assumed, the shareholders assumed were doing routinely, like adequate audits. i've had the rare opportunity to be able to engage with a splendid panel of experts. we've learned a great deal. let me just simply ask, i think it's appropriate, if any concluding comments, dr. sherman and ms. buyer, ms. trotter and mr. moscovitz about the issue advised to us going forward. dr. sherman? >> i think, and i tell my students that one of the great strengths of the u.s. economy really is the fact that we focused on giving investors the information they need and letting them decide for themselves. so many countries take a much more paternalistic approach, and you end up losing a lot of great companies and funding a lot of bad companies that way. so i hope that the u.s. will focus on giving people as much

information as possible, and then having them take responsibility for their decisions. >> ms. buyer? >> i would agree with dr. sherman's comments all the way along the way. i would say that the promise of a public offering spurs many individuals and at least all over the country, but certainly in silicon valley where i live to try new ideas that turn into the large companies that never existed and suddenly employee thousands and thousands of people. the markets are tremendously important, and mostly not broken. mostly they suffer through swings according to risks in the marketplace. that said, i think there are a few changes that probably could improve the process. and again, i strongly recommend many aspects of the jobs act be reconsidered, as much as what has accomplished is transferring risk earlier in the process from private investors to public investors, which as you point out doesn't actually create jobs. >> one other thing too. and this is the potential for

not just the misallocation of resources, but for fraud. does that concern you? >> yes. certainly there will always be on the margins. >> yes. >> some fraud. but we haven't talked, and another time probably about crowd funding, which is certainly very interesting, but also enables -- enables significant transfer of funds between informed investors and uninformed investors, or without any regulations around it. because we have pushed back the size for which a company needs to reveal its information publicly from 500 shareholders to 2,000 shareholders, we will probably see much more activity on the secondary markets. and again, there are no requirements for information. and in fact trading on inside information in the secondary markets is perfectly legitimate. so without going on to long, yes,. >> and there is a further complication which complicates our life in many different dimensions. that is with the internet-based

economy, these companies can be virtual and located far beyond the reach of anyone, which further makes it particularly crowded from the aspect of the potential source of get rich schemes. have i this terrible feeling that the first thing on the web page would be congress just recently authorized this tremendous advantage to please take advantage of it. your congress -- and i don't want to be too melodramatic, but that concerns me. >> of course. years ago there was a cartoon in the new york they're showed a hound sitting at a keyboard. and the caption underneath was on the internet no one knows that you're a dog. >> yes. or very short. anyway. ms. trotter? >> the ipo task force came to its work with the view that the

ipo process is critical to capital formation, particularly in the early stage of investing. and that is all connected to innovation and job creation ultimately by the part of the project sector that really creates jobs. so that's our focus. and then just a couple of points again on risk. you can't remove risk from the system, because if you do, you remove the opportunity to make a profit. and so the solution is not to look for ways to eliminate risk from the system, but to make the system fair. and that's disclosure. but when you look at disclosure, what are you requiring disclosure of? is it the type of information that the very largest companies in the united states have to provide, or is it the more scaled disclosure that focuses on what is material to an investor in an early stage company? and if you failed to recognize that distinction and apply very detailed disclosure rules across the board, then i think that you do have a system that veers into

merit regulation of smaller companies. >> thank you very much. mr. moscovitz, you the last word. >> generally speaking, it's not a good idea for investors, individual investors to get involved in companies too early. the long-term sort of after a very brief period of time of flipping stocks that occurs at the beginning of an ipo process, you know, ipos tend to actually underperform. and, you know, their share returns tend to be negative. the concern is that we don't want ipos to be a process where companies are coming public with the intention of, you know, getting shares to favored clients and the underwriters so that they can flip the stocks over to unwitting investors who don't understand which companies are poor quality and which ones aren't. so i would say at a minimum, it's important that we have an equitable distribution of sort

of useful information. i agree with -- i agree that these prospectuses are very detailed. there is a lot of good information presented there. it's very difficult to go through them and find out, pick through it and figure out what stuff is really important. the facebook example. really, you had to read between the lines to figure that out. so i think at a minimum it would make sense for investors to have access, the same kind of access that clients of the underwriters have. and then one final thing with regards to fraud. you know, a lot of -- a lot of former securities felons have raised concerns about the jobs act. so i would just say that we need to think carefully about that. i have various recommendations with regard to crowd funding. i can talk about them. but i could also just submit it to you later. >> thank you very much.

