you can— 

Dr. HOLDREN. I can provide you with some other material that 

summarizes our understanding based on those conversations and 

conversations that have gone on with OMB on the state of 

progress. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. 

The gentleman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is great to see 

you, Dr. Holdren. Thank you for your service to our country and 

to science. It is always a pleasure to communicate with you. 

And I want to appreciate publicly your efforts with our national 

labs to make sure that they are getting the support that they need 

and, especially, thank you also for your trip out to Sandia and 

Lawrence Livermore last year. It had a tremendous boost for morale for the scientists and it meant a lot, I think, to all of them. 

I want to talk about—and I know this will probably come as no 

surprise to you—the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. And I appreciate that we are trying to make 

sense of the numbers that are coming out of OMB, but here is what 

I think is the case. I mean, in 2012 we had a budget for the National Ignition Facility of $486.8 million. The Administration requested only $271 million in 2013. As you know, we added $32 million in a bipartisan effort here in the House, but because we did 

not get the appropriations bill to the finish line, that in the end 

was not provided to the National Ignition Facility. 

I realize that there are apparently efforts to allow for direct 

charging by the National Ignition Facility, but it is not clear to me 

how that is going to work. We spent $5 billion building the best 

tool in the world for this. As you know, the National Academy and 

National Research Council just finished a two-year study on the inertial confinement fusion effort and determined that it is a national 

research priority and that the NIF is a critical research tool. So 

here is my question: is it the intent of the Administration to eliminate the fusion energy program at the National Ignition Facility at 

Lawrence Livermore lab? And if not, how are we going to avoid 

that result? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you for that question, Congresswoman 

Lofgren. As you know, I am committed, Secretary Chu is committed, and I expect, if confirmed, Secretary Moniz will be committed to maintaining this valuable facility and using it for the variety of purposes for which it was designed. As you also know, most 

of the budget for the National Ignition Facility comes from the National Nuclear Security Administration because of its relation to 

the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the capability to understand 

without nuclear explosive testing what we need to understand to 
34 

maintain the safety and reliability of our enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. That has always been the case. The primary source 

of funding was the weapons program and remains so. 

There has been a small amount of funding that has come from 

the fusion energy side of the operation in DOE, which is then based 

on the proposition that ultimately inertial confinement fusion, as 

being pursued in this facility, might be a viable commercial energy 

source. The fusion budget, however, is now under intense pressure 

because of the rising cost of ITER, the International— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Thermonuclear Engineering Reactor 

and the need to maintain a strong domestic plasma physics program. And so this year DOE decided that the modest support for 

NIF that it provided from the energy side would not continue to be 

provided— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. But that doesn’t mean that the value 

of NIF to demonstrating ultimately the possibility of harnessing fusion energy in this way will be lost because the main thrust of activities there will continue. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I could—and I thank you for that reassurance 

that our intent is actually not to close this program. It is confusing, 

and you have been very helpful in finding—get—helping me understand what OMB is saying, but it sounds as if the intent is to 

charge off to users more of the cost of the facility and—but the 

NSF $18 million has now been removed and—or DOE—and is it 

the intent that the NNSA will now be charged for their activity? 

And, you know, I guess the other question I would ask—this is 

not something that the facility could decide, but both Russia and 

China are trying to emulate what we did and build comparable machines. Is it the intention of the Administration to charge off to 

those two countries experimental work? And what are the security 

implications if we were to do that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, Congresswoman, I believe that 

NIF remains the preeminent facility in the world and that nothing 

Russia or China has done up until now really comes close to its capabilities. I think the United States will remain in the lead in this 

domain, even though Russia and China are barking at our heels, 

as it were. But we intend to maintain our position of strength in 

the field. 

As far as the details of who is being charged for what, I have to 

tell you we got the Congressional justification from OMB at the 

same time you did— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And we are still trying to understand 

the intricacies of what is reflected there in terms of what the numbers— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Add up to. But I can tell you about 

our intention. Our intention is to maintain this as a viable, worldleading facility with important applications both for our weapons 

program and potentially to the future of fusion energy. 
35 

Ms. LOFGREN. I thank you very much, Dr. Holdren, and I look 

forward to continuing to work with you and again appreciate your 

tremendous effort here. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Holdren, good to 

see you. According to my count, I think this is the fourth time that 

you and I have had the opportunity to discuss the President’s 

science priorities. And I want to start by just saying I appreciate 

you, I respect you, but I have to tell you I am disappointed in the 

President and I am disappointed in your office. 

I think the President likes to give great speeches about science, 

but I don’t think he actually really understands the importance of 

pure discovery research. And if you look at the chart that I have 

got here in my hand, now we have got up on the board, I see no 

evidence that you or the President have given a second thought to 

the input from this Committee over the last several years. This 

chart tells the same story it does as the chart I showed you last 

year. 

The President favors massive increases to his pet projects in the 

alternative energy sector, and the closer the investment gets to 

pure discovery science, the less he cares about them. When it 

comes to high-energy physics, he once again wants to use it as a 

piggy bank to pay for other things. You said a year ago that you 

are not content for us to leave the future of cutting-edge facilities 

in high-energy physics to the rest of the world, but that we were 

constrained, and that everybody knows the budget challenges 

under which were operating. 

And I look at the President’s budget request this year, and I find 

myself thinking, sure, you can use that as a convenient excuse to 

cut high-energy physics yet again, but does an almost 40 percent 

increase in ARPA–E and an almost 60 percent increase in EERE 

strike you as constrained approaches? Does yet another real-dollar 

cut to high-energy physics strike you as supportive of high-energy 

physics? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, let me say that, first of all, as I know you 

know, we are in a world of pain when it comes to the amounts of 

money available to us overall. I mentioned in my opening remarks 

that areas that were increased had to be bound by areas that were 

decreased. And difficult choices were made in that domain and reasonable people can disagree about what the most reasonable pattern of decisions would have been. But we are maintaining a worldleading program in neutrino physics at the Fermilab, which, of 

course— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, let me jump in on that real quickly. Particle physics has been singled out by the Administration for decreased investment year after year. It lost annual purchasing 

power almost 25 percent in the last decade, which is in direct contrast to every other program in the Office of Science. Bill 

Brinkman, in his recent testimony to Congress, stated that we 

have squeezed too hard, yet you and President Obama continued 

to decrease investment in this important area of basic research, as 

is shown again in the latest budget request. How is this consistent 
36 

with maintaining a position of leadership in the world in basic scientific research? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, we have benefited from a very 

high degree of international collaboration in this domain, which 

has saved us some money. The extraordinary work to discover the 

Higgs-Boson, which took place at CERN in Switzerland, was carried out with enormously elaborate, expensive detectors and teams 

from the United States. The fact that it took place in Switzerland 

on a machine, much of which was paid for by other countries, saved 

us money, but it did not diminish U.S. leadership— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I would say it did. You know, I think that 

should have happened here. I think we could have done much of 

that here. To maintain a position of leadership in any domain of 

particle physics, the plan of the U.S. community is to define leadership at the Intensity Frontier—where the focus of the greatest flux 

of particles and not the highest energy. The LBNE, as you mentioned, is a key facility necessary to establishing leadership in the 

area of particle physics. Why is investment decreasing in LBNE in 

fiscal year 2014 at a critical time, again when strong international 

participation is being sought? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is funding for the LBNE within the Office 

of Science request for 2014. We continue to support it. And we believe that the overall plan that we are working to develop for outyear support for facilities will be able to support the LBNE. We 

have no disagreement with you about the importance of the Intensity Frontier and— 

Mr. HULTGREN. I appreciate your agreement, that just doesn’t 

follow up with the budget plans. There are cuts there, and I think 

it really does send a very poor message. When we are out there 

seeking international partners, we are at the leadership of neutrino 

research, and yet we are undercutting these programs. 

I just want to show—my time is running out—but the latest edition of the Scientific American talks about ‘‘Strange, Surprising 

Neutrino Physics,’’ much of the research again that is going on 

with LBNE. But from that, on the cover, they are featuring 

neutrinos. Particle physics has never been more exciting. As you 

mentioned, we have seen remarkable advances with the discovery 

of the Higgs and crucial measurements of the properties of 

neutrinos. These discoveries have had important participation from 

American scientists as you mentioned, but they have really been 

led and enabled by facility investments in Europe and China. 

It seems to me that the President’s budget plan that you are defending cedes American leadership in high-energy physics to Europe and China. 

And my time is up, but to just a kind of highlight that again, 

I was looking back through your testimony of last year and reading 

through, and I will point you to the second page of your testimony 

today, the bottom paragraph. It is interesting because you had that 

exact same paragraph in your testimony last year, but one thing 

was changed, and that is, last year, you talked about these three 

jewel-in-the-crown agencies referring to NSF, Office of Science, and 

you have taken that out in your most recent, the idea of the jewelin-the-crown agencies. It is the only thing that is removed from 

that paragraph. And my fear is that is exactly what is happening. 
37 

We are taking away by undercutting investment in these important 

programs. We are taking away and ceding our leadership opportunity. 

My time is expired. I do appreciate you so much and the work 

you are doing. I know these are difficult times, but this is the stuff 

we have got to do. And so I ask and implore and look for ways that 

we can be working together to strengthen this investment and see 

where we can be taking money again where huge increases have 

happened in certain areas and put it back where we absolutely 

have to be doing it, where the market can’t do it in basic scientific 

research. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. And the 

other gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for all the work that you do, it is very 

important that we maintain our leadership in the world on science, 

and I appreciate what you are doing. 

The first thing I want to talk about is NSF’s Innovation Corps 

Program. For those who aren’t familiar with it, I-Corps is essentially an education program developed by serial entrepreneurs in 

Silicon Valley that teaches researchers how to develop a viable 

product from their research while also connecting them with potential customers and venture capitalists so that they can get feedback 

on their work. It is based on the Lean Startup model, which you 

can read about in an article written by the father of the movement, 

Steve Blank, which is in the May issue—the most recent issue of 

the Harvard Business Review. 

I really believe that I-Corps has the potential to leverage our federal investments in research to create new jobs and new companies. We have already seen some success despite the fact that the 

program has only been operating for less than two years. Now, recently, one of the I-Corps teams—former I-Corps teams that went 

through the program formed a company called Neon and was able 

to secure funding from a private venture capital group. I bring this 

up because the company’s current product and business model 

came as a result of their participation in the I-Corps program, and 

they readily admit that that is the case. 

Now, recently, the ARPA–E program entered into an agreement 

with NSF to train some of their researchers in the I-Corps program. And I think more agencies could benefit as well. And this 

is—those were—are going—getting funding to take part in the ICorps program are researchers who have already received federal 

grants. So today, I am sending letters to NIH and the Department 

of Energy to ask them to consider participating in the I-Corps program with some of their research divisions. 

So, first, I want to applaud the Administration’s commitment to 

innovative approaches to technology transfer like I-Corps. And second, I wanted to get your thoughts, Dr. Holdren on the I-Corps program and whether some form of entrepreneurial education like ICorps might make sense at other science agencies. I just want to 

get your perspective on that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you, Congressman Lipinski. I am very 

grateful for this question, because we in this Administration are 
38 

very strong supporters of NSF’s I-Corps program and of the broader proposition that there is tremendous leverage in measures that 

can accelerate the transition of discovery in laboratories, whether 

they are research universities, laboratories, or national laboratories 

or corporate laboratories. They can accelerate the transition of discovery into practical products in the marketplace, meaning the national interest. I-Corps is doing, I think, a great job of that. 

We are delighted that the I-Corps and ARPA–E are now in consultation. We have had a number of other projects and programs 

with the same general aim of trying to foster entrepreneurship in 

the scientific community that will move things in this direction. 

These efforts have included components of the STEM education 

programs we have at the college level, where we are encouraging 

colleges to offer courses in entrepreneurship for their scientists and 

engineers to take so that when they go out in the world with their 

advanced degrees, they are not just specialists in their particular 

field of scientific or engineering advancement and discovery, but 

they are knowledgeable about how to translate those discoveries 

into practical products, into companies, into new jobs. And I certainly applaud your interest in trying to expand this model even 

further. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And very briefly, I know there are a 

number of initiatives on advanced manufacturing in the President’s 

budget, the total requested $2.9 billion across the Federal Government. Can you give a brief overview of the Administration’s strategy and vision on this revitalized U.S. manufacturing in 46 seconds? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The basic notion, of course, is that advances in additive manufacturing, formerly called 3–D printing; advances in 

materials, which we are promoting through what we call the Materials Genome Initiative; trying to cut in half the time it takes to 

develop and certify new materials; advances in robotics all together 

provide the possibility of a very substantially revitalizing American 

manufacturing. It is already happening. It is already showing results. 

We think there is the possibility to generate more jobs, more 

businesses that are using these advanced technologies in the manufacturing domain, and that is going to help in part because when 

you separate the laboratory and the discovery from the manufacturing process, as has happened to some extent over the past couple of decades, you lose the opportunity for close feedback, which 

tends to improve the manufacturing process as it increases its efficiency, lowers costs. As we bring these manufacturing activities 

back to the United States and create and keep those jobs here, we 

are also going to benefit through increased efficiencies because of 

the feedback between research activities, development activities in 

the actual manufacturing plant. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. And I agree. I concur with 

what the Ranking Member said in her opening statement. We need 

to make more here in America. Thank you for your work on that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his 

questions. 
39 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Dr. Holdren, for coming to share with us today. 

I would like to read for you a couple titles of some research 

grants that the National Science Foundation recently funded. Picturing animals in National Geographic for the years 1888 to 2008 

costing $227,000; kinship, women’s labor and China’s economic performance in the 17th through 21st century costing $267,000; regulating accountability and transparency in China’s dairy industry 

costing $152,000. The press has reported, as I am sure you know, 

many other examples of social and political science studies, and the 

Committee has got obviously other examples of questionable studies that cost over $600,000. NSF’s current spending on social, behavioral, and economic science studies is over $250 million a year. 

And the President’s request increases this research spending over 

70 percent—over seven percent, I am sorry. 

Within that $250 million, staff says, approximately $10 million 

goes toward political science studies. This comes at a time when 

many households are being asked to pay more taxes to fund more 

studies like this. And, you know, the questions our constituents beg 

for answers to are how do we justify such questionable studies as 

a priority for funding? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would offer a couple of comments. One, I 

am not qualified to even try to defend every social science grant 

that NSF has ever given, and it is a perilous business sometimes 

to try to determine from the title of a grant, or even from a description of it what value it might have as fundamental research in social and behavioral sciences. 

What I will say is that there have been many extremely valuable—from the clear standpoint of the national interest—valuable 

studies funded by NSF in political science and other social and behavioral sciences. I will give you one example. Elinor Ostrom—the 

late Elinor Ostrom, the only woman and the only political scientist 

ever to receive an economics Nobel Prize, did work showing that 

local management of resources held in common can be effective and 

sustainable without centralized regulatory control. This is a finding 

that should have considerable appeal on both sides of the aisle. She 

got a Nobel Prize for it. She was funded by a series of NSF grants 

in political science. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, I think we will all agree that it is probably a 

good subject to study, you know, how our economy works, how we 

make our economy better, but Chinese dairy industry regulation, 

China’s economic performance kinship, picturing animals—I mean 

it is just hard to conceive how those are important to our national 

security or our national interest. 

And, you know, while I am not advocating we stop all social 

science study spending, I just think it might be appropriate that 

much of that be left to the private sector, and I know the recently 

enacted Coburn amendment requires that the Director of the National Science Foundation certify that each and every social science 

study meets the criteria of promoting national security or economic 

interest of the United States of America. And I think that is a good 

and proper filter by which all future studies should be considered. 

Do you agree? 
40 

Dr. HOLDREN. I respectfully do not agree. I think that is too narrowly drawn. I think there have been many beneficial results from 

research funded by NSF in the social, behavioral, and economic 

sciences that have contributed, for example, to a better understanding of how our democracy works and how to make it stronger, 

that have contributed to making our government more efficient. 

Saying that the only possible justifications are clear economic benefit or national security benefit, I think, would leave out a variety 

of important domains of NSF research. 

And I think with respect to the private sector, we know that the 

private sector won’t fund— 

Mr. POSEY. Can you state just a couple of those for me? 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Fundamental research. 

Mr. POSEY. Give me some of those other domains, then, so maybe 

I can get a better handle on this bigger picture you are talking 

about. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Okay. Again, improving the efficiency of the 

United States Government. There has been a huge amount of work 

supported by NSF in that domain— 

Mr. POSEY. I think that is an economic interest and the national 

security, quite frankly. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, you can make that argument and maybe it 

is, but I think it is a dangerous thing for the Congress or anybody 

else to be trying to specify in detail what kinds of fundamental research the NSF should support. The NSF has developed on the 

whole an enormously respected track record in supporting basic research across a wide range of disciplines in which it works. And we 

know the private sector is not going to support basic research to 

the extent that society’s interests require. The uncertainties are too 

great, the timescale for return too long, the appropriability of the 

results inadequate. This is a responsibility of the government to 

fund basic research, including basic research in social sciences. And 

if you say it has to have a specific application, you are pulling the 

rug out from under the capacity of the NSF to fund basic research. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, maybe some of my colleagues share my feelings 

and some of them don’t, but, you know, the picturing of animals 

in National Geographic costing $227,000, I don’t think that is a 

basic—personally—research that American taxpayers need to foot 

the bill for. And I think if there is someone who thinks that is beneficial to them, perhaps they should start paying $227,000 for picturing animals in National Geographic during that period of time. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Again, it is not my field. I cannot comment on 

what merit or lack of merit that particular project had as basic social science. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, do you think there should be some parameters? 

Don’t you think there— 

Mr. POSEY. —should be some— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. An elaborate and rigorous review 

process at NSF. That is not to say it couldn’t be made better. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
41 

And thank you, Dr. Holdren. I want to go back to the question 

of STEM education in the reorganization because I actually—I do 

generally support the idea that we are consolidating some of these 

STEM education programs. I think it is important that the NSF 

play a very functional role in identifying what are the criteria for 

successful programs, what kind of guidance teachers need in order 

to be effective teachers. 

And it seems to me that there are a couple of categories that are 

distinguishable in our STEM funding: the sort of pre-K–12 area, 

undergraduate, graduate education, and then the sort of nonprofit 

informal sector. And I think that there are different things that, for 

example, our centers in NASA or NOAA engage in communities 

and in developing STEM programs that are very distinct from the 

needs that take place in the K–12 area in classroom and in the informal sector. 

And where I have seen a real problem is in the wide range of 

STEM programs in the informal sector, and without sometimes a 

lot of rhyme or reason in terms of the educational value and not 

because they are bad people doing those things but because they 

just don’t know what makes a good program and in what communities is there a successful program. What are the demographic 

groups that we are targeting so that we make sure that the educational value makes sense? 

And so I would hope that going forward you would be able to 

make these distinctions from a budget standpoint so that the good 

stuff that is happening like at Goddard Space Flight Center and 

the role that it plays in our local community in working with our 

school system and the NOAA center, that those things aren’t wiped 

out with the responsibility of the scientists who are really engaged 

in the research playing a role in developing that program as distinct from these sort of informal programs that need, I think, a little bit more guidance and coherence. 

And so I wonder if you could tell me if you envision a role for, 

you know, scientists on the ground to participate with NSF, with 

the Department of Education in rolling out effective programs in 

communities and developing materials, because I would think that 

we would not want to lose that kind of expertise and that sort of 

hands-on involvement of people who are really, you know, doing 

real work on a day-to-day basis but also engage with our young 

people in the classrooms. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The short answer is absolutely yes. I appreciate 

very much the work that these programs at NOAA and NASA and 

for that matter DOE and the Department of Defense that have 

practicing scientists and engineers on the ground contributing to 

the educational process. These have been of great value. A lot of 

these programs have been left intact. 

Again, this reorganization affects about half of the dispersed programs that were out there, so half remain in place. And the ones 

that are being consolidated and moved in terms of their management to NSF or the Department of Education or the Smithsonian 

Institution, as I mentioned before, all of those agencies are determined to continue to tap the expertise in the dispersed mission 

agencies for these purposes. They have made that commitment to 

me. I have been talking to the leadership of all of those agencies 
42 

about it. We are talking about it in the meetings of the Committee 

on STEM Education of the National Science and Technology Council, which I chair, together with the acting NSF Director, Cora 

Marrett. And I believe it is going to happen. I believe we are going 

to get this right. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And just to follow up on that, can you also tell me 

about how you plan to continue to engage funding of basic research 

in historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving 

institutions, because then those become the filters for graduate— 

undergraduate, and graduate education, and it seems to me that if 

you really want to get students engaged, a diverse population of 

students engaged, that they have to get—there have to be opportunities in those institutions that serve them. And so I would hope 

that there is kind of a parallel development of funding of research 

in those institutions with what is happening in this reorganization 

of STEM programs. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I agree with that as well and I would make two 

further points. One is that in this reorganization we took care not 

to impact any programs connected with historically black colleges 

and universities or other programs that were explicitly focused on 

women or minorities in STEM. We are now in the process of conducting a further review to make sure that we didn’t miss anything 

in terms of indirect connections that might be affected because we 

are in complete agreement in this Administration. The President 

feels very strongly about this, that one of the core elements of our 

STEM education efforts has to be to improve opportunities and access for women and minorities, and other underrepresented groups 

in the STEM fields. So we are taking that very seriously. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

he gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Dr. Holdren, for being with us today and having this exchange of 

ideas and views and enlightening us to some things about our 

budget requests that we have to deal with. From 1990 through the end of 2013, America will have spent $42 billion through the U.S. Global Change Research Program, $42 billion. In your testimony, you state that this work is, ‘‘including but 

not limited to climate change.’’ What other global change areas is 

being worked on and what percentage of the $2.8 billion dedicated 

to these—will be dedicated to these non-climate change areas that 

is coming out of the U.S. Global Change Research Program? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Some of the areas on which the USGCRP focuses 

include water, soils, desertification, deforestation, oceans. Please 

keep in mind there are 13 different agencies involved here with a 

wide variety of missions. They have different pieces of the action. 

It is not by any means limited to climate change alone, although 

I have to say climate change has become such a pervasive phenomenon that it is linked in various ways with most of these other 

issues, with soils issues, with water issues, with ocean issues, and 

so on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, obviously, what we have been concerned about here on this end of the debate is that many of the 

things you are talking about—deforestation, water, et cetera—that 
43 

the people in the Departments and agencies perhaps have felt that 

if they really want to get the money for their—and it is sequestered 

for their little interest or their mission, just attach it to deforestation under climate change and water under climate change, et 

cetera. Do you think there is any validity to that worry? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Basically, I don’t. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. HOLDREN. That is, I think there is lots of work going on 

under the USGCRP on these domains that is not particularly focused on the climate change dimension, but it is also important 

that work go on that does look at the interactions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, have you—can you give us an example 

of this $42 billion in research that we have had since 1990, has 

there been anything there that has been discovered that will in 

some way alter our ability to live on this planet and to survive and 

to prosper on this planet? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Understanding what is going on in the ocean in 

terms of acidification, other impacts on ocean food chains is extremely relevant to our ability to live prosperously on this planet. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I agree with that. And some people tie 

that to climate change; other people say— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, some parts— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. That it is not necessarily as a— 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, there are non-climate phenomena that are at 

work there as well— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And they are important, and our improved understanding of them has improved our capacity to manage these problems, our capacity to manage forests— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Which is very important to our future 

well-being has been improved under these programs. 

I would be happy to get back to you if you would like with a 

breakdown— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I think you have done a good job right 

here, and I appreciate your sincerity and your knowledge on that. 

Last question: I have, as you are aware, been concerned that 

technology transfers to countries that could someday be our enemies is something we should be looking at and that, because of 

concerns that citizens of the People’s Republic of China, the PRC, 

have been given broad access to NASA facilities and NASA technology, which then enables them to bring back to China with them 

information that was developed and technology and data that was 

developed by our investment. I asked General Bolden how many 

PRC citizens had access to NASA facilities. He has provided me 

with this report, which I would submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information may be found in Appendix 2.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. This report states that 293 Chinese 

nationals had access to our critical aerospace centers, and just a 

few weeks ago, we saw that one of these PRC citizens, who had 
44 

broad access to NASA Langley Research Center, was founded trying to skip the country with hidden laptops that were filled with 

stolen data. So clearly, whatever protection measures we have in 

place to prevent this sort of thing need to be double-checked and 

looked at and beefed up if they are inadequate. And who knows 

how many times this thing has happened that people haven’t been 

caught? 

So what I am asking you today is simply for the record—and I 

know you don’t have this information with you now—but could I 

have a commitment from you that you will provide it, and just a 

number of how many PRC citizens have access to our national 

science, space, and technology facilities; those that are run by the 

Federal Government or funded by the Federal Government; and information that is broken down by agency and by the nature of the 

access that these people had? 

And if you could—and I know you wouldn’t be able to answer 

that now, but if you can have your staff get me that information— 

I think it is important for our national security not to have Chinese 

citizens gathering up information at our research centers and our 

very sophisticated science operations and taking that information 

back to China. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, we will certainly do our best to pull that information together for you. It sounds like quite a task. I can tell 

you that only U.S. citizens may work at the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, so the answer for OSTP is zero. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome, Dr. 

Holdren. 

I am very grateful having—I am a representative for Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory and also Sandia National Laboratory, and I am grateful that my colleague on this Committee, Ms. 

Lofgren, has been a tireless and fierce advocate for our laboratories. And many times Members of Congress are advocates for 

what is in their district and it is hard to look outside the district, 

but I am grateful that Ms. Lofgren has been such a champion for 

the laboratories. 

And I wanted to follow up on some of her questions about NIF, 

because it is very important. And the Administration is proposing 

cuts to NIF and the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High-Yield 

Campaign over fiscal year 2012. And these cuts could lead to the 

ending of research at this recently completed world-class facility. 

NIF has long received, as Ms. Lofgren pointed out, bipartisan 

support in the Congress. And it is at Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, which is the largest employer in my Congressional district and it houses the world’s most powerful laser and the preeminent tool in the world for this type of fusion research. It is also 

a critical part of our Stockpile Stewardship Program. 

And today, as we look around the world and we look at the 

threat of a nuclear weapon being used against the United States, 

particularly with Iran or North Korea, I think making sure that 

stewardship is taking place with our stockpile has never been more 
45 

important. And as we look forward and to the future, this research 

from NIF can lead to clean, safe, plentiful fusion energy. 

And so I believe that the funding reduction for NIF greatly puts 

us at risk for our stockpile stewardship. I am also afraid that it is 

ceding America’s leadership when it comes to fusion to Russia or 

China, and France as well. They have also accelerated their investments in this area to compete in confinement fusion. And I believe 

this could put the United States behind. 

Dr. Holdren, given our sizable investment in NIF, and up to this 

point it has been the $5 billion initial investment and the continuing operational investment, do you think we should pull support just as this facility is demonstrating its potential? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman, with respect, we are not pulling 

support. I think that the cuts in the NIF budget, as I currently understand them, are modest. They are not insignificant, but they do 

not, in my judgment, imperil our Stockpile Stewardship Program. 

They do not imperil the continued operation of the facility. If I discovered that the contrary were true, I would join you in alarm. Our 

Stockpile Stewardship Program is important. This is a cutting-edge 

facility, which is important to that program and to the potential future use of inertial confinement fusion as an energy source, and it 

is not our intention to shut it down. 

Mr. SWALWELL. But Dr. Holdren, wouldn’t you agree, I mean, 

going from fiscal year 2012 a funding level of $486.8 million to fiscal year 2013 a request at $271.7, that that is a sizable reduction 

that will greatly affect the operations at NIF, will reduce the staffing at NIF, and will set them behind in their fusion goals? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think there were a number of changes that contributed to that reduction in budget, partly the expanded use of the 

facility as a user facility and some changes in bookkeeping, which 

affected it as well. 

I do want to mention that I was a full-time employee of the 

Livermore lab from 1970 to 1972 and a consultant from ’74 to ’94, 

including a consultant to the division that built NIF. And I have 

a strong attachment to the importance of that facility, and as I 

said, if I thought that what was going on in the budget was imperiling the future use of that facility, I would do everything I could 

to prevent that outcome. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And I was also—I was an intern for Ellen 

Tauscher in 2001 in this town. I saw NIF at its inception and I see 

it as my role. And again, I am very grateful that I have a colleague 

up here who also understands the importance not just for our nuclear security but also the future of our energy security, and I hope 

we can work together to make sure that it does have an adequate 

funding level so it can continue to make progress, and more importantly, reach the goals which I hope we are close to reaching there. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I will certainly continue to work with you and 

with Congresswoman Lofgren to that effect. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you, Doctor. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
46 

Doctor, I am going to back up a little bit and have you sort of 

educate me on some of the process you go through. Your substantial portfolio is determining priorities and priorities for funding and 

you make recommendations to the President? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The process that leads to recommendations to the 

President is a process that involves OSTP, OMB, and all of the departments and agencies that have science and technology budgets 

and that process is— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And are you the—sort of the— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Multiple phases and back-and-forth 

iterations. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Doctor, would you consider yourself sort of the 

overall coordinator of such? I mean, you know— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Jointly with the Director of OMB. I have the responsibility in the White House for overseeing those budgets and 

for making recommendations to the President. But again, we do it 

jointly with the departments and agencies. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. All right. And as you do that, how the you— 

I mean how do you manage—particularly as a scientist as you are, 

how do you manage, say, we are going to work to maximize primary research, basic research, and avoid political folklore, political 

goals being moved into those research and science allocations of resources? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The short answer to how I and we manage this is 

with difficulty. This isn’t— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I mean, it is human nature. I mean, we all 

have our— 

Dr. HOLDREN. This is in enormous challenge, and one of the ways 

we avoid or try to avoid bias and political fads, as you suggest, is 

by having a great many voices in the process, again, voices from 

the departments and agencies, voices from the diverse staff of 

OSTP. I don’t do this by myself. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I would love a side conversation with you 

because I can build you a model saying that is exactly the wrong 

way to do it because of sort of collective folklore that we all operate 

with. I mean, we all have our perception bias. 

But within there, I mean one simple sort of a one-off example, 

I am looking at some of the NOAA funding—what is it, the JPSS? 

And it looks like some of those dollars went to NASA but not to 

manned spaceflight. It has gone into sort of the climate monitoring 

activities of NASA. Is that a—sort of an example of, okay, this is 

our political belief system, this is, you know, our goal, and stripping and moving monies around to keep financing them? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, it was not in the sense that the money that 

left NOAA was money that had supported a specific set of climate 

change monitoring sensors, and NASA now has the responsibility 

for managing that set of sensors so the money went with it. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. So my understanding, though, the NASA 

resources as prioritized by your Office and the President and, you 

know, the President’s budget folks is moving down manned 

spaceflight and moving up, you know, climate monitoring even 

though those resources, as you say, came from NOAA? I mean, am 

I at least getting that balance correct? 
47 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, we are doing our best to fund human 

spaceflight and exploration under the instruction of the Congress 

in a manner that simultaneously builds the next generation space 

launch system, multi-purpose crew vehicle that provides adequate 

funding for the development of a commercial space industry so that 

we can get cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station. 

It is a juggling act. I have often said in this hearing and elsewhere 

that NASA has long had the problem of 20 pounds of missions in 

a 10-pound budget. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No, just— 

Dr. HOLDREN. And they continue to. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I need to sort of take us back. n the whole sort 

of allocation of grants, resources, it is—how would you—if I came 

to you and said I want you to design a system, so clean slate, you 

know, no more sort of the grant review process we use today where 

often the university that has the best grant writers and those—because if you look at where much of the money goes, there seems 

to be consolidations and concentrations. How would you design a 

grant system that was truly based on trying to fund basic research? 

What would you do different than we do today? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, I think the key to successful 

funding of basic research is a rigorous peer-reviewed system. And 

there are parts of the Federal Government’s support for research 

which could use an increased infusion of peer-reviewed research as 

opposed to other approaches to allocating funds. And certainly if I 

were king, I would make some modifications in that direction. 

But what I would add to this process is an interactive process 

that also includes the Congress. When we look at NASA’s budget, 

we have had clear instruction from the Congress about a number 

of things that NASA’s budget absolutely has to do. And we take 

that seriously. We follow to the best of our ability within the overall constraints the guidance of the Congress on— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I was sort of moving more onto sort of the 

primary basic research, and how do we make sure that resources 

go where we get, you know, maximum benefit to our society, the 

world, and not to, you know, necessarily the best grant writer or, 

you know—you know, it is—I have great concern on the benefits 

we are receiving and the allocation of how we do the grants. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I can only say again that this is a huge challenge. 

I mean the question, for example, of how do you compare the leverage of investments in basic biomedical research with the leverage 

of investments in nanotechnology or fusion energy? In fact, what 

we find in many cases—and this is the reason we have more crosscutting programs than we used to have—is that these fields intersect in interesting ways. And some of the most important opportunities now emerging in biomedicine are sitting at the intersection 

of genomics, engineering, physics, and measurement. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Doctor, dozens of other questions. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your tolerance. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
48 

And thank you, Dr. Holdren, for joining us here today. I want to 

return to flesh out a little bit the priorities and the approaches on 

energy. This budget proposes the establishment of a new Energy 

Security Trust, which would support research into a range of technologies that would help us transition from oil towards more secure 

alternatives. I understand from what I see that the trust would be 

funded by revenue generated from federal oil and gas development. 

But can you give us any more details about how that trust would 

actually be carried out? For example, would the money go directly 

towards augmenting current programs, relevant programs in 

DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or 

ARPA–E? Or are you proposing some kind of new mechanisms or 

programs for supporting research? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The set of questions around exactly how this 

would work is one that we expect to be in a continuing conversation with the Congress about. We would envision a variety of approaches, including strengthening the support for some existing 

programs, and providing support for some new opportunities not 

currently being funded. But again, that is at an early stage of formulation and we would expect to do it in consultation with the 

Congress. 

Ms. ESTY. Following up on that a bit, there has been—the proposal has a substantial increase in the ARPA–E budget, and I 

know that was already sort of referenced a little bit earlier. Can 

you flesh out the basis for that? Sort of what accomplishments 

have been achieved to date and if—that would justify an increase 

at a point when obviously we have got severe fiscal constraints? 

And what are the sorts of projects that you would contemplate 

being carried out if this funding is approved? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, you know, ARPA–E in its short history has 

developed a strong reputation for thinking outside the box and for 

developing new ideas that can contribute substantially. Some of 

those ideas have been in the domain of energy storage, advanced 

batteries, fuel cells, and so on. Some of them have been in the domain of advanced biofuels. Some of them have been in the domain 

of how we can make our grid much smarter and much more efficient. I think folks who follow the energy technology field closely 

believe that money invested in ARPA–E has had a lot of leverage 

and so we are proposing to expand it on that basis. 

Ms. ESTY. I appreciate that. This is an area that is of enormous 

interest. In Connecticut, we have a lot of fuel cell energy, other 

companies that are startups that are very interested in working on 

this. And obviously, basic research that can augment what the private sector would try to develop is of great interest. But again, we 

need to be looking at accountability. 

If I can switch gears for a moment, you referenced, just a moment ago, synergies between different areas, and one I would like 

to turn to is on the bioeconomy, is some of the developments that 

the White House last year released a National Bioeconomy Blueprint about supporting economic activity. Again, I have the Jackson 

labs moving into my district from—to support efforts that were created in part around state efforts at stem cell. We are now building 

on this at University of Connecticut and at Yale. Could you flesh 

out a little bit more about what sort of support there would be for 
49 

basic R&D as contemplated as part of this process, especially updating training programs, what is contemplated in this initiative? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, if you look at the range of challenges and 

human needs that we face across the space of health and across the 

space of food and agriculture and across the space of materials and 

sustainable resources, what we found in the bioeconomy blueprint 

is that there is enormous potential at the intersection of several 

branches of biology, including genomics, to contribute to really 

path-breaking advances that would affect all of these domains, that 

would affect health, that would affect food and agriculture, that 

would affect the development of new, better, and more sustainable 

materials. 

And so we envision substantial support for the basic and early 

stage applied research in these domains that is essential if you are 

going to then build economic activity, if you are going to develop 

new firms, jobs, products, and so on. And I would be happy to provide you with more detail about that or sort of an update on the 

pace of progress on different aspects of the bioeconomy blueprint. 

But that would probably be more detailed than I can run through 

in a hearing. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much and I will follow up. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Now, I just want to note that here it is. I finally got the gavel here. 

Mr. WEBER. I see that. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. And Mr. Weber from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, congratulations. 

Dr. Holdren, in your exchange with Congressman Posey regarding his questionable—the questionable studies money with taxpayer dollars spent, analyzing pictures of animals in National Geographic and he named a couple of studies, China’s dairy industry, 

you literally made the comment—I wrote it down—that it was a 

dangerous thing for Congress or anybody else to specify funding in 

research. Do you recall that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Certainly what I meant to say, Congressman, it 

can be dangerous to try to micromanage funding in basic research 

outside the peer-review process. The peer-review process is the 

backbone of our basic research enterprise, and we have done very 

well with it. That doesn’t say it never makes mistakes, but I think 

it is better than any alternative, including me or you trying to determine what is good basic research in fields not our own. 

Mr. WEBER. You went on to say that it was the responsibility of 

government to fund basic research in those comments. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. I have a question about that. Can you give me the 

constitutional basis for that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. There are lots of things that we do that are not 

explicitly set forth in the Constitution. The responsibility of government—in the judgment of many anyway—is to carry out those activities in the interest of society that the private sector is unlikely 

to carry out for reasons that we understand. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me give you— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Basic research we know has been the— 
50 

Mr. WEBER. Let me give you Article I, Section 8. The eighth enumeration out of 18 of them says ‘‘Congress is to promote the 

progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to 

authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective 

writings and discoveries,’’ which would sound like patents. 

Dr. HOLDREN. It would. 

Mr. WEBER. So I would like for us, from a policy standpoint, to 

dispel the idea that somehow we have got to fund all the studies 

and that Congress shouldn’t be, in your words, micromanaging at 

this various level—at this very low level all of these types of studies. 

And I will go back to Mr. Schweikert’s comments about he will 

build you a model that says it is exactly the wrong thing to put everybody in the room and say that we ought to decide exactly what 

trends we ought to follow, because we are in a budget crisis now, 

in my opinion, because we have just said, look, we can research 

anything we want, we can fund studies to do anything we want, 

whether they are the dairy habits over in China, no matter what 

they are. 

So I just want to make sure that from an agency standpoint, you 

being one of the leaders in the agency, I hope that you all have an 

attitude and an understanding that it is Congress’ purview to get 

involved in this, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we 

spent the American taxpayer dollars properly and correctly and 

wisely. That just kind of bothered me when you said that. 

And let me go down to a specific question. Gasoline prices and 

regulations, as you know, the EPA has recently proposed new gasoline regulations, the Tier 3 level—I am sure you are familiar with 

that—that could, in fact, raise gas price—cause gas prices to rise 

by $.10 on the gallon and cause multiple oil companies to close, 

multiple refineries to close. Even though the EPA did not complete 

a congressionally mandated study—here we are talking about Congress getting involved—on whether those rules are even necessary. 

So being an advisor to the President, Dr. Holdren, what—can you 

tell us what specific provisions in the President’s budget will help 

reduce gas prices this year and get America—I am going to have 

a couple questions for you—and get some relief at the gas pump 

and help those who are hurting, working families? What specific 

provisions in his budget have you recommended? 

And secondly, do you agree that regulations of those type result 

in higher joblessness and higher energy costs, which, in fact, impact Americans’ health negatively, a lot of worry they can have the 

kind of health checkups and preventative maintenance, if you will, 

that they need. 

So what, specifically, have you seen or proposed in the President’s budget to help alleviate some of those higher fuel costs? And 

do you agree that those kinds of EPA regulations actually negatively impact Americans’ health? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is a multipart question. Let me first say I am 

very well aware that Congress is responsible for determining the 

levels of funding— 

Mr. WEBER. I think we have established that. 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. Across the entire government. I would 

never dream of disputing that. 
51 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. HOLDREN. My previous point was whether it was valuable for 

Congress, at a very fine level of detail, to try to substitute for the 

peer-review process in individual grant-making. There is no question that Congress determines how much money NSF gets. Congress can determine how much of that goes to social— 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, we have established that— 

Dr. HOLDREN [continuing]. And behavioral sciences— 

Mr. WEBER [continuing]. But we are running out of time, so 

please go on to the other two questions. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And again—but I don’t want to be misunderstood 

on that point. 

Secondly, with respect to EPA regulations, with respect to the recent proposals, there are real differences of opinion as to what the 

impact on the price of gasoline would be. Some people have said 

$.01, some people have said $.09, and there needs to be more analysis to determine what that would be. I do not accept the general 

proposition that EPA regulations cause adverse impacts on the 

American population’s health. We work very hard, EPA works 

hard, we work hard in the Administration reviewing their proposed 

regulations to ensure that the opposite is true. 

Mr. WEBER. Their regulations, Dr. Holdren, cause joblessness. 

That does not have an adverse effect on Americans? 

Dr. HOLDREN. If their regulations did cause joblessness, that 

would have an adverse effect. However, in many cases, regulations 

create new jobs even while impacting jobs in another sector. And 

in fact, any intervention the government makes tends to add jobs 

some places, cut jobs other places. You have to do a very careful 

analysis of the net effects before you conclude that regulation has 

cost American jobs. And of course the aim of the regulation is to 

reduce air pollution, which we know adversely impacts the health 

of Americans, increases our national health care costs, and is devoutly to be reduced if we can do so in a cost-effective manner. 

Mr. WEBER. And that is— 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. The gentleman’s time— 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, I would love to discuss more, and I am sorry, 

Mr. Chairman, I have gone over my time, but I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. We next have Ms. 

Bonamici from Oregon. 

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

Dr. Holdren, thank you for your testimony. Another encouraging 

aspect of the President’s budget that you pointed to in your testimony is a focus on manufacturing innovation, particularly through 

partnerships between universities, community colleges, and the private sector. In my State of Oregon, we have the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, also known as ONAMI, 

where the University of Oregon, Portland State University, Oregon 

State University, and other public and private sector partners collaborate to bring innovative ideas to the marketplace. 

Also important in Oregon are the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, or MEPs, that you mentioned in your testimony. I recently met with a business that received about $50,000 in MEP 

funds in partnership with the Oregon MEP. They used that fund-
52 

ing to hire 11 new workers who each earn about $60,000. So in this 

kind of situation, the Federal Government sees a quick return on 

its investment through tax revenues from these new jobs and from 

a small company experiencing meaningful growth. 

So can you talk about the multiplier effect that these types of 

partnerships which leverage public funds by pairing them with private funds have in the context of the federal budget and how significant are these programs when we are facing severe budgetary 

constraints? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would start by saying that the great advantage of partnerships is to leverage government funds, combining 

them with private sector funds and in some cases with philanthropic funds to get a much larger impact than the government 

could ever do alone. But even more important than that is the 

leveraging of insight that resides in the private sector with the 

kinds of capabilities and insights that reside in national laboratories and in government-funded research universities. 

We have been promoting these kinds of partnerships across a 

wide range of activities ranging from STEM education where we 

have the Educate to Innovate Initiative that raised three quarters 

of $1 billion in private and philanthropic money, in part to bring 

practicing scientists, mathematicians, and engineers into classrooms to work with teachers to improve curriculum and to provide 

role models, who were also seeing a lot of success in the domains 

that you discussed, including particularly enabling small business 

to have access to facilities that enable them to develop new products and services that they would never be able to develop that 

they didn’t have access to these facilities that they are too small 

to afford on their own. 

And we see this happening in the nanotech domain where there 

are nanotech startups that have been able to use the nanotech facilities of our research universities and our national labs to develop 

new products, which then create jobs and economic growth going 

forward. I think it is a terrific model, and I am delighted that so 

much of it is working well for Oregon. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I thank you so much. And I want to ask another 

question as well. On the topic of climate and weather monitoring, 

I wanted to ask about the enhanced focus on weather priorities. I 

have some coastal area in my district, and weather monitoring can 

be the key to the livelihood of mariners who rely on data from the 

National Weather Service when they are preparing to leave the 

harbor. Recently, NOAA stated that they planned not to repair a 

monitoring buoy, and I contacted them. The district was very concerned about that. 

I am glad that the President’s plan to focus on weather issues 

is highlighted here. To what extent is this renewed focus on weather monitoring a reflection of the growing understanding that global 

climate change is leading to more severe weather events, as noted 

by the 2013 National Climate Assessment Draft? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, I think you have put your finger on it. We 

are experiencing more extreme weather of a wide variety of kinds, 

and that makes it all the more important to be able to predict 

when and where that extreme weather is going to strike, and that 

requires, obviously, increased investments in prediction capabilities 
53 

ranging from buoys, satellites, other kinds of monitoring stations to 

high-speed computing, and the models run on high-speed computers in order to be able to translate monitoring data into accurate forecasts. We are putting very heavy emphasis on that because 

the livelihoods, the economic well-being, and the health of the 

American people depend on accurate weather forecasts, as you 

note. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Absolutely. And my time is about to expire. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And for a 

new Member of the Committee, you are certainly an active Member 

of the Committee, and I have noticed that very much over the last 

month. You have got something to say. 

All right. And next, we have from the home State of California, 

Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Takano. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. Takano, pardon me. 

Mr. TAKANO. You are forgiven. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. But he comes from a district very 

close to my own, so you may proceed. 

Mr. TAKANO. I thank my distinguished colleague, who hails from 

an area 45 miles to the south and west. 

So Dr. Holdren, welcome. My question relates to—I had the 

privilege of visiting during the most recent spring recess the Dryden facility, now renamed, I think, Neil Armstrong facility out at 

Edwards Air Force Base and was able to take a look at the collaboration between NASA and, I believe, it was Boeing or one of the 

aerospace firms. 

You know, a lot of talk about the involvement of government and 

private industry in manufacturing, but there was some research 

jointly being done on a new type of aircraft, and there is some 

promise of this aircraft being significantly more fuel efficient. I 

can’t remember the name of the—the aircraft looks like somewhat 

like a triangle, like a flying wing. I forget the name of it. But can 

you just comment on how critical this sort of joint research with— 

between industry and NASA has been to develop our aerospace industry in this country and keeping it ahead? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The short answer is that NASA is working the 

aeronautics domain, and its partnerships with the private sector 

have been extremely important. You know, a striking thing that 

people are aware of is that the fuel economy of jet airliners has improved by an enormous factor over the last 35 years. The fuel consumption per seat mile is now much less than half in modern aircraft of what it was 35 years ago, and that is the result, in a very 

substantial measure, of NASA’s aeronautics research in their partnerships with the private sector. We are seeing that moving forward in the kinds of projects that you visited at the Neil Armstrong facility. 

I said before that we need to be very careful when we think 

about NASA’s budget and imagine that the only element of NASA’s 

budget that matters is human space exploration or robotic probes 

or space telescopes. Those are all enormously important and we 

support them, and we support them to the extent that our overall 

budget permits, but it would be a big mistake to allow NASA’s pro-
54 

grams in aeronautics to wither. It would be a big mistake to allow 

NASA’s programs in Earth observation to wither. 

Mr. TAKANO. Dr. Holdren, if I am not mistaken—and this may 

not be either one of our areas—but it seems to me that the building 

of large commercial aircraft is an important part of America’s balance of trade. It is a major export for us. And it seems to me that 

there has been an intricate interlocking between government/industry, and I see some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

often criticizing the government for being involved in picking winners and losers in the domain of, say, alternative energy. But this 

seems to be an example that all Americans would agree has been 

very vital. 

I am struck that the aeronautics budget is a very small part of 

the overall NASA budget. Is there any thought the Administration 

might want to increase this budget line? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, we are constantly looking at the balance, as 

I said in response to some other question, it is challenging because 

there is not enough money overall to do everything that we should 

be doing. I mean, I have said in other forums already this year— 

I think this President’s budget for fiscal year 2014 is a good budget 

for science and technology under the fiscal circumstances we face, 

but it is not the budget that I would want to have in better times. 

And in better times, there would be more money for human 

space exploration, there were be more money for planetary science, 

and there would be more money for aeronautics. I am not going to 

second-guess on the fly the current balance in NASA, which was 

carefully arrived at over the long sort of interactive process that I 

described, but as a general matter, I think society would benefit if 

we could invest more in this and many other domains— 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, very quickly because I know the distinguished 

Chairman is interested in our competition and potential rivalry 

with the People’s Republic of China. Do we—and they rapidly are 

trying to develop their own aviation and aeronautics industry. Do 

we know how much by comparison that they are investing in research in this area? 

Dr. HOLDREN. We do have some data on the pattern of Chinese 

research investments. I could get back to you on that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Sure, please. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t have it on the top of my head what they 

are investing in this area. It is clear that we are still well ahead. 

That is where I would like to stay. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Next, we have Mr. Veasey from Texas. 

Mr. VEASEY. Dr. Holdren, thank you. I wanted to ask you a specific question about advanced manufacturing. There was a really 

good article last year in the Wall Street Journal about German 

companies coming over to America to train workers here to work 

very highly skilled manufacturing jobs, jobs such as, you know, 

various machinist type jobs, robotics specialists. One of the things 

that we talk a lot about here in Congress and people are talking 

about nationally—you have talked about it—is STEM education, 

which is very, very important. 

But I do believe that there are a lot of kids that are graduating 

from high school that don’t necessarily have a STEM background, 
55 

but they are ready to get to work if they can find a good job. And 

last year, about 600,000 of these highly advanced manufacturing 

jobs went unfilled, largely because the kids graduating from the 

high schools didn’t have the skill set to go work some of these jobs 

that start off at $22, $24 an hour. Can you talk a little bit about 

the Administration’s long-term goal for sort of revitalizing, you 

know, manufacturing in this particular area and how it fits into 

the budget? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Veasey, that is a great question, and 

it is one that we have been working on very hard. A couple of components to it: one, we have a program around redesigning the high 

school experience in this country so that kids graduating from high 

schools are better prepared for some of the highly skilled jobs of 

the 21st century. We are also working with community colleges and 

partnerships between community colleges and the private firms, 

the industries in the same region with the community college to develop community college curricula that prepares students for precisely the jobs that exist in the companies in their particular regions. This is an extremely important part of our overall STEM ed 

strategy. 

Mr. VEASEY. Do you see in the future it being talked about more? 

And I understand why people want to talk more about the STEM 

and why that has gotten the attention that it has gotten, but I 

think that this is an area—and I think that you would agree—that 

we should, you know, definitely encourage our young people to— 

and even parents to sort of think about more. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I completely agree, and the President agrees. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. And we have Ms. Wilson from 

Florida. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a follow-up a little bit 

to Mr. Veasey’s concerns. I am concerned about the reduction in informal science education activities and budgets in many agencies 

including NSF. A lot of these hands-on afterschool activities are 

what get very young children excited about science. I am a former 

school principal and that is important. 

Can you elaborate on the new role of the Smithsonian in coordinating informal STEM education efforts under the STEM reorganization proposal? Is there an existing office and staff who will— 

new capacity—where new capacity have to be built at the Smithsonian? How much of the 2014 request of $25 million is for capacitybuilding versus for direct funding of the programs transferred from 

the mission agencies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congresswoman Wilson, I can actually provide you 

those numbers in detail. I was just in touch yesterday with the 

folks at the Smithsonian who are running this effort. There is an 

Assistant Secretary for Education and Outreach in charge of this 

effort. They have actually gone through a very extensive process to 

develop their ideas about how this $25 million would be used. I actually have a detailed breakdown of the numbers, how much goes 

to information technology, how much goes to revitalizing education 

activities, broadening access, excelling in related research. 

But they have a series of goals. The first goal is around the creation of content in programs. That means working with these agen-
56 

cies that historically have been providing the kinds of activities you 

are talking about to improve the content and the programs in these 

domains. The second goal is to develop and maintain the infrastructure to deliver that content, including creating a portal for the 

transfer of knowledge about these kinds of activities as accessible 

to everybody. The third goal is creating community teachers and 

student agency partnerships that will create learning communities 

that figure out how to do this better. The fourth goal is evaluation 

of these efforts. 

And they have already at the Smithsonian existing activities in 

all of these categories which they are going to build on and expand. 

So it really is a well-thought-out effort, and it is an effort in which 

they are already in touch with most, if not all, of the agencies that 

have been engaged in some of these smaller programs that are 

being consolidated. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. And 

first of all, I would like to thank Dr. Holdren for his valuable testimony and the Members have asked some questions. We are hopeful 

that they will be—some of their requests will be complied with in 

writing and as soon as you can. It might take some time, but, you 

know, even the question I asked, it would take some time to compile. 

But we thank you for being here and giving us your frank opinion. Would you—Ms. Johnson, would you like to have a closing 

statement? Go right ahead. 

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

I just wanted to say that there are questions that I will be submitting. I want to thank you, Dr. Holdren, for being here, but it 

leads to questions I will be submitting for the record. 

Vice Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And if any 

other Members of the Committee have additional questions, we will 

ask that you respond to those questions in writing. And the record 

will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions. 

Just a couple little things—I can’t help myself, just a thought. Of 

the 13 agencies that we are talking about in terms of climate 

change research, we are spending $2.7 billion over those 13 agencies for climate change research, and we are only spending $80 million for weather research, just a thought. Okay. 

The other thing is that many of us are concerned that peer review—and Eisenhower warned us about this in his farewell address, that peer review in the science community can become clique 

review and that we have an academe—and I know when Henry 

Kissinger was asked about how horrible the spirit of the beating 

down your opponent was in politics, he said, well, it is nothing like 

academe. And, you know, you have these things both in the academic world and then the political world where we need to respect 

each other’s opinions, and we need to realize that, you know, we 

are not calling anybody names by simply focusing on what we believe is important. 

For example, you talked about the fuel consumption per mile of 

our airplanes, and I think that is an important part to make up. 

And I know that you are very proud of the research that has taken 
57 

place by our government. Some of us look at it and go, oh, the fuel 

consumption per mile, maybe that has something to do with the deregulation of the airlines that it would seem now that our airplanes 

are full, when before deregulation they were flying with 10 percent 

of their seats—10, 20, and 30 percent of their seats vacant. 

So it—you know, it all depends on how you are looking at something. But both sides are right obviously. Both sides have an assessment. Our airlines are becoming more efficient. 

And so, anyway, I want to thank you for presenting your side 

and the Administration’s side of this, and your answers have been 

enlightening and provocative. 

And with that, I say that this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
60 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
61 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE LAMAR SMITH (R-TX) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review of the President 's Budget Request for Science Agencies 

Wednesday, April 17,2013 

1. The FY 14 budget transfers responsibility for the JPSS climate sensors from NOAA to NASA. 

NASA's Earth Science budget seems to increase to $ 1.8 billion, but NASA's Planetary Science 

budget appears to be the primary bill payer for these Earth Science budget increases. NASA's 

Planetary Science budget is approximately $300 million less than it was two years ago. 

a. Is it an accurate assessment of how the Administration made budget trade-off decisions? 

Has it been a conscious decision on the part of the Administration to boost NASA's 

Earth Science climate research budget at the expense of human spacefligbt and planetary 

science, at approximately $300 million a year? 

The reduction in NASA's Planetary Science budget was already proposed in the 2013 

Budget, for reasons having to do with meeting the principal Congressional and Presidential 

priorities for the agency under a highly constrained NASA total. The 2014 Budget proposal 

for Planetary Science is $1.22 billion, about the same as the 2013 Budget figure of $1.19 

billion. Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest that the level of the request for Planetary Science in 

FY14 fell by $300 million in order to pay for climate sensors that are first proposed to be 

transferred from NOAA to NASA in FY14. 

2. The Triana satellite - first envisioned by Vice President Al Gore in the late I 990s - was taken out 

of storage and renamed DSCOVR in order to fulfill a critical solar flare monitoring mission. Over 

time, it appears as thougb climate sensors have crept back onto the satellite. For instance, NOAA 

began funding the climate sensors EPIC and NIST AR, despite claiming to not have enough to 

fund satellites used for weather monitoring and severe storm prediction. Last year Congress 

denied NOAA's request to fund them again - now througb NASA. 

a. Why has the Administration expanded the scope of the DSCOVR mission beyond what 

was originally planned for monitoring solar flames? 

b. What is NASA going to cut in order to pay for these sensors? 

The DSCOVR spacecraft was designed originally to carry Earth observation instruments. 

Congress appropriated funds for NASA in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 to refurbish and 

recalibrate the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and NIST Advanced 

Radiometer (NISTAR) Earth observation instruments, which NASA has done. Modest 

investments to support the integration and flight of these Earth observation instruments is 

the most cost-effective and expeditious way to complete the DSCOVR satellite and is the 

most cost-effective way to redeem the nation's investment in these instruments by 

allowing their measurements to be used to advance science. 

No other programs or projects have been cut to fund the EPIC and NIST AR sensors. NASA 

continues to maintain a balanced portfolio of missions. The President's FY14 budget 

request balances risk, introduces selected refmements in implementation approaches, and 

capitalizes on efficiencies being realized across ongoing activities in the portfolio. 

3. I am concerned about the lack of transparency in major EPA rule-makings. You and EPA 

officials have been asked repeatedly over the last several years about the Agency's unwillingness 
62 

to make public major data sets that are behind EPA's Clean Air Act regulations' claimed health 

benefits. These data sets are responsible for $1.7 trillion of the $2 trillion of the Clean Air Act 

benefits that EPA has attributed to the major air quality rules proposed and finalized in this 

Administration. In your role as the President's Science Advisor, you are charged with "ensuring that 

data and research used to support policy decisions undergo independent peer review." 

The EPA has not provided this underlying data to the Science Committee, despite repeated 

requests since September 2011. This was confirmed in an April 10 letter to Chairman Smith. This 

letter also states that "The EPA recognizes that the data provided ... are not sufficient ... to 

replicate the analyses in the epidemiological studies ... " Despite these admissions, the Agency 

continues to regulate based upon findings substantiated by this secret data. This is alarming for an 

Administration that claims to be the "most transparent in history." 

a. During a June 2012 hearing before this Committee, you stated that " ... absolutely the 

data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are based should be made 

available to the Committee and should be made public ... " Do you still agree with this 

statement" 

b. In a February 2012 hearing before this Committee, you committed to provide this 

underlying data and promise to "start working on it immediately." What steps have you 

taken to make the underlying EPA data publicalJy available? 

c. The President's nominee to serve as head of EPA swore under oath that she had provided 

the relevant data, and that any information that was excluded would reveal confidential 

health information. In light of your role in pursuing access to data and information for the 

Administration, has EP AQ or Gina McCarthy consulted with your office on the ability to 

provide public or Congressional access to this data? 

d. Your February 2012 Memorandum stated that: "The Administration is committed to 

ensuring that, to the greatest extent and with the fewest constraints possible ... the direct 

results of federally funded scientific research are made available to and useful for the 

public, industry, and the scientific community. Such results include peer-reviewed 

publications and digital data." The studies I have referenced were both federally-fundedpaid for by American taxpayers. Are EPA's actions consistent with this Memorandum? 

My full statement at the June 2012 hearing was: "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." I agree 

that scientific data on which regulatory and other decisions are based should be made 

publicly available where possible, but, as I stated then, classification on national-security 

grounds is one reason it may not be possible, and other reasons that I should have added 

include patient-privacy concerns and business proprietary information. My February 2013 

memorandum, Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research, 

elaborates at greater length on the factors that bear on the stated condition, "to the greatest 

extent and with the fewest constraints possible." 

In consultation with EPA officials subsequent to my 2012 statements to the Committee, in 

which I pledged to work on this matter, I have learned that the EPA itself does not possess 

all of the raw data that went into these studies and that EPA is engaging with the relevant 

research institutions and researchers possessing the raw data to work towards obtaining the 

requested materials and providing them to Congress. 
63 

4. As you know, EPA recently proposed new Tier 3 gasoline regulations that could raise gas 

prices by up to 10 cents and cause multiple refineries to close, despite not having completed a 

Congressionally-mandated study on whether these rules are even necessary. 

a. Do you think joblessness and higher energy costs associated with this rule could have 

negative health impacts for American citizens? 

b. Do you agree with the principle that major regulations should examine and analyze 

the possible negative public health effects associated with regulatory costs? 

c. What specific provisions in the President's budget will help reduce gas prices this year? 

Proposed Federal regulations should be and are evaluated taking into account all of the 

identifiable effects of the proposal, positive and negative. EPA is currently reviewing the 

public comments received on the proposed Tier 3 motor-vehicle emission and fuel 

standards and will carefully consider these comments as it works to develop a final rule. 

Regarding gasoline prices more generally, as I stated in my testimony before the 

Committee, the 2014 Budget establishes an Energy Security Trust to support research into 

a range of transportation technologies that would shift our cars and trucks off oil and 

insulate American families from volatile gas prices. The proposal, $200 million in 2014 

and $2 billion over ten years, would set aside and redirect some of the royalty revenues 

generated by oil and gas development in Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) to fund this research. This proposal is designed to invest in breakthrough research 

that will make future technologies cheaper and better through a reliable stream of funding 

for research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives to current 

vehicle technologies. Funding would support research into technologies such as advanced 

vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, fuel cells, and domestically produced 

natural gas. 

5. When developing major regulations, federal agencies will often monetize the "value of 

a statistical life" in order to compare the mortality benefits of a regulation to its cost. 

a. What is the proper Value of a Statistical Life that should be used by federal agencies in 

rulemaking? 

b. In just the last three years, federal agencies have valued human life at $8.7 million (EPA), 

$5.8 million (Department of Transportation) to $106,308 per life-year (Food and Drug 

Administration). Which of these values is correct? Why are they different? 

c. Do you agree that federal agencies should use consistent approaches to regulatory 

cost-benefit analysis? 

The Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) depends on a variety of assumptions, some of which 

depend on context-specific circumstances such as the average age of the individuals most at risk 

from the activity and the types of risks being regulated. The principal responsibility in the 

Executive Office of the President for working with Federal department and agencies on the 

appropriateness of assumptions used in these types of calculations rests with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). OMB's Circular A-4 provides guidance to Federal agencies 

on the application of regulatory cost-benefit analysis and the use of VSL estimates. 
64 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE LARRY BUCSHON (R-IN) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review of the President's Budget Request for Science Agencies 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

I. In November 2012, the Administration awarded a $30 million pilot for the National Network for 

Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) initiative President Obama announced during his 2012 State 

of the Union address. Despite the Administration's request for a one-time $1 billion mandatory 

spending request in FYI4, no mandatory funding was provided in FY13. Could you please 

break down the FYI3 funding contributions for the Youngstown pilot center from the DOD, 

DOE, NSF, NASA, and NIST? 

Furthermore, I understand that in the President plans to award three more Institutes for 

Manufacturing Innovation awards before the end of the current fiscal year, using existing FY 

13 funds. Could you please delineate which agencies will fund the two DOD-led and onc DOEled new institute, what amounts from cach agency, and from which account those FY 13 funds 

will be derived? 

The National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII) was launched with $30 

million in FY12 appropriated funds; the award was made in August 2012. At that time, 

agency contributions totaled $19 million: $5 million from the Department of Energy (DOE), 

$1 million from NASA, $1 million from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the 

remaining $12 million from the Department of Defense (DOD). The remaining $11 million 

in appropriated funds will be allocated in FY 2013 and FY 2014, primarily from DOD. 

Non-Federal sources will contribute $39 million in co-investment. 

In May 2013, the Administration issued Funding Opportunity Announcements for three 

new Institutes. Final agency contributions have yet to be determined. The two DOD-led 

Institutes combined will be funded at up to $130 million over four years in Federal funds, 

primarily from DOD, with possible contributions from other Federal agencies including the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NASA, and NSF. The DOEsupported Institute on Wide Band-Gap Power Semiconductor Electronics Devices will 

receive nearly all of its up to $70 million in Federal support over four years from DOE, 

although other Federal agencies may contribute. These J<'ederal funds will be matched by 

non-Federal funds. 

2. What are OSTP's budgetary initiatives to advance the research and development of smart 

manufacturing technologies like robotics, automated guided vehicles, additive manufacturing, and 

3D imaging? What does OSTP envision for the role of standard setting organizations and 

standards to advance the smart manufacturing sector? How will OSTP support their role? 

The DOE and NIST labs play a critical role in advancing competitiveness through their 

research and involvement in standards setting bodies. How are we utilizing these labs to look at 

and explore the next wave of emerging technologies similar to nanotechnology and additive 

manufacturing? Are the labs working with the private sector in these new areas? 
65 

As noted in my written testimony, the Budget provides $2.9 billion for Federal advanced 

manufacturing R&D at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense 

(DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Commerce (DOC), and other 

agencies, an 87 percent increase from 2012. Investments include supporting innovative 

manufacturing processes that dramatically reduce energy use and strengthening 

investments in platform technologies like nano-manufacturing, bio-manufacturing, 

robotics through the National Robotics Initiative, advanced materials through the 

Materials Genome Initiative and other materials science and engineering investments, and 

defense technologies to fundamentally change the way we build things and dramatically 

reduce the time from design to production. 

The Administration continues to support the pilot manufacturing innovation institute in 

Youngstown, Ohio, which focuses on additive manufacturing. As these R&D initiatives 

move forward, standards-setting organizations and industry-led standards will help to 

advance the adoption of advanced-manufacturing technologies and processes by private 

firms. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a leading partner in 

the Federal advanced manufacturing R&D effort and is also the agency charged with 

helping to equip U.S. industry with the standards-related tools and information necessary 

to compete effectively in the global marketplace. OSTP will continue to support NIST's 

standards work. 

I am in full agreement with you that the DOE and NIST labs, as well as other Federal and 

national laboratories, play a critical role in advancing U.S. economic competitiveness 

through their research and through their involvement in standards-setting bodies. 

3. The President's FYl4 budget request for STEM education activities proposes a significant 

restructuring among 14 different federal agencies with their own STEM initiatives. The 

President's budget request would cut or consolidate 114 STEM programs. while adding more 

funding in the Department of Education, National Science Foundation, and Smithsonian Institute. 

The President's proposal also cuts NASA's STEM education initiatives by almost $50 million. 

On what basis did you find NASA's STEM education initiatives to be inetTective and in need of 

cutting? What evaluation criteria did the Administration use to base its decisions for which 

agency's STEM educations programs should be cut or expanded? 

The FYI4 reorganization proposal reflects a set of difficult choices made with two 

overarching purposes: freeing up funds, under a constrained total STEM-education 

budget, for expanding such potentially transformative efforts as the 100k-in-iO initiative to 

train 100,000 high-quality STEM teachers over the next decade; and improving the 

coordination, coherence, and susceptibility to evaluation of the large number of smaller 

programs currently spread across the mission agencies. Even so, the 2014 Budget proposal 

would leave intact over 100 programs spread across those agencies. The programs 

eliminated accounted for only about 6 percent of the $2.9 billion in Federal STEMeducation funding in FY2012. 

In making the choices about what programs would be eliminated or consolidated with 

others, the relevant entities in the Executive Office of the President-notably the Office of 

Management and Budget, the Domestic Policy Council, and the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy-were guided by the aims in preliminary versions ofthe Federal STEM 

Education 5-Year Strategic Plan (issued by the Committee on STEM Education of the 

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and delivered to Congress in final form 
66 

on May 31), as well as by inputs from the departments and agencies and by the President's 

desire to re -organize STEM-education programs for greater coherence, efficiency, ease of 

evaluation, and focus on transformative possibilities. We were also attentive to preserving 

those of the mission-agency programs that best leverage the unique assets of those agencies 

or respond directly to their own needs for trained personnel, as well as the programs 

serving groups underrepresented in STEM fields. At NASA, the proposal includes resources 

to conduct a competitive process to separate those programs that have been shown not to be 

effective from those assets that meet the goals of the Nation's STEM Education efforts, and 

should continue within NASA. 
67 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D-TX) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review of the President's FY 2014 Budget RequestforScience Agencies 

Wednesday, Aprill7, 2013 

1. With respect to the Administration's proposed reorganization of Federal STEM education 

programs, for K-12 programs that are being transferred, how will the mission-specific needs and 

the decades of education and public outreach experience built up at mission agencies like NASA 

be preserved by Smithsonian and the Department of Education? NASA has a long history of 

engaging students outside of the classroom. I worry what will be lost by transferring these 

programs and I specifically worry about consolidating too much in the Department of Education, 

which doesn't have a long history with STEM 

S&T agencies such as NASA, NIH, and NOAA possess valuable domain expertise, 

passionate employees, strong relationships with iudustry, aud unique assets for educators, 

both formal and informal, across the Nation. Under the reorganization proposal, all of 

these agencies would retain many of the programs through which they apply these assets to 

STEM-education activities that build on the unique competencies of the respective agencies 

and/or meet their needs as employers of individuals with particular STEM skills. 

At the same time, tbe proposal's "lead agencies" for K-12 education (Department of 

Education), undergraduate education and graduate fellowships (NSF), and outreach 

(Smithsonian Institution) have already conducted or are in the process of convening 

meetings with these and other science agencies to identify modes of cooperation through 

which valuable assets and activities from programs that would be eliminated under the 

reorganization could be brought to bear more broadly and effectively across the 

government going forward, as well as to discuss agency-mission-specific needs that can be 

met by STEM education and engagement efforts supported by the leads. While it is 

premature to define exactly how these interactions will work in the long run, as agencies are 

currently working to determine how best to structure these collaborations, all lead agencies 

are committed to engaging the collahorating agencies to leverage their expertise and unique 

resources, as described in STEM Strategic Plan released in May. 

2. The Department of Education is proposing to create a new ARPA-ED program focused on 

educational technology R&D. As I look through the description of this program in your 

testimony, I wonder why this program isn't a partnership hetween the Depmiment of Education 

and the National Science Foundation'! NSF has historically been the leader in shaping the next 

wave of educational R&D, as you put it in your testimony, and has invested extensively in 

R&D and evaluation of educational technologies specitically. What is the rationale for placing 

this program solely at the Department of Education? How will the Administration ensure that 

the Department makes use of NSF's expertise in this arca? 

NSF plays an invaluable role in supporting R&D related to education, learning, instruction, 

and technology. Yet, in the same way that the Department of Defense has a sizable traditional 

R&D hudget and infrastructure, but still uses DARPA to pursue break "through innovations, the 

proposed Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED) will focus its efforts 

ou creating dramatic improvements in educational technology at scale. 
68 

ARPA-ED will aim to identify and determine how to harness at scale the best and most 

relevant R&D with possible applications in education from other Federal agencies. In this 

connection, it will pursue coordination with NSF, in particular, to ensure that the 

Foundation's research is leveraged to the extent relevant and possible, and not duplicated. 

ARPA-EO's Advisory Board is one mechanism to facilitate this coordination, as is regular 

contact between the ARPA-ED Director and hislher counterparts at Education's Institute of 

Education Sciences (lES) and NSF. 

3. In February, in response to a requirement in the 2010 COMPETES Act, you issued a policy 

memorandum directing Federal science agencies to develop plans to make the published 

results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication 

and requiring researchers to better account for and manage the digital data resulting from 

federally funded research. 

a. Based on your memo, draft plans are due from agencies in August. Do you have any 

sense of when is the earliest we can expect final policies to be in place? 

b. What was the rationale for allowing flexibility both in the embargo period and in 

whether the repositories are centralized or distributed? 

Do any agencies require legislative authority to implement their plans or do you believe that 

any further legislation is necessary to keep the implementation of your memo on track? 

The Administration is committed to dramatically increasing public access to the results of 

Federally-funded scientific research, including both publications describing research results 

aud digital scientific data. Different Federal agencies are at different starting points and are 

facing different infrastructure, logistical, and economic challenges for implementing these 

policies. Furthermore, we want to facilitate opportunities to create common solutions, reduce 

redundant efforts, and maximize the public impact of agency efforts. We therefore anticipate 

that some agencies will be able to finalize their policies before others. 

To date, most of our experience in increasing access to published research results is in 

biomedical research. There, we have seen tremendous public benefit using a 12-month 

embargo period and no appreciable harm to the publishing industry. In fact, the biomedical 

publishing industry has grown since NIH started its public-access policy. We therefore 

decided to expand that experiment to all other fields of science and explicitly call the 12-

month embargo period a guideline to ensure that agency policies can evolve based on 

evidence rather than be locked into a static embargo period. Simply put, some fields of 

research may be able to tolerate substantially shorter embargo periods than others and the 

public may reap more benefit from Federal investments by evolving the embargo period. 

Similarly, we have experience with a centralized model through NIH's PubMed Central 

archive, but we do not think that a centralized solution is the only way to effectively 

increase access. Indeed, we believe there is real benefit to experimenting with different 

models for access. The key is to ensure that research results are widely accessible and 

useful and that as we gain experience with increasing access, we are able to evolve the 

archival solutions for increased access to maximize public benefit. 

All agencies that required to implement the policy have indicated to OSTP that they will be 

able to do so, and that none are significantly limited by legislative authority. There may be 

a need to provide additional authorities in the futnre, however, after agencies have 
69 

established their public-access policies. The greatest challenge to agencies will be 

implementing their plans and policies during challenging fiscal times. We believe that there 

is no need for new legislation on the issue of increasing public access at this time, and 

believe that agencies will benefit from being allowed to implement the requirements of the 

memorandum. 
70 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE DANIEL LIPINSKI (D-IL) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review a/the President's FY 2014 Budget Request/or Science Agencies 

Wednesday, April 17,2013 

I. Dr. Holdren, in its FYI4 Budget Request, the Administration proposes to consolidate all STEM 

education programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the 

Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian is identified as the lead for all informal STEM 

education activities in the proposal and is the potential beneficiary of more than $25 million in 

new, reprogrammed funding - along with 48 associated new FTEs - from terminated competitive 

grant programs to informal science institutions like science centers and museums. This proposal 

raises a number of concerns. 

a. Does the Smithsonian have an inclusive plan to make external grants to nonSmithsonian entities contributing to informal science education? If so, what is that plan? 

h. What will happen to the existing intellectual and scientific resources - not to mention the 

institutional knowledge already exist within the science mission agencies? Would the plan 

be to transfer some of those staff to the Smithsonian as part of the 48 FIE increase? 

Does this consolidation plan run the risk of failing to utilize existing, community-based 

informal STEM education institutions as resources to meet local educational needs? 

S&T agencies such as NASA, NIH, and NOAA possess valuable domain expertise, passionate 

employees, strong relationships with industry, and unique assets for educators, both formal 

and informal, across the Nation. Under the reorganization proposal, all of these agencies would 

retain many of the programs through which they apply these assets to STEM-education 

activities that build on the unique competencies of the respective agencies and/or meet their 

needs as employers of individuals with particular STEM skills. The 2014 Budget proposal 

would leave intact over 100 programs spread across fourteen agencies, and every agency that 

had a STEM-education portfolio before the reorganization would continue to have one. The 

programs that would be eliminated accounted for only about 6 percent of the $2.9 billion in 

Federal STEM-education funding in FY2012. 

At the same time, the proposal's "lead agencies" for K-12 education (Department of 

Education), undergraduate education and graduate fellowships (NSF), and outreach or 

informal STEM education (Smithsonian Institution) have already conducted or are in the 

process of convening meetings with these and other science agencies to identify modes of 

cooperation through which valuable assets and activities from programs that would be 

eliminated under the reorganization could be brought to bear more broadly and effectively 

across the government going forward, as well as to discuss agency-mission-specific needs that 

might be met by STEM education and engagement efforts supported by the leads. While it is 

premature to define exactly how these interactions will work in the long run, as agencies are 

currently working to determine how best to structure these collaborations, all lead agencies 

including the Smithsonian are committed to engaging the collaborating agencies to leverage 

their expertise, unique resources, institutional knowledge, and existing relationships as 

described in the STEM Strategic Plan released in May. Please see also the response to your 

next question. 
71 

2. Dr. Holdren, the CoSTEM Strategic Plan is still under development, with involved agencies tasked 

with working together to develop a more coherent STEM education plan for our nation; as a result of 

this ongoing work I am concerned that this budget consolidation and the programmatic eliminations it 

proposes may be premature. In particular, informal STEM education is currently filling the gaps in 

our local educational systems, and children benefit when they are able to interact directly with 

scientists and engineers conducting federally supported research at places like science museums. The 

President's budget specifically eliminates NOAA's Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG) program; 

NASA's Competitive Program for Science Museums, Planetariums and NASA Visitor Centers Plus 

Other Opportunities (CP4SMP+); and NIH's Science Education Partnership Awards (SEPA) program 

which currently accomplish these goals. 

a. If these programs are eliminated as proposed, I fear that informal STEM education in 

specific STEM fields may become stagnant. How will the elimination of these programs 

allow for a continued leveraged investment in offerings that explain and highlight federal 

agency work undertaken by NOAA, NASA, and NIH while simultaneously engaging our 

next generation of STEM workers? 

I delivered the final CoSTEM Strategic Plan to Congress on May 31. The 2014 Budget was 

prepared with the benefit of insights from the February 2012 Progress Report on the 

Strategic Plan, as well from subsequent albeit pre-final drafts of the Plan itself. The 

Budget's proposals are consistent with the aims set forth in the Plan. Although a number of 

the informal STEM-education programs at NOAA, NASA, and other Federal agencies are 

proposed for elimination in the 2014 Budget, the reorganization proposal redirects $ 25 

million in funding to the Smithsonian Institution to take the Federal lead role in this 

domain. The Strategic Plan calls for the lead agencies to collaborate with other CoSTEM 

agencies to ensure that informal STEM-education offerings will continue to be robust and 

will continue to draw on the talent and expertise of all of those agencies. By designating 

initial lead and collaborating agencies in some of the priority STEM education investment 

areas, the Strategic Plan encourages a more deliberative focus among new and existing 

efforts, the expansion of existing collaborations, and the creation of new synergies. The 

intent is to establish a coordinated, coherent portfolio of STEM education investments 

across the Federal Government so efforts and assets are deployed effectively and 

efficiently, for greatest potential impact. 

In informal STEM education, the Strategic Plan describes the Smithsonian's role as focusing 

"its convening efforts on the priority goal of 'Increase and Sustain Youth and Public 

Engagement in STEM.' As part of Ihe effort, Smithsonian will work with NSF, ED, Ihe other 

CoSTEM agencies including NASA, NOAA, USDA, Nm, DOl, and other science partners to 

best understand the agencies' unique expertise and resources for engaging learners with 

science, and will explore existing and potential approaches to improving infrastructnre and 

access." To quote further from Ihe Strategic Plan, "The other CoSTEM agencies will be key 

collaborators, working with the lead agencies to fmd ways to build on their existing investments 

in STEM education, and leverage the passion and expertise of their staff and other STEM 

professionals who will continue to provide access to STEM content and Federal assets that can 

be used in formal and informal learning environments." 
72 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE ALAN GRAYSON (D-FL) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review of the President's FY 2014 Budget Request for Science Agencies 

Wednesday, Aprill7, 2013 

1. The President of the United States has set a goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050. He has also 

made the commitment to take "urgent action" to keep global warming below 2C above preindustrial levels. The carbon footprint of the Keystone XL pipeline and the 13 million barrels 

of tar sands crude that is planned to flow through it for its 50-year lifetime is about 9.5 gigatons 

of carbon dioxide. Its annual carbon footprint would be the equivalent of the 10 dirtiest coal 

plants in the US, combined. Can you explain to me how the US will meet the President's goals 

of reducing emissions 83% by 2050 and keeping global warming below 2C if the Keystone XL 

pipeline is operational? 

The Administration has not made a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. The State 

Department is still reviewing public comments on its draft supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement, preparatory to issuing a final versiou. President Obama did make clear, 

in his speech on climate and energy policy at Georgetown University on June 25, that 

climate effects will be an important factor in State's final 'national interest determination.' 
73 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE SCOTT PETERS (D-CA) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review of the President's FY 2014 Budget Requestfor Science Agencies 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

I. Over the past several years, our nation has experienced historic and devastating natural disasters. 

Numerous communities across America are still recovering and rebuilding. Hurricane Sandy was 

the nation's costliest storm since Hurricane Katrina, killing hundreds of people in its path and 

causing upwards of$70 billion in damages. How does the President's budget request address the 

need for our communities to be more resilient to natural disasters? Can you provide justification 

for that amount? 

As we have seen in just the last year, our communities and our economy remain vulnerable 

to the impacts of extreme weather, from heat waves and droughts to wildfires and floods, 

and from extreme weather events such as Saudy. The overwhelming judgment of science is 

that the climate is changing, and it is only responsible to be prepared for increased 

frequency and severity of extreme weather events and other climate-related impacts. 

Building a prosperous America means ensuring that our people are safe and secure, and 

that the investments we make in our communities and critical infrastructure are viable 

over the long term in the face of climate change, as well as in the face of natural disasters 

unrelated to weather and climate. The President's Budget supports a range of programs 

and activities designed to strengthen the Nation's preparedness and resilience by: 

safeguarding Federal investments and ensuring delivery of Federal services; building 

stronger, safer communities by supporting local efforts to strengthen climate preparedness 

and resilience; ensuring the long-term preparedness and resilience of the Nation's 

infrastructure and making information to guide these efforts more available and usable; 

and protecting critical natural resources. In the 2014 Budget, these efforts to strengthen the 

Nation's preparedness and resilience are integrated across programs, and the Budget does 

not attempt to separate out line items for preparedness and resilience efforts. 
74 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE DEREK KILMER (D-WA) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A Review afthe President's FY 2014 Budget Requestfor Science Agencies 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

I. An increasing number of states, including Washington, are creating a statewide system of 

regional STEM innovation networks that accelerate the transfer of best practices in STEM and 

improved outcomes. These programs in our region help enable both local innovation and 

statewide impact, as well as equity, which is important in a state like ours with rural, tribal and 

other underserved communities. How does the Administration envision that the regional 

STEM Innovation Networks proposed in the President's 2014 budget will both leverage and 

advance existing efforts in our states? Will a consortium of regional STEM Innovation 

Networks be eligible to apply? 

The Administration's STEM Innovation Networks proposal is a recognition of the kinds of 

success that collaborative networks such as STEMx and other state-wide systems have had 

in connecting students to real-world learning opportunities in fields that meet community 

needs. The Department of Education is already utilizing knowledge gained from the 

operation of these model networks to inform the design of the STEM Innovation Networks. 

Furthermore, as noted in the Department of Education's Congressional Justification for 

the 2014 Budget, the possibility of the STEM Innovation Networks engaging with existing 

networks at the state and local level to increase student engagement and achievement in 

STEM has been recognized in the design of this program. 
(75) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
76 

LETTER TO HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, FROM CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
77 

2 

Before a foreign national can be granted access to a NASA facility or asset, a series 

of database checks is completed for each individual to identify persons who should be 

denied access. Each NASA Center employs an International Visits Coordinator (IVC), who 

is responsible for assuring that all appropriate database checks, investigations, and identity 

documents (e.g., passport and visa) are reviewed and captured. 

Consistent with established NASA policy, visits for the purpose of gathering 

information or conducting discussions in technological areas that NASA considers sensitive 

(e.g., for proprietary, national security, or export control reasons) are generally disapproved. 

Requests are approved only to the extent that discussions and information provided by the 

NASA representatives will be confined to information that has been previously approved 

for release to the general pUblic. 

Assuming a foreign national passes the steps described above, foreign nationals 

who have been in the United States for fewer than three years are issued temporary local 

credentials for an appropriate period of time, as determined by Center security managers 

based on applicable individual restrictions such as date of vi sal passport expiration, date of 

I-94/W expiration, or assignment end date. Foreign nationals resident in the United States 

for greater than three years are eligible to undergo the same level investigation as is done 

for full-time employees and contractors. Access to additional physical or IT assets is 

managed via an access control plan tailored to the specific requirements of the visit. 

The PRC nationals with current access to NASA facilities were all subject to - and 

passed - screenings based on these protocols. 

The NASA Office of Protective Services, including its Counterintelligence and 

Counterterrorism Program and the security programs in place at all NASA Centers and 

facilities - as well as the NASA Export Control Program and our Chief Information 

Officer( s) - continue to aggressively implement the Agency's longstanding practice of 

protecting NASA's technology and facilities from loss or inappropriate access. 

Additionally, I would like to emphasize that, consistent with restrictions codified in 

Section 539 ofthe FY 2012 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 

112-55), NASA has no ongoing or planned bilateral activities with China or Chinese-owned 

companies. 

I appreciate the opportunity to relay the results of our research into - and 

understanding of - these important matters and would be pleased to discuss them with you 

in greater detail if you wish. 

2 Enclosures 
78 

Enclosure 1 

In response to the January 31, 2012, request from the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, NASA 

conducted two separate, thorough investigations to determine whether Dr. Zhang Litong ever 

had direct access, as she claims, to !IDY NASA facility and to identify the most accurate 

information NASA could provide regarding any and all PRC citizens who have engaged in 

programs controlled or funded by NASA at any time, at any level. The results of these 

separate, intensive investigations are outlined below. 

Regarding the purported access to NASA facilities by Dr. Zhang, the Glenn Research Center 

(GRC) was first informed of this matter in September 2011. During the course of their initial 

investigation, they checked all available records from the time periods referenced in 

Dr. Zhang's biography and interviewed former and current employees within GRC's 

Structures and Materials Division and the Space Processing and Experiments Division to 

determine whether Dr. Zhang had ever been granted direct access to GRC. The investigation 

found no records or recollections of Dr. Zhang having ever been on the grounds at the GRC. 

As indicated in your letter, Dr. Zhang's biography states that she " ... came to the U.S. 

NASA Space Structures Materials Business Development Center and ... worked on ceramic 

matrix composites ... in a NASA Center for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS) 

as a Senior Visiting Scholar from April 1989 to January 1991." Based on the results of the 

investigations NASA has conducted into her claims, NASA views these assertions in 

Dr. Zhang's biography (that she worked in a NASA facility) to be factually inaccurate. 

Through NASA's investigations into these claims, it was determined that the "Center for the 

CCDS" referenced in Dr. Zhang's biography was, in fact, a research program being 

conducted at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) in Cleveland during that time. It is 

important to note that this particular CCDS at CWRU was not a NASA facility. It was part 

of a program operated by, for, and at universities. The program was funded partially by 

NASA, but also by the universities, industry leaders, and other private organizations. The 

program at CWRU was created in July 1987 along with seven other similar programs across 

the country. The goal was for these centers to become self-sustainable after several years of 

support from Federal funding. However, in 1993, each center was terminated due to lack of 

evidence of the possibility of self-sustainment. 

Upon receipt of your most recent letter, NASA asked GRC to look again into this matter 

regarding Dr. Zhang. GRC conducted another investigation, combing all available records 

and again interviewing employees and retirees who worked in the Structures and Materials 

Division and the Space Processing and Experiments Division who may have had any 

interaction with the CWRU CCDS during the time periods referenced in Dr. Zhang's 

biography. Again, no recollection or record of Dr. Zhang ever having had direct access to 

any division within GRC (or any other NASA facility) could be uncovered. 
79 

2 

As for Dr. Zhang's work as a "Senior Visiting Scholar" in the "Center for the CCDS" at 

CWRU, investigative personnel from GRC conducted interviews with faculty members at 

CWRU who had been part of - or had knowledge of - the program from 1987 - 1993, and no 

recollection or record of Dr. Zhang having been associated with the program at CWRU could 

be uncovered. 

Again, the program at CWRU was not held at a NASA facility. It was a university research 

program funded only partialIy by NASA (among others). The research being done in these 

programs throughout the country, while sometimes beneficial to NASA, did not expose the 

researchers to classified or sensitive proprietary NASA information regarding "continuous 

fiber reinforced ceramic composite exploration research." While NASA's multiple 

investigations into Dr. Zhang's involvement in this program at CWRU cannot definitively 

rule out the possibility that she may have been involved with the program in some minor 

way, NASA's research and records do not lead to any concrete evidence that she was 

involved in any way. 

Regarding your request for "a list of all PRC citizens who have engaged in programs 

controlled or funded by NASA at any time, at any level," NASA observes that, over the last 

decade, the Agency has had very limited bilateral cooperation with Chinese entities, in 

accordance with the proscriptions of U.S. law and policy. In fact, in April 2011, when the 

FY 2012 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) was enacted, which 

specifically limited NASA's bilateral activities with China, NASA had only one active 

agreement with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). AlI activities under this agreement 

were immediately suspended following passage of this law. 

As mentioned in the cover letter, our records indicate that, in the more than 50 years since the 

Agency's inception, NASA has had 18 cooperative agreements with the PRC, including the 

agreement with the CAS noted above. All of these agreements are either expired or 

suspended. While it is impossible to identify which PRC citizens may have been engaged in 

these programs, NASA can provide brief sununaries of each of these cooperative activities, 

as reflected in Enclosure 2. 

Over the years, it is likely that a number of PRC citizens have worked on programs under 

NASA grants to U.S. educational institutions, since there was previously no NASA-specific 

limitation on bilateral activities with China. However, NASA does not have a pre-existing 

mechanism to provide a comprehensive list ofPRC citizens who have engaged in these types 

of programs that were funded (at least in part) by NASA, as they were managed by nongovernmental organizations such as universities. 

However, NASA is able to identify all PRC citizens who are currently approved for access to 

NASA facilities. As of March 2012, 293 PRC citizens were approved for access. Of these 

2"93, 126 are persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined by 8 U.S.C. 

I 10 1 (a)(20», and are considered "U.S. Persons" in accordance with the International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR § 120.15, and the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR 

734.2. This leaves 156 PRC citizens who are not admitted for permanent residence in the 

United States who have access to NASA facilities. 
80 

NASA has reviewed the access privileges of these 156 PRC citizens and identified the 

following categories explaining their access to NASA facilities. 

3 

88 persons are granted on-site access as graduate/post-graduate research 

scholars under the auspices of the Universities Space Research Association 

(USRA), National Institute of Aerospace (NIA), Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU), or other NASA Post-doctoral Program (NPP) affiliates. 

42 persons are granted remote-access only (no on-site access to NASA 

facilities) for fundamental scientific research. 

17 persons are granted access because they are affiliated with the Department 

of Energy's Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) Program. These people 

only have access to unrestricted access areas and their specific project area 

within the NASA site. 

8 persons are granted access because they are non-NASA-affiliated visitors of 

tenants at the NASA Stennis Space Center. Stennis tenants are part of a nonNASA activity/program located on the Center grounds and only have access 

to unrestricted access areas and their specific building(s), not any other 

buildings on the Stennis grounds. 

1 person is granted access for child day-care facilities only. People granted 

access to child day-care facilities on NASA grounds have access through the 

main gate to go to unrestricted access areas and the child-care facility only, 

not into any other buildings on site. 

As described more fully in the cover letter, these 156 PRC nationals were all subject to - and 

passed - screenings under NASA's security protocols, including a series of database checks 

for each individual to identify persons who should be denied access. 
81 

Æ