system, missions to asteroids. no one is even close. when you look at the first in space, some people say, gee, china is overtaking it. well, china just put its first woman in space a few days ago, we put our first woman in space, sally ride, in 1983. one can go on through the list. china is talking about maybe being able to land someone on the moon after 2020. we did it in 1969. the one area where i think we need to work much harder is one i've already mentioned, the area of s.t.e.m. education where the united states used to lead the world in most indices of performance in s.t.e.m. education, has now fall on the the middle of the pack. that is a bad trend and one we are working very hard across a wide variety of fronts to help, to help remedy. at the same time, i would argue that across the board we cannot afford to be complacent.

one of the areas that is clearly crucial in linking science and technology and innovation to the economy is the translation of discovery can from laboratories in research universities and our great national laboratories, accelerating the translation of those discoveries into commercial products and services and new processes. and there the american manufacturing partnership, the materials genome initiative, the start-up america initiative are all aimed at accelerating and making more efficient the processes by which we turn scientific and engineering advance into economic advantage. >> so because we are increasingly on the cutting edge of science and there's intersections of multiple disciplines, what are the challenges that you face in involving different federal agencies, academia and industry

in the efforts of our country to go forward with science and technology? >> well, thank you for that question. let me answer it in two parts. first is the question of interagency engagement and coordination, and there as mentioned at some length in my testimony ostp has the responsibility, and i have the responsibility as its director, to oversee and lead efforts to coordinate science, technology and innovation initiatives that cross agency boundaries. and for that purpose we have the national science and technology council which is nominally chaired by the president, but in practice usually i chair it. and it has five standing committees, one on science, one on technology, one on s.t.e.m. education, one on national security and international affairs and one on environment, natural resources and sustainability. under those standing committees are many subcommittees. this entity is exceedingly active, and the departments and agencies are stepping up and

participating energetically in cooperative efforts to build these interagency initiatives that have to draw on the competencies and the resources of the wide range of agencies that we have engaged. the u.s. gcrp, for example, has 13 agencies engaged. similarly, national technology initiative, the r is and d -- r&d initiative all have large agencies, and they're stepping up. even in tight budget times they understand we cannot afford to ignore these crucial interagency collaborations. with respect to the private sector and the academic sector, the other part of your question, it is really remarkable and inspiring to me the extent to which private companies and universities are stepping up. folks from coalitions of private companies and universities are in my office almost every day asking how they can help, how they can do more. and we have engaged them across the range of these partnerships

that i've already mentioned a number of. i think the private sector is particularly interested in being sure we're number one, that we maintain the foundation of basic research on which the private sector needs to draw for the research and development of a more applied nature, that they primarily undertake. they're also very interested in helping with helping us maintain our emphasis on s.t.e.m. education because they are well aware of the need to maintain the pipeline of the next generation of innovators, inventers, makers, discoverers, but also the skilled work force that they need across the board in our high-tech industries in order to continue to compete and succeed. >> will thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up. >> gentlelady's time has expired. recognize mr. rohrabacher, gentleman from california, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm noticing that the department

of energy in their nuclear program still seems to be focused on light water reactors, and i'd like to ask you your view on that, and it seems that what we've been doing at least from what i can see from budget requests that the doe basically going from 25% of its nuclear energy program aimed at the fast spectrum reactors and the new high temperature gas cool reactors. we've been spending 25% of our research money on those, and now it's going down to 15% while the spending on light water reactors -- which is, essentially, old technology -- is being increased in the budget

request. is this, is this a matter of policy coming off the the administration? -- coming out of the administration? >> let me say, first of all, that the light water investments that the doe are making are not old technology, they are investments in reactor technology which we think have an enormous potential to contribute not only to energy supply in this country, but to -- >> right. >> -- a substantial export market. >> basically, it's an old concept but a new approach, is that -- >> well, when you say it's an old, it's an old concept -- >> it's 60, 70 years old. >> it's a very -- well, congressman rohrabacher, with respect, fast spectrum reactors are also a very old concept. and have been explored and deployed for a very long time. >> all right. >> we are of the view that if you want nuclear energy to be an expanding contributor to low emission energy supply in this

country in the near future, that's going to happen largely on the basis of advanced light water reactors. and we need to make sure that succeeds in order to provide a continuing base -- >> okay. [inaudible] then will leave us with reactors rather than the new reactors that i'm referring to that would somewhat solve the nuclear waste program or at least from many scientists are telling us that as compared to the light water reactors that you are now suggesting that you approve of in that direction, would they not leave the same nuclear waste problem that we have? >> first of all, i approve of light water reactors of advanced varieties, and the secretary of energy does -- >> right. >> -- for the next phase. we have a multiphase -- >> with those reactors that you are now approving for the next phase leave us with the same nuclear waste problem that we've

been having so much trouble dealing with? >> the problem would be the same if we didn't take steps to solve it, but -- >> unless we focused on a completely new approach in which 97% of the waste is consumed rather than the having so much left over -- >> we are, we are, congressman, focusing on research and development on those new approaches, looking for possibilities -- >> well, you're focusing on, you're focusing on it, but you're decreasing the spending on that and increasing the spending on the nuclear program that actually leaves us with the same old problems. like to shift this now to -- because i only have a couple minutes here. it's very clear in the appropriations act of 2011 that we have, that congress has directed the administration not to be cooperating on science projects with china. we have the world's worst human

rights abuser, a country that still murders religious believers, a country that its government has mandated a massive technology theft program towards our country and is using that technology that they're stealing from us to try to leapfrog us in a number of technological areas. are you, is your office complying with this law that, and that is suggesting that you should not be engaged in cooperating with the chinese on scientific matters? >> congressman rohrabacher, the current law does not say that we should not be cooperating with china, it says that when we do, we must notify the congress 14 days in advance and assure the congress that we are not in the course of this cooperation surrendering national security

secrets or corporate secrets or dealing with people who are directly involved with human rights violations. >> the gao doesn't agree with you. plain meeting of section 1340 is clear, the ostp may not, may not -- and this is a quote from the gao here -- may not use its appropriations to participate, collaborate or coordinate bilaterally in any way with china. you're suggesting that's not what, that the gao is wrong in that assessment? >> i'm, i'm -- the gao was right at the time. that language has been superseded by the subsequent appropriations legislation which clearly specifies that we may cooperate with china subject to the conditions that i was mentioning. and so we are in complete compliance with the current law on that subject. >> why is it that you feel, this administration feels so compelled to reach out to the world's worst human rights abuser that is already in the process of stealing so much from

us and who we have examples over and over again that scientific cooperation has turned into a transfer of wealth and technology to our adversary, to what appears to be economic if not military and political adversary? >> first of all, the administration is no admirer of the human rights policies in china, and we constantly when we travel to china for whatever purpose raise the human rights issues with them. we also raise with them the issue of the theft of intellectual property. >> let me know, when you raise issues like this, when you raise issues like that, when you go to china, don't your actions speak louder than your words? because you're there to find ways to cooperate with the people who you are now saying we're very concerned about this, now we've met that respondent, - that responsibility, so let's do be do this. >> actually, congressman

rohrabacher, the point that i make -- >> okay. >> -- with my interlocutors in the china is that cooperation in which we are engaged carefully selected to be beneficial to us as well as china is jeopardized by cha china's human rights and intellectual property theft, and if those activities do not stop, these beneficial activities will not be able to continue. that is an explicit point that i make. >> thank you very much. >> i don't think you're going to get the answer that you expected to get, mr. rohrabacher. i, too, have seen our president bow and scrape to the enemy on many occasions. chairman will recognize ms. bonn venn chi for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, dr. holdren, for your testimony and for the work that you do. you describe one mission of your office as advising the president on the application of science and technology to matters of

importance. one matter of serious importance to my district and the nation more generally is the aftermath of the devastating tsunami that hit japan last year. the oregon coast has beaches and a coastline that thrives on tourism and fishing industry. oregon's the only state where the entire coastline is public. three weeks ago a 66-foot-long dock washed up onto the shore from japan and thus far it's the biggest piece to land on our shores, but we've seen an increase in smaller debris. scientists at noaa are predicting that more is on the way. last week i held a round table discussion to discuss the coordination of efforts to detect, mitigate and clean up the debris resulting from the tsunami. it's an effort that involves multiple federal agencies, but also state and local governments and each the public at large -- even the public at large. additionally, the cost of the debris removal is looking certain to stretch the budgets of our state and local governments. but beyond the sheer cost of the