i thank all of you for your testimony. it's been very thoughtful and very helpful. my colleagues may have their own written statements, which they would be allowed to submit for the record. i would ask them to do so before next wednesday, june 27th. all of your testimony will be made part of the record. some of my colleagues may have written questions. we may have additional written questions. we'll get them to you as quickly as possible and ask you to get them back to us as quickly as possible so we can conclude the record within a very short period of time and inform the chairman and the other members of the committee of this hearing. with that, let me again thank you for excellent testimony. and adjourn the hearing.

>> yes, and it changed.

in a few moments, a hearing on the administration's science policy. in a little that's than two hours, jpmorgan's ceo jamie dimon testifies before the house financial services committee. john hickenlooper on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. friday, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg talked about the court's current term, including the health care case. >> no court since the court invited new briefs and arguments in citizens united has attracted more attention in the press, the academy. the ticket line outside the supreme court, a line that formed three days before oral argument commenced.

some have described the controversy as unprecedented, and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter-protests going on outside the court while oral argument was under way inside. >> she also spoke about press reports on the decision expected this week or next. >> and though our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and fifth-hand accounts. my favorite among precipices widely observed at the supreme court, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know. >> watch the rest of her comments from the american constitution society online at the c-span video library. the white house science and technology policy director was

on capitol hill wednesday, testifying about the administration's research and sciences policy, clean energy, and restructuring the space program. this is a little less than two hours. okay. the committee on science, space and technology will come to order. and i say good morning and welcome to today's hearing entitled office of science and technology policy examining priorities and effectiveness of the nation's science policies is in front of you, or pacts contain the written and thank you for your written testimony ahead of time. today's witness dr. john holdren. we'll have our opening

statements, and i'll begin with my opening statement. dr. holdren, thank you for joining us today, and in you're dual role as the president's science adviser and as director of the office of science and technology policy, you have the president's ear. and that's very important. and as such, you have a real far-reaching influence on this administration's direction in science and technology. probably for this committee not a more important position on the hill. we may not always agree with the advice that the director provides to the president, but science and technology have played a very vital role in the making of this nation, and it's going to continue to fulfill that role in the future. and as such, i doubt you would find anyone here who would challenge the need for sign and need for technology advice in this white house or any white house. throughout the history, advice has come through both informal and formal methods. the office of signs and technology policy we know today

is a result of the national science and technology policy organization and priorities act of 1976. which formally created both the office and established the roles of the director, the house committee on science and technology was instrumental in the passage of this act. and it's our responsibility to make sure that its office continues to function in a way that is beneficial to most american citizens. and while directors historically have joined us annually to review the administration's budget request, and have appeared before us on specific issues from time to time, this is the first time this committee has met to focus primarily on oversight of ostp since it was created in the statute. in addition to reviewing responsibilities, operations and management will also look to the function in shaping our nation's policy. should it come as no surprise that i remain concerned about a number of the administration's science and technology policy

issues ranging from an unprecedented emphasis on clean energy at the expense of other priorities to a larger focus on applied research at the expense of basic scientific research, to the lack of a clearly identified and compelling long-term mission for human space flight. further, there are other areas still awaiting action from ostp and the administration. these include transparency in data access issues, a position on the transition of the joint polar systems from noaa to nasa, a and a strategic plan for stem education. dr. holdren, i know you take your role seriously and as the house committee responsible for science, space, and technology, we also take our oversight role seriously. today we look forward to receiving your testimony and learning about the current organization and priorities of ostp and the administration as part of this committee's oversight and responsibilities. i thank you and i yield back my

time. this time i recognize mrs. johnson for her opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and good morning. we are pleased to have this second hearing with dr. holdren to the committee. as you know, every year we invite the director in the office of science and technology policy to appear before the committee to help us understand and not just that this year's budget, but others as well. we live in an increasingly complex world, and the -- sorry -- the challenges we face will be both impacted by and hopefully alleviated by science and technology. as americans, we should celebrate the fact that a highly respected scientist such as dr. holdren has the ear of the

president and is truly part of his inner circle of advisers on matters of science and technology. we in congress also can benefit from good advice on matters of science and technology policy, and i'm looking forward to the testimony today. the truth is that the ostp has been asked to do a lot by both congress and the president. in addition to our more visible initiatives, i know that you have to carry out necessary interagency coordination, a job that probably goes underappreciated and undervalued by all of us. the work of ostp staff helps to minimize unnecessary duplication and research and development programs across the government, and insure that significant research gaps are addressed. dr. holdren, you have been asked to testify about the structure,

function, and funding of your office, as well as the two hats you wear as both science adviser to the president and director of the office of science and technology policy. you face many challenges, some of which you inherited, such as the newer satellite program, and others that are more recent, such as the arm twisting that you probably had to do to get agencies to complete their scientific integrity policies. i think we forget sometimes that your actual authority is limited, and that much of what you accomplish is through your leadership persuasion, and persistence. as you know, i care deeply about the need to insure that we remain competitive in a challenging world economy, as well as improve the quality of life of all of our citizens. research and innovation are

essential ingredients of any effort to meet these two goals. as is stem education. you have a number of initiatives under way related to stem education, and i would like to hear how those are faring, and any issues that you are facing. with respect to research and innovation, i would like to hear about your efforts to promote innovation and to move new technologies toward commercialization. i know that the administration has a number of initiatives under way in that regard, such as the startup america initiative, and i would like to got your assessment on how well these initiatives are working, and what additional steps that may be needed. and finally, in addition to hearing about your key priorities and goals for your office, i'd like to hear what you might need from congress whether it's related to a general function of your office or to a specific goal or task.

you have an important responsibility, and we want you to succeed. dr. holdren, i look forward to your testimony, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank you, ms. johnson. and at this time, if there are others who have opening statements, they'll be added to the record. and at this time, i'd like to introduce our witness. dr. john holdren is assistant to the president, and co-chair of the president's counsel of advisories on science and technology. prior to joining the administration, he taught at harvard and was director of the woods hole research center, chairman, as our witness should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes. but you're a very important, valuable witness. we would will a little more lenient with that, with you if you need such.

and i say that. and if i didn't say it, ms. johnson would insist on it. so easier for me just to take that position too. so we're going to be fair with you is what i'm trying to tell you. after that, the members are going to have five minutes each to ask questions. and the chair is able to provide some flexibility, as i said, if you're our only witness today, doctor. and i thank you for your testimony. reminding members of the committee the rules limit our questions to five minutes. and i surely will adhere to that. at this time i'll open the round of questions, and the chair recognizes himself for that. well, we'll undo that. we recognize you at this time, sir while i look for my testimony. >> chairman hall, ranking member johnson, members of the committee, i'm pleased to be here with you today to discuss the organization that i lead in the executive office of the

president, namely the office of science and technology policy. as you know, science, technology, and innovation have been at the core of the american success story since the days of the founding fathers. advances in ag -- mechanized transportation, wireless communication have brought waves of economic growth and generated new opportunities, industries, and jobs while also raising policy challenges. it was in recognition of the importance of these domains and challenges that congress in 1976 created ostp to advise the president on the scientific engine, engineering and technological aspects of the issues before him and to help coordinate, lead, and develop budgets for federal r&d programs. today ostp's work is accomplished by a staff of about 100 people spread across four divisions and the director's office. almost 90% of these are science and technology professionals.

many of them detailed to us from agencies. this diversity of talent is essential given the scope of the intellectual terrain that we cover and the wide range of our oversight, coordination, and support functions, which include running the national science and technology council and the major interagency initiatives that fall under it. for example, the u.s. global change research program and the national nanotechnology initiative. as well as supporting the president's council of advisers on science and technology in the development of its reports for president. i've submitted for the record a detailed summary of ostp's activities, and in my brief remarks this morningly highlight just a few of these. first, reflecting the administration's strong focus on jobs and the economy, ostp has been active in efforts to leverage science and technology for economic growth. we partnered with the council of nick advisers and the national economic council to develop the administration's strategy for american innovation.

and we launched such job-focused initiatives as start-up america, focused on small businesses and entrepreneurs. the advanced manufacturing partnership, which brings together universities, industry, and others to invest in emerging technologies that have the potential to create high quality domestic manufacturing jