[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-2

__________

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

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

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-431 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY

C O N T E N T S

February 17, 2011

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 21
Written Statement............................................ 22

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 23
Written Statement............................................ 24

Witness:

Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP)
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 36

Discussion....................................................... 37

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP).................................................. 70

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET

----------

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011

House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:38 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman Hall. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Good morning. We welcome today a hearing entitled ``An
Overview of the Administration's Federal Research and
Development Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.'' In front of each of
you I think are packets containing the written testimony,
biography and the truth in testimony disclosure of today's
witness, Dr. John P. Holdren. I recognize myself for five
minutes for an opening statement.
Dr. Holdren, I would like to welcome you to the Committee
today. We all understand the influence the OSTP can have on the
Administration's direction in science and technology. Today's
hearing obviously covers a great deal of ground, so I will try
to be brief. At the same time, there are some specific points
that I would like to address before we hear from you.
Our debt today is slightly over $14 trillion, and our
Nation's budget deficit has increased 50 percent over the last
three years, and yet the amount of new debt proposed in this
budget is greater than the total amount of debt accumulated by
the Federal Government from 1789--and my children, I remember
that date--to the day President Obama took the Oath of Office.
This level of spending is simply not sustainable.
While it is true that prudent investments in science and
technology will almost certainly yield future economic gains
and will allow our knowledge and economy to grow, it is also
true that these gains can be thwarted by poor decision-making.
Americans expect and deserve better. With our unemployment
hovering at nine percent, they expect us to reduce or eliminate
those programs that are duplicative and wasteful and examine
ways to advance real job creation and economic growth, not just
spend their hard-earned money on what the government assumes is
best for them.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of
the need to reinvigorate our future through innovation.
American ingenuity is going to determine our future. However,
blanket increases in our federal spending are not the same as
prudent investment and do not guarantee innovation.
As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, we have to curtail
runaway spending and prioritize programs that lay the
foundation for entrepreneurial success. I recognize that the
President is making similar statements, yet the
Administration's fiscal year 2012 R&D budget, at least as it
pertains to a majority of the agencies within this Committee's
jurisdiction, continues a heavily weighted focus on climate
change, oftentimes taking money from other worthy investments.
This rather singular focus for the Federal Government's limited
research dollars slows our ability to make innovative and
certainly it slows it down, other than revealing slows it to
make innovative and perhaps life-altering advances in other
equally, if not more important, disciplines.
The National Science Foundation, DOE's Office of Science,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are all
investing in remarkable research that seeks the improvement of
the way we live our lives. Previous investments brought about
the Internet, the laser, barcodes, MRIs and even sunscreen.
While we should continue to study our changing climate and
continue to work towards keeping our air and water clean, we
must closely examine the billions of dollars spent on climate
change programs with an eye toward effectiveness. From 2006 to
now, we have spent $36 billion on climate change and what do we
have to show for it? A lot of programs and pamphlets. We need
to change that.
With regard to NASA, last year's Congress reauthorized the
space agency and sent a strong signal to this Administration,
which disturbingly, they have not followed in the area of human
space exploration. For our space program to remain competitive
and ensure our national security, we have to stay the course
and develop the next-generation launch vehicle that has the
capability to reach outer space and beyond. Our country cannot
afford an ill-focused space program. I am concerned that the
President's budget defies Congress' direction with respect to
the exploration account and will have some questions for you
with respect to that decision.
Dr. Holdren, we remain committed to assisting you as we
move forward, but hope you will take the message back to the
President that we continue to have significant concerns with
the Administration's priorities for our Nation's precious and
limited R&D dollars.
I thank you, and we look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph M. Hall

Dr. Holdren, I would like to welcome you to the Committee today. We
all understand the influence the OSTP Director can have on the
Administration's direction in science and technology. Today's hearing
obviously covers a great deal of ground, so I will try to be brief. At
the same time, there are some specific points that I would like to
address before we hear from you.
Our debt today is slightly over $14 trillion dollars, and our
Nation's budget deficit has increased 50 percent over the last three
years. And yet the amount of new debt proposed in this budget is
greater than the total amount of debt accumulated by the federal
government from 1789 to the day President Obama took the Oath of
Office. This level of spending is simply not sustainable.
While it is true that prudent investments in science and technology
will almost certainly yield future economic gains and will allow our
knowledge economy to grow, it is also true that these gains can be
thwarted by poor decision-making. Americans expect and deserve better.
With our unemployment hovering at over 9 percent, they expect us to
reduce or eliminate those programs that are duplicative and wasteful
and examine ways to advance real job creation and economic growth, not
just spend their hard-earned money on what the government assumes is
best for them.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama spoke of the
need to reinvigorate our future through innovation. American ingenuity
will determine our future. However, blanket increases in our Federal
spending are not the same as prudent investment and do not guarantee
innovation. As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, we must curtail
runaway spending and prioritize programs that lay the foundation for
entrepreneurial success.
I recognize that the President is making similar statements; yet
the Administration's FY12 research and development budget, at least as
it pertains to a majority of the agencies within this Committee's
jurisdiction, continues a heavily weighted focus on climate change,
often times taking money from other worthy investments. Tills rather
singular focus for the Federal government's limited research dollars
slows our ability to make innovative and perhaps life altering advances
in other equally, if not more important, disciplines. The National
Science Foundation, DOE's Office of Science, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration are all investing in remarkable research that seeks to
improve the way we live our lives. Previous investments brought about
the internet, the laser, barcodes, MRIs, and even sunscreen. While we
should continue to study our changing climate and continue to work
towards keeping our air and water clean, we must closely examinethe
billions of dollars spent on climate change programs with an eye toward
effectiveness. From 2006 to now, we have spent $36 billion on climate
change and what do we have to show for it? A lot of programs and
pamphlets. We need to change that.
With regard to NASA, last year Congress reauthorized the space
agency and sent a strong signal to this Administration, which,
disturbingly, they have not followed in the area of human space
exploration. For our space program to remain competitive and ensure our
national security, we must stay the course and develop the next-
generation launch vehicle that has the capability to reach outer space
and beyond. Our country cannot afford an ill-focused space program. I
am concerned "that the President's budget defies Congress's direction
with respect to the exploration account and will have some questions
for you with respect to that decision.
Dr. Holdren, we remain committed to assisting you as we move
forward, but hope you will take the message back to the President that
we continue to have significant concerns with the Administration's
priorities for our Nation's precious and limited research and
development dollars.
Thank you, and we look forward to your testimony.

Chairman Hall. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Ms.
Johnson for an opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
back to the committee, Dr. Holdren.
We are in a very unusual situation today. We are here today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request,
even as the fiscal year 2011 budget remains in play, so I hope
we can keep the numbers and the years straight. However, even
if we jump back and forth in terms of what year we are talking
about, the key issues that we need to address remain the same:
how best to keep America competitive and create a better future
for our children and grandchildren.
With the C.R. the House is debating this week, I am afraid
we are heading in the wrong direction and I am worried for our
country and for our own grandchildren and what kind of
opportunities they will have in the future. As we focus on the
need to create jobs both now in the coming years, we need to
make sure that we are taking steps to ensure that we remain
economically strong and competitive in a challenging
international marketplace. This committee has heard countless
witnesses from industry, academia and government over the past
several years testify that investments in science, technology
and STEM education must be a cornerstone of any serious long-
term strategy to keep America competitive. While we also need
to address tax and other policies that affect innovation, none
of those policies will be of any use of we don't first invest
in human capital and the research that makes innovation
possible.
Let me be clear: While we debate turning the lights off on
groundbreaking research projects, shuttering the world-class
research facilities, stopping emerging industries in their
tracks and losing many of our best and brightest scientists and
innovators from the STEM pipeline for good, our competitors in
China, India and elsewhere are surging ahead in their
investments in R&D and in emerging industries. They are going
to eat our lunch. They are right now, as a matter of fact, and
then our dinner and dessert too. Now is simply not the time to
take a hatchet to federally funded R&D and STEM education.
Having said that, I still find reason to be hopeful that as
we kick off today's hearing. Our federal R&D agencies have a
long history of investing in research and education programs
that return huge economic payoffs to the American people.
The fiscal year 2012 R&D budget proposal being presented to
us today by Dr. Holdren reflects the imperative to invest in
our future and at the same time acknowledges the fiscal
environment in which we find ourselves. Truthfully, I would
like to see more, including for NASA, for information
technology research and for programs that have demonstrated
success in broadening the participation of women and
underrepresented minorities in STEM. Instead, the budget
proposes to hold many of those programs flat once again.
However, I also understand that the President had to make some
very tough decisions in developing this year's budget request.
We can disagree over some of the specific choices but I
believe, Dr. Holdren, that we share the same goals of
maintaining a strong national science and technology enterprise
and ensuring our young people are prepared for the technical
careers of the future.
I look forward to learning more from you about the
President's R&D budget proposal and to working with you and
members from both sides of the aisle to forge a productive path
ahead.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Thank you Chairman Hall, and welcome back to the
Committee, Dr. Holdren. We are in a very unusual situation today.
We are here today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 budget
request even as the fiscal year 2011 budget remains in play. So I hope
we can keep the numbers and years straight. However, even if we jump
back and forth in terms of what year we are talking about, the key
issues that we need to address remain the same, how best to keep
America competitive and create a better future for our children and
grandchildren.
With the CR the House is debating this week, I am afraid we are
heading in the wrong direction. And I am worried for our country and
for my own grandchildren and what kind of opportunities they will have
in the future. As we focus on the need to create jobs both now and in
the coming years, we need to make sure that we are taking the steps to
ensure that we remain economically strong and competitive in a
challenging international marketplace.
This Committee has heard countless witnesses from industry,
academia, and government over the past several years testify that
investments in science, technology and STEM education must be a
cornerstone of any serious long-term strategy to keep America
competitive.
While we also need to address tax and other policies that affect
innovation, none of those policies will be of any use if we don't first
invest in the human capital and the research that makes innovation
possible.
Let me be clear--while we debate turning the lights off on
groundbreaking research projects, shuttering world-class research
facilities, stopping emerging industries in their tracks, and losing
many of our best and brightest scientists and innovators from the STEM
pipeline for good, our competitors in China, India and elsewhere are
surging ahead in their investments in R&D and in emerging industries.
They are going to eat our lunch, and then our dinner and dessert too.
Now is simply not the time to take a hatchet to federally funded R&D
and STEM education.
Having said that, I still find reason to be hopeful as we kick off
today's hearing. Our federal R&D agencies have a long history of
investing in research and education programs that return huge economic
pay-offs to the American people. The fiscal year 2012 R&D budget
proposal being presented to us today by Dr. Holdren reflects the
imperative to invest in our future at the same it acknowledges the
fiscal environment in which we find ourselves.
Truthfully I would like to see more, including for NASA, for
information technology research, and for programs that have
demonstrated success in broadening the participation of women and
underrepresented minorities in STEM. Instead the budget proposes to
hold many of those programs flat once again. However, I also understand
that the President had to make some very tough decisions in developing
this year's budget request.
We can disagree over some of the specific choices, but I believe,
Dr. Holdren, that we share the same end goals of maintaining a strong
national science and technology enterprise and ensuring our young
people are prepared for the technical careers of the future. I look
forward to learning more from you about the president's R&D budget
proposal and to working with you and Members from both sides of the
aisle to forge a productive path forward.

Chairman Hall. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I will introduce--we will have the one witness
and I will first thank you for our inability to begin as
scheduled and hope we don't ruin the rest of your day here. Ms.
Johnson says that is not what is going to ruin it. No matter
what we say or do, we appreciate you, and if you really listen
to us and obey us, why, we are really going to treat you good,
and if you don't, we are going to treat you good, so there you
go.
At this time I would like to introduce our witness, and I
am proud to introduce Dr. John Holdren as President Obama's
Science Advisor, Director of the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy and Co-chair of the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology. Prior to joining the
Administration, he taught at Harvard and was Director of the
Woods Hole Research Center. As our witness should know and does
know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, after which
the members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask
questions, but we are able, particularly on days like this, to
provide flexibility to you since you are the only witness and
you have been so very patient. I recognize you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP)

Dr. Holdren. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall, Ranking
Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. It is a real
privilege for me to be here today to discuss with you the
civilian science and technology components of the President's
FY 2012 budget.
The premise behind this part of the budget is one that I
believe we all share. It is that creating America's jobs and
industries of the future, and indeed creating the quality of
life that we all want for our children and grandchildren is
going to require investing in the creativity and the capacity
to innovate of the American people. The FY 2012 budget does so
with responsible, targeted investments in the foundations of
discovery and innovation, in R&D, in science, technology,
engineering and math education, and 21st century
infrastructure. It does it with increases in the highest-
priority focuses offset by reductions in lower-priority ones.
It is a budget aimed at helping us win the future by out-
innovating, out-educating and out-building, the competition.
Obviously, we need the continued support of the Congress to
get it done, and I stress continued support because
strengthening the national effort in science, technology, and
innovation has been very much a joint effort of the Congress
and the Administration over the past two years. We hope to
extend that partnership in this new Congress.
All told, this budget proposes $66.8 billion for civilian
research and development, an increase of $4.1 billion, or 61/2
percent, over the 2010 appropriated level in this category. But
the Administration is committed to reducing the deficit even as
we prime the pump of discovery and innovation. Accordingly, our
proposed investments in R&D, STEM education, and infrastructure
fit within an overall non-security discretionary budget that
would be frozen at 2010 levels for the second year in a row.
The budget reflects strategic decisions to focus resources on
those areas where the payoff for the American people is likely
to be highest.
Mr. Chairman, I know the Committee is already familiar with
the details of the Administration's FY 2012 proposed budget.
Let me therefore only very briefly highlight a few key points.
First of all, consistent with the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act, which was passed in December with
leadership from this Committee and signed by the President in
January, the budget calls for continuing along the doubling
trajectory for the National Science Foundation, the Department
of Energy's Office of Science, and the National Institute of
Standards of Technology laboratories.
In the case of NASA, the President's budget holds that
agency to the 2010 appropriated level of $18.7 billion while
still funding every initiative called for in the 2010 NASA
Authorization Act. The President's budget also helps the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration improve
critical weather and climate services, invest more heavily in
restoring our oceans and coasts and ensure continuity in
crucial Earth observation satellite coverage.
The budget reinforces the Department of Energy's work to
make clean energy affordable and abundant with notable
increases for ARPA-E, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
and Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
To help the Nation win the future, the 2012 budget also
emphasizes STEM education, in part by providing $100 million as
a down payment on a ten-year effort to help prepare 100,000
new, highly effective STEM teachers.
Additionally, the budget includes investments for a
Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative to help
extend the next generation of wireless Internet to 98 percent
of the United States population.
Let me reiterate in closing the guiding principal
underlying this budget: America's strength, prosperity, and
global leadership depend directly on the investments we are
willing to make in R&D, in STEM education and in
infrastructure. Investments in these domains are the ultimate
act of hope, the source of the most important legacy that we
can leave. Only by sustaining those investments can we assure
future generations of Americans a society and a place in the
world worthy of the history of this great Nation which has been
building its prosperity and its global leadership on a
foundation of science, technology, and innovation since the
days of Jefferson and Franklin. Staying the course in the
current fiscal environment will not be easy but I believe the
President's 2012 budget for science and technology provides a
blueprint for doing so that is both visionary and responsible.
The support of this Committee, which has been the source itself
of so much visionary and also responsible legislation in this
domain, will be essential if we are to stay the course.
I look forward to working with you to that end, and I will
be pleased to try to answer any questions the members may have.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:]

Prepared Statement of John P. Holdren

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the
Committee, It is my distinct privilege to be here with you today to
discuss the civilian science and technology components of the
President's fiscal year (FY) 2012 Budget.

Administration Initiatives in Education, Innovation, and Infrastructure

President Obama, in his most recent State of the Union address,
called on all of us to help create the American jobs and industries of
the future by doing what this Nation does best--investing in the
creativity and imagination of the American people. The President
identified this time in history as our generation's Sputnik moment. And
just as investments in science and engineering research and development
(R&D) turned the original Sputnik moment into a Golden Age of American
technological and economic dominance, so new investments in science,
technology, and innovation (STI) will be the foundation for continued
American leadership in the future. Targeted investments in the most
promising frontiers of science, made in the context of responsible
reductions in less productive endeavors, will fuel this trajectory and
allow us, in the President's words, to ``out-innovate, out-educate, and
out-build the rest of the world.''
President Obama understands that our ability to meet the grand
challenges before us is intimately dependent on robust research and
development; superior science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education; and 21st century transportation, telecommunications,
and energy infrastructure. His 2012 Budget provides strategic
investments in these domains while also streamlining aspects of the
Federal government and responding responsibly to the deficit. At a
difficult time in America's history, the President's 2012 Budget
proposes to invest intelligently in innovation, education, and
infrastructure today to generate the industries, jobs, and
environmental and national security benefits of tomorrow. Obviously, we
need the continued support of the Congress to get it done. I say
``continued support'' because much of the President's Federal research
and education investment portfolio enjoyed bipartisan support during
the first two years of the Administration. And with the start of this
new Congress, we hope to extend this partnership with both the Senate
and the House across the entire science and technology portfolio. Such
a collaboration to stimulate scientific discovery and new technologies
will take America into this new century well-equipped for the
challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
In the remainder of this testimony, I elaborate on the reasons the
President and I are most hopeful you'll provide that support.

The Federal R&D Budget

In his State of the Union address, the President said: ``The first
step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation,'' and he
promised to deliver a budget that would ensure the Nation's ability to
achieve that goal. This week, the President released that budget. It
proposes a record $66.8 billion investment in civilian research and
development, an increase of $4.1 billion or 6.5 percent over the 2010
funding level, reflecting the Administration's firm belief that
investment in civilian research is a key ingredient for cultivating the
innovation that is so important to growing the American economy of the
future.
(Because of the uncertainty around the outcome of 2011
appropriations, all the comparisons in my testimony are between the
2012 Budget and the enacted 2010 appropriations. My testimony discusses
changes in current dollars, not adjusted for inflation. The latest
economic projections show inflation of 2.7 percent between 2010 and
2012 for the economy as a whole, using the GDP deflator.)
These important R&D investments will bolster the fundamental
understandings of matter, energy, and life that are at the root of much
innovation, and they will foster significantly new and potentially
transformative technologies in areas such as biotechnology, information
technology, and clean energy.
The Obama Administration's investments in innovation, education,
and infrastructure fit within an overall non-security discretionary
budget that would be frozen at 2010 levels for the second year in a row
and would stay frozen to 2015. The Budget reflects strategic decisions
to focus resources on those areas where the payoff for the American
people is likely to be highest, while imposing hard-nosed fiscal
discipline on areas lacking that kind of promise. For example, the 2012
Budget proposes $79.4 billion for development within the Federal R&D
portfolio--a decline compared to the 2010 funding level primarily
because of reductions in development funding in the Department of
Defense. Across government, important programs will have to make do
with less, as noted in several of the program descriptions below. The
total (defense and nondefense) R&D budget would be $147.9 billion, $772
million or 0.5 percent above the 2010 enacted level. That modest
increase is difficult to accept, of course, given the many needs that
could potentially be addressed by an expanded Federal R&D portfolio.
But the Administration is committed to making tough choices and it has
made many such in this Budget.

Budgets of Science Agencies

Three agencies have been identified as especially important to this
Nation's continued economic leadership by the President's Plan for
Science and Innovation, the America COMPETES Act, the Administration's
Innovation Strategy, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act,
passed by the Congress in December through the leadership of this
Committee and signed by the President in January. Those three jewel-in-
the-crown agencies are the National Science Foundation, a primary
source of funding for basic academic research; the Department of
Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science, which leads fundamental research
relevant to energy and also builds and operates the major research
infrastructure--advanced light sources, accelerators, supercomputers,
and facilities for making nano-materials--on which our scientists
depend for energy research breakthroughs; and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology laboratories, which support a wide range of
pursuits from accelerating standards development for health information
technology and ``smart grid'' technologies to conducting measurement
science research to enable net-zero energy buildings and advanced
manufacturing processes.
In recognition of the immense leverage these three agencies offer
and their key role in maintaining America's preeminence in the global
marketplace, Congress and this Administration have worked together to
put these agencies on a doubling trajectory. The FY2012 budget
maintains that trajectory, as newly authorized in the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act (Public Law 111-358), with a 12.2 percent increase
between 2010 and 2012 for their combined budgets, totaling $13.9
billion. I want to emphasize that the proposed increases for these
three agencies are part of a fiscally responsible budget focused on
deficit reduction that holds overall non-security discretionary
spending flat at 2010 levels for the second year in a row, meaning
these increases are fully offset by cuts in other programs.
I now turn to the budgets of individual agencies in a bit more
detail. I will focus on the agencies under the jurisdiction of the
Committee. Therefore, I will not provide details of the defense R&D
portfolio (the Department of Defense and DOE's defense programs) or the
budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

National Science Foundation (NSF)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of
support for academic research for most non-biomedical disciplines, and
it is the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic
research and education across all fields of science and engineering.
NSF has always believed that optimal use of federal funds relies on two
conditions: ensuring that its research is aimed--and continuously re-
aimed--at the frontiers of understanding; and certifying that every
dollar goes to competitive, merit-reviewed, and time-limited awards
with clear criteria for success. When these two conditions are met, the
nation gets the most intellectual and economic leverage from its
research investments. In recognition of the time-proven truth that
today's NSF grants are tomorrow's billion dollar, job-creating
companies, the 2012 Budget request for NSF is $7.8 billion, an increase
of 13.0 percent above the 2010 funding level. This keeps NSF on track
to double its budget as promised in the President's Plan for Science
and Innovation.
NSF puts the greatest share of its resources in the nation's
colleges and universities. Universities are the largest performers of
basic research in the United States, conducting over fifty percent of
all basic research. Basic research funding such as that provided by NSF
is important not only because it leads to new knowledge and
applications but also because it trains the researchers and the
technical workforce of the future, ensuring the Nation will benefit
from a new generation of makers and doers. In order to maximize this
dual benefit to society and NSF's special contribution, the 2012 Budget
sustains the doubling of new NSF Graduate Research Fellowships to
support 2,000 new awards. The 2012 Budget also includes $64 million for
the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program to promote
partnerships between higher-education institutions and employers to
educate technicians for the high-technology fields that drive our
nation's economy; ATE is the centerpiece of an overall $100 million NSF
investment in community colleges, an important part of the higher
education system.
NSF also proposes to increase research funding to promote
discoveries that can spark innovations for tomorrow's clean energy
sources with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability science.
The Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES)
portfolio will increase to $998 million in the 2012 Budget for
integrated activities involving energy and environment. NSF is also
committed to enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness with Science and
Engineering Beyond Moore's Law (SEBML), a multidisciplinary research
program that aims to extend the technological and conceptual limits on
computer processing, with an investment of $96 million in the 2012
Budget. NSF is also investing $76 million in a multi-directorate
initiative on research at the interface of the Biological,
Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) that aims for an
accelerated understanding of biological systems and the opening of new
frontiers in biotechnology. The Administration proposes $15 million in
the 2012 Budget for NSF's contribution to a new interagency initiative
called Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum, or EARS, to support
research into new and innovative ways to use the radio spectrum more
efficiently so that more applications and services used by individuals
and businesses can occupy the limited amount of available spectrum.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
This past October, the President signed the 2010 NASA Authorization
Act (the ``Act'', Public Law 111-267), which stands as a statement of
bipartisan agreement by Congress and the Administration regarding NASA
and its many programs. NASA's programs not only support the grand and
inspiring adventures of space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautical advancement, but also provide an indispensable platform
for observing the Earth to ensure that we have the information we need
to cope with weather-related and other environmental threats to human
well-being. NASA programs also fuel new technology development and
innovation and help launch new products, services, businesses, and jobs
with enormous growth potential. The Act will further our joint goal of
placing NASA's programs on a more stable footing and enhancing the
long-term sustainability of these exciting endeavors as we chart a new
path forward in space.
The FY2012 NASA budget reaffirms the Administration's commitment to
a bold and ambitious future for NASA. Every initiative called for in
the Act is funded, including: a robust program of space science and
Earth science, including a commitment to invest in new satellites and
programs of Earth observation; a strong aeronautics research program;
the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift launch vehicle and Multi-
Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) needed to support human spaceflight and
exploration missions beyond Earth's orbit; a vigorous technology
development program; extension of International Space Station (ISS)
activities through at least 2020, coupled with a plan to use this
orbiting outpost more effectively; and the development of private-
sector capabilities to transport cargo and crew into low Earth orbit,
thus shortening the duration of our reliance solely on Russian launch
vehicles for access to the ISS.
Within the context of a difficult budget environment and the
President's decision to freeze non-security discretionary spending at
2010 levels for five years, NASA's budget remains at $18.7 billion in
the 2012 Budget. This budget level demands difficult choices, and those
choices were made while keeping in mind the priorities of the Act as
well as the collective desire of the Congress and the Administration to
have a balanced program of science, research, technology development,
safe spaceflight operations, and exploration. One such difficult choice
was limiting the budget for the James Webb Space Telescope, keeping the
project funded at $375 million in 2012, to assure NASA the opportunity
to begin work on new scientific opportunities identified in the
National Academies' most recent decadal survey in astronomy and
astrophysics. Similarly, the 2012 Budget reduces the planned increases
in Earth-science research outlined in the 2011 Budget. The Budget
demonstrates the President's continued commitment to our shared
priorities even when difficult decisions are required, providing $1.8
billion in FY2012 funding for the Space Launch System and $1.02 billion
for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, thereby laying the critical
foundation for these exploration programs. As NASA reported in January
of this year, it is still in the process of shaping these efforts and
will discuss them in more detail in a report to Congress this spring.
Similarly, the Budget provides a solid foundation for the commercial
crew and cargo transportation programs that are necessary to provide
safe and cost-effective access to low Earth orbit, including sufficient
support for the operations of the ISS.

Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)
The hugely complex web of technology that keeps this Nation's
equipment and economy running smoothly depends on largely invisible but
critical support in the fields of measurement science and standards.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories
stand at the core of this Nation's unparalleled capacity in these
areas, helping ensure that America remains the world leader in
measurement innovation and systems interoperability. Reflecting NIST's
vital role in supporting the economy and infrastructure, the 2012
Budget of $764 million for the Institute's intramural laboratories
amounts to a 15.1 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level. That
increase will support high-performance laboratory research and
facilities for a diverse portfolio of investigations in areas germane
to advanced manufacturing, health information technology,
cybersecurity, interoperable smart grid, and clean energy. For NIST's
extramural programs, the 2012 Budget requests $143 million for the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), an $18 million
increase over the 2010 enacted level. The 2012 Budget also requests $75
million for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), a $5 million
increase over 2010, and $12 million for the Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Consortia program, a new public-private partnership that
will develop road maps for research that will broadly benefit the
Nation's industrial base. All of these NIST programs are important
components of A Framework for American Manufacturing, a comprehensive
strategy for supporting American manufacturers announced in December
2009, and the Administration's revised Innovation Strategy released
this month.

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
NOAA plays a vital role supporting research on the Earth's oceans,
atmosphere, and marine habitats. The NOAA budget of $5.5 billion is an
increase of $749 million over the 2010 enacted level. This will allow
NOAA to strengthen the scientific basis for consequential environmental
decision-making, improve critical weather and climate services that
protect life and property, invest more heavily in restoring our oceans
and coasts, take advantage of high-performance computing to manage
weather and climate data, and ensure continuity in crucial Earth-
observation satellite coverage. The 2012 Budget proposes a
restructuring of NOAA, including the creation of a Climate Service line
office in NOAA that will focus on the delivery of climate services
while sustaining research on oceans, atmosphere, and climate.
NOAA satellite systems are critical for our Nation's ability to
forecast severe weather, such as blizzards or hurricanes, and as such
can save lives and property. Ensuring that we retain these capabilities
remains a top priority in the 2012 Budget. The former National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program
had a troubled history, as illustrated by numerous Congressional
hearings and GAO reports. Because of this, in early 2010 the
Administration announced a significant restructuring of the program,
and this plan was endorsed by Congress as part of the 2010 NASA
Authorization Act (Section 727). This restructuring was accompanied by
significant increases in NOAA's 2011 Budget request in order to
expedite the launch schedule of these essential weather satellites and
reduce the risks of a gap in forecasting data. However, because the
current continuing resolution allows for only a fraction of the funding
necessary in FY2011 to continue work on the instruments and spacecraft
for the first of NOAA's satellites (the first Joint Polar Satellite
System mission, or JPSS-1), work on the first JPSS satellite has been
slowed down considerably. Under current funding scenarios, the JPSS-1
mission could be delayed by up to two years, thus forcing the weather
forecasting community to rely solely on satellites that will be
operating well past their planned mission life. The 2012 Budget request
provides $1.1 billion to continue the development of the Joint Polar
Satellite System, a significant increase over the 2010 enacted level
which reflects the need for NOAA to fully fund the acquisition of
satellites for the afternoon orbit within its own budget. NOAA
recognizes the magnitude of the requested investment for environmental
operational satellites. However, given the impact of weather on society
and the nation's economy, the ability to warn and protect our citizens
from harm is well worth the cost.

Department of Energy (DOE)
The Administration is directing Federal innovation incentives to
one of the most important, job-creating, innovation-inspiring
challenges of our time: making clean energy affordable and abundant.
The DOE R&D portfolio is a key part of this effort, which is why DOE
R&D increases to $13.0 billion in the 2012 Budget. This represents
targeted growth of 19.9 percent and does not include DOE's non-R&D
cleanup, weapons, and energy-deployment programs. The 2012 Budget also
proposes significant resources for demonstration and deployment
incentives as part of a comprehensive framework for moving the United
States toward a clean-energy future. The Administration's clean-energy
R&D priorities focus on developing cutting-edge technologies with real-
world applications to advance a clean-energy economy, increase energy
efficiency in industry and manufacturing, reduce energy use in
buildings, and reach the goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on
the road by 2015. To help pay for these priorities, we are proposing to
cut inefficient subsidies that we currently provide, unnecessarily, for
fossil fuels.
The 2012 Budget proposes $550 million in appropriations for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, and another $100
million in mandatory funding under the Wireless Innovation Fund. The
Budget will advance ARPA-E's portfolio of transformational energy
research with real-world applications across areas ranging from grid
technology and power electronics to batteries and energy storage. First
funded as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
ARPA-E is a signature component of the America COMPETES Act, which was
recently reauthorized.
The 2012 Budget also doubles the number of Energy Innovation Hubs
to solve key challenges that require cross-cutting inputs from diverse
disciplines. The three new Hubs will focus on Batteries and Energy
Storage, Smart Grid Technology and Systems, and Critical Materials. Two
weeks ago, the President visited the existing Energy Efficient Building
System Design Hub, which will accelerate the development of innovative
designs for cost-effective lighting, sunlight-responsive windows, and
smart, thermodynamic heating and cooling systems, which together will
help make America home to the most energy-efficient buildings in the
world. The other two existing Hubs focus on Fuels from Sunlight and
Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Reactors.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science pursues fundamental
discoveries and supports major scientific research facilities that
provide the foundation for long-term progress in economically
significant domains such as nanotechnology, advanced materials, high-
end computing, energy supply and end-use efficiency, and climate
change. The 2012 Budget of $5.4 billion, more than 10 percent above the
2010 enacted level, increases funding for facilities and cutting-edge
research geared toward addressing fundamental challenges in many areas
including clean energy and climate change, as well as multi-scale
carbon cycle research to underpin measurement, reporting, and
verification of greenhouse gas emissions.
Investments in DOE's clean-energy applied R&D programs target gains
over the next several decades for reducing dependence on oil and
accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. The President's
2012 Budget increases investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy by more than 40 percent over the 2010 appropriation to a total
of $3.2 billion. EERE supports important work in industrial
productivity, R&D on advanced batteries for electric and hybrid
vehicles, and building technology R&D to cut energy consumption. It
also supports new deployment activities in these areas, including a
$200 million competitive grant program to encourage electric vehicle
(EV) readiness and a $100 million competitive ``Race to Green'' program
to encourage state and local governments to streamline codes,
regulations, and performance standards and make efficient building the
norm. Strong support continues for carbon capture and storage options
that can significantly reduce the cost of transitioning to a low-carbon
economy. The Budget also increases investments by more than 40 percent
over 2010 funding levels in R&D to modernize the electric grid,
critical to enabling clean energy sources, by providing $238 million
for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
To help pay for these programs and align policies toward new clean
energy technologies, the Budget proposes to repeal over $4 billion per
year in inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The Administration will
continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to put in place market-based
incentives to promote U.S. leadership in the clean-energy marketplace.
Consistent with Administration policy to phase out inefficient fossil
fuel subsidies, the Budget eliminates funding for R&D focused on
increasing hydrocarbon production.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The R&D portfolio of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
$584 million in the 2012 Budget, a decline of $13 million or 2.2
percent compared to the 2010 funding level. With this investment, EPA
will focus on enhancing and strengthening the planning and delivery of
science by restructuring its research and science programs to be more
integrated and cross-disciplinary. This request supports high-priority
research of national importance in such areas as endocrine disrupting
chemicals, green chemistry, e-waste and e-design, green infrastructure,
computational toxicology, air monitoring, drinking water, and STEM
fellowships. In addition, by way of strategic redirections, EPA will
significantly increase--by $25 million--its outreach to the broader
scientific community through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program. This investment will bring innovative and sustainable
solutions to 21st century environmental science challenges by engaging
the academic research community.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
The total 2012 budget of the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), Interior's lead science agency, is $1.1 billion or a $6 million
increase from the 2010 enacted level. The Budget includes a total of
$126 million in program increases, offsetting a total of $120 million
in program reductions and savings, reflecting shifting priorities
towards climate variability research and ecosystem restoration. There
are significant decreases in minerals and water resources research as
well as targeted increases, including $11 million to complete the
network of climate science centers that will develop research-based
decision support tools for use by Federal land managers. The 2012
Budget also proposes an addition of $60 million over the 2010 level for
Landsat operations and the development of a new operational Landsat
satellite program, which will continue to collect remote sensing data
that are invaluable for many purposes, including climate and land-use
change research.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D totals $1.1 billion in
the 2012 Budget, up $167 million or 18.8 percent from the 2010 enacted
level. Within the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, the 2012
Budget proposes $150 million to begin construction of the National Bio
and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF), which will serve as a new, state-of-
the-art biosafety level 3&4 facility for the development of vaccines
and anti-virals and enhanced diagnostic capabilities for protecting the
United States against emerging agricultural diseases. The Budget also
proposes $64 million for research to support the Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), an increase of $22 million from the
2010 enacted level.

Department of Transportation (DOT)
The 2012 Budget provides $1.2 billion for Department of
Transportation (DOT) R&D, an increase compared to the 2010 funding
level. One significant part of DOT's R&D activities is the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) Research, Engineering, and Development
program. The Budget includes funding for several R&D activities in
FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen. The
Joint Planning and Development Office coordinates this important effort
with NASA and other participating agencies. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) also manages a comprehensive, nationally-
coordinated highway research and technology program, engaging and
cooperating with other highway research stakeholders. FHWA performs
research activities associated with safety, infrastructure preservation
and improvements, and environmental mitigation and streamlining.

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
The 2012 Budget requests $6.65 million for White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) operations, 5 percent below the
2010 enacted funding level, in recognition of the need for shared
sacrifice to freeze non-security discretionary spending. OSTP works
with OMB to ensure that the President's S&T priorities are
appropriately reflected in the budgets of all the executive branch
departments and agencies with S&T and STEM-education missions. OSTP
also provides science and technology advice and analysis in support of
the activities of the other offices in the Executive Office of the
President and supports me in my role as the Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology, with the responsibility to provide the
President with such information about science and technology issues as
he may request in connection with the policy matters before him. In
addition, OSTP coordinates interagency research initiatives through
administration of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC),
serves as the lead White House office in a range of bilateral and
multilateral S&T activities internationally, and provides
administrative and technical support for the very active 21-member
President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST). This
work is accomplished with approximately 34 full-time equivalent staff
supported by the OSTP appropriation, which includes the OSTP Director,
four Associate Directors (for Science, Technology, Environment, and
National Security and International Affairs), additional technical
experts, and a small administrative function. In addition, there are
approximately 40 scientific and technical experts detailed to OSTP from
all across the executive branch along with approximately a dozen other
experts brought in under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act or various
fellowship arrangements. This mix of personnel allows OSTP to tap a
wide range of expertise and leverage all available resources to ensure
that the science and technology work of the Federal government is
appropriately resourced, coordinated and leveraged.

Interagency Initiatives

A number of priority interagency S&T initiatives are highlighted in
the President's 2012 Budget. These initiatives are coordinated through
the NSTC, which as noted above is administered by OSTP.

Networking and Information Technology R&D
The multi-agency Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development (NITRD) program plans and coordinates agency research
efforts in cyber security, high-end computing systems, advanced
networking, software development, high-confidence systems, information
management, and other information technologies. The 2012 Budget
provides $3.9 billion for NITRD, an increase of $74 million over the
2010 funding level.
Networking and computing capabilities are more critical than ever
for a range of national priorities, including national and homeland
security, reforming the health care system, understanding and
responding to environmental stresses, increasing energy efficiencies
and developing renewable energy sources, strengthening the security of
our critical infrastructures including cyberspace, and revitalizing our
educational system for the jobs of tomorrow. The 2012 Budget includes a
focus on research to improve our ability to derive scientific insights
and economic value from enormous quantities of data that heretofore
would have been too large to take full advantage of, and continues to
emphasize foundations for assured computing and secure hardware,
software and network design, and engineering to address the goal of
making Internet communications more secure and reliable.

National Nanotechnology Initiative
The 2012 Budget provides $2.1 billion for the multi-agency National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), an increase of $201 million over the
2010 funding level. Research and development in the NNI focuses on the
development of materials, devices, and systems that exploit the
fundamentally distinct properties of matter at the nanoscale. NNI-
supported R&D is enabling breakthroughs in disease detection and
treatment, manufacturing at or near the nanoscale, environmental
monitoring and protection, energy conversion and storage, and the
design of novel electronic devices. In 2012, NNI agencies will be
moving forward, using close and targeted program-level interagency
collaboration, on three signature initiatives in areas ready for
advances: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond; Sustainable
Manufacturing-Creating the Industries of the Future; and Nanotechnology
for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion.
In addition, agencies continue to maintain a focus on developing
nanotechnology responsibly with attention to potential human and
environmental health impacts, as well as ethical, legal, and other
societal issues. I will also add that within weeks, I will be
submitting to the Committee a revised strategic plan for the NNI
reflecting the changing opportunities for frontier research at the
nanoscale.

U.S. Global Change Research Program
The Budget includes an expanded commitment to global change
research, with the understanding that insights derived today will pay
off with interest in the years and decades ahead as our Nation works to
limit and adapt to shifting environmental conditions. Investments in
climate science over the past several decades have contributed
enormously to our understanding of global climate. The trends in global
climate are clear, as are their primary causes, and the investments in
this research arena in the 2012 Budget are a critical part of the
President's overall strategy to mitigate U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions
and move toward a clean-energy economy even as we adapt to those
changes that are inevitable. Specifically, the 2012 Budget provides
$2.6 billion for the multi-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP)--an increase of 20.3 percent or $446 million over the 2010
enacted level--to continue its important work of improving our ability
to understand, predict, project, mitigate, and adapt to climate change.
As you are no doubt aware, the USGCRP was mandated by Congress in
the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606) to improve
understanding of uncertainties in climate science, expand global
observing systems, develop science-based resources to support
policymaking and resource management, and communicate findings broadly
among scientific and stakeholder communities. Thirteen departments and
agencies participate in the USGCRP. OSTP and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) work closely with the USGCRP to establish research
priorities and funding plans to ensure the program is aligned with the
Administration's priorities and reflects agency planning. In 2011, the
USGCRP is undertaking a comprehensive process that will result in an
updated strategic plan, which will be submitted to Congress later this
year.
Funding in the 2012 Budget will support an integrated and
continuing National Climate Assessment of climate change science,
impacts, vulnerabilities, and response strategies as mandated by
Congress. The Budget also prioritizes an interagency research effort
for measuring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse-gas emissions.

Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Job Creation

The President believes we must harness the power and potential of
science, technology, and innovation to transform the Nation's economy
and to improve the lives of all Americans. In addition to the
investments in research and development (R&D) I have described, the
President's 2012 Budget targets strategic investments to spur
innovation in the public and private sectors and to maximize the impact
of the Federal R&D investment for innovation. Earlier this month, the
President released a revised Strategy for American Innovation, building
on an earlier version released in September 2009. This strategy
describes how investments in R&D work together with other Federal
investments and policies to support American innovation. Let me share
with you a few highlights that are reflected in the Budget.
The Budget proposes a permanent extension of the research and
experimentation (R&E) tax credit to spur private investment in R&D by
providing certainty that the credit will be available for the duration
of the R&D investment. In December, the President and Congress worked
together to extend expiring tax breaks for Americans; as part of that
agreement, the current R&E tax credit was extended through the end of
this year. The 2012 Budget proposes to expand and simplify the credit
as part of making it permanent.
In addition, two weeks ago the Administration announced Startup
America, a campaign to inspire and accelerate high-growth
entrepreneurship throughout the Nation. This coordinated public/private
effort brings together an alliance of the country's most innovative
entrepreneurs, corporations, universities, foundations, and other
leaders, working in concert with a wide range of Federal agencies to
increase the prevalence and success of American entrepreneurs. A broad
set of Federal agencies will launch a coordinated series of policies
that ensure high-growth startups have unimpeded access to capital,
expanded access to quality mentorship, an improved regulatory
environment, and a rapid path to commercialization of federally-funded
research.
The 2012 Budget sustains the Administration's effort to promote
regional innovation clusters as significant sources of
entrepreneurship, innovation, and quality jobs. These efforts are
taking place in several agencies working together, including the Small
Business Administration (SBA), DOE, and especially the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) within the Department of Commerce. EDA
will be pursuing several programs in research parks, regional
innovation clusters, and entrepreneurial innovation activities, as
authorized recently in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. And as
mentioned earlier, the 2012 Budget continues to increase funding for
the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) in NIST to
disseminate the latest advanced manufacturing techniques and innovative
processes to small- and medium-sized manufacturers around the Nation.
Taken together, these investments will help ensure that Federal
investments in innovation, education, and infrastructure translate into
commercial activity, real products, and jobs.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education

In his State of the Union address, the President said: ``If we want
innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas, then we also
have to win the race to educate our kids.'' To help win that race, the
2012 Budget emphasizes science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education, building on two strong years of progress.
Through his past budget requests and actions--including his recent
hosting of the first White House science fair, his launch of the
``Educate to Innovate'' and ``Change the Equation'' initiatives, and
his challenging the Nation's 200,000 Federal scientists and engineers
to get more involved in STEM education--the President has shown that he
is deeply committed to improving STEM education. These efforts have
engaged not only the Federal government but also the private,
philanthropic, and academic sectors. The Educate to Innovate campaign
has resulted in over $700 million in financial and in-kind private-
sector support for STEM education programs. And the Change the Equation
program has brought together over 100 corporations in a historic effort
to scale up effective models for improving STEM education. The
Administration has also integrated STEM education into broader
education programs. For example, the Race to the Top competition
provided a competitive advantage to states that committed to a
comprehensive strategy to improve STEM education.
Building on these efforts, the 2012 Budget proposes an investment
of $100 million as a down payment on a 10-year effort to help prepare
100,000 new highly effective STEM teachers. This coordinated effort
between NSF and the Department of Education will help prepare teachers
with both strong teaching skills and deep content knowledge. The
Administration proposes $80 million for the Department of Education in
the 2012 Budget to expand promising and effective models of teacher
STEM preparation within the new Teacher and Leader Pathways program--
for example, ones that provide undergraduates with early and intensive
field experience in the classroom along with extensive STEM subject
coverage. At the same time, NSF proposes to launch a $20 million
teacher-education research program called Teacher Learning for the
Future. In cooperation with the Department of Education, this NSF
program will fund research that will increase our understanding of what
makes a great STEM teacher and how to best prepare, support, and retain
highly effective STEM teachers in the most cost effective manner. The
coordination of these two programs will ensure that there is continual
innovation and improvement in teacher preparation that is grounded
firmly in evidence.
This is part of a broader Administration commitment to look
carefully at the effectiveness of all STEM programs and find ways to
improve them. To further this goal, in coming weeks I will establish a
Committee on STEM Education under the National Science and Technology
Council. The STEM Education Committee will be co-chaired by OSTP's
Associate Director for Science, Carl Wieman, a Nobel Prize-winning
physicist renowned for his work on improving STEM education, and will
involve participation from the many Federal agencies involved in STEM
education activities.
The work of this Committee will be closely aligned with the vision
for STEM education outlined by Congress in the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act and will focus on improving the coordination and
effectiveness of all Federal STEM education programs. In this spirit,
the Department of Education and NSF are leading an effort, with active
OSTP participation, to increase the impact of the Federal STEM
investments I've outlined above by (1) developing an aligned strategy
that emphasizes key agency capacities; (2) clarifying evidence
standards used to assess program impact; and (3) identifying the most
promising STEM efforts for further validation, testing, and suitability
for scaling up.
All told, the 2012 Budget requests $3.4 billion for STEM education
programs across the Federal government. This is $200 million lower than
the 2010 funding level and reflects some difficult choices. However, we
feel this budget is better focused on programs that will make an
impact.
OSTP looks forward to working with this Committee on our common
vision of improving STEM education for all of America's students.

21st Century Infrastructure

I've talked about innovation and education, and now I would like to
talk briefly about the third step in winning the future: rebuilding
America. In his State of the Union address, the President established a
vision of rebuilding America for the 21st century. This vision is
reflected in the 2012 Budget in investments that will not only rebuild
the roads and bridges of the 20th century but will also help build the
new infrastructure needed for America to remain competitive in this
century.
Within science and technology, the 2012 Budget proposes a Wireless
Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative to help businesses extend the
next generation of wireless coverage to 98 percent of the U.S.
population. This Initiative will enable businesses to grow faster,
students to learn more, and public safety officials to access state-of-
the-art, secure, nationwide, and interoperable mobile communications.
It will also foster the conditions for the next generation of wireless
technology, nearly doubling the amount of wireless spectrum for mobile
broadband and providing critical support for R&D in wireless
innovation. The Initiative builds upon the Presidential Memorandum on
spectrum released last year, which proposes to reallocate a total of
500 megahertz of Federal agency and commercial spectrum bands over the
next ten years to increase the Nation's access to wireless broadband.
As part of the Initiative, the 2012 Budget proposes the creation of
a $3 billion Wireless Innovation (WIN) Fund to be funded out of
receipts generated through electromagnetic-spectrum auctions. This Fund
will advance our economic growth and competitiveness goals, supporting
key technological developments that will enable and take advantage of
the private sector's rollout of next-generation wireless services and
pave the way for new technologies. The WIN Fund will support basic
research, experimentation and testbeds, and applied development in a
number of areas including public safety, education, energy, .health,
transportation, and economic development.
The 2012 Budget also proposes investments in novel, game-changing
physical infrastructure systems including a national high-speed rail
system, an improved civil aviation system taking advantage of the
NextGen air-traffic-control innovations, and new standards for smart-
grid technologies.

Conclusion

The investments in research and development, innovation, STEM
education, and 21st century infrastructure proposed in the President's
FY2012 Budget reflect his clear understanding of the critical
importance of science and technology, STEM education, and 21st century
infrastructure to the challenges the Nation faces. Recognizing the
importance of responsibly reducing projected budget deficits and
holding the line on government spending, the President has made
difficult choices in order to maintain and in some cases increase
critical investments that will pay off by generating the American jobs
and industries of the future. Indeed, the science and technology
investments in the 2012 Budget are essential to keep this country on a
path to revitalized economic growth, real energy security, intelligent
environmental stewardship, better health outcomes for more Americans at
lower costs, strengthened national and homeland security, and
continuing leadership in science and in space.
As this Committee has long understood over the decades, the best
environment for innovation in all technologies is a broad and balanced
research program for all the sciences. Such a broad base of scientific
research will provide the foundation for a cornucopia of
multidisciplinary discoveries with unimagined benefits for our society.
The truth is that this country's overall prosperity in the last half-
century is due in no small measure to America's ``innovation system''--
a three-way partnership among academia, industry, and government.
One of President Obama's guiding principles is that America's
present and future strength, prosperity, and global preeminence depend
directly on fundamental research. Knowledge drives innovation,
innovation drives productivity, and productivity drives America's
economic growth. And so it logically follows that economic growth is a
prerequisite for opportunity, and scientific research is a prerequisite
for growth.
That is why President Obama believes that leadership across the
frontiers of scientific knowledge is not merely a cultural tradition of
our nation--today it is an economic and national security imperative.
This Administration will ensure that America remains at the epicenter
of the ongoing revolution in scientific research and technological
innovation that generates new knowledge, creates new jobs, and builds
new industries.
By sustaining our investments in fundamental research, we can
ensure that America remains at the forefront of scientific capability,
thereby enhancing our ability to shape and improve our Nation's future
and that of the world around us.
I look forward to working with this Committee to make the vision of
the President's FY2012 Budget proposal a reality. I will be pleased to
answer any questions the Members may have.

Biography for John P. Holdren

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN is Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, Co-Chair of the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST), and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President of the
United States. Prior to joining the Obama Administration, he was the
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of
the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy
School of Government, as well as a professor in the Department of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, at Harvard University. Concurrently, from 2002,
he served as co-chair of the independent, bipartisan National
Commission on Energy Policy; from 2005, as the Director of the Woods
Hole Research Center; and, from 2008, as Guest Professor in the School
of Public Policy and Management at Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Dr. Holdren holds degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical
plasma physics from MIT (SB 1965, SM 1966) and Stanford (PhD 1970) and
is the author of some 350 publications on global environmental change,
energy technology and policy, nuclear arms control and
nonproliferation, and science and technology policy. He is a member of
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Council on Foreign
relations, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London.
He is also a former President of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science; former Chairman of the Federation of American
Scientists; and one of the firstrecipients, in 1981, of a MacArthur
Foundation Prize Fellowship. In 1995 he gave the Nobel Peace Prize
acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and
World Affairs, an international arms-control and scientific-cooperation
organization in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997.
From 1994 to 2001, Dr. Holdren served as a member of President
Clinton's PCAST; from 1994through 2004 he chaired the Committee on
International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of
Sciences; and from 1991 to 2005 he was a member of the Board of
Directors of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Early
in his career he held positions at the Lockheed Missiles and Space
Company, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the
Environmental Quality Laboratory and Division of Humanities and Social
Sciences at the California Institute of Technology. From 1973 until
1996 he was the founding core faculty member and co-leader of the
campus-wide, interdisciplinary, graduate-degreegrantingEnergy and
Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley.
Among other distinctions, he has been the recipient of the Volvo
International Environment Prize, the Kaul Foundation Prize for
Excellence in Science, the Tyler Global Environment Prize, and the
Heinz Prize in Public Policy. He holds three honorary doctorates.
Holdren has been married for 44 years to Dr. Cheryl E. Holdren, a
biologist; they have two grown children and five grandchildren ages 5
to 19. He was born in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, and grew up in San
Mateo, California, attending public schools there.

Chairman Hall. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. I will recognize
myself for the first five minutes and I will try to stay within
the five minutes.
EPA announced the endangerment findings on December 7,
2009, at the beginning of the Copenhagen Climate Change
Conference. I am sure you remember that, don't you, Doctor?
Dr. Holdren. Yes.
Chairman Hall. And I understand you as well as President
Obama and other officials also attended. That finding was, so
far as I know and believe, was the first time EPA had made a
standalone declaration of a pollutant in advance of proposed
regulations. I think that is true. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Holdren. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. Well, maybe I can help you. Maybe I can be
of some benefit to you.
And it is curious that the announcement was made during the
Copenhagen Conference and touted there by Administration
officials presumably to give the Administration more leverage
in the international negotiations. What was your role in the
endangerment finding discussions and decisions, particularly
with respect to the timing of it?
Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman, I did not have a role in the
endangerment decision at all either in the internal
deliberations at the EPA that led to reaching it or in the
timing of the decision. That was not my domain.
Chairman Hall. Who made that decision?
Dr. Holdren. I assume the decision on the timing of the
finding was that of the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. I
don't have any knowledge to the contrary.
Chairman Hall. Okay. Then let me move on. The
Administration has told us time and again of the calamities of
climate change, and you know there are some differences of
opinion there, and we have been told that it was based on bad
science. We don't know who told us that but we are going to try
to have them before us to ask them who told them that and then
try to have them before us because if it is based on bad
science, people are entitled to know it. If it is not based on
bad science, people are entitled to know it. We are really just
going to seek the truth, and I don't think anybody ought to
object to that search because we are sure going to make it.
In a recent interview, you had stated that Republicans
needed to be educated on this issue. Maybe that was just
something that our speechwriter put in there when they were mad
at us like we say things to you that we try to impress upon you
because you are in such a position to do so much for the states
and the country and for the man that you report to. In recent
interviews, you stated that we needed to be educated on the
issue. I have to take issue with you on that a little bit. In
August 2006, you knew I was going to ask you about the
interview you had with BBC News, didn't you? You reportedly
said that if the current pace of change continued, a
catastrophic sea-level rise of 4 meters--that is 13 feet--was
within the realm of possibility. While you were giving the
interview, how sure were you about your prediction? As you
know, the very next year the so-called gold standard of
scientific consensus by global warming advocates projected that
the oceans would rise between 7 and 23 inches, not 13 feet but
less than 2 feet, between now and the year 2100. Let me ask you
this: how sure was the scientific community of their
prediction, in your opinion?
Dr. Holdren. Well, there are actually a number of questions
there but let me start with the most recent, the one of sea-
level rise. At the time there had been two referenced peer-
reviewed publications in the scientific literature that pointed
out that twice in the last 19,000 years the rate of sea level
went up as much as 3 to 5 meters per century under forcings,
that is, influences, on the climate, natural ones in this case,
that were in the same range or smaller than the forces that are
now being imposed on the climate, we believe mainly by human
activity. At that time, therefore, the view that a sea-level
rise of as much as four meters, which was in the middle of the
range of 3 to 5, was a reasonable statement based on what was
in the peer-reviewed literature. Subsequently, newer analyses
have reduced that figure somewhat but the upper end of the
range remains in the domain of 1 to 2 meters over the century
we are now in at worst.
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change arrived
at the estimate which you quoted, Mr. Chairman, they explicitly
excluded, and they said so in a footnote, the dynamic processes
which led in the past to these more rapid increases in sea
level and they said they were leaving those out because they
didn't believe that the scientific basis for modeling them
quantitatively was yet adequate to support a particular number.
Since that time--that was the 2007 report of the IPCC, whose
scientific inputs were finalized in December 2005. since that
time, there have been extensive new analyses which have
supported the proposition that the sea-level rise in this
century could be in the range of 1 to as much as even 2 meters.
That is not a particular prediction. The range of uncertainty
is large. But even half a meter would be an extremely
consequential matter for people and businesses with oceanfront
property.
Chairman Hall. There were a number of so-called scientific
consensuses stated, yours among several others, and some to the
effect that the science is not good, not based on good science.
I know you have heard that. I have heard it. I want to know who
said it, who told them that, and what their background was.
Your projection of potential sea-level rise was over 11
feet higher than even the worst-case scenario projected by your
colleagues less than a year ago so there is more than just a
few of us Republicans that need to be educated on the issue.
Given the disparity of these projections, why should the
American taxpayer have confidence in the Administration's
assurance of the global calamities to come or trust your
climate change education campaign? That ought to roll you one
that you might knock out of the park.
Dr. Holdren. Well, let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, I
want to clarify that in the interview you mentioned, I was not
asked about Republicans as a whole, I was asked what do you
plan to do in relation to those Members of Congress who believe
that climate change is not a fact, is not real, and I said in
relation to that particular question that I thought this was a
matter of education because the scientific facts on the reality
of climate change are very robust indeed.
Every major national academy of sciences in the world and
virtually all of the major professional societies that deal
with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying
that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of
natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong
reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a
large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from
these changes, and that the harm will grow unless and until we
stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions. This is not the
view of a few isolated scientists. This is the overwhelming
view of scientists who study this matter around the world.
You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who
will say they don't believe it but they are very much in the
minority. You could also produce people on this witness stand
who will say, with Ph.D.'s attached to their name, that they
don't believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung
cancer. There are always skeptics, there are always heretics.
That is in the nature of science. But public policy, in my
judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to
base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public
against very long odds.
Chairman Hall. Well, up to this time and for the past two
years, say we have six or eight to testify such as you are
testifying, so-called experts, five or six of them believed it
was good science, maybe two of them--and we had no choice on
who to bring. We now have a choice and we asked for you first,
and I thank you for your kindness.
Dr. Holdren. I am happy to be here.
Chairman Hall. My time is expired. I recognize Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson, you have five minutes, and I used about eight, so
I will pay you back.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. Thank you very much.
Dr. Holdren, I have looked at the President's budget, and
though I am disappointed, it does look better than what we are
dealing with here now, but I did notice that the proposed STEM
programs have been cut some, and I also would like to speak a
bit about the coordination of the various programs between the
Department of Education as it relates to STEM. I know there has
been some major effort to coordinate. Give me a little update
of where you are and how you think we are better utilizing the
money.
Dr. Holdren. Well, Ranking Member Johnson, let me start by
saying we are doing a lot of work to coordinate the efforts in
education across the different federal agencies that have
activities in this domain. I and OSTP, Melody Barnes, who
chairs the Domestic Policy Council and has wider
responsibilities for education in the White House, and
Education Secretary Arne Duncan, all work very closely together
on this to coordinate these activities and we work as well with
the Department of Energy, with NASA, with the National Science
Foundation and with other agencies. Even the Department of
Defense has activities related to STEM education. We work with
them as well. We think we have succeeded in bringing the
parties together, focusing on the magnitude of the challenge,
figuring out how to use our resources in complementary ways
across those different agencies. This has led to identification
of some savings that are reflected in the budget.
I would also say, though, in relation to the budget, and in
particular the NSF part of the budget, that a great deal of the
STEM education activity in the National Science Foundation
actually goes in the various research directorates as a part of
their activities without the word ``education'' appearing in
the budget line because in the research directorates a great
many of the grant programs actually require that educational
activities be part of the activity of the researchers who
receive the grant, and those kinds of activity have been
increasing and we believe they are very effective.
Ms. Johnson. Now, just looking at the Continuing
Resolution, there are really very deep cuts toward the
hispanic-serving institutions like 78 percent, a third of the
historically black colleges and a third or more of the tribal
colleges. But what really gets my attention as well is that $1
billion was cut from Head Start, and which means then it makes
it more difficult to implement STEM courses because most of the
kids that really need this orientation by a greater
percentage--all of them need it but by a greater percentage--
are Head Start-eligible children, and I wonder what kind of
review has been given to these potential cuts? And I ask that
because our U.S. companies or CEOs that we have had before this
Committee have said that if we don't focus on the skilled labor
and better education, that our companies would leave this
country, and we are already behind now so I am wondering how do
we move forward to try to maintain some competitive edge with
all of these potential cuts?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I would have to say that the process of
analyzing the impact of the cuts in the Continuing Resolution
has only begun, and I don't have available to me detailed
analyses, but looking at the magnitude of those cuts, it is
clear that they would be devastating to many of the activities
in support of STEM education, in support of R&D, in support of
catalyzing innovation that the Administration believes and I
think many on this Committee believe this country is going to
need if it is to succeed in maintaining its leadership position
in the world in innovation, its competitiveness, if it is going
to succeed in creating the products and industries and jobs of
the future.
I do know of an analysis of what the C.R.'s cuts in the
National Science Foundation would do. The estimate is that
versus the 2010 enacted level, the NSF in its research
directorates would make 500 fewer awards supporting 5,500 fewer
people, that in the education and human resources directorate
they would make 235 fewer awards and 4,400 people would be
supported, in total 10,000 fewer people supported by NSF in
these domains, which are in our view so critical to maintaining
our competitiveness, to maintaining the technological savvy of
our workforce, to maintaining the scientific savvy of our
voters.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. One last question. In NASA, for the
fiscal year 2012, your request includes a five-year runout that
shows a flat budget of $18.7 billion per year while the federal
budget requests $18 billion, and only increasing slightly again
in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Why is the agency showing a
different runout than the federal budget, and what version is
correct?
Dr. Holdren. My understanding, Congresswoman Johnson,
Ranking Member Johnson, is that the out-year budgets are only
notional at this point and I think the differences is between
what NASA did and what the OMB put out probably mainly reflect
the last-minute character, which also attends the preparation
of these numbers, but they are only notional at this point, and
I think the out-year numbers simply should not be taken that
seriously at this particular moment.
As you know, the President is committed to freezing non-
security discretionary spending over a period of five years as
a whole, and I think the numbers which are in that ballpark in
both cases simply reflect that commitment on an agency-by-
agency basis.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The Chair recognizes Dr. Broun, chairman of the
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, for five minutes.
Dr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Holdren, at his Inauguration the President promised to
``restore science to its rightful place.'' As a physician and
an applied scientist, I applaud that promise. Since then, a
number of actions taken by this Administration or inactions
such as the handling of the Gulf oil spill and its decision on
Yucca Mountain make me question that goal.
Dr. Holdren, I have a number of questions related to that
notion of scientific integrity. When did the President ask you
to deliver scientific integrity recommendations?
Dr. Holdren. As you know, Congressman Broun, the President
on March 9, 2009, issued a Presidential Memorandum on
Scientific Integrity in which he asked me to deliver guidelines
that would elaborate on those recommendations in 120 days, and
as you know, I missed that deadline by a very large margin. We
discussed that, you and I, at a previous hearing.
Dr. Broun. When did OSTP have that draft ready?
Dr. Holdren. The guidelines were released on December 17th
of last year after going through many, many drafts and much
discussion among agencies and within the different offices in
the White House.
Dr. Broun. What prevented the release of those guidelines
from the point that you developed your OSTP draft to the final
delivery of them?
Dr. Holdren. As I said, Congressman, there were many, many
drafts of those guidelines, and what took so long was the
complexity of the task of developing guidelines that were both
specific enough to add significant value to what the President
had already promulgated on March 9, 2009, and at the same time
would be general enough to be applicable across all the
departments and agencies and offices that deal with science and
technology matters. That proved to be a much more demanding
task than any of us thought at the outset, and it involved a
great deal of debate with virtually every department, agency
and office with a stake in this matter. Getting it right took
us a long time, for which I have abundantly apologized.
Dr. Broun. Whose job is it to bring about that process?
Dr. Holdren. My job, sir.
Dr. Broun. Okay. Thank you. Would you characterize these
recommendations as guidelines or orders?
Dr. Holdren. They are guidelines in the sense that we
encourage the departments and agencies to build on them, and
where possible even to strengthen them.
Dr. Broun. Okay. Are there any recommendations for
Presidential action on these guidelines?
Dr. Holdren. I think the action continues to remain with
the departments and agencies and with me. The departments and
agencies have been asked to respond to the guidelines by
producing within 120 days of my issuing the guidelines their
own detailed policies department by department and agency by
agency which would reflect those guidelines but again would
elaborate on them further in the context of the particular
responsibilities, functions and constraints that exist within
those departments and agencies.
Dr. Broun. Very good, sir. Did you direct these agencies to
implement these policies or did you simply say that they
should?
Dr. Holdren. They are directed to implement them, and I
would emphasize that the President was clear in his memorandum
of March 9, 2009, that the principles embodied in that
memorandum were effective as of the time that they were issued
and I made sure departments and agencies understood that as
well.
Dr. Broun. Okay. What deadlines do the agencies have to
implement these guidelines?
Dr. Holdren. There is no specific deadline, I think, other
than the timeline that they are expected to produce drafts of
their policies in the next 120 days, and as we get those, we
will determine what we are going to ask of them going forward.
Dr. Broun. Where are we in that process of the 120 days?
What is the timeline?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I issued the guidelines on December
17th. A hundred and twenty days obviously would be four months
from then, so one has got January, February, March, April would
be the time we would expect those draft policies to be
delivered, and I should say that two agencies have delivered
theirs already.
Dr. Broun. Very good. And I hope the Committee gets those
policies. Are these new guidelines going to be written down so
that we can--everybody in America can see these?
Dr. Holdren. Oh, absolutely. I mean, number one, the
President's memorandum is a public document. My guidelines of
December 17th are a public document and the policies of the
offices, agencies and departments will be public documents.
Dr. Broun. Very good. I look forward to those.
Mr. Chairman, my time has run out. I have got a couple more
questions that I would like to give the good doctor, and I
assume that we can get a written response. Thank you so much. I
yield back.
Chairman Hall. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren, the gentlelady from
California, for five minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Dr.
Holdren, it is delightful to see you here. I am glad to be back
to the Science Committee after several years deployment to the
Homeland Security Committee and to get back to these issues
which I love.
I live in Silicon Valley, and I know that if we want
prosperity in this country, we have got to double-down our
investments on science and technology, so there is much in this
proposed budget that is to like. I do have--I just want to make
a stray comment. You know, being from Silicon Valley, we are
near Stanford, and Steve Schneider along with Jim Prall did
issue a paper last year in the proceedings of the National
Academy of Science where they assessed what the climate
scientists, active climate scientists were saying, and found
that 97 percent of active climate scientists had reached the
certain conclusion that climate change is occurring and that
humans are the cause of it, so I think that issue is settled,
and how we respond of course is the big question for us.
As the Science Advisor to the President and Co-Chair of
PCAST, you are in a wonderful position to provide advice not
just on the purely science issues but a whole variety of things
that touch on the future and so I want to ask, and you may not
know the answer to this but I hope that you will take it up.
Renewable energy is a big part of what we need to do in this
country both for our economy but also for the climate change
challenge that we face, and in San Jose I have very many solar
energy and alternative energy companies, and one of the things
that was hugely helpful to them was the Renewable Energy Grant
Program established in the Recovery Act. Now, I see that the
proposal is to extend it just through 2012, and that is good,
but I am wondering, could you advise the President or OMB or
whoever is making these decisions that a longer extension would
be much more helpful to these energy companies that are trying
to make some plans? And they are going to get there without
these grants and credits but they are at an embryonic stage
right now. Would that be a fair thing to ask you, Doctor?
Dr. Holdren. Yes. Let me make a couple of comments on that.
Certainly, all of these incentives, encouragements, and grants
are going to be reviewed going forward to see which ones we
actually need in order to encourage the development and
deployment of the relevant energy sources. As you know, we have
moved in what we are recommending from a renewable energy
standard to a clean energy standard which embraces, in addition
to the renewables, cleaner coal technologies, nuclear energy
technologies, and with partial credit for reduced greenhouse
gas emissions, natural gas. We think we are going to need all
of those, and we want our policies going forward to reflect a
balanced approach that encourages all of the cleaner energy
sources that we are going to need to address the whole array of
energy challenges we face, and those include staying
competitive in the global energy technology market. They
include creating high-quality jobs that will stay in America.
They include reducing conventional air pollutants and they
include reducing our dependence on imported oil, and they also
of course include reducing our contribution to the dangers from
climate change.
Ms. Lofgren. Could I ask, I noticed that there was a
substantial downward slope on the fusion energy science, and I
have been talking to the Department and I think I understand
the reason why, and I don't think I want to get more
information on that but I want to make sure that we are
adequately supporting the analysis at NIF because we are at a
crucial stage there. We have invested a huge amount of money
with bipartisan support over many, many years and I just want
to make sure that we are adequately supporting the analysis
that is going on right now. Do you think that we are, and do we
need to discuss that further?
Dr. Holdren. I think we are. This is something that
Secretary Chu is knowledgeable about and looking at. There are
some benefits to having a Nobel laureate in physics as the
Secretary of Energy.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. He is terrific.
Dr. Holdren. I am looking at it. My Associate Director for
Science, Carl Wieman, who also has a Nobel Prize in physics, is
looking at that, among other large science and research and
development projects in the portfolio. So yes, I think we are
doing what we need to do in that domain.
You mentioned the decrease in funding for fusion overall.
As you know, fusion is a very long-term energy project, not
likely to succeed in delivering electricity to the grid much
before the middle of the century, but we do very much need
things that we can do for an encore after the middle of this
century and so it is not our intention to starve fusion. The
size of the budget relates to, among other things, what our
partners are doing, where the program is at the moment and what
it will take to move it forward.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. I see that
my time is expired, and I thank the chairman for recognizing
me.
Chairman Hall. And I thank you, and welcome you back to the
Committee. You have always been a good member of this
Committee.
The chairman recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Fleischmann, for five minutes. We have all taken seven minutes
so I might as well recognize you for seven minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Holdren, thank you for coming today. I represent the
third district of Tennessee, which includes Oak Ridge, ORNL, of
course, Y-12 and the cleanup and reclamation mission at ETTP,
and since my short tenure as a Congressman, I am immersed in
energy issues so I thank you for being here today. I have a few
questions.
Doctor, in your testimony you discuss how the investment in
research and development by this White House will help keep
America competitive. However, there are many other factors that
can play into our competitiveness in the world. How is the
Administration actively working to identify any U.S. policies
or regulations that act as barriers to trade and investment in
the United States? And further, are there any particular laws
or regulations that act as barriers to trade and investment in
the United States? I am sorry. Are there any particular laws or
regulations that you have identified as increasing the cost for
U.S. business compared to foreign competitors or forcing
businesses to want to locate overseas?
Dr. Holdren. Thank you, Congressman, for that very good
question. We are addressing that in a number of domains. First
of all, as you know, I am sure, Cass Sunstein, the Director of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB, has
the mandate from the President to review the whole array of
regulations that exist in this country looking for ones that
may no longer be needed, that are not effective, that are too
costly, that are inhibiting us in the various goals that we
need to reach. You are probably also aware that there is a
review underway of export controls, which we expect to yield a
report soon and recommendations for reforming our pattern of
export controls in a manner that will make U.S. companies able
to be more active in a variety of dimensions of international
trade.
You mentioned that there are a lot of ways to encourage
innovation, and we are very much aware that most of the
innovation that this country needs will come from the private
sector. We are very much aware that, for example, making an
expanded research and experimentation tax credit permanent
would be a great benefit in terms of the certainty available to
our companies, large and small, as they plan their R&D
expenditures going forward. We want to get that done. It is
proposed again in this year's budget.
I know that, responding more specifically to your question
about particular regulations, that there will be some
announcements forthcoming soon on that particular front but I
don't want to jump the gun.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Dr. Holdren, in 2008, the United
States trade deficit in high-technology products was $55.5
billion, up from $16.6 billion in 2002. The U.S. trade balance
in high-technology products was last in surplus in 2001. A
portion of this deficit from U.S. companies that manufacture
overseas and bring the products back to the United States, even
if we invest more in research and development programs and
attract more professionals into high-technology fields, how do
we discourage companies from taking production out of the
United States?
Dr. Holdren. I think one of the key elements there actually
comes back to this domain of science, technology, engineering,
and math education. We need to create a workforce in this
country that has the skills and the capabilities that make it
attractive for U.S. firms to hire American workers and to stay
in America in order to be able to hire them and bring them on
board. That may be the single most important thing we can do,
lifting the capabilities of our workforce to keep American
companies here. America has always competed on the skills of
our workers and our capacities to innovate, our capacities to
deploy better technologies for manufacturing, to develop better
products. We need to revisit those sources of our strength
because we are never going to compete--at least not for a very
long time, we are not going to compete with China on the cost
of our labor. We are not going to compete with Malaysia and
Indonesia on the cost of our labor or even with Brazil but we
can and we must compete with them with a higher quality
workforce, a more skilled workforce, a more technology-savvy
workforce, and with continuing innovation that makes our
manufacturing technologies better than those our competitors,
that makes the products we are producing better than those of
our competitors so that we will have those high-quality jobs
that stay in this country.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Doctor.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. Thank you.
At this time I recognize Mr. Miller, who is the ranking
member on the Energy Subcommittee. Mr. Miller, you have seven
minutes, sir.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. You can give us back two if you want to.
Mr. Miller. There is a remote possibility that could
happen.
Dr. Holdren, there has been a great deal of attention to
the issue of critical supplies of rare earths in the media. It
was also a subject of interest to this Committee in the last
Congress. There was a hearing in the Investigations and
Oversight Subcommittee, which I chaired, on that topic and on
our domestic supply of rare earths. Our subcommittee developed
legislation which Kathy Dahlkemper, who was vice chair of the
committee, introduced that did pass the House. It went to the
Senate, where bills go to die, and sure enough, it did. But I
understand that--well, I am preparing legislation at this time
and I know that others are as well.
What we found is that it is not an issue that fits neatly
within the jurisdiction of any of the federal departments. It
kind of crosses boundaries, which is also true of the
committees of Congress. It doesn't fit neatly within the
jurisdiction. It does cross boundaries. I understand that OSTP
has an ad hoc committee working on the issue of critical and
strategic materials. Can you kind of tell us about that ad hoc
committee? Is it a formal committee? What is the status and
what is that committee doing?
Dr. Holdren. Yes, we have had an interagency policy
committee that is chaired by Dr. Cyrus Wadia in my office that
has been operating since last March on the issue of rare earths
in particular, and that committee has included representation
from the National Security staff, from the Department of
Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the
Treasury and so on working toward developing solutions to the
current degree of overdependence on China for our supplies of
rare earth metals, which are needed for our defense
technologies, for our information technologies, for a number of
our clean energy technologies, so these are--these rare earth
minerals are crucial to us and currently 95 percent of the
world's supply is being produced in China. That is not, by the
way, a result of the concentration of all of the resources in
China. The resources are more widely distributed. We have
considerable resources of these rare earth minerals in the
United States. We have--there are considerable resources in
Australia and elsewhere.
The problem is that we have allowed the supply chains for
these materials to migrate to China, again on grounds of
economics, of low cost. We are obviously in the process of
reconsidering the wisdom of having allowed that to happen.
There are activities in the United States and Australia to
restore rare earth mining and processing operations to
diversify the supply from what it is now. We are also going to
be standing up, in all likelihood, a subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council to look at the science
and technology dimensions of strategic mineral issues more
broadly than just the rare earths. As you probably know, the
National Science and Technology Council is a body that is
nominally chaired by the President and populated by Cabinet
secretaries. In practice, it is chaired by me and populated by
deputy secretaries and under secretaries and administrators of
NASA, of NSF, NOAA and so on, and its purpose is to address
science and technology issues that cross over the boundaries
that affect the interests of multiple departments and agencies.
So we are on the case.
Mr. Miller. I would like to use my remaining time to
discuss climate change research. You have said earlier in
testimony, you have said today that there is substantial
agreement among scientists that climate change is occurring and
that human activity is contributing substantially to it but
there is some uncertainty about exactly how quickly it will
happen and how dire it will be, and to use the phrase that an
economist would use, there is a baseline scenario which is very
bad and an adverse scenario that is cataclysmic. And we have
heard testimony in the last four years from scientists who have
said that yes, there is uncertainty but almost all the
uncertainty is on much quicker, more sudden and more
cataclysmic change, and they may be, as you said earlier,
events that we cannot foresee or model. One that I recall is
the possibility that there could be millions of tons of
methane, which has much more of a greenhouse effect than
CO2, released if the permafrost in the Arctic thaws.
But despite feeling pretty confident that it is happening,
you want to do more research. The Obama Administration has
recommended doing more research. Others who criticize climate
change research want to do less. They want to cut the funding
for NASA, NOAA, and EPA. Are you proposing the research just to
prove that you are right or is there something we will do with
that research? What are the consequences of not proceeding with
the research into climate change?
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, I would say that, as I
have noted before, while the core understandings from climate
science are that the climate is changing in unusual ways, that
humans and responsible for a large part of that and it is
already doing a variety of kinds of harm, there is a tremendous
amount of detail that we do not yet understand. We don't
understand enough about the regional patterns of climate change
as they are likely to emerge. As you know, climate is a
complicated business, even without any human interference in
it, and if we want to be able to adapt to climate change, the
degree of climate change we are no longer able to avoid, we
have to be able to tell farmers and fisherman and foresters and
homeowners what is going to happen where they live --
developing that sort of understanding of how climate is
changing in particular places, which places are going to get
wetter, which places are going to get drier, which places are
going to get stormier, how fast are those things going to
happen, which places are going to be experiencing more
wildfires. We have come to understand that climate change is a
challenge not just in terms of how we mitigate it, what we can
do to reduce the pace and the magnitude of climate change
through changes in energy policy and land-use policy and so on,
but we really do need the detailed knowledge that will enable
firms and individuals to adapt. That is one of the great
challenges in climate change research.
We need of course, to continue the observation networks
that in addition to telling us about climate tell us when
particular storms are coming. We have a whole set of challenges
in our earth observation satellites which in many cases are
dual-purpose satellites. They are both monitoring variables
related to climate but they are also telling us when powerful
storms are coming and who they are going to hit.
Mr. Miller. Dr. Holdren, when I was a child and I heard
scary noises that I thought might be a monster, I pulled the
covers over my head and it worked great. There was never a
monster in my house, but I am not sure it is because I pulled
the covers over my head. Do you think if we don't do the
research in climate change, it is more or less likely to occur?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I would say if we don't do the research,
that doesn't affect at all the likelihood that it will occur
but it does affect very dramatically our ability to cope with
it.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman. You have just made it
possible for Ms. Adams to have eight minutes.
I recognize the gentlelady from Florida for I guess as much
time as she consumes, just so she doesn't consume over eight
minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Holdren, last year, you may recall, there was sustained
and vigorous debate here between Congress and the
Administration about the future of NASA, the human spaceflight
program. At the end of the day with the enactment of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2010, both sides went away claiming some
small measure of victory but clearly neither party, the White
House nor Congress, got everything it wanted. The President
signed the bill, and he did so, I thought, putting the debate
behind us and moving forward. A central feature of the bill was
a smaller authorization level for commercial crewed services,
and Congress's decision to forego implementation of the
Constellation program. Yet the NASA fiscal year 2012 budget
request diverges from last year's authorization bill in two
respects: It proposes spending at a rate 70 percent above
amounts authorized for commercial spaceflight and it
significantly underfunds in fiscal year 2012 the authorized
amounts for the Heavy Lift System, requesting only 70 percent
of the amounts in our bill, in the Congressional bill. Why has
NASA chosen to ignore the will of Congress? And I don't need to
remind you that the Democrats and Republicans, House and
Senate, took strong exception to last year's budget request?
Dr. Holdren. I do not believe that the budget is ignoring
the will of the Congress. I testified on December 1 before the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on
this question. I was asked does the Administration intend to
follow the law? Are you going to obey the Authorization Act?
And I said we will to the best of our ability. But I also
mentioned that our ability to do so would depend on having a
budget for 2011, and it would depend on being released from the
constraints of the 2010 appropriations bill which prohibits
NASA from making changes to the Constellation program.
We now are where we are, and in light of where we are,
which is still no 2011 budget and still no relief from the
constraints from the 2010 Appropriations Act, starting from
there, you have to consider what it is practical to do from
where you are now in pursuit of the Authorization Act's aims.
We agree with the Authorization Act's aims. If you look at the
numbers, you will find we are funding Heavy Lift and the
associated crew capsule at quite close to the 2011 levels,
which is probably the best we could meaningfully spend under
the circumstances given where we are starting now. In addition,
the Authorization Act recognized very clearly that the
continuing operation of the International Space Station and
minimizing the duration of our dependence on the Russian Soyuz
to get our crew members up there was also a very high priority.
And again, in terms of where we are and what we can do from
where we are, we believe that the budget the President has
presented is responsible and appropriate in light of the need
to do as much as we can toward all of the Authorization Act's
goals under the circumstances we are now in. So we don't think
we are defying the will of the Congress at all. We think we are
doing our best to achieve the multiple goals of the
Authorization Act.
Ms. Adams. Okay. I will let that go for a minute. The
Authorization Act gave clear direction to NASA to rely on
existing contracts as it begins work on the new space launch
system and multipurpose crew vehicle. Sections 302 of the bill
said, in part, the Administrator shall, to the extent
practical, extend or modify existing vehicle development
associated contracts necessary to build a new launch system.
I realize to the extent practical is more than just a tiny
loophole. But based on Members' statements during hearings,
markups in the House and Senate floor, there were a clear
expression that to save time and money and to capitalize on
investments, technology workforce, NASA should give first
consideration to using existing contracts. With that as
background, how closely will the Administration follow the
intent of Section 302?
Dr. Holdren. You are quite right, Congresswoman, that to
the extent practicable is important. We don't think of it as a
loophole. We think of it as a necessity. And as you know, there
was a requirement for NASA to produce in 90 days an initial
assessment of what it believed it could achieve in this domain.
It has produced that assessment, and it has identified real
challenges in meeting the timelines of the Authorization Act,
namely the completion of a heavy lift vehicle and a crew
capsule by the end of 2016, real challenges in meeting those
deadlines under the budgets that look likely to be available.
But NASA is examining what the extent practicable is for using
those existing contracts. And again, I think if you look at
that 90-day report, you will see that that is exactly what they
are doing. They are looking for additional ways to find savings
that would enable us to get where we need to go more quickly,
but it is a big challenge to achieve the goals of the
Authorization Act and to achieve them under the fiscal
constraints that we now face.
Ms. Adams. Will you?
Dr. Holdren. We will sure try.
Ms. Adams. I just have a quick question. You know, we
talked about STEM and everything. Do you think that human
spaceflight encourages our youth to get involved in STEM, the
programs, you know? Science, technology, engineering, math?
Dr. Holdren. Oh, absolutely. We know first of all that the
response to Sputnik, the development of the U.S. space program,
our moon mission and so on was an enormous boost in terms of
the number of kids who went into math and science and
engineering as a result of that great adventure, and we think
more great adventures are in prospect and they will have that
effect. We have been very clear about that from the outset. I
am one of those who went into math and science because of the
excitement about the exploration of space. My senior project at
MIT was to design a crude Mars mission. I co-led it with
another member of my aeronautics and astronautics senior class
at MIT. I think it is very important stuff. Charlie Bolden
thinks it is very important stuff. We after all have NASA being
run by a four-time astronaut, twice-pilot and twice-commander.
He is very excited about human spaceflight. So am I. We have
got to do it, of course, in a manner that we can pay for. But
we will do it. And the President, I have to say, is excited
about it. The President, every time we talk about this, and I
have talked about it with the President, with the President and
Charlie Bolden together, the President has had astronauts into
the Oval Office and into the Roosevelt Room seven times since
he has been in office.
Ms. Adams. Well----
Dr. Holdren. We love this stuff.
Ms. Adams. --my question is for our youth. And we don't
want to hinder their yearning to explore, now do we?
Dr. Holdren. Absolutely not.
Chairman Hall. Do you yield back any time at all? Okay. You
did a good job. Thank you.
I recognize at this time, I am not sure I want to, but Ms.
Edwards, the gentlelady from Maryland.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is why I adore
you.
And Dr. Holdren, I want to thank you very much for being
here today, and I look forward to exploring with you and others
in more detail, particularly around NASA human spaceflight, the
importance of what I think is a really important mission, both
for human spaceflight and exploration, also for Earth sciences.
But I won't take up my time here today.
What I would like to talk to you about is following up on
Mr. Fleischmann's line of questions regarding research and
development and manufacturing and the interrelationship between
those two.
My good friend, Mr. Bartlett, from Maryland and I have
introduced a bill that links research and development with
manufacturing, domestic manufacturing, here in the United
States because too often we make deep investments and we are at
the cutting edge of R&D in so many different sectors, and then
the manufacturing takes place someplace else. It takes place in
China, in Germany and lots of other places. And I think that we
can actually do some things through our tax policy and across
agencies to incentivize not just the R&D and making it
permanent which is so important, particularly for small firms.
The big guys will figure out a way to go from year to year if
it is not permanent. It is the small, innovative, creative
nimble firms that really struggle when we don't have a
permanent tax credit, then linking that to domestic
manufacturing. So I have been able to visit some firms out in
my district who are just doing the most amazing work around
mapping the human genome and, you know, really the most
cutting-edge science. But they are small firms, and they want
to be able to do that manufacturing domestically because it
connects their R&D people to the manufacturing line. If there
is an opportunity to make changes along that manufacturing
line, you have got your R&D people right there.
So I hope that you will look into the legislation that has
been introduced by Mr. Bartlett and myself along with
Congressman Sarbanes and others as a way to get there.
One of the recommendations in the report that was released
by the White House in 2009 that you cite in your testimony, A
Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing, is to
improve the coordination of manufacturing R&D programs through
the National Science and Technology Council. And so I wonder if
you could tell us what the status is of that interagency
process and how we can look at all of these, particularly civil
scientific agencies, to make sure that we have got a sort of
similar pathway to their success. And so if you could give us a
brief overview of the Administration's strategy and vision to
revitalize manufacturing, including federal R&D investments in
creating jobs here, that would be helpful, and any plans to
develop a strategic plan for manufacturing R&D so that we don't
let everybody else take our good ideas and build stuff and
create jobs.
Dr. Holdren. Well, Congresswoman Edwards, I thank you for
that question, because it enables me to say we are doing a lot.
We are just in the final stages of setting up a National
Science and Technology Council subcommittee on advanced
manufacturing under the technology committee, standing
committee, of the NSTC. It will have three co-chairs, a co-
chair from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, one from DoE, and one from the Department of
Defense. They are currently in the last stages of vetting for
those roles. We also have underway a study requested by the
President of his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
PCAST, on advanced manufacturing which is nearly complete and
which we hope actually to brief to the President in just a
couple of weeks.
We have an assistant director of OSTP for advanced
manufacturing. Sridhar Kota has been in place for the past
couple of years on leave from his professorship at the
University of Michigan, and one of the things that Professor
Kota has been working hardest on and interacting with folks
from the business and academic communities around the country,
is how one links discovery and innovation in our universities
with translating those discoveries and innovations into
commercial products in the private sector. And one of the
things I would note is there is a wonderful example of how this
can work at the University of Michigan from whom we borrowed
Professor Kota which is a very large, state-of-the-art
nanotechnology manufacturing laboratory and experimental
facility in which businesses of all sizes can come and use
those facilities to develop their own products and their own
approaches, including small businesses that could never afford
this kind of equipment themselves. And it is a wonderful
example of how we can do better at translating the capabilities
of our universities and for that matter, our national
laboratories into tighter interactions with the private sector
and particularly, as you point out, the smaller businesses that
wouldn't be able to muster the capital to develop these kinds
of innovation and experimentation capacities on their own.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, and I just want to point
you to something that we are doing in Maryland, and it is
relatively new, a new initiative by our governor, and it is
essentially to create that kind of investment fund that could
spur the kind of investment that is tough to get in this
economy and particularly for small firms. And I think whatever
we could do to encourage states on their own to do that, it
just bolsters what is happening with our federal agencies.
Lastly, I would just want to ask you, we are in an
environment here, considering this continuing resolution where
it feels odd to talk about new investments in science and
technology and research and the things that are actually going
to make us grab hold of the 21st century when we are cutting in
this Congress, this CR, just about every scientific agency out
there. It is mindboggling to look at the kind of cuts across a
number of agencies where the investments that we need to make
for the future are exactly the ones that are being put on the
chopping block. And I think that is particularly true for NASA,
and perhaps it is that the White House and the President could
do a much better job of helping the public understand the value
of investment in NASA and space exploration and the science
that comes out of that because it really does translate into
what happens in our broader commercial sector and the way that
we remain competitive. So I look forward to the President, you
know, just speaking out because otherwise, Democrats and
Republicans alike just put NASA and our other scientific
agencies right on the chopping block as though it is something
that we can afford to discard and still hope to be even
remotely competitive in this century.
And with that, I would yield the balance of my time if I
have any, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. I thank the lady. You are right on the spot,
right on the dot here.
I recognize now the former Chairman Bart Gordon's favorite
Republican, Mr. Rohrabacher from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit now for the record a list of 100 prominent scientists
who have serious disagreement with the man-made global warming
theories that we have talked about today.
Chairman Hall. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

Mr. Rohrabacher. These scientists I would like to add are
chairmen of science departments at major universities, they are
at internationally respected institutes of science, and there
are many more than just 100 as you are well aware.
Doctor, in the past you have made public statements
referring to those who question your assessment on man-made
climate change, and you have labeled them as deniers. The term
deniers is only commonly used in one other context and that is
to question whether or not the Holocaust actually took place.
Do you believe that this is an appropriate term and what
purpose does it serve except to stifle debate rather than to
have an honest discussion?
Dr. Holdren. Congressman Rohrabacher, when I used the term,
I only intended to use it in its most straight-forward
interpretation. These are folks who are denying the reality of
a particular thing, namely climate change. It was not my
intention to compare them to Holocaust deniers and to the
extent that that is the impression given, I regret it. And for
that reason, I will doubtless choose to use other words in the
future.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Now, with that said,
of course, we have a disagreement on whether or not climate
change or what used to be called global warming and then when
things changed, it became climate change. And now maybe it is
going back to global warming again. We know there have been
these cycles throughout the history of the planet where it has
become warmer or colder, and I take it from your testimony
today that this increase that you are asking for research into
climate change is going to be mainly aimed not at proving
whether mankind is responsible because what I have found is
that is usually used to justify controlling human behavior
rather than trying--because that is based on the fact that the
change is based on human behavior, but instead, on perhaps
researching things that can help us adapt to what could be
natural climate change.
Dr. Holdren. I would say first of all that you are correct
that part of the increased research activity that we propose in
the President's budget would relate to adaptation, and that
adaptation would be germane, whether changes in climate had
been caused by humans or caused by natural forces. That much is
certainly correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Holdren. But that is not the only activity in climate
change research that we would continue to support. We have
extensive observing networks, satellite-based observations, on-
the-ground observations which are helping us understand how
climate is changing. We have extensive analytical and modeling
activities which help us try to understand the extent to which
human activities are contributing. No one in the climate
science community denies that climate has changed naturally
over the millennia and that there continue to be natural forces
influencing the climate. The question is what is the relative
magnitude today of the natural forces and the human influences.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Holdren. We intend to continue to conduct research
which will shed light--to support research which will shed
light on that question as well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would hope that the end result of
scientific activity is to make our lives better and not to
control our lives in the name of saving the planet.
But one thing we can really agree on, and we can agree on
what you have just said as well, I might add, is when I am
looking at your--also the research for the Department of
Energy, we talk about a certain decrease, but I want to
pinpoint it because it might not be aimed directly at what I am
worried about. Number one, I think that we have provided funds
for fusion energy research for a long time and have very little
to show for it. So that perhaps does justify some bringing down
the level of research. But I also understand it says nuclear
R&D in general, research will decrease by eight percent, but I
have in front of me a figure. It says that there are $67
million going to be spent for helping the Small Modular Reactor
Deployment program to assist in developing and licensing of
these small modular reactors. Now is that $67 million, is that
an increase? The overall level of R&D would decrease, but that,
for small modular reactors, would increase, is that correct?
Dr. Holdren. Yes, that is correct. The increase for small
modular reactors is for work that would provide the analytical
basis to assist in the licensing of this new class of reactors
which have a great deal to recommend them, by the way----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Dr. Holdren. --as potential contributors to our electricity
supply and to our balance of payments, I should say, because we
could market them rather widely.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Exactly. Let us note that where we have
many disagreements, we also have many agreements, and this
happens to be an area that I have agreed with the
Administration, for example, much to the dismay of some of my
own colleagues on the space proposals that have been made about
NASA, and I really agree thoroughly on this concept of trying
to get down to business so that we can go into the business of
manufacturing small modular nuclear reactors. It would both
have a positive impact on energy, and it is consistent with the
climate problems that some people are worried about. But I am
also worried about air pollution whether this would affect as
well.
So thank you very much, and I appreciate you being here
today.
Chairman Hall. You yield back?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back.
Chairman Hall. I note Mr. Lujan who was here earlier, the
gentleman from New Mexico, you have five minutes, sir.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. Dr.
Holdren, thank you for taking the time to be with us today as
well. I appreciate the Administration's commitment to research
and development and innovation as key to the Nation's economic
development and international competitiveness.
I am particularly passionate about capitalizing on our
investment in R&D, transforming new scientific discoveries and
technological capabilities that are produced by R&D into new
commercial products, new businesses that can create jobs,
namely those that we see especially with our DoE national labs,
DoD research facilities, Air Force research labs, NNSA
facilities which are often overlooked as a key component of
innovation of the country, especially as they lead to
opportunities with working small businesses. We need to find
better ways to open up opportunities. There are entrepreneurial
lead programs today for scientists, physicists, nuclear
engineers to work with entrepreneurs.
But I think that they are only as good as they are on
paper. We need to find a better way to engage these experts
with our entrepreneurs and small businesses, even to the extent
we are able to take advantage of the modeling and computer
capacity that we have to turn these new ideas together. Without
the important step of tech transfer, our competitors will only
be the ones who reap the benefits. Oftentimes we see technology
that is invented and thought of here in the United States to
even mature and be commercialized outside of the country, and
we need to change that.
I am very happy to announce that myself with my co-chair,
Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, have started a
bipartisan technology transfer caucus to begin to look at ideas
and ideals around the Bayh-Dole legislation which concentrated
most of its efforts with universities, but making sure that we
not forget the applications associated with our national labs
and science and research taking place in these areas.
The bipartisan technology transfer caucus in the House, we
look forward to working with the Administration and with the
many capacities I think that have to still present themselves.
You stated in your prepared testimony that as part of the
President's Start-Up America initiative a broad set of federal
agencies will launch a coordinated series of policies that
ensure high-growth start-ups have unimpeded access to capital,
expanded access to quality mentorship, an improved regulatory
environment and a rapid path to commercialization of federally
funded research. I applaud those remarks, and I support them
strongly, but I would like to hear more about what is actually
going to be done in these areas. My concerns are with the
naming of the tech transfer coordinator under DoE, for example,
that we have yet to rapidly move toward making sure they have
access to the needed support they need to move this forward.
With the collapsing of Creative Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements--in near past with the funding that was
accelerated in the 1990s, and through the early years of the
Bush Administration, we saw it go away. And it seemed to me
that when we talk to small businesses, this was an important
tool that was used.
And so I am interested to hear your thoughts in these
regards and how we might be able to work together to make sure
we are able to spur this forward.
Dr. Holdren. Well, Congressman Lujan, I can only applaud
what you have said about the importance of technology transfer
and the importance of the national laboratories in this domain.
My own first job after getting my Ph.D. was at the Livermore
lab. I almost went to Los Alamos.
And the potential there for doing more to enable
discoveries made in the national laboratories to cross the
boundary into the commercial sector is enormous.
You asked about the Start-Up America initiative. That was
only rolled out about a month ago, and when we did, we
announced the participation of a number of the country's
leading high-tech entrepreneurs and venture capital folks who
have pledged their cooperation in setting up the specific
activities and institutions that for example are going to
provide the mentorship that the program talks about where
successful high-tech entrepreneurs have agreed to mentor
budding entrepreneurs to increase their probability of success
and where the venture capital community is stepping up in the
form of many of its real leaders to get this done.
So it is a new initiative, but we do not intend this to
just be about an initial meeting where all these high-powered
folks come and pledge their participation. This effort is being
led in OSTP by my deputy director for policy, Tom Kalil, who is
immensely energetic and determined to work with others in the
Administration and the Congress to make this a success. And I
am delighted to hear about your tech transfer caucus that you
and Congressman Wolf are heading. That can only be a benefit.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. Mr. Chairman,
I think this is an area where visiting with former Members and
Members that we have today, that this is an area where we can
work together to make sure we jump-start the opportunities for
small businesses.
I have some other questions around regional innovation
clusters and minorities in STEM, and Mr. Chairman, if there is
no objection, I would like to make sure that we submit this
into the record and maybe we can work with Dr. Holdren to get
these answered later. But I very much am eager to see how the
national labs, especially NNSA facilities, will be included in
that effort. So Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. Without objection, they will be.
And Dr. Holdren will answer those, will you not, by mail?
Dr. Holdren. I will.
Chairman Hall. And I hate to tell Mr. Sarbanes we have two
more. Has Mr. Sarbanes left? He is so patient. I was going to
give him ten minutes. I wish he stayed. Mr. Hultgren from
Illinois, you are recognized for five--I started to say five
seconds, five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. I would talk really fast. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and thank you, Dr. Holdren.
I want just to talk briefly. I am concerned about funding
for Department of Energy's Office of Science, and specifically,
the High-Energy Physics Program which we all know is in a
period of transition. The Administration has notified Congress
that it intends to shut down the Tevatron at Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, or Fermilab, which is in my district,
14th Congressional District, as originally planned at the end
of Fiscal Year 2011. With the end of operations at this record-
breaking machine, Fermilab is ready to transition to new
programs including the Long Base-line Neutrino Experiment
(LBNE). The LBNE is to be the anchor project for the deep
underground science and engineering laboratory or DUSEL at the
Homestake mine in South Dakota. Originally planned by the
National Science Foundation, a study is now under way to
recommend how to proceed with DUSEL under a revised stewardship
agreement between DoE and NSF.

I just had some questions about current status of funding
for DUSEL for Fiscal Year 2011. Has NSF identified the
resources to keep DUSEL under way while the study is conducted
and decisions are being made on the path forward for this
project?
Dr. Holdren. My understanding is that NSF and DoE have
reached agreement on a plan to keep DUSEL moving. I have not
actually seen that agreement yet, but I have been informed by
my associate director for science that it has been reached, and
we will have it shortly. But I am assured that it will succeed
in keeping the DUSEL project going.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. And as you hear things, we are
interested in that, and I would love to hear obviously what the
next steps are there. The President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget
requests of $797.2 million for high-energy physics overall
would amount to a freeze at the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level
when other programs in the Office of Science are slated to
increase from 21 to 24 percent. Why is there such imbalance
between the basic research portfolio in the Office of Science?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I would say that the kinds of restraints
imposed on us by these fiscal times has required some very hard
choices, and I have been striving to make clear as I talk about
this budget that it has had to either hold flat or in some
cases even reduce things that we would much rather have
increased. But it becomes a difficult exercise in priority
setting to decide what we absolutely have to keep going as
opposed to things we would prefer to keep going or expand.
I think high-energy physics remains an important area. The
request for high-energy physics in 2012 is almost $800 million.
This is not chicken feed. It is, however--if I had my choices
in the best of all possible worlds, it would be more.
Mr. Hultgren. Real quickly, within the overall funding
request for high-energy physics, am I correct that the
President proposes funding for the two new projects at Fermilab
that are important to its future as the Nation's only
laboratory for particle physics research?
Dr. Holdren. Short answer is yes.
Mr. Hultgren. I like short answers, especially when they
say that. So that is good. And last, and I appreciate your time
and your help with this, is the $17 million that is requested
for the long base-line neutrino experiment sufficient to start
this project at Fermilab and the transitions from running the
Tevatron?
Dr. Holdren. It is my understanding from Dr. Brinkman, who
heads the Office of Science, that that is the case.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Well, again, thank you very much for
your work. I do know these are difficult times. We want to be a
part of that to make sure that we continue great work that is
happening, make sure that we don't cut things short that really
are looking toward the future. I know it is so important to be
looking at immediate transition of projects that we have but
also looking to the future and making sure that our Nation
stays on that forefront.
So Dr. Holdren, thank you so much for being here. Look
forward to working closely with you during these difficult
times and hopefully as times get better as well. So thank you.
Dr. Holdren. Thank you.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Clarke, for five minutes.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Hall. Ranking Member
Johnson, Dr. Holdren, I am new to this Committee. In fact, I am
new to Congress. But I am born and raised in the Motor City,
and I represent the City of Detroit right now. And that city's
achievements in manufacturing and automotive technology was
recently highlighted by the artist, Eminem, in a recent Super
Bowl ad, and I am really proud of the cars, you know,
especially in the district that I represent. General Motors
manufactures the Chevy Volt which I believe represents the best
in plug-in hybrid auto technology.
Just on a personal note, and I am doing this also because I
want to promote my city and really what it meant to me. My dad
was an immigrant from India who came to this country 80 years
ago, came to Detroit specifically for the purpose of working in
the Ford Foundry. So manufacturing is in me. It is what made my
city great.
Our lack of focus on that, though, I believe has also led
to the decline of the southeast Michigan region, temporary
decline. But also as our President noted in the State of the
Union, it is in new, American manufacturing is how we can help
bring more stability to our families financially, create a
really enduring prosperity for our country and great products
that we can sell worldwide that folks in other countries can
enjoy.
Anyway, those are my preliminary remarks. I appreciate your
at least giving me the time to at least, you know, share with
you the importance of metropolitan Detroit, the importance of
investing in manufacturing and in that region. It is not only
going to help Detroiters, it is going to help this country.
In the proposed budget, can you give me some examples on
how this proposed budget would help further develop and deploy
new technologies that really can advance manufacturing here in
this country, if you are able to? And then I also have--let me
just give you the second question. It is really related to
that. It is if you can comment on the impact of federally
funded R&D in terms of creating those small businesses that
create jobs as well, especially in the manufacturing-related
sectors.
Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, Congressman Clarke, I can
only underscore and agree with your comments at the outset
about the importance of manufacturing in this country, about
the importance of manufacturing obviously in Michigan and
Detroit. I already mentioned a particular activity at the
University of Michigan linking their capacities in
nanotechnology with the small business community and the
opportunities for small business to use facilities and
equipment they wouldn't be able to afford on their own. My
understanding is that that facility has already spawned a
number of successful start-ups and launched them into domains
in which they are succeeding.
I would mention the National Nanotechnology Initiative and
the funding it receives in the 2012 budget as a good example of
feeding the underpinnings of advanced manufacturing.
Nanotechnology is going to be immensely important in the
manufacturing domain going forward. We have to invest in
maintaining and extending American leadership in this domain,
and it is a domain in which small companies as well as large
ones are succeeding and are going to continue to be able to
succeed.
Another domain that is very important is the domain of
networking and information technology. Again, there is
substantial support for that in the budget. It is important in
part because the use of information technology in advanced
manufacturing, using information more effectively to save
energy, to save materials, to make products to finer
tolerances, to make them in new ways is going to contribute to
our capabilities in the advanced manufacturing domain. I think
you find all across this budget, in the budget for NIST, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, in the budget
for DoE, even the budget for the Department of Defense, which
of course, is very interested in advanced manufacturing as
reflected in their co-chairmanship of the embryonic National
Science and Technology Council Committee on Advanced
Manufacturing. There is a lot of support for that domain. The
President understands it is important. One of the studies that
the President requested from PCAST was that we look at the
potential in advanced manufacturing and make recommendations
for what more we can be doing, and we will be doing that very
shortly.
Mr. Clarke. May I have an opportunity----
Chairman Hall. Yes, sir?
Mr. Clarke. --to ask one more follow-up on this. Just one,
sir.
Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes you for another minute.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Also to the
doctor, we have got a great research university in my district
whose capacity for R&D has grown dramatically in the last 30
years. That is Wayne State University, and I look forward to
some type of partnership with that university and some of your
agencies.
Just my last point on this, I would like the opportunity to
actually comment on STEM and how we can make sure that we can
get teachers trained in that area in inner-city districts like
my own. But for the sake of time, I will just ask this last
question. Can you comment on the impact on jobs in the economy
should the Federal Government really slash its investment in
R&D as proposed in the current continuing resolution that we
are considering this week?
Dr. Holdren. First of all, I would say that most economists
who studied economic growth over the decades have concluded
that well over half, some say as much as 80 percent, of
increases in productivity in the United States over the last 50
years have come from innovation, have come from our past
investments in science and technology and innovation. Nobody
could predict the future with a clear, crystal ball. But
looking at the history of the contributions of science,
technology, and innovation to our economy, it would seem to be
imprudent to cut off our investments in that domain if what we
are interested in is economic growth and prosperity. I think
the President said it very well in his speech in North Carolina
some weeks ago when he said if you are trying to make an
overloaded airplane lighter, you don't do it by throwing
overboard the engines. And really, science, technology and
innovation have been the engines of our economic growth over
the decades. They are expected to be the engines of our
economic growth going forward as long as we don't throw the
engine overboard.
Chairman Hall. Do you yield back? Ms. Johnson and I are
probably going to give a prize for the one that represents
their district better, and Mr. Clarke, you were the one today.
All right. Let us see. Who will we recognize now? Mr.
Lipinski. He is a Ranking Member of the Research and Science,
Education Subcommittee, and he has a lot of other obligations.
Thank you for coming and including us today. We will recognize
you for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr.
Holdren for spending all this time with us today. He has
probably been here since I have cast 14 votes, been here, been
to another committee, asked questions, went to a delegation
lunch, and I am back here and you are still here. I appreciate
that.
I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Clarke
and also Ms. Edwards on manufacturing. It is critical. I am not
from Detroit, but I also did love that Eminem commercial. I
don't love Eminem either. He's alright, but I don't know. But
it was a fantastic commercial. It is sort of what we, I think,
really need to get that back in this country. We need to be
building things, and I think you understand that. You were just
talking about nanotechnology. I have said many times in this
Committee that I have drunk the nanotech Kool-Aid. I believe
that it is critical in so many different areas to the future
economic growth and jobs, and I think the United States has to
be on the forefront of that.
I was pleased to see in the President's 2012 budget that
the funding for nanotechnology research was modestly increased,
and I was particularly interested to see substantial new
investment in nanomanufacturing research.
So one thing that I think is very critical, and hopefully
we will get through this quickly--I have one other question in
one other area--is what more can be done for nanotechnology
commercialization? That is an area that I have been very
focused on in my time on this Committee since I have been in
Congress. What more can be done in commercialization? What are
your plans?
Dr. Holdren. Well, I think there is a substantial amount of
effort in the National Nanotechnology Initiative moving in that
direction. In fact, you mentioned that it is up in the 2012
budget, and the reason it is up is precisely to support some
areas that are moving successfully in the direction of
commercialization but need some more help to get all the way
there.
I would also say that the model I mentioned before of
having facilities that have the advanced equipment that is
needed to do cutting-edge research on nanotechnology and how it
can be commercialized, the model of that facility at the
University of Michigan which is available to the private sector
to work with, that is a model we ought to expand. And we ought
to do it with our national laboratories as well as our great
research universities as a way to help bridge this gap that
sometimes occurs between discovery and commercialization.
Mr. Lipinski. Just to make the Chairman proud, Northwestern
University, my alma mater, is doing a great job of nanotech
research, although it is not in my district. It is close
enough.
One other thing I wanted to talk about is you know that one
of the most significant accomplishments of this Committee last
Congress I think is the Congress' passage of the America
Competes Reauthorization, and there is one particular provision
I wanted to talk about. It is Section 105 which is based in
part on the genius grants, the Genius Act that I introduced
with Representative Wolf. This section gave the research
agencies broad, new authority to offer prizes for innovative
research or solutions to critical problems. I think the prizes
as a complement to traditional research funding mechanisms, not
as an alternative but a complement, can offer a new way to
incentivize high-risk, high-reward research and generate
excitement on the frontiers of science and engineering. I know
that COMPETES was passed too late for this section to be
reflected in this year's budget, but can you comment on whether
you see this authority being helpful in the future and how you
think research agencies might take advantage of this language
about giving authority to do the prizes?
Dr. Holdren. Well, certainly the Administration, President
Obama, are very enthusiastic about COMPETES having been
reauthorized. The President was delighted to sign that
Reauthorization Act. OSTP is already in the process of
implementing that Reauthorization Act. I happened to write a
blog celebrating the passage of that. Very shortly afterwards
it appeared on the White House website, but we have done a
number of things in direct support of that act. We have
established a National Science and Technology Council Committee
on STEM education. We will meet for the first time in just a
couple of weeks. That is Section 101. We have established as I
mentioned already an interagency working group on advanced
manufacturing R&D under the NSPC. We are in the process of
establishing an interagency public access committee, which is
Section 103, which I think you referred to. We have an
interagency group on scientific collections that is working on
the aspect of America COMPETES there. And you mentioned
competitions and prizes. We are enormously enthusiastic about
the potential of competitions and prizes. A lot has been
happening there. I am sure you know about the Automotive X
Prize where $10 million in prize money put out by the private
sector in a competition that was co-sponsored and co-organized
with the Department of Energy led to $100 million of
investments by the competitors competing for the $10 million
prize on how to make automobiles that would get more than 100
miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
We now have a one-stop shopping website called
Challenge.gov where all the existing prizes and challenges that
are out there that are documented so that folks can find them
and identify things they would like to compete in. We think
this is a very high leverage domain and again are very happy
indeed by the encouragement provided in the reauthorization of
America COMPETES for that direction. So we are great fans of
this Committee and what it has managed to do through the
original America COMPETES and now its reauthorization. This is
great stuff.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Holdren, and I yield back.
Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman. Finally, the very
patient Mr. Sarbanes. I am glad to recognize you for five
minutes where I don't have to say I didn't see the woman come
in here with that hat on. You are recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much. I understand I stepped out just before you called me. I
will try not to do that again.
Chairman Hall. We were going to wait for you if you came
after dinner.
Mr. Sarbanes. Dr. Holdren, thank you for being here today.
I appreciate your patience.
I wanted to just go back to the climate change thing real
quickly because Congressman Rohrabacher was pointing to a group
of I guess you might call them dissenters on the view that
climate change is now being driven by this sort-of a man-made
phenomenon at this point, and I just wanted you to comment, if
you could, on the notion of what it means to reach scientific
consensus. Obviously, that can't mean that we will have 100
percent universal agreement on whatever the particular
scientific judgment is that needs to be made. We are charged
with making policy judgments and setting a program direction
and so forth based on looking at the preponderance of evidence
and so forth. And isn't that the case here? I mean, however
many scientists there may be out there who indicated some
anxiety or concern or resistance to the notion of climate
change, there is an exponentially greater number of people, it
appears to be, on the other side who really believe this is
happening. And we have to base our judgments on sort of the
balance of what is there, in this case, I think a very heavy
balance in that direction, and that would constitute a
consensus for purposes of making policy, would you not agree?
Dr. Holdren. I would agree. I have not seen the particular
list of 100 that Congressman Rohrabacher mentioned. I can only
say that in the past that when such lists have materialized,
most of the names on them were folks who were not actually
climate scientists. And one could reasonably assume that they
had not spent as much time in the scientific literature of
climate change as those who do that as a full-time profession.
As was mentioned earlier here, rather serious and systematic
studies of what professional climate scientists believe have
indicated that well over 95 percent of professional climate
scientists believe the basic propositions that I have
summarized here now a couple of times about climate change
going forward in ways that are highly unusual against the
backdrop of natural variations, that humans are very likely
responsible for a large part of that and so on.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that answer. I am going to jump
to another topic real quick.
Dr. Holdren. Let me just say if I may, it would be a very
odd thing indeed if all of the academies of sciences of the
world, the Chinese Academy, the Russian Academy, the U.S.
Academy, the Brazilian Academy had all reached this conclusion.
These academies are rather conservative bodies. They don't
lightly issue reports and statements about matters of science
bearing on public policy. The fact that every academy of
science in the world virtually has done this should have
considerable weight in telling us where the scientific
consensus is. And you are absolutely right, there will always
be dissenters, but they are very much in the minority and the
question is why should we bet the welfare of the public against
the very long odds that the vast majority would turn out to be
wrong and a very small minority would turn out to be right?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. I was encouraged by the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget with respect to the
investments being made in some of the critical areas that we
have talked about today. I wanted to ask you about STEM
education. The President announced this particular recommitment
to that investment at Parkville Middle School a few days ago
which is located in my district, and we are very proud of the
STEM education program that they have there.
I understand there is a group coming together that is going
to try and look at where there might be some duplication of
effort or how better to coordinate across agencies the delivery
of STEM education and that emphasis, and I applaud that. And
just looking for example at the relative resources committed to
the Department of Education for that effort versus say the
National Science Foundation and other agency commitments is
going to be important. But what I wanted to ask you is, how do
you think we compare to our peer nations? I mean, the Parkville
Middle Schools of America are doing a good job with STEM
education, but how much is that the exception versus the rule,
particularly when you lay it against what is happening in these
nations that are competing with us with respect to that kind of
investment?
Dr. Holdren. First of all, as you know, in the various
standardized tests on math and science, the United States has
not been doing well in relation to our competitors. We tend to
rank variously between 17th and 25th among the nations of the
world in standardized math and science tests in various grades,
ranging from 4th to 8th to 12th. And what is even more
discouraging is our rankings tend to get worse as you go up in
age. So we are doing worse in the 8th grade than in the 4th,
and we are doing worse in the 12th grade in comparison to our
competitors than in the 8th.
On the other hand, it remains true that we have by far the
greatest college and university system in the world, and one of
the reasons we continue to lead in so many fields of math and
science and engineering is that the strengths of our college
and university system in some sense have been at least partly
compensating for the shortcomings at K through 12. But we need
to lift our game in both places. We need to lift our game in K
through 12. We need to lift our game in colleges and
universities because even as good as the colleges and
universities are, they are losing too many people who come in
enthusiastic about science and technology and then end up
drifting off into other fields because their teachers aren't
inspiring enough, their curricula aren't stimulating enough,
and we have got to fix that. We have got to fix it at K through
12.
I would also say, though, by way of balance that when I
talk to my counterparts in China and Japan and South Korea as I
did this past summer in joint commission meetings on science
and technology cooperation that we have with those countries,
they still envy our school system because they think although
we are doing worse than they are on standardized tests, they
believe that we do better at inculcating creativity in our
kids. And they complain that their systems are not doing as
well in terms of creativity and that is hurting them ultimately
in innovation.
I think there is a lot that we need to get to the bottom of
as we try to understand what we do well and what we do not so
well in K through 12 education, and something that is very
refreshing is that over the past decade, there has been a
growing emphasis on serious systematic research to actually
understand what works and what doesn't work, rather than simply
basing our opinions about this matter on anecdotal experiences
and what we may have experienced ourselves in our schools. Our
STEM education effort in OSTP is now being led by our Associate
Director for Science, Carl Wieman, whom I mentioned before is a
Nobel Laureate in physics, but he is focused far more these
days on STEM education, which has become his passion, other
than on just physics itself. And Carl is overseeing the setting
up of the National Science and Technology Council Committee on
STEM education that is going to do this work you mentioned of
looking across all of our STEM education efforts across all the
agencies that engage in this, looking for duplication, looking
for symbiosis and looking for more rigorous application of what
research shows about what works in this domain.
Chairman Hall. Will the gentleman yield? Before you yield
back your time, Mr. Rohrabacher is not here, but if he is here,
I would imagine that he wouldn't agree with your dismissal of
those 100, either you or the witness'. There just might be some
scientists in there that know what they are doing, and I would
guess that maybe there is not one in the 100 that would have
seven years ago predicted a catastrophic sea level rise of 15
feet when it is only two or three or four inches. Don't pooh-
pooh what you call the minority of people that don't believe
what is being trying to be sold as a majority of scientists. We
need to get them beforehand and have you a chance to visit and
inquire of them, us to have a shot at them, and then decide,
okay? Thank you.
Is there anyone else here? All right. Thank you, Dr.
Holdren, for your valuable, willing testimony and congenial
testimony and the members for their questions. The members of
the Committee may have additional questions for you, Dr.
Holdren, and I would ask you to respond to them in writing if
you will, sir.
Dr. Holdren. I will, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and the Ranking Member as well.
Chairman Hall. The record will remain open for two weeks
for additional comments from Members. The lady from Dallas Ms.
Johnson, do you have anything further?
Ms. Johnson. No, I just want to thank the witness.
Chairman Hall. With that, she just wants to thank the
witness. I join her. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Appendix:

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP)

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. It is my understanding that departments/agencies participating in
the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) are assessed a certain
amount each year to support National Research Council studies, the U.S.
Global Change Research Program Integration and Coordination Office
(USGCRP ICO), several international programs (e.g., International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), and the Earth System Science
Partnership (ESSP),etc.), and several IPCC activities (e.g., the IPCC
WGII Technical Support Unit (TSU) and travel for U.S. scientists to
participate in IPCC meeting).

Q2. For each of Fiscal Years 2008-2012, please provide actual,
estimated and requested funding as appropriate for each USGCRP
centrally-funded entity/activity, as well as the amounts assessed each
department/agency participating in the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP) using the following table as a template.

A1. Please see the attached table and technical notes.

NOTES: (1) NSF administrative costs are for handling
interagency fund transfers related to the shared costs (2) DOS
has USGCRP funding but does not participate in Distributed Cost
Assessments (3) NASA observations and science; observations
reduced by 1/3 for purposes of distributed cost assessment (4)
Represents assessment equaling approximately 0.35% of total
enacted USGCRP funding for all agencies (5) Agency assessments
for FY2011 Distributed Cost Budget Supplemental (FY11
activities) and FY2011 Distributed Cost Budget (FY12
activities) are subject to change pending Congress's approval
of FY11 and FY12 President's budgets. SOURCE: USGCRP National
Coordination Office

Q4. In consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
please update the Climate Change Science and Climate Change Technology
sections of the June 2010 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to
Congress to incorporate the President's Fiscal Year 2021 [sic] budget
request.

A1. The June 2010 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to
Congress will be updated later in 2011. OSTP will provide updated
funding data to the Committee at that time.

Q4. You did not transmit Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change
Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011 to Congress until January of this
year - some 11 months after the President released his Fiscal Year 2011
Budget.

a. Why was this report delayed so long?

b. When can we expect to receive Our Changing Planet: The U.S.
Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2012?

A1. Because the USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment,
additional time was required to develop the FY 2011 edition of the Our
Changing Planet report. The FY 2012 edition ofOur Changing Report is
currently scheduled for release and transmittal to Congress in late
summer or early fall of 2011.

Q5. Over 1.6 billion people - 25 percent of the world's population -
do not have access to electricity. Many of them soon well, thanks to
expanded use of coal, which is forecast to increase 50 percent by 2030.
The affordable electricity provided by coal will enable economic
development and help alleviate poverty in places such as China, India,
and Africa.

a. How will U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
have any impact on climate change given the expected dramatic
increases globally? Should the U.S. impose higher energy costs
on its citizens if the benefits are negligible?

b. You have often said that we must reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to avoid climate change-caused ``suffering,'' but
won't forcing developing countries to avoid expanded fossil
fuel use (or pay more for fossil fuels via carbon capture and
sequestration, etc.) serve to prolong global suffering and
poverty?

A1. In its 2010 International Energy Outlook, DOE's Energy Information
Administration (EIA) projected that world coal consumption would
increase to about 186 quadrillion BTU (quads) in 2030, which is 30
percent greater than 2009 consumption of 143 quads. A single country-
China-accounts for 80 percent of the world increase in coal
consumption. Almost none of the increase in Chinese coal consumption
will go to providing basic access to electricity, because over 99
percent of Chinese households already have access to electricity.
Access to electricity and to the services it provides, such as
lighting and refrigeration, is vital to economic development. But in
many countries coal appears to be the most ``affordable'' source of
electricity only because many of the costs of coal use-air pollution,
acid deposition, and climate change-are not included in the price. In
2007, the World Bank estimated that air pollution, largely from coal
burning, was responsible for 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths per
year in China. In 2003, a joint study by the Chinese Institute of
Environmental Science and Qinghua University estimated that acid rain
from coal burning caused economic losses of over $13 billion per year.
In 2010, an interagency working group estimated that $5 to $65 in
economic damages results from each additional ton of carbon dioxide
emitted (e.g., lost agricultural productivity, human health, property
damages from increased flood risk due to climate change), equal to
about $12 to $160 per ton of coal burned. These damages to human
health, economic productivity, and ecosystems from air pollution, acid
deposition, and climate change are not included in the price of coal.
When a full accounting of the costs is done, cleaner sources of
electricity, such as natural gas and renewables, provide greater
overall benefits to citizens.
The EIA scenario discussed above, in which coal consumption
increases by 30 percent by 2030, does not include policy actions
designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Policy actions by
China, India, and other major emitters will be required to reduce
global emissions and limit climate change. The United States cannot do
it alone, but the United States should and must lead. Reductions in
U.S. emissions are essential as part of a strategy to achieve
reductions in global emissions, because other major emitters will not
act in the absence of tangible action by the U.S., which is the world's
largest economy. In addition to the direct health and environmental
benefits of our own emission reductions, there will be the larger
effect of global emissions reductions that can be spurred by our
willingness to act, as well as the economic benefits of leading the
world in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy
technology. As the President has said many times, ``The nation that
leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global
economy.''
The Administration is not proposing to ``force'' developing
countries to avoid expanded fossil fuel use. Rather, the Administration
is attempting to persuade other countries that 3 policies that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions are in their own long-term interests, as well
as in the common interest of humanity. As noted above, the long-term
economic benefits of moving to cleaner sources of energy, such as
efficient natural gas and renewables, are greater than the long-term
benefits of expanded use of coal without modern pollution controls and
carbon capture and sequestration. The short-term economic gains from
burning more coal with old technology will be offset by premature
deaths due to increased air pollution and by economic damage due to
acid rain and climate change.

Q6. A couple of years ago, a group of well-respected economists, led
by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, prioritized a number of global challenges to
determine the most cost-effective way to improve the quality of life
for people around the world. Recognizing that we have limited
resources, they ranked the value of addressing problems such as
disease, malnutrition, climate change, health care, sanitation, and
water quality. Compared against these other challenges, climate change
came in last - signaling that spending billions to address it would
have the lowest impact for the highest cost.

a. Do you believe it makes sense to undertake an economic
exercise such as this to informpolicymaking?

b. Do you disagree with the group's conclusions that our money
would be better spent fighting disease and addressing water
quality issues than trying to impact global climate through CO2
reductions?

A1. In connection with the Lomborg exercise mentioned, which took place
in 2004, I would note that (a) Lomborg is not an economist, (b) the
group he convened did no formal and consistent analysis of costs and
benefits of the various proposals that were examined, but simply lumped
the proposals into four categories based on the personal impressions of
the participants after brief discussion of some non-peer-reviewed
background papers prepared for the purpose, and (c) Lomborg himself has
since changed his view and now advocates large investments in R&D to
develop new energy technologies to abate the climate-change threat.
Estimates of costs and benefits are an important guide to
policymaking. In a recent Executive Order on Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563, January 18, 2011), the President
required that agencies ``propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs, and that
agencies ``select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches,
those approaches that that maximize net benefits.'' But the Executive
Order also recognizes that costs and benefits can sometimes be
difficult to quantify. I believe it is important to carefully consider
all of the potential future costs and benefits of proposed policies.
The test of a policy is whether the benefits justify the costs, and
whether the policy is designed to achieve the greatest net benefit
among feasible alternatives-not whether one can find another policy
that has greater benefits per dollar spent. For example, guardrails may
save more lives per dollar spent than further safety measures such as
seatbelts and airbags, but even given the existence of guardrails,
seatbelts and airbags have very high net benefits. Although it is true
that public policies should consider existing measures, such as
guardrails, when considering adopting other safety measures, in this
case we are clearly better off with all three.
The costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gases are difficult
to quantify. This is due to the combined effect of uncertainties in
future emissions and greenhouse gas concentrations; uncertainties in
the response of the climate system to increased greenhouse gas
concentrations; uncertainties in the cost to adapt to these changes in
climate and to adopt technologies that reduce emissions; and
uncertainties in the monetary value of climate impacts, particularly
those far in the future, and those that have no obvious market value,
such as the extinction of species. As a result, estimates of the social
cost of carbon span a wide range. In 2010, an interagency working group
led by the Executive Office of the President estimated that $5 to $65
(in 2007 dollars) in economic damages results from each additional ton
of carbon dioxide emitted that year (e.g., lost agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk
due to climate change). This means that it would be economically
beneficial to spend at least $5 per ton, and as much as $65 per ton, to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The working group also estimated these
values would increase over time as the magnitude of climate change
increases, reaching approximately $16 to $136 per ton (in 2007 dollars)
by 2050. Even taking the lower values,there are many actions that can
be taken to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in the
United States and other countries, that cost less than $5 per ton, and
many more that cost less than $65 per ton.

Q7. In testimony before Congress shortly after the ClimateGate scandal
broke in December 2009, you characterized the controversy as something
that would be ``sorted out over time. by the process of peer review.''
I am concerned, however, about the integrity of the peer review process
itself. The ClimateGate emails revealed a strong pattern of scientists
suppressing scientific information that does not conform to their
alarmist viewpoints. For example:

a. Several emails discuss attempts to blacklist certain
researchers' papers from publication, and initiating a boycott
of scientific journals that publish papers skeptical of the
alarmists' viewpoints;

b. Other emails discuss ousting editorial board members with
non-conforming views; and

c. Perhaps most disturbing, one researcher commits himself to
ensuring that no non-conforming science is included in the
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Specifically, this researcher said ``Kevin and I will keep them
out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is!''

Please provide your opinion on the appropriateness of these
specific emails, specifically whether you agree that they reveal an
attempt by leading influential scientists to undermine the peer review
process. How does this correspondence impact on your confidence in the
peer review process to ``sort out'' scientific controversies as you
stated in earlier Congressional testimony?

A1. The point I was making in my testimony is that scientific
controversies--such as the controversy about the validity of the
``hockey stick'' representation of the temperature history of the Earth
over the past two millennia, which was the focus of most of the stolen
emails--generally get sorted out over time by the process of peer
review and continued critical scrutiny by the knowledgeable community
of scientists. Nothing in the e-mails shakes my confidence in the
validity of this contention. Scientists, like other human beings,
sometimes make mistakes in their work, and, like other human beings, in
the midst of controversy and the heat of debate they sometimes say ill-
considered things. But peer review and continuing discussion in the
community of the knowledgeable is an excellent mechanism--the best we
have--for sorting through claims and counter-claims, filtering out the
wrong and the irrelevant, and clarifying, over time, what we can say
with confidence.
In the case of the ``hockey stick'' controversy addressed in the
stolen e-mails, the matter ended up going to the highest U.S. ``court
of appeal'' in the domain of peer review--the National Academy of
Sciences. The Academy's exhaustive report (National Research Council,
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National
Academy Press, 2006, 156 pp) concluded that the methods of analysis
used by the ``hockey stick'' authors were scientifically acceptable and
that the authors' key conclusion that the last 50 years have been the
warmest in many centuries is likely to be correct. And, while in
science there is never a ``last word'', nothing that has been said or
published since the 2006 Academy report has offered a plausible
refutation of its conclusions or made a case that the Academy's review
was itself marred by bias.
The stolen e-mails do reveal that some of the scientist authors
became frustrated and impatient with queries about their data from
critics whose motives they felt were other than the pursuit of
knowledge, and frustrated as well by the publication of a transparently
flawed critique of their work in a supposedly peer-reviewed journal
that had become notorious for publishing flawed work. (When this
particular case came to light, in fact, its editor resigned in
embarrassment.) Some of their e-mailed comments in this situation were
in a circle-the-wagons vein, not properly respectful of the need for
transparency with data no matter the perceived stance of the
requestors, and some of the comments lent themselves to
misinterpretation outside the context in which they were made. But
there is nothing in these e-mails that comes close to supporting a case
for pervasive corruption in the peerreview system in climate science.
That has also been the conclusion of all five formal reviews of the
e-mail flap that I am aware of. Thus, the UK House of Commons
report(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/
cmsctech/387/387i.pdf) concluded on this point that ``Likewise the
evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was
trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be
criticized for making informal comments on academic papers.''
A second UK review, The Scientific Assessment Panel headed by Lord
Oxburgh (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP) ,
wrote: ``We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in
any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we
believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we
found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers
who were illprepared for being the focus of public attention. As with
many small research groups their internal procedures were rather
informal.''
The RA-10 Inquiry Report investigating Professor Michael Mann's
actions under Penn State's research misconduct policy concluded as
follows: ``The Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E.
Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or
indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices
within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting
research, or other scholarly activities.''
The Independent Climate Change Email Review (http://
www.ccereview.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf) stated that ``On the specific
allegations made against the behavior of CRU scientists, we find that
their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt... In addition,
we do not find that their behavior has prejudiced the balance of advice
given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of
behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC
assessments.''
Most recently, last month's Report of the Inspector General of the
Department of Commerce, on whether the e-mails pointed to any
wrongdoing by NOAA scientists, found as follows (http://
www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2011/001688.html): ``In our review of the
CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately
manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M [Monthly Global Historical
Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer
review procedures.''
With regard to ``blacklisting,'' ``boycotting,'' and ``ousting,''
please see the discussion in Chapter 8 of The Independent Climate
Change Email Review, beginning on page 68 (http://www.cce-review.org/
pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf). The Review concludes: ``In our judgment none
of the above instances represents subversion of the peer review process
nor unreasonable attempts to influence the editorial policy of
journals. It might be thought that this reflects a pattern of behavior
that is partial and aggressive, but we think it more plausible that it
reflects the rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that
has become heavily contested and where strongly opposed and
aggressively expressed positions have been taken up on both sides. The
evidence from an editor of a journal in an often strongly contested
area such as medicine (Appendix 5) suggests that such instances are
common and that they do not in general threaten the integrity of peer
review or publication.''

Q8. The centerpiece proposal in President Obama's State of the Union
address is his plan to require 80 percent of U.S. electricity to be
derived from ``clean'' energy sources. A study by economists at Suffolk
University found that the cost of a clean energy standard similar to
what the President is proposing would be almost $200 billion a year and
over $4 trillion over a 20-year period. Other studies might estimate
these figures to be higher or lower, but as a matter of basic
economics, doesn't the President's proposal amount to mandating
Americans to pay significantly higher electricity costs? If the
President's plan is successfully implemented, and we do indeed achieve
his 80 percent clean energy goal, how much will projected climate
threats be reduced?

A1. The Suffolk University study focuses on a renewable portfolio
standard (RPS). Unlike the President's proposal, an RPS does not
include natural gas, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and
sequestration as sources that qualify towards meeting the target. The
omission of natural gas from an RPS is particularly significant because
natural gas is an abundant low-cost resource and because generation can
be increased substantially at existing gasfired plants, in addition to
building new plants. Even if the Suffolk University study had correctly
assessed the impacts of an RPS, which I do not believe to be the case,
the results would not apply to the President's clean energy proposal.
While the President's proposal is not an RPS, other available
analyses of an RPS, including several studies conducted by the Energy
Information Administration at the request of both House and Senate
Committees, estimated much smaller effects of an RPS on electricity
prices and consumer expenditures.
The President's clean energy proposal is not a mandate for higher
electricity costs. The implications for electricity prices will depend
on the specific details of the program, which have not yet been
determined, but it is possible that electricity prices over the next
decade would be reduced as generators using efficient natural gas
plants would have an incentive to increase electricity generation. The
long-run effect of the clean energy goal on electricity prices would
depend significantly on the cost of various clean generation
technologies in the future, and that is why it is important to reduce
the costs of clean energy by accelerating the pace of innovation
through research and development. In addition to the price of
electricity, one must take into account the health and other economic
and environmental benefits associated with reduced air pollution and
climate impacts that result from using cleaner sources of energy.
Electricity generation currently accounts for about one-third of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 40 percent of net U.S.
emissions after accounting for land use and land-use change. A program
that substantially reduces emissions associated with electricity
generation would significantly reduce U.S. emissions. Policy actions by
China, India, and other major emitters will be required to reduce
global emissions and limit climate change. The United States cannot do
it alone, but the United States should and must lead. Reductions in
U.S. emissions are essential as part of a strategy to achieve
reductions in global emissions, because other major emitters will not
act in the absence of tangible action by the U.S., which is the world's
largest economy. In addition to the direct health and environmental
benefits of our own emissions reductions, there will be the larger
effect of global emissions reductions that can be spurred by our
willingness to act, as well as the economic benefits of leading the
world in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy
technology. As the President has said many times, ``The nation that
leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global
economy.''

Q9. You testify that you will soon be convening a new National Science
and Technology Council STEM Education Committee. Please describe how
you envision this Committee identifying duplicative and ineffective
STEM programs across the federal government and what actions will be
taken to save the American taxpayer from continuing to support these
programs? Similarly, how will this Committee work to replicate or
promote successful programs?

A1. STEM education itself is a very broad topic. It encompasses
instructional activities that target the earliest years of school
through adulthood, covers a large range of subjects and enormous
variations in the depth of learning desired, varies with geography and
local cultures and socio-economic conditions, involves a host of public
and private enterprises, and involves a range of formal and informal
educational settings. Because of the span and complexity of STEM
education, it is appropriate that there are numerous and diverse
programs devoted to it across a number of Federal entities. But there
may well be some overlap and duplication, and the newly convened NSTC
Committee on STEM Education will be examining this issue as called for
in the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010.
The first step in this process will be to appropriately
characterize the numerous existing STEM education programs. A detailed
classification of programs, once complete, will then allow us to
determine appropriate methods and standards for evaluation to determine
the effectiveness of a given program. We will work with OMB and the
agencies to find suitable cost-effective ways to examine the
effectiveness of the programs, and to find how their effectiveness can
be improved.

Q9. You testify that the Administration plans to invest $3.4 billion
across the federal government for STEM education, including many new
initiatives primarily at the Department of Education. While the
Department of Education should certainly take a more active role in
STEM, what is the rationale for shifting support from NSF to Education?
How actively involved can you be, as Director of OSTP, in decisions
being made at the Department of Education on STEM-related issues? What
steps has the Administration taken to ensure that these new activities
are researchbased and will have input from not only the education
community but also the scientific community?

A1. Both NSF and the Department of Education can and should play
critical roles in STEM education. Budgetary decisions on STEM-education
programs are made within the individual agencies. In both NSF and the
Department of Education there are multiple programs that are proposed
for increases or decreases in the 2012 Budget in response to changing
priorities and evaluations of the impact of existing programs. No
explicit decision was made to trade off funds in one agency for funds
in the other. Each agency has its particular mandates and strengths.
The new Committee on STEM Education, working with the Office of
Management and Budget, will work to better coordinate STEM education
activities throughout the Federal government, including within NSF and
the Department of Education. The importance of utilizing research and
evaluation to inform STEM-education efforts is clear to OSTP. OSTP has
and will continue to push all federal agencies to develop education
efforts based on the latest research in education and scientific
disciplines.

Questions submitted by Representative Paul Broun

Q1. As a follow-up to our conversation regarding Scientific Integrity,
please respond to the following:

a. Does your December memo exempt OMB or the White House
Offices from the scientific integrity guidelines?

b. Are you familiar with the memo your predecessor developed
titled ``Principles for the Release of Scientific Research
Results''?

c. Please point out how these documents differ.

Aa. No.
Ab. Yes.
Ac. One important difference is that the ``Principles'' document from
the last Administration focuses on just one aspect of scientific
integrity - the public release of scientific research results through
the media and other channels. While that subject is covered in my
Dec.17 memorandum (in a number of places but primarily in Section II),
my memo covers a number of other issues important to scientific
integrity, including the use of Federal Advisory Committees, activities
relating to the professional development of Federal scientists and
engineers, conflicts of interest, and whistleblower protections. My
memorandum also explicitly calls upon all covered departments and
agencies to craft scientific integrity policies consonant with the
guidelines in his memorandum, and imposes a deadline by which time
agencies and departments are to report to me on their progress.
Further, with regard to public release of government information,
my Memorandum goes further than the last Administration's. It
explicitly notes that just telling the ``facts'' is not enough.
Specifically, it insists that government scientists and communicators
provide underlying assumptions, contextualization of uncertainties, and
descriptions of probabilities associated with optimistic and
pessimistic projections, including best-case and worst-case scenarios
where appropriate. My memorandum also explicitly states that ``in no
circumstance may public affairs officers ask or direct Federal
scientists to alter scientific findings.''

Q2. With regard to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, please respond to
the following:

a. What was your role in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon
spill?

b. Where did OSTP, OMB and Carol Browner fit into the national
incident command structure?

c. At any point did you approve or review scientific
documents, declarations of peer review, or the release of
scientific information from agencies? If so, which documents,
declarations, or releases? If not, why were other White House
offices like OMB and the Office of Energy and Climate Change
Policy involved in doing so, but not OSTP?

d. You have been appointed co-chair of the National Ocean
Council--an effort in part to better coordinate the Federal
ocean policy and the two dozen or so federal agencies that work
and have authority in the ocean. How will this new
organizational structure better manage a crisis like the one in
the Gulf last year? It appears as if you already had authority
and a charter to lead and coordinate federal science response
which you did not do with the BP Oil Spill. Will that change?

A2. As the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and
Director of OSTP, I participated in the Administration's response to
the event from the outset, including taking part in the Principals'
conference calls and Principals' meetings throughout its course.
In the first days following the explosion, I helped Secretary Chu
set up his government / private sector / academic science team focused
on the challenge of capping the well. I provided an OSTP expert on
deep-water drilling to serve as regular member of that group, and I
took part myself in many of the team's intensive, multi-hour conference
calls over the months culminating in the capping of the well.
Also in the first days following the explosion, I and OSTP
Associate Director for Environment Shere Abbott started reaching out to
leaders in the ocean-science community both inside and outside the
government to help create connections among them to ensure that as much
as possible of the country's relevant expertise on understanding and
mitigating the effects of oil in the oceans was brought to bear. Inside
the Executive Branch, Ms. Abbott and I initiated interagency
discussions involving NOAA, EPA, USGS, DOE, DHS, and FDA to identify
S&T needs and capabilities for the response and recovery efforts and
the longer-term concerns of restoration.
With respect to the short-term issues, it was clear that agencies
needed to work together to quantify oil, gas, and dispersant volumes;
understand and forecast the fate of surface and subsurface oil and
dispersants; assess ecosystem impacts, including seafood safety; and
evaluate mitigation measures. To address these short-term needs, OSTP
worked together alongside other offices of the Executive Office of the
President and the relevant Federal departments and agencies to
establish action teams that immediately began working on analyzing the
oil flow rate, the fate of oil in the water column and at the surface,
dispersant use and its impacts, measurements and monitoring, coastal
impacts and mitigation, seafood impacts and mitigation, and rapid
assessment of mitigation technologies. OSTP also helped to foster the
creation of the interagency Joint Analysis Group to provide rapid
analyses of emerging data to guide real-time response, and OSTP's
experts were mainstays of that group's work throughout the duration of
the spill and continuing into the recovery and restoration phases.
OSTP's outreach to the nongovernmental community of expertise,
meanwhile, was ultimately broadened and formalized in a series of
national workshops bringing together the directors and research leaders
from marine science centers around the country with experts from the
relevant Federal departments and agencies. With Associate Director
Abbott and USGS Director Marcia McNutt, I co-convened the first of
these national meetings at EPA headquarters on May 19, attended by 30
leaders of the nongovernmental research community and 30 government
officials including Secretary Salazar, Administrator Jackson, and
Assistant Secretary Robinson of NOAA. One result of that meeting was a
decision by NOAA, NSF, and EPA to expedite funding to universities for
critical research in the Gulf of Mexico. Numerous follow-on meetings
covering topics such as coastal and ocean impacts and dispersants took
place in the Gulf region, hosted by NOAA, NSF, and EPA, with OSTP
assistance and participation.
In May 2010, OSTP also began to work on longer-term research needs
including: the impacts of dispersants on the marine ecosystem;
monitoring programs for the coasts and deepwater; the fate and impacts
of oil on deepwater ecosystems; and the development of new clean-up
technologies. We engaged the National Science and Technology Council's
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) to begin
interagency work on many of these issues. SOST organized and executed a
workshop in early October for scientific investigators to discuss early
results of their work and catalyze efficient and productive
collaborations.
For long-term recovery needs, OSTP provided input to Secretary
Mabus' report, America's Gulf Coast--A Long Term Recovery Plan, that
lays the foundation for the current work of the President's Gulf Coast
Restoration Task Force. OSTP's Associate Director for Environment
serves on this Task Force, and our Assistant Director for Ocean
Sciences serves on its Science Coordination Team. OSTP contributed to
Secretary Mabus' plan, particularly in its recommendation that
restoration activities be firmly based in sound science.
Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate
Change, operated as the EOP coordinator of activities related to the
oil spill. I reported regularly to her on OSTP's activities in bringing
relevant S&T expertise to bear, and also participated in Principals'
meetings on the subject.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established a procedure
for coordinated review of information related to the oil spill from the
EOP and Federal agencies. OSTP participated in these OMB-coordinated
reviews. The President's July Executive Order establishing a new
National Ocean Policy and cabinet-level National Oceans Council, which
I co-lead with CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley, has put in place a framework for
coordination and interaction among responsible Federal entities and
stakeholders in state and local governments, tribal authorities, the
private sector, and NGOs that, among many other benefits, will
facilitate the coordinated responses that events like the Gulf oil
spill require. The Policy's focus on strengthening the marine science
knowledge base and monitoring capabilities will also increase the
national capacity to cope with and recover from future oil spills as
well as other events impacting our oceans and coastlines.

Q3. With regard to the Gulf Coast Research Initiative, please respond
to the following:

a. What was your role in working with BP on the independent
Gulf Research Initiative, which set aside $500 million for
scientific research?

b. When did you first hear of it?

c. What was the funding mechanism they were considering?

d. BP was ready to release a RFP on June 15 - but later stated
they were directed by the White House to work with the Gulf
Governors. (see White House Fact Sheet, June 16, 2010). Were
you a party to those discussions?

e. Under what authority did the White House direct the GRI to
work with Governors?

f. When did you learn of the plan to delay the RFP to work
with the Governors?

g. Did you think was a good idea?

h. You had to expect a delay - which would mean that critical
research and data could be missed while negotiating with the
governors. As his Science Advisor, did you brief the President
on how this delay would impact science?

i. Only around $40-$50 million has been released so far, and
at an 8 month delay. Were the awards included in that $40-$50
million peer reviewed?

j. Would proposals have been peer reviewed under the system in
place before White House intervention?

k. What are the benefits of working with the Governors?

l. Do they outweigh this delay?

m. Would you characterize this as a slush fund?

A3. The Gulf Coast Research Initiative (GRI) is a program led and
administered by BP. I learned of BP's interest in supporting a long-
term scientific research program associated with the oil spill in mid-
May, 2010, when staff from OSTP and the Departments of Commerce and
Interior met with BP officials following the OSTP-led forum at EPA on
``Scientific Research on the Effects and Fates of Oil in the Ocean''.
At the post-forum meeting, BP's chief scientist described what the
company had in mind for the GRI, which was to provide $500 million over
a 10-year period to create a broad independent research program that
would investigate the impacts of the oil and dispersant on the
ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico and affected coastal States. My
government colleagues and I were welcoming of this BP initiative.

Questions submitted by Representative Marcia L. Fudge

Q1. Last Congress, I introduced an amendment to COMPETES that would
direct NSF and Department of Education to collaborate and identify the
grand challenges facing research and development in STEM education
teaching and learning. Specifically, it aimed to address how we can
scale successful programs, increase teacher effectiveness, broaden
participation, and understand the role of cyber-enabled teaching tools.
This amendment also required the agencies to solicit input from
stakeholders in the STEM community.

Q2. I am pleased to see that OSTP is in the process of establishing an
interagency STEM education committee. Could you please describe how the
committee plans to solicit input from all the various STEM education
stakeholders, and also address the challenges I just listed, especially
the need to improve coordination on STEM education research?

A. The Committee on STEM Education is very sensitive to the importance
of all of these factors and the need to obtain input from stakeholders.
The Committee recently met for the first time (on March 4, 2011). It is
now in the process of formulating plans for how to achieve these goals.

Questions submitted by Representative Ben R. Lujan

Regional Innovation Clusters:
Thank you for your commitment to job creation and making America a
leader in technology and innovation. As you know, the America COMPETES
Act authorized the Regional Innovation Program to promote regional
innovation clusters. Research parks have the capability of bringing
together students, entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers and other
key innovators to support cutting edge research and development
activities. My home state of New Mexico, for example, is currently
engaged in science park activities at Los Alamos Research Park, the
Sandia Science and Technology Park and the University of New Mexico
Science and Technology Park. I believe these parks can serve as a basis
for forming an innovation cluster.

Q1. The President's FY12 Budget Request requests $40 million for this
program, $60 million less than the authorization amount. Can you
discuss in more detail the Administration's vision for implementation
of this program, especially considering the scaled-back funding
request?
A1. The Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration
(EDA) will implement the Regional Innovation Program. EDA's vision for
implementing this program follows:

Regional Innovation Program:

Base Funding: $0.0 million; Program Change: + $40.0 million. EDA
requests an increase of $40.0 million for a total of $40.0 million to
fund the new Regional Innovation Program to foster collaboration across
the Federal government to build regional innovation clusters based upon
the inherent strengths of a community.

Proposed Actions:

The ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010'' will help
advance the President's vision by encouraging innovation that builds
capacity for regions to improve and advance toward the future. This Act
created the new Regional Innovation Program, which will be implemented
by EDA, to build upon the understanding that robust regional innovation
cluster strategies create a blueprint for improving the conditions or
``ecosystem'' in which innovation companies and entrepreneurs can
accelerate the development or new businesses, products or services.
In FY 2012, under this new Regional Innovation Program, EDA will
implement a Growth Zones initiative. The Growth Zones initiative will
provide strategic investments to help communities leverage their
innovation ecosystems to create jobs, businesses, and regional
prosperity. Specifically, the program will support a nationwide
competition to encourage 20 communities to develop and implement
regional strategic plans that identify how the community can build
onassets and link to drivers of regional economic growth in order to
stimulate job creation, business expansion and creation, and enhanced
regional prosperity.

Statement of Need and Economic Benefits:
In his State of the Union Address the President stated, ``We need
to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We
have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to
take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That's
how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future.''
The Obama Administration is responding by embracing more flexible
and innovative policies and by launching strategic initiatives that
will achieve smarter utilization of existing federal resources. For
example, EDA launched its Jobs and Innovation Partnership to stimulate
innovation and collaboration, which are key drivers of regional
economic development. EDA's Regional Innovation Program (Growth Zones)
will further advance the Jobs and Innovation Partnership by providing
strategic investments to help communities leverage their innovation
ecosystems to create jobs, businesses, and regional prosperity. In
short, through the Regional Innovation Program EDA will support
investments that will help communities mitigate the impact of the
recent fiscal downturn and accelerate the transition toward a more
prosperous economy. This need is particularly acute given the current
fiscal crisis and the national jobs and growth outlook.

Base Resource Assessment:

In FY 2012, this program will be specifically targeted to support
Growth Zones, a collaborative, multi-agency effort to stimulate
regional economic development. Specifically, the program will support a
nationwide competition to encourage 20 communities to develop and
implement regional strategic plans that identify how the community can
build on assets and link to drivers of regional economic growth in
order to stimulate job creation, business expansion and creation, and
enhanced regional prosperity.

Schedule & Milestones:

FY 2012-2016

Creation of Regional Innovation Program (Growth Zones) Expansion of
inter-Agency collaboration related to Regional Innovation Clusters

Deliverables:

FY 2012-2016

Strategic investments that can support globally competitive
regions, promote regional innovation clusters, and encourage 21st
Century innovation infrastructure; and, increasing focus on
collaborative funding with other Federal agencies to leverage federal
grant funds, support regional innovation clusters, and contribute to
sustainable economic development.''

Q2. Minorities in STEM The recent National Academy of Sciences report
Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science
and Technology Talent at the Crossroads makes clear that we must
continue our efforts to increase minority participation in STEM. In
2007, underrepresented minorities comprised 33.2% of the U.S. college
age population, and 26.2% of undergraduate enrollment, yet only 17.7%
of those were earning science and engineering bachelor's degrees. As
OSTP moves forward with its new interagency STEM committee to
coordinate federal STEM education programs, how will the committee
ensure that this important challenge is addressed?

A. Broadening participation is certainly a primary goal of the new
Committee on STEM Education. The two separate, yet both very important,
issues relating to these statistics are: First, the quality of
preparation of underrepresented minorities in K-12 for college and
careers; and second, retaining underrepresented minority students who
enter college as STEM majors in those majors. The Committee will look
closely at the level and quality of investment in programs that address
these issues, as well as exploring ideas for how to do better.