debris, the potential for the debris to carry invasive species from japan such as those that were discovered on the dock poses a challenge to our scientists who have to assess the threat to the marine ecosystems. so two of the federal agencies who have been working on the detection and monitoring from the tsunami are the epa and noaa. considering your office's coordination with federal agencies on science matters and the potential impact of the debris on our coastal ecosystems, where do you see your office fitting into the response effort at a federal level, and please describe any efforts that you've taken thus far on this issue. thank you. >> thank you for that question. my office was, is, of course, advisory and analytical more than operational, and so we try to work with the departments and agencies that have operational responsibilities to be sure that what they're doing is coordinated and consistent with the best understandings of

science as we know them. we are in close coordination in that sense with both noa a&e padnoaa and epa including the responsibilities for monitoring and responding to what reaches us from japan as a result of that devastating tsunami. we have been particularly engaged in my office in conducting and overseeing assessments at the levels of radioactivity that have reached or could reach the united states. and the reassuring thing i can say about that is that although our ability to monitor is so good that we are able to detect even very tiny concentrations of radioactivity, the radioactivity that has, in fact, reached the united states so far is a all in that very tiny category and does not reach levels of public health concern. but we will continue to work with noaa and epa to monitor particularly that radioactivity aspect of what reaches our

coast, but also other aspects. i will say that i think, um, noaa, as with many agencies, has been struggling with 20 pounds of missions and a 10-pound budget. and we all struggle with that challenge. today. i think noaa would tell you if administrator was here today that while they're working very hard at fulfilling these responsibilities, it would be easier to do if they had a little more money. >> i appreciate that, dr. holdren, and i must say that many people around the table understood that this is something unprecedented and not knowing what and when and where the debris will wash up has been challenging. in the minute that i have left, would you, please, discuss some of the work that you're doing on increasing s.t.e.m. education? we all understand the importance of it, but could you discuss the deficiencies in our skilled work

force and promoting s.t.e.m. education among young people in this country? >> well, i would mention since time is short just a couple of things. one is that the president's 2013 budget proposal calls for three billion in programs across the government in s.t.e.m. education which has a 2.6% increase over 2012 enacted. and a considerable part of that investment is in two specific, critical aspects of the education system. one is k-12 teacher effectiveness, teacher preparation where we're working very hard to prepare 100,000 new high quality s.t.e.m.-ed teachers at the k-12 level oaf the next -- over the next decade, and the postsecondary s.t.e.m. education domain is one in which we currently lose about 60% of the students who enter college intending to get a s.t.e.m. degree. only 40% who enter do get a s.t.e.m. degree, and the

president's council of advisers on science and technology have studied this, and there are two basic conclusions. one is the math gap where students enter without the preparation to succeed, and the other is what you might call a teaching effectiveness gap where the introductory courses in science, engineering and math are often so boring that they drive even very good students into other majors. we have a variety of programs addressed at both of those problems. >> thank you very much. and my time has expired. >> chair recognizes mr. mass sew, the gentleman from mississippi, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr., thank you, mr. chairman. dr. holdren, i kind of agree with the comments you've been saying on s.t.e.m. education, especially in light of the less than 15% of americans actually pursue s.t.e.m. where other countries, such as china, more than 50% of their youth are

pursuing s.t.e.m. education. in mississippi, we actually recognize the global implication of this, and through public and private contributions we've just recently opened a $30 million infinity science center with the sole purpose to educate, challenge and excite young people to consider studies in s.t.e.m. education and it ties in very well with the affiliation with nasa's stennis space center on the role of science and math and exploration across history. now, my first question is, as you're probably aware, in order to continue buying seats on the russian soyuz spacecraft to ferry u.s. astronauts to the international space station and to buy certain engineering services to keep iss operational, the iran, north korea, syria non-proliferation act must be extended beyond the current 2016 expiration date. late last year the house passed a bill enabling our bill on the

reliance -- enabling our reliance on the russians through 2020, but the prospects would be greatly enhanced if if the administration would put forth a policy statement. do you anticipate that, and if so, when? would you agree it would be far, far better to address the issue now, and given house passage of the bill, i would think the white house would attempt to capitalize on this opportunity. >> well, congressman palazzo, i agree with the importance of getting a modification to the iran, north korean and syria non-proliferation act for the purpose you indicate. and it's clear that that's going to be required. it's clear that sooner is better than later. the administration has been studying the options for just how to modify it, and we'll certainly be working closely with the congress to get that issue resolved. i expect that there will be some

more specific statement forthcoming in the future, but we clearly recognize the need, and we recognize that sooner is better than later. >> in the near future? a possible timeline? >> i don't want to put a timeline on it, but i know a lot of attention is going to it in the administration. it's, obviously, not mainly my domain, but i expect that there will be a close interaction with the congress on how to fix this, and it will happen soon. >> so you'll definitely carry back our concern? >> i will carry back that concern. and let me just add, by the way, to your comment on the science center in mississippi, i've been enormously impressed in my time in this job with the importance of science museums, science centers and the cekdedness to some of our science-rich agencies in the effectiveness they have inspiring kids.

i've had a number of my own grandchild into some of these centers, and i can tell you firsthand it works. >> they convinced me to buy a brick to help fund it. a follow up on chairman hall's question where we were to discuss nasa's use of space act agreements in the commercial crew program. what recourse does the government have if these companies fail to perform or go out of business? >> well, of course, there is always a risk in any public or private enterprise that companies will fail to perform. what is happening so far in the commercial space operation is extremely encouraging. the companies involved have met most or all of their milestones. as you know, the spacex falcon 9 rocket and dragon capsule just pulled off an extraordinary first in docking with the international space station, carrying cargo up there, returning to the earth bringing

cargo and garbage back down. the other competitors are, i think, close on their heels, they're meeting their milestones. obviously, one can never rule out a failure, a shortfall, but so far we're doing well. >> and last, what, if anything, will nasa own after making these expenditures? >> the idea is not for nasa to own something. the idea is for the private sector to own something from which nasa can purchase services to carry crew and cargo to the international space station. this is, basically, an increasing privatization of this particular mission of carrying cargo and crew to low-earth orbit. and we believe that the efficiencies obtainable from the private sector and from competition in the private sector are going to be a great national benefit in which nasa's investments in the early phases are, basically, a public investment in a long-term

private enterprise that's going to be a great success and that is going to enable us to carry out these missions more efficiently and less expensively but still very safely. >> and, of course, we don't wish any business to go out of business, and we want them to succeed, but just say if one does, does nasa obtain the intellectual property or the hardware created to date? and we can wrap up my time. >> i would have to refer you on that to to legal counsel at fashion saw. i can't answer -- at nasa. i can't answer what details about the fate of intellectual property might be in the contracts. >> okay. thank you. >> does that give you the answer you wanted? the chair recognizes ms. edwards from maryland for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, dr. holdren, for your testimony and your work today. um, you know, i know, i've heard from the administration and from

the president and really can see a commitment to even in a tough, in tough fiscal times to the need for our nation to invest in innovation. it seems very clear in the president's speech last week, he talked rather extensively about the importance of investing in basic research and innovation and technology and advanced manufacturing. and so i have a question as to how we decide what our priorities are. um, the national academy comes out with its surveys, and sometimes it seems to me particularly when it comes to an innovation agenda and especially at nasa that the recommendations of priorities, that the academy's spent an awful lot of time putting together and exploring don't really match the administration's budgets and the priority that we then set here in the congress. so i wonder if you could tell us how, um, our science priorities are lined up in keeping with

recommendations that come out of the surveys. and then related to that with respect to the mars program, it does seem to me that, you know, some time ago fears were expressed at a hearing of this committee about cuts to planetary science and to mars missions, and those were confirmed by the administration's budget submission in the 2013 budget request. and especially the collaboration between nasa and the european space agency, xo mars mission was terminated. and as a result we won't be participating, we won't participate in the development of the mars organic molecule analyzer instrument, and it leads me to wonder if the administration is placing a priority on, over the long term on this kind of science why our budget recommendations don't line with the priorities.

>> well, thank you for that question. um, the mars program remains robust notwithstanding our deciding under serious budget constraints not to proceed with 2016 and 2018 mars missions that had been under discussion with the european space agency. we concluded with respect to those particular missions that there was no way under foreseeable budgets for nasa that our participation in them and in the very expensive follow-on mission that would actually be necessary to return samples -- which was the ultimate idea -- no way that that was going to be feasible under foreseeable nasa budget. the decandidatal surveys that we get from the national academy are very valuable, we look at them very closely. in the case of the survey on

planetary exploration, while they put high priority on that flagship set of mars missions, they also specified what we should do in the event that budgets did not permit carrying through with adequate support for that flagship mission. and, in fact, in the fallback position that we developed we actually followed very closely what the d, ecatal survey said we ought to do if budgetary constraints prevented us doing plan a. and that, in general, is what we do. we give a lot of weight to those surveys because they represent a huge amount of work by the wider science community in those domains. but we have not by any mean given up on our leadership in planetary exploration. as i mentioned before, we remain by far the world's leader, we will remain the world's leader in planetary exploration. we have the most complex, largest and most capable planetary rover ever landed anywhere on its way to mars,

expected to land there in august. we have a follow-on mission called maven investigating the upper martian atmosphere to develop knowledge that will be necessary when, ultimately, we send humans to mars. we are investigating a number of small and medium-sized mars missions that could be afforded under the kinds of budgets we have going forward, and we have, as i mentioned before, a wide variety of other planetary and asteroidal probes heading outward or scheduled for launch. so while we determined that we couldn't afford these particular flagship missions, we very much intend to maintain our commitment to lead in the exploration of mars and the exploration of the solar system more widely. >> thank you. and i'll just finish by saying, just leave you with this thought and for our committee, you do not do science and research by jumping in and out, by not knowing from one year to the next year what your budgets are going to be. and it seems to me that if, um,

the administration and this congress has a real commitment to science, to research, to advanced manufacturing, um, to making sure that our students have some place to go if we're encouraging them, um, to engage in s.t.e.m., then we darn sure better figure out how to do this from year to year letting our researchers know what the future looks like. and it's very frustrating, um, and i know it's frustrating for all of the, all of the agencies as well, to do science on a hit or miss, year to year basis. and it really is unacceptable. and, frankly, at the end of the day, it just makes us spend more money. thank you. >> i agree. and i would love it -- >> gentlelady's time has expired. she gives you good advice, and i think she ought to give that advice to the epa. chair now recognizes mr. hold again from illinois. >> thank you, chairman, thank you, dr. holdren, appreciate you

being here. i just was reading this morning in space news an article about their statement that in the last four years they were arguing that we've gone from place to probably third place as far as nations on the forefront of space exploration. i think that's a shame. i want to focus my comments mostly on something else. you were here back in february, and i appreciate you coming back today. following the hearing we had back in february, i submitted a couple of questions to you, the answers which i just recently received from your office. one of the questions i asked you in february started by pointing out that particle physics has become a global field, it's now entering an extremely exciting phase, and i asked you what you thought what role the united states should play in that i asked if united states should be bringing partners to the u.s. to collaborate here as the europeans, japanese, italians and chinese are all now currently doing in their own countries. your answer, and i quote, was i

think in facilities abroad. i'm confident that u.s. researchers can continue to be at the forefront of particle physics and other scientific disciplines. well, i think you really didn't answer my question. you also seemed to imply that we would be justifying without having any world class facilities in the united states. that really is troubling to me because -- and i want just to ask for clarification on that if i'm misunderstanding. and so very clearly i would ask the question, yes or no, does president obama believe that we should build large scale, world-leading physics facilities in the united states as we used to do, or is he satisfied in spending our scarce research dollars on solar panels and wind turbine subsidies while the next generation of american students is forced to go o abroad to study physics? >> um, let me start by saying on the space front i simply do not agree with the space news formulation that the united states has fallen from first to

third. by any respectable set of metrics i know of, the united states is still number one in space and intends to stay that way. on high energy physics, it is not true that we are content to leave the future of high energy physics and facilities for doing that to the rest of the world. ..

we are constrained. everybody in this room knows the budget challenges under which the government is operating coming and within those challenges we intend to continue to invest in physics in the united states as well as the participation of our scientists in cutting edge facilities elsewhere when that's where they are. >> well, again, talk is very important that action is even more importance of peace keen sycophant comes under the president's budget of the laboratories come much significant increase going to some applied science that obviously the president supports. dr. holdren i know you were able to train at mit and stanford both in the united states and teacher of berkeley in the united states. you had a lot of opportunities and very distinguished career. wouldn't you have thought about your own career path differently if you didn't think there was some opportunity for an illustrative career that you had to leave the united states to pursue that career?

>> welcome the short answer is probably yes. if that had been my impression of the state of play it possibly would have done something else. but i don't think that's a correct impression the state police today. if the united states remains at the cutting edge of high-energy physics and a great many other fields. you continue to see that in u.s. pre-eminence in the awards of nobel prizes and other prizes including some that are often awarded for work in the more recent past that even the distant past. this is a leadership role we are going to keep coming indicting we are determined to continue to inspire our young people to believe there are exciting and rewarding careers in fundamental science in this country. >> we still have, by the way coming enormous flows, the most limited brightest students from countries around the world eager to study high energy physics and other topics in our great universities, and i think we are unmatched in the world in terms of the attractiveness of our university system in general,

and the science focuses in our great research universities in terms of the attractiveness to students from around the world. >> my time is running out, but - we all need to ask the question are the president's policies offering today's students the same opportunities for generations have in terms of training, learning and working in world-class user facilities here in the united states. i think that's the real question and i would say no, the opportunities are not the same and as good. it's declining. our space program is declining, while others are advancing a ours is declining. i've heard firsthand from physicists in my district they would certainly think twice of starting a career in the field where they would have no choice but to fly to china, japan or europe all the time to be an active part is opened. that attitude of thinking the president seems to have it it's we shouldn't build facilities here is a sure way to keep physics programs to be competitive and it's turned people to get into those

scientific fields, which i think is a huge failure for our future. again, we talked about this ahead of time. and these are difficult times but that is where difficult and important leadership must step up so i hope we continue to do that through difficult times, setting up this type of vision for our young people that yes not only can you study here but you can apply it because we are going to continue to grow and build new the world-class facilities for basic scientific research. again, my time is up. i yield back. >> you asked a question and did a good job for answering. the chair recognizes mr. miller, the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. an issue that this committee has dealt with in the last few years is rare earth and energy critical elements. the investigation and oversight subcommittee held a hearing after articles appeared in the press. i think principally "the new york times" about topic and

unusual oversight committee we developed legislation to address the problem that kathy dahlkemper introduced in the last congress and i introduced in this congress, and there has been interest allowed republicans on this committee as well. rear earth supports for something that most americans have never heard of or if they've heard of them they may be heard of them in chemistry and probably forgot their increasingly being used in sophisticated technologies and they are a distinct disadvantage to the chinese who largely have a monopoly of rare earth and critical elements and they are using those which sophisticated technologies are reported in the national security and leveraging the control of those elements to require that manufacturing using those be done in china. to some extent understand the they don't want to have an extra day of the economy.

they don't want to be in goal but it's certainly not acceptable from our point of view that we are closed out of the important manufacturing will be a source of jobs, very highly skilled and well-paid jobs. but the problem dealing with it is complex and i assure you know there is a variety of suggestions -- said justice programs and it certainly sounds like it and appears that we need a strong role by the government and toward meeting those efforts. a doctor holdren, would you think are the appropriate activities for the government in this area coming and what are the notable research caps? >> thank you for that questioned we've been paying a lot of attention to this challenge and critical materials dillinger of the challenge of rare earth minerals in particular. let me say at the start that

china doesn't have a monopoly on the rare earth metals but they currently have a practical monopoly on the whole production system because they were able to undercut everybody else coming in so everybody else got out of the business and this is something obviously we need to fix. ostp has been leading the process on how to address the rare earth minerals and related raw materials issues involved in the department of energy, the department of commerce, the u.s. trade representative in the department of defense has created several working groups to address different parts of the problem. including focusing on those resources that are particularly important either to the national security or our economic future. we have posted around tables with industry on the subject and looked into what we can do to encourage industry to rebuild some of these supply chains in the united states where we have these rall resources but have left the supply chains atrophy.

doe has been pursuing research and development and addresses materials operation and processing and reducing the intensity of use of the materials in different implications so that we can make the materials that we do have go further. in the 2012 appropriation doe received $20 million for an innovation hub and critical materials. the 2013 budget request requests continuation of funding for that hub. both the doe and the epa announced small business innovation research as the grants addressing processing these critical materials. we also have an rnd program at doe and that early stage technology alternatives that can reduce or eliminate the dependence we have on minerals that were not in a position to produce in this country. so we have a lot going on in

this domain. we understand its importance and agree with you about that. and we are putting money resources into remedying the problem. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes mrs. biggert come gentlelady from illinois. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing. dr. holdren, the administration's big deal of research and to submit initiative announced earlier this year focused on improving our ability to derive new insight and knowledge from large and complex collections of scientific and other data. the growth of the big data and data intensive computing is going to require compare will advance his and high indoor high performance computing platforms if we are going to effectively and efficiently and affordably extract value from large growing

volumes of data. the power demands a limit of the eve of larger and faster supercomputing systems and their ability to process the data. and i don't view this as an either or proposition while the administration is proposing new financial commitments to the data we have yet received a report from the administration on the strategy for achieving the exit scale computing, and it's my understanding that a report was due out in february of this year outlining the research development engineering efforts to achieve at scale and again, there was due in february. so once we expect to see that? >> let me start by agreeing with your point that future of computing is going to involve both what we call big iron and

big data. you are asking about the big iron part, the hardware development and the energy requirements. i will have to look into where in the process that exit scale computing is and how soon you can expect it. i will give back to you on that. i know that we are paying a lot of attention to the needs in that domain and in particular the need that you mentioned to reduce the energy requirements of our fastest computers. and there have been some very important developments in that domain which promised to substantially reduce the otherwise soaring requirements for power of computers and more. >> i really worry about, you know, what's happening in the world coming and we are just on hold. i was pleased to see that the ibm era at the lab in my district send it to number three

as one of the fastest in the world and third, behind the fastest computer is at lawrence livermore and behind that is a japanese supercomputer. but - that the group should be proud of their hard work, but clearly the u.s. leadership is being challenged in this area, and as one article put, the latest list marks the return of the european systems enforced with the addition of two germans systems and one of italian system in the u.s. based supercomputer ted gup the top billing in this latest report is now ranked at number six, and i've certainly been looking at this and i think we are facing competition. and the value of supercomputing seems to be globally understudy and we can't let us fall behind. we have to make -- we have to have that plan to achieve an

exoskeleton -- excoscale and report this to congress as soon as possible. >> i will get back to you on the report. we intend to stay number one and expect challenges from around this domain in the world but we intend to stay number one. we recognize the importance of this one. >> it certainly has been -- there is now in the 2013 budget there has been a submission for 21 million for new data intensive science efforts, but the excoscale remains on hold, as we have to get them developed. thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mrs. lofgren from california. >> thank you dr. holdren for being here and for your good work. recently the national academy of sciences issued a report titled

managing for high-quality science and engineering at the mmsa national security laboratories and i would ask mr. chairman unanimous consent to suspend this report into the record. the report highlights, and it's a long report, but basically it highlights the broken relationship between the national nuclear security agency and the science of the research lab. one senior scientist at los alamos was quoted in a report saying this, "when i started later in my career as a university professor and also here at the lab, there was a social contract which basically said you will never get rich in science, but we treat you as adults and respect you for your commitment and in turn you can do science and have fun. today this contract is badly broken and distrust rigorous control." the report went on to note the increasing operational for

melody of being dictated by the nnsa headquarters that contributed to the bias against experimental work and the report said without a strong experimental program the quality of scientific and engineering at the laboratories would be at rest as with the core mission of the laboratories. since the report came out last year, are you aware of anything that nnsa has done to repair the distrust and the damage relationships that the report outlined both with the directors and with the scientists at our national labs? >> thank you for the question. first i'm very much aware of the report as we discussed off line. we have a task force in ostp in the international affairs division. falling on the report's recommendations, looking at the health and adequacy of the way

we are running our national security science technology and innovation enterprise. i, myself, just two weeks ago visited both the sandina national labs and los alamos national labs in new mexico with of the director of both labs, and i will be going to livermore to talk to the management at livermore about the set of problems among others and what we can do about them. and i've talked to secretary chu about it with administrator dogestino and the understand there is a problem and they are determined as i am to address it. obviously, we have to maintain the quality of the science and engineering at our national defense laboratories and excess of micromanagement is obviously not contributing to the attractiveness of the continuing for the brightest scientists and engineers at the labs.

so, we are determined to fix that. >> thank you very much for the report. that is very encouraging news and perhaps i can follow-up offline with some of the details. i am so pleased that you were taking responsibility for this issue. as you know, i'm very interested in initial confinement confusion, and i am aware that both you and dr. coonan for science are instrumental in calling for the report for the national academy of sciences to assess our prospects on inertial confinement fusion energy. the national academy released their interim report coming and again, i would ask unanimous consent to put the interim report into the record. >> this is not a report that's been discussed with the other side and normally, you know, we do that. >> i wasn't aware of that, mr. chairman. >> there would be objection

unless you want to work it out with them. >> it's a national academy of science report. it's on the internet. >> and understand it's a very big report. we are aware of it. but the normal procedures to have it worked out and i think they would work with you if you do it before we close. >> i would be happy to do that. but i would like to note that the report basically it is a long report, but it is i would say enthusiastic about the process. originally, the goal for a commission was 2014. somehow that more often to 2012. and as the report, the national academy report indicates there's no guarantee. this is science, not engineering. we may get this this year, maybe next year. what a be your belief,

dr. holdren, that we should not -- especially given that china and russia are trying to overtake our lead in this manner that we should not give up, as close as we are on the quest for recognition at this point? >> certainly i agree with that come and secretary chu agrees with it and i know. and the national relations facility has the potential to achieve ignition although there are still obstacles in the way of that. we think that they can be overcome and that they should be overcome, so we remain committed to the use of that facility for that purpose as well as others. >> my time is up to it i would like to say, dr. holdren come it is a delight to have you here and listen to your wisdom. thank you very much. i yield back mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady yells back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. >> invested of the union address the president called the congress to pass a clean energy

standards would require utilities to produce and sell electricity from expensive sources such as wind and solar. you may also be aware of the department of energy has undertaken numerous analysis of the impact of obama's clean energy standard on electricity prices including one requested by our own chairman hall and another requested by senator bingaman. both department of energy studies found that obama's keen energy standard would significantly increase in electricity prices and result in heavy economic cost to the people of america. dr. holdren, do you agree that president obama's clean energy standard will result in increased electricity costs to american consumers? >> welcome a first of all, let me note that the queen energy standard is not about wind and solar. it's about nuclear energy, it's about fossil fuel energy with improved emission control technologies come and it is the view of this administration that we are going to need all of

those in increased measure in order to provide a reliable and affordable energy the country needs while addressing the need to reduce the emissions including the missions that are threatening to change global climate and are changing global climate, which itself -- >> the question is do you agree that the solar and wind aspects of obama's clean energy standards will increase energy costs for american consumers, as has been determined by the department of energy in their studies? >> congressman, i haven't personally read that study so i don't want to endorse or criticize its findings without having done so. but we are talking about a portfolio of energy sources that would fall under the clean energy rubric. and my assumption is that that portfolio will be pursued in a way to minimize impact on energy prices and on american consumers. >> do you have a judgment as to whether the solar and wind aspect of obama's clean energy

standards program will increase cost to consumers? you still haven't answered that question. you use the word minimum. i'm asking will there be an increase to you have a judgment? >> the answer depends on factors i haven't analyzed, but we know that at the present time, both solar energy and wind are more expensive than some of the adoptions pity that the same time the prices of the other options are changing. >> are you testifying to this congress that in your capacity with -- ostp you have no idea what the cost will go up or down, should the president's clean energy standards, with respect to solar and wind power, go into effect? >> the proposal is not with respect to solar and wind power and happens to be on the portfolio. >> i have limited time. you will be covered that it expands different parts. i have focused my question on the wind and solar part.

that's where the focus is. i don't want to go into everything else. i want your judgment, if you have a judgment, and you don't, that's fine in your capacity with ostp. if you have no judgment whatsoever, that's fine. say so. do you have a judgment is the first question. >> it depends what the alternatives are. >> he asked you have a judgment. >> i do not have an answer on the judgment. >> then go ahead with your question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. he doesn't have the background or knowledge to answer that question the nine will go to another one. president obama has made a clean energy spending and the green jobs associated with them a centerpiece of the policy agenda. however, as we review and consider the impact of the programs to his been controversy regarding the at ministrations definition and accounting of what constitutes a green job. this resulted in many headlines two weeks ago when a senior labor department official testified to congress the following occupations constitute

green jobs under the administration's definition. college professors teaching environmental courses. schoolbus drivers regardless of where the bus is hybrid or an alternative. workers that fuel school buses, employees on bicycle shops, antique dealers because they sell recycled goods, salvation army employees, people but sell books and manuscripts because the items are used and recycled. dr. holdren, as the president's top science and technology adviser, would you agree the administration's definition of green jobs is flawed and understates a number of true green jobs that exist? >> the definition as you described it seems to be overly broad coming yes. i wasn't responsible for producing the definition i would be inclined to ask the council of economic advisers how they would define green jobs don't think that they have increased a decision of the definition you

read is overly broad. >> with respect to those seven different professions that the senior leader depart that official testified to congress constitutes green jobs under the administration's definition are there any that you would consider to actually in fact be a clean job? >> i would want to look at that in more detail. you went by the seven rather quickly and i haven't focused on this issue. >> would you like me to go through them again? >> i think that would not be necessary, i would be happy to respond to you in writing following the hearing. but this is not a domain in which the office of science and technology policy has actually gotten involved. >> thank you for your agreement and the senior labor department official, his view of what is a dream job and the administration's view of the green shot differs from yours. i have no other questions. >> now wait a second, this resulted many headlines two weeks ago when a senior labor were among officials testified at the following occupations

constitute cream shops under the administration's definition. thank you mr. chairman. >> you are over. >> the chair recognizes mr. mcnerney. we will get back to that question before we leave. spread the chair recognizes mr. mcnerney. -- before mr. chairman. dr. holdren, thank you for joining today. in your testimony you mentioned a few new projects such as the sob site on the bases and the robotics initiative. would you please discuss how these and other initiatives create jobs locally and how the advance the leadership of the world with regard to innovation? >> all of the initiatives that we have been pursuing in this domain, advanced manufacturing,

robotics, nanotechnology and others are deemed as i mentioned before at accelerating the transfer of fundamental advances and discovery in science and engineering into commercial processes, product services and therefore into economic growth and jobs. the fact that all of these initiatives are constructed around partnerships with private sector working together with a public sector and the academic sector is in fact leading to success and accelerating the transfer of these initiatives. we already see signs that manufacturing is moving back to the united states. we are already seeing benefits from this approach and we are also seeing benefits from an approach in which we are working closely with industry, government and community colleges to increase the extent to which coursework that students taking community colleges prepares them for jobs

in the industries that exist in their regions. this i think is an extremely important concept that we have been pursuing and it's already bearing fruit tree in one of the striking aspects of the economic predicament is that in spite of an overall unemployment rate of 8%, many of the high-tech firms cannot find the workers that they need. they can't find a fit between the jobs they actually have opened and the people what are available in the unemployed labour force and we intend to fix that. >> as we all know, for security is an issue that is critically important to our national security and our national economic well-being. how has your office created initiatives on the health of cybersecurity efforts and what has the ostp done to strengthen the national security? >> ostp has a number of

responsibilities in the domain particularly of national security and you're to see prepared miscommunications and saber security there for intersect our responsibility in that domain. but more generally, on this labor security, we worked very closely of homeland security in an interagency process that is aimed at strengthening cybersecurity across the united states. we also have a variety of bodies and boards in which the government agencies set with the ceos of the major communications internet service providers and the like to build the cooperation leni between the public and private sector to better protect our electronic systems from attack and theft. as i think everybody in this

room knows this is an enormous challenge and it's a high priority for the administration. >> moving on come i am very interested in the s.t.e.m. education initiatives. would he elaborate on how the s.t.e.m. initiative should be discussed and utilized in the individual district squawks >> i.t. going through the district's would be a great challenge. both changed the equation and the parent educate to innovate strategy. i have a specific focus and scaling models that have proven to work to a much wider variety of locations. so, for example under the change the equation initiative they have a program to transfer to 100 new sites around the country successful efforts improving the quality of k-12 plus from

education through better teacher preparation. all of these approaches are of course desiring to work with educators at the local level because that is where it happens and educate to innovate is among other things bringing practicing science engineers and mathematicians from companies from national labs and universities into classrooms across the country to work with k-12 teachers and improving the classroom experience through more hands-on activities and also to serve as role models so that the practicing scientists and engineers and mathematicians can relate to the students the excitement and opportunity available from s.t.e.m. careers, so we are absolutely trying to do this on the ground across the country and tecum models that have worked in particular places and transmitting them to many more. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. quayle, the gentleman from

arizona. >> thank you for being here. earlier this week my colleague said additional information seeking information on a national network of manufacturing innovation the was included in the administration fy 13 budget request, and this has been tasked with coordinating this interagency effort. the original budget this justification stated the administration would propose legislation creating a mandatory account making available $1 billion, but really a few details have been made available. my subcommittee is subsequently held two hearings with nist and particularly on the proposal, and we have been really frustrated by the lack of information and the inability to receive answers on basic questions about the proposals funding and structure. we have been told that the administration is leading the initiative, so i would like to follow-up directly with you and my first question is how did the administration of life the funding level of $1 billion for the greater network?

>> the basic answer to that question is we expect number one the $1 billion from the federal government over the period of five years will stimulate at least matching contributions from the private and philanthropic sectors, so we are looking at a program to over five years the would spend about $2 billion in total. and the idea is to have 15 institutes for manufacturing innovation around the country, which would spend about $30 million a year each. that's for under $50 million a year times five years is two and a quarter billion dollars and basically that's where the 1 billion number came from. >> where did the estimates for each of those different institutes come from? how are you basing the estimates? and trying to get an understanding. >> it is a back of the envelope calculation to estimate how much money would take to make a dent

in the regional institute of this focus i could not produce a sharp enough pencil to tell you for 30 million is the right number rat ran 25 or 35. it's a ballpark number that takes you to a billion dollars in the government. >> the proposal states that it is a mandatory account which is interesting because most of the times the programs are discretionary but the proposal states that it's a mandatory account and the authorizing legislation would be subject to paygo. can you tell the specific offsets the administration identified for establishing this mandatory fun? >> no specific offset has been identified to this program. it's offset within the mandatory policy changes proposed in the budget, but we have not tried to offset the program explicitly. >> okay.

on march 9th of this year the president held a public event in virginia with the creation of a pilot program support to 25 billion -- i mean million dollars in the fy talf funds drawn from existing resources and multiple agencies including some within the committee's jurisdiction nist come nsf and the doe and we heard nasa will be participating in the pilot program. can you tell programs and nist, doe will be to find the pilot program? >> i don't think any activities are going to be reduced. the agencies that are going to collaborate in the additive manufacturing pilot are advancing specific missions that they are already authorized to pursue and they are undertaking activities which funds have been appropriated but they're doing it under this overarching rubric. >> were the fund is not necessary? are we overly funding these programs, because it seems like we are extending and expanding what they are supposed to be

doing by putting this additional money into new programs. did they not need the money before and there is just access? >> we are improving efficiency and coordination by focusing the efforts on the rubric. >> why would the administration proposed to fund mmny piatt which is proposed to the service proof of concept for the greater network and that won't be completed until at least the end of fy 14. why the discrepancy when you were asking for the funds and fy 14 when your not plan to get the proof until the end of fy 14? it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. >> a solicitation for the additive manufacturing pilot closed last week. we expect an award in the coming month to six weeks and we therefore expect the pilot would begin to operate before the end of the fiscal year 2012.

>> but operation, you can have an operation and say that you are going to try to improve the concept. >> you're going to be spending a billion dollars. you would think we would want to put forth the proof of concept and the totality not just pay we started the proof of concept which if you're talking about those awards that isn't proof of concept is just the beginning of the process. so i think we are talking about a phased process and we think the order that we have laid out makes sense. it's been a okay. thank you dr. holdren. i yield back to the >> the chair recognizes ms. johnson from texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dr. holdren, i know that in terms of staffing, the ostp experience is a high turnover both during the transition of leadership and threw out any given administration because of your heavy reliance on the detail these of the agency's.

but your day-to-day coordination duties carry on from one year to another and from one administration to another. so how many ostp staff seem to carry over from the administration to the next? or at least what is your own experience? >> well of course there is continuing turnover in these positions. when i took over the office upon my confirmation by the senate in march of 2009, there were 40 some people who had stayed from the previous administration. the turnover in that group proceeded over the intervening three years and they are now hoadly more like ten or 12 who live carried over from the administration. the continuity is obtained in a lot of ways partly as the focus

is carried over and partly is the extraordinary performance of ostp directors from one administration to another and handing over to their successor an extraordinary degree of documentation about the activities and responsibilities of the office. i got a tremendous amount of valuable information from my predecessor served in this capacity in the bush administration who in turn got a tremendous sound from his predecessors in the clinton administration. there's also continuity that comes from people coming in and out. that as i was in and out of ostp in the clinton administration in my role has been adviser on science and technology, so i knew quite a bit about what goes on in ostp before i ever got the job. there are other folks who have been an ostp before and are now

back again but were carried over from the previous administration. there's a lot of ways we deal with continuity that i think we do it well. >> the benefit -- i know there are benefits and limitations on this current model -- but i think what it does emphasize is that outcomes are not necessarily part of or strictly based upon -- >> yes, we think of science and technology policy as a domain that has largely been bipartisan over the years and i think it continues to be. there is wide bipartisan support for at least most of what we do coming and we don't think of ourselves as a partisan office. >> does your budget adequately support the mix of staff that might be best or too much? >> we took a 32% budget cut for fiscal year 2012. and that caused a lot of stress,

a lot of challenges to manage ostp's wide range of responsibilities with a budget cut of that magnitude. we are pleased that the appropriators both in the house and in a set of this year voted of the president's fault request of 5.85 million as opposed to the 4.5 we got in 2012. we hope that in such obviously on the final appropriations bill. it would put us in a much better position to cover the range of responsibilities we have. we really do a lot on our shoestring and we do it in part as your question implies with the help of a lot of details who come from the science and if they come from nsf, noaa, nasa, oih, they bring insight from the domains and they enable us to cover the broad terrain and we

wouldn't be able to cover if we did it all on our own budget. >> one last quick question. the current statute limits the office of the social directors and makes them subject to senate confirmation. right now you've taken advantage of all slaves that what unfortunately or without any senate confirmed directors. if you have any thoughts either on the numbers of the requirement of the senate confirmation? >> i think the senate confirmed associate directors correspondent the divisions science technology and national security, international affairs is the right number. we started out after some delay in the confirmation before the senate confirmed. fourth, the president's nominee for the national security and international affairs was never

confirmed and got an interim appointment expired, so he has left. but in the meantime the senate confirmed associate director for technology chopra left a few months ago. the senate confirmed the energy that left a while ago and the senate confirmed associate director for science, dr. carl wyman nobel in physics left just a couple weeks ago for personal reasons, health reasons really. so, we are currently in a position very lead in the term when the prospect of getting additional nominees through the senate are rather poor. we had one nominee, the president's nominee for the associate director for international affairs, dr. pat has had her hearing and we hope she will be confirmed but the other divisions are currently

under strong leadership, but leadership by delegated their responsibilities on an interim basis, and i think it is why we are working on the problem of finding people who would be senate confirmed for those slots i'm not sure how many of those we will be able to get confirmed before the election. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. >> the chair recognizes dr. harris, the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you grumet dr. holdren for appearing before the committee. let me ask, you know, one of the issues that came up on the subcommittee has to the transparency and in your testimony, you kind of bread about the first day in office the president signing an memorandum on the transparency of government. as the adviser to you think as a matter of principle that the federal government should make scientific data it uses to

justify regulatory actions as public? specifically we have an issue with the epa and some of the regulatory actions they claim based on scientific data but we have had a hard time getting them to release the original data which they based the action. as a matter of principle do you think we should expect that? would you work with the committee to see the we get -- >> we would be happy to do that. if there's a problem i would be happy to work with you. i think the principle is absolutely the data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are based and should be available to the committee and should be made public unless there is a classification reason. >> it is unlikely. >> unlikely in this case. >> let me ask also in your testimony you talk about clean energy but when the president talked about clean energy in this to the union he included natural gas. you left it out of your testimony. do you consider natural gas a clean energy source? >> the natural gas --

>> is there a reason you left it out of your testimony? natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuel resources. >> do you think in research and development into it as a clean energy source? >> well i think the natural gas business is so well-developed the private sector does most of the further car and the to become -- r&d all the way things that we need to ensure that the hydro factoring can be done in a way that protects other environmental values. >> you're a scientist, is there a documented case of contaminated drinking water from hydrofracturing >> there is not. >> 1.2 applications of the hydrofracturing, your testimony is despite 1.2 million applications with no case of drinking water contamination we should be expending money in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrofracturing?

science now, 1.2 applications, doctor, you admit no documented case of drinking water contamination. to me that looks like a wild goose chase but he might have a different opinion. >> i think it's important that we develop hydrofracturing in a way that the american public has confidence in it and can continue to rely on. i think the danger is -- >> i'm going to interrupt because i have two more minutes and one more question. do you think it is scientific integrity when the epa issues a press release, fear mongering press release about the data from the study and basically we have to go back and administer a few months later we have to go back and collect more data do you think that is good science? >> i don't want to defend a particular press release -- >> is part of the reason why the american public has no faith is that the scientific community in this administration has not come out and say you ought to have confidence in a technique that's been used 1.2 million times with no documented case of water. we are going to look at it, but

it's a baseline. it looks pretty safe exactly 180 degrees from the administration said. in my final minute there is a conference going on in rio de janeiro this week, and america is quite appropriately, pretty skeptical whenever we get together in international conferences and come to agreements because they are concerned our taxpayers are going to bear the cost of economic agreements of any birding's that come from these. in 2007 a climate change conference umar response to an interview question asked about whether americans, quote, americans need to reduce their living standard you said i need to know if it's accurate i need to know if there's redistribution of how much we consume. is that an accurate quote of what you said in 2007? >> i do not remember exactly what i said in 2007 but it seems to me i would have been talking about distribution between queen energy technology and dirty energy technology where we get

our consumption and what process or more broadly by which we support our standard of living. let me know the as well that both the president has said and i have said that we believe that the country's natural gas resources can be developed safely. we have been clear on that. the question then you are getting at is whether the government needs to pay any attention at all to the range of potential environmental -- >> the question is whether you said there's going to have to be free distribution of how much we consume. i will go back and pull the file but how much we're talking about energy or whether we are talking about this perception that the government just thinks that americans just consume too much. and this isn't fair somehow. reduce our gdp, consume less and me have a lower gdp that is consistent with the economic policies. estimate that is not what i think it's not what the president has been told. >> i'm glad he doesn't think that if you continually revised down our gdp estimate and then we have the folks in the administration that said we need

to redistribute our consumption and you have other administration officials say it would be nice if the price of gas for a european level, energy gas levels, then some people are skeptical of that. and there was just a rhetorical question. thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes mr. lipinski the gentleman for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and dr. holdren for your testimony and for all the work that you are doing. i know it's been almost two hours now. a couple questions that i have here. first is the america competes reauthorization act, america competes and reauthorization are very critical for the nation and we need to remain committed to those. i am particularly interested in

talking about innovation of the federal agencies. ostp recently released a report on successes and best practices and federal programs. i was glad to see this report and i glad that you support the use of innovation prices. something i had originally been a part of in the creation of the prize for hydrogen. i continue to promote the use of innovation prizes. can you update us on what's been done with the price is already so far in 2012, and what ostp is doing to promote the use of the prizes that agencies like the national science foundation? >> thank you for that question. first of all, we have issued a memorandum that went to all the departments and agencies, making clear that they have the authority to use price competition to achieve the goals of the departments and agencies where that made sense.

and we think in the background of this domain to generate innovation sciu end of only paying for success you describe the goal but don't prescribe the way to get their and neutral on the innovation of a very why were the creativity of a very wide community to find the innovation. we now have the price competition is going on in something like 40 different departments and agencies including the nsf, the dod, the department of transportation and many others and the ones that have already come to completion i've shown some quite remarkable results. 19 sure you know about is the automotive prize was corporate money but the oe orchestration

was $10 million in prizes for the folks that could construct and demonstrate a vehicle that gets more than 100 miles a gallon of equivalent fuel economy coming and three vehicles succeeded and split the prize money. but the interesting thing is the investors had $100 million in pursuit of $10 million of prizes to recall that leverage. >> thank you for that and i think we both agree that it certainly not a substitute for research grants, but another way of trying to promote innovation in our country. a couple other things i wanted to touch on the were brought up earlier, first very briefly, wanted to concur with ms. lofgren on nist and we are going to do a continuation of

that and some education as the co-chair of the caucus. one thing particularly the i want to raise with you is the federal investment in the formal science education, which is shrunk in recent years and it's the budget request for example for 22% reduction in advanced informal s.t.e.m. brandt learning program. so i just want to ask do you expect in formal education programs including grant programs to be an important part of the future federal s.t.e.m. education portfolio or are we going to continue to see this going down? >> i think it will continue to be an important part. we are in the late stages of producing a s.t.e.m. education strategic plan that draws on the result of the inventory. i mentioned before for the first time we conducted a comprehensive inventory of all federal government s.t.e.m. programs across all departments and agencies that do these things. but are already benefiting from some of the insights from that

inventory and finding ways to expand programs that are more cost-effective and shrink some of those that were less cost-effective. and i would certainly not expect the informal education programs to go away. i think when the s.t.e.m. strategic the education program comes out fairly shortly, those programs will continue to have a role. >> i would encourage you to continue including in the formal s.t.e.m.. i know how important it was for me personally and for a lot of others and i look forward to seeing the federalist and education -- s.t.e.m. education. can you tell when this would come out and tell us about that plan very briefly? >> i believe the s.t.e.m. education strategic plan will be out by fall. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and i thank dr. holdren for your testimony and we may have other questions. i have questions i will submit in writing and get them to you i

hope and a couple weeks. we can leave the record open for that. to ms. lofgren, it's my understanding the have an agreement on the content of her request, and without objection, her request is granted. with that, doctor, you are excused. this hearing is adjourned. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> the plan to finish debate on

amendments to the farm bill today and take a final passage vote on that bill, and they also are expected to take a procedural vote today on a bill dealing with flood insurance across the street from the capitol today at the supreme court, four of the ten remaining decisions handed down, but no word on the health care -- no decision on the health care law or the arizonan immigration law. we take you now to the senate the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend ronald mccrary, deputy director of chaplaincy services at cobb county sheriff's office in marietta, georgia. the guest chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, from whom we come and to whom we belong, may your kingdom come.

use our lawmakers today to do your divine will on earth, as it is in heaven. give them your wisdom so that justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. this we pray, in the matchless name of jesus christ our lord. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, june 21, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall,

a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties f the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 250, s. 1940. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 250, s. 1940, a bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks, the time until 11 this morning will be equally divided and controlled. at 11:00, there will be the beginning of up to ten roll call votes, and we'll complete the farm bill today. in the recallly afternoon. we also have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to proceed to flood insurance today. mr. president, i think that we come here and lament all the bad things happening here in the senate. it's not out of order once in a

while to talk about some of the good things happening in the senate. i think we should look at how difficult it is to get things done, we're making progress. we had the postal bill, the highway bill worked out extremely well. we have this five-year farm bill, very difficult. but it is now near pass, which is really good for the country. we have to make sure that we do before the end of the month we finish our work on the flood insurance program, which is so extremely important to the country. with the construction picking up a little bit every place, we have to make sure that when a loan closes, that it can be closed. a number -- thousands of them each day could not be closed unless we do a renewal of the flood insurance program. i had a meeting with the speaker on tuesday, with senator boxer,

chairman of the committee, chairman mica, her counterpart in the house, chairman, senator inhofe, and we're making progress on the highway bill. i mean, really, i feel good about that. whether we get it done remains to be seen. but the house in an overwhelming vote today, totally bipartisan -- couldn't get the 384 votes - instructed the conferees to come back with a bill by tomorrow. many contentious issues have been resolved, and i feel that we have a shot at getting the highway bill done. that would be really good for the country and good for the senate. so i appreciate everyone working together, as the republican leader and i have talked, as difficult as it is to work on the bills that i have just mentioned, including the farm bill, it is good for the senate -- i appeared before a committee

chaired by senator carper and the ranking member was senator collins, and they both indicated there today before everybody that the spirit on the senate floor was good yesterday. now, mr. president, that's because we're -- everyone can feel we're accomplishing something. some of the votes were difficult and some -- we all wish we hadn't taken some, they were tough votes. but that's what the senate is all about. i feel comfortable with the last bit that we're trying to work together for the good of the country. mr. president, i've said lots of times, if we're able to accomplish things here as a body, everyone can take credit for it. you can go back to your states and claim your part of victory for the country. but if we don't get things done, you're part of the blame. and people can go home and lament the fact that we haven't been able to get things done. and people point fingers at them

and, "why haven't you been able to get more done?" today is the longest day of the year. it will bring good tidings to the senate. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: before the majority leader leaves the floor, let me just say i agree entirely that the senate, it seems to me, is sort of getting back to operating the way the senate traditionally has. i think the way senator roberts and stabenow have hand the farm bill has been exemplary. members on both sides have gotten opportunities to offer amendments. we've had a lot of votes, but it is an important bill. and so i commend all of those who have been involved and beginning to work us back in the direction that i think most of the senate will be comfortable with, and i also want to thank my friend, the majority leader. he has a tough job setting the agenda and deciding how to go about moving legislation. i think the way we've handled the farm bill and other measures to which he's referred in recent months has been a very important

step in the right direction. now, on other matter, mr. president, three weeks ago today republican leaders in the senate joined republican leaders in the house in calling on the president to resolve a pending increase in student loan rates. drawing on some of the president's own ideas, we proposed multiple good-faith solutions to this problem before it's too late. and we've been waiting ever since for the president's response. he's actually been missing in action. he has yet to offer a concrete solution. so you can understand our surprise upon learning this morning of the president planning to call on congress later today to do something about the student loan rates. mr. president, the republican-led house of representatives already passed a bill that would solve the problem. and as i said, republican leaders in the senate have been on record supporting multiple, multiple good-faith solutions to this problem for literally wee

weeks. it is actually the democratic-led senate had a has failed to act -- that has failed to act and the president who has failed to contribute to a solution, and the reason is pretty obvious. it was reported yesterday that the democratic congressional campaign committee is launching a web site with a countdown clock aimed at raising money after the issue. the implications is that republicans are the ones dragging their feet. as for the president? well, this is just another strategy of deflection and distraction. deflection and distraction. college graduates are struggling to find work and pay their bills in the obama economy. he'd like them to believe that it is somebody else's fault. latinos are struggling with high unemployment. he'd like them to believe the republicans are the problem. middle-class moms are struggling to make ends meet. he wants them to think we're engaged in some phony war on

women. the president doesn't have a positive message to send to any of these folks, so he's cooking up false controversies to distract them from his own failure to turn the economy around. well, on the student loan issue, we could solve this problem in a sitting. republicans have acted quickly and on a bipartisan basis to help prevent these rates from going up. we passed a bill out of the house. we've reached out to the president. we proposed multiple, multiple solutions. the only reason this issue isn't already resolved -- the only reason -- is the president wants to keep it alive a little while longer. he thinks it benefits him politically for college students to believe we're somehow the problem. time to stop playing games, time for the president toage o to ac. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 11:00 a.m. will be

equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i'm here on the senate the floor to urge all of my colleagues to vote for an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy, otherwise known as the p.t.c. and today, as i've been do i will focus on an individual state. i am going to look at the commonwealth of pennsylvania and show all of us the promise that it holds as a wind energy manufacturing hub as well as the negative effects that will occur if we don't extend the production tax credit. pennsylvania has a strong blue-collar background and an extraordinary number of mily skilled workers. and with those factors, those positive elements in pennsylvania, it has seamlessly transitioned into a wind energy powerhouse. if you look at this map of

pennsylvania, you'll see this. from philadelphia to rockwood, from pittsburgh to scranton, you have wind projects all over the state which have created good-paying jobs and stability for pennsylvania families. pennsylvania has long been a center of manufacturing in the united states, and the wind industry has taken note. you see these green circles on the map. each one indicates a manufacturing facility that makes parts for wind turbines in the state of pennsylvania. and that represents over 20 plants and hundreds of employees in the state of the commonwealth of pennsylvania. and i would suggest, mr. president, that the state of pennsylvania is only really beginning to realize its potential when it comes to the wind energy industry. now, my colleagues know i've been on the floor talking about the economic benefits of wind energy, and i want to highlight what's happened in (p) if you look at this chart, the wind energy industry, it supports

4,000 jobs, you have 180,000 homes that are powered by wind, and you have conservingively $1.4 million in property taxes from wind projects that go to local communities. so this is an important set of numbers. it's money particularly on the tax side that helps local communities pay for basic services. and it's just critical in this time of decreasing local and state budgets. if you think about it, all of these figures -- the jobs, the revenues, the investments -- they're prime for significant growth going forward. but that future, that growth are going to be threatened unless we act, unless the congress acts to extend the production tax credit. mr. president, just last week, gmesa, a leader in the manufacturing of wind turbines, announced that it is ending the development of the shaver mountain wind town. this project would have ultimately ended up with 30 new

wind turbines, and it was planned to come online in 2013. that's just six months from now. but because of the uncertainty tied to federal policies like the production tax credit, gmesa has sidelined this project in short, our inaction is costing this community jocks, in commonwealth of pennsylvania jobs. and it just doesn't make any sense in the current environment we face and as our nation is desperately focused on becoming more energy independent. the pittsburgh post gazette made the point that this is the third wind project under development that's been stopped all in the last month, just because of the uncertainty we've created here by not extending the p.t.c. these are on-the-ground examples of how congressional inaction is costing american jobs and investment. i know the presiding officer knows this isn't a partisan or

regional issue. there's strong bipartisan support for extending the production tax credit. and the wind energy has a presence in almost every single state in our country. so if you look at the overall picture, this just isn't the time for companies like gamesa to grow reluctant to invest in the future. so we've got to expand the p.t.c. it will i incent this country to keep the rapid growth. i am again on the floor to urge my colleagues to work with me to extend the wind production tax credit as soon as possible. mr. president, as i close, i wanted to highlight an event that's here on capitol hill today where members, staff, and others can learn more about the potential of wind energy as well as other types of renewable and energy efficiency technologies. and that event is the 15th

annual energy efficiency expo that's under way all day in the canon caucus room on the house side. the bipartisan senate renewable energy and energy efficiency caucus which i cochair with senators lieberman and crapo is an honorary host to the event as well. i want us to go over there, look at the technologies. they are all inspiring. they are awesome. they are truly the future. and when we implement policies that will help these technologies penetrate all these various markets, we're going to continue to be a leader in the clean energy economy. so i'll be back next week to talk about the wind production tax credit. i'll be here every day until we pass it and we extend it. mr. president, thanks for your interest, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senate will resume consideration of s. 3240, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 415, s. 3240, a bill to reauthorize agriculture programs through

2017 and for other purposes. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you. i want to just one more time to say "thank you" to muc -- to everyone. i want to thank my ranking member for his hard worth we have an opportunity to show the senate has come together. we have been doing that to pass a very significant piece of public policy for americans. so i ask unanimous consent that with -- that not withstand ago the previous order, the amendment votes occur in the following order and that all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect: boxer amendment 2456, johanns 2372, toomey 2247, sanders 2310, coburn 2214, murray 2455,

mccain 2162, and rubio 2166. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: than stab thank you, mr. president. i also have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to understand that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: could i be recognized for one minute to honor the chaplain of the day from georgia. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. isakson: it is an honor for me to introduce to the senate reverend ron mccrary who just gave the prayer for the day. reverend mccrary is a great individual from my home county

of cobb county, he is the chaplain to the fourth largest county in georgia. he is a great preacher, a great leader and a great chaplain. he was recommended to me by sheriff neil warren who allowed ron to come to be with us today. ron is a father, minister and a great witness. he witnessed through the campus crusade for christ. he witnessed aes a pastor by ministering to churches. he witnessed to the community by delivering great sermons, one of them about voting in honor of coretta scott king delivered in 2006, where he empowered everybody to honor coretta scott king's life's work by making sure they participated in the political system. it is an honor for me to welcome and host reverend ron mccrary of cobb county, georgia. i thank the chair for the time.

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: i call up amendment 2456. the clerk: mrs. boxer proposes amendment 2456. the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate equally divided. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, senator johanns has an amendment which would stop the e.p.a. from ever using any kind of airplanes, manned small planes -- that's all though use -- to check on a serious pollution spill. i want to say, this is about life and death here, and i hope the senate will support the boxer amendment and vote "no" on the johanns amendment because the boxer amendment says the e.p.a. can only use these overflights if it has to do with protecting health and safety, and if it's been approved by the state.

this pollution can cause serious illness, and they want to make sure that they can track the plume. you've heard of things like cryptosporidium, e. coli, girdia. this is what we're talking about, terrible bacteria that sometimes comes from animals. in 1993, at least 50 people died from bacteria, from the bacteria cryptosporidium in milwaukee and it came from animal waste. do not -- the e.p.a. has never used a drone. they don't plan to. but let's not stop them from using small aerial oversight. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. johanns: mr. president, given e.p.a.'s recent track record with agriculture, if not downright contempt for it, farmers and ranchers don't trust the e.p.a. they could have done this program right. they could have reached out to

congressional delegation in nebraska, in iowa and said, here's the plan. they did not. i found out about this accidentally. i have requested information, in fact our entirely delegation has, and the administrator has been nonresponsive. that's why the amendment is here. it's an amendment based on a lack of trust toward the e.p.a. this maintains the status quo. this will change nothing. it will rubber stamp what they're doing. so i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the next amendment, which i'll call up in due tirement thank you, mr. president. -- in due time. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. mr. johanns: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. this is a 60-vote threshold. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anybody wishing to vote? the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 47 --

on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 47. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from nebraska is recognized. the senate will come to order.

mr. johanns: mr. president, i call up johanns amendment number 2372 and ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nebraska, mr. joe hangars proposes an amendment numbered 2372. mr. johanns: and i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. johanns: mr. president, low-altitude surveillance flights over farmers' and ranchers' private property has caused bipartisan concern, and it is happening. e.p.a. is flying these flights. senator nelson and i and the entire nebraska delegation wrote to administrator jackson saying, what's going on, what are you doing? their response was kicked down to the regional director. it was incomplete, it was total i unacceptable. this is not about drones. this is about flights over feed lots trying to determine if there is a violation and then pursuing that action.

what we are asking for is the public to be advised of what they're doing. so until that happens, this amendment just simply says, stop, you can't do this anymore until you let us know who you're using this information, for what purpose. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. johanns: i ask for support of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. mrs. boxer: mr. president, may i be heard? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: could there be order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the grail california, the senator is recognized from a. mrs. boxer: mr. president, this amendment is very serious. it's about life and death. it is true that on occasion e.p.a. will use small manned aircraft to inspect a bacteria spill. let me recall to awful you wisconsin 1993 -- to all of you which is 193. the presiding officer: the the

senate will come to order to hear the senator from california. mrs. boxer: let me recall for you wisconsin 1993. at least 50 people lost their lives from the bacteria cryptosporidium from animal waste. when you're following a plume, the way to do it is from the air. now, it is much more expensive in many cases to do ground inspection. e.p.a. estimates on-the-ground inspection might cost $10,000. but it could cost $2,500 to survey the same area by air. this is life and death. we're talking about e. coli, we're talking about giardia, we're talking about cryptosporidium. 're talking about the health and safety of the american people that is compromised from these kinds of animal waste bacterias. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the johanns amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone else wishing to cast their vote?

on they vote the ayes are 56. the nays are 43. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. the senate will be in order. take conversations out of the chamber. the senate will be in order. the senator from pennsylvania deserves to be heard. the senator is recognized. mr. toomey: mr. president, i call up amendment 2237. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania mr. toomey proposes amendment numbered 2247. the presiding officer: there are two minutes of debate for senator toomey. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. water systems are currently required to mail reports every year that detail in great specificity all the minute trace chemicals that are inevitably in

the water supply. this is at a great cost and it's a problem particularly for rural water systems. what my amendment would do is permit the water companies as provided there are no violations, to inform their customers in each and every monthly bill they can obtain this information on the web site. there is no changes whatsoever in water standards of course, and any company would still have to mail these detailed reports if their water failed to the comply with the state or federal standards. this is a way we can free up tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary mailing costs; make it available for infrastructure investment. at this time i would be happy to yield to my colleague, the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i thank him for yielding. this is very simple. this is the information age. in my rural state of oklahoma, some people sometimes have to drive 30 miles to a post offenses -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from california is

recognized for one minute. the senate will be in order. the senator from california is recognized. please take conversations out of the chamber. mrs. boxer: mr. president, today our families receive in the mail just once a year a report about the safety of the water that their kids drink every single day. the toomey amendment repeals that important right to know. there are 70 regulated dangerous contaminants in our water. for example, arsenic, benzene, asbestos, cadmium, mercury, and uranium. some of these dangerous toxics are deemed unsafe at any level, and yet under toomey, you would no longer receive that information. senator toomey says go to the web site. 1,000 water districts have no web site. and right now under the current right-to-know law, the governor

can say he waives this requirement for the small rural districts. please vote "no." our people have a right to know what their kids are drinking. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the question is on the toomey amendment. all in favor say ... the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a second? there seems to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll on the toomey amendment. vote:

vote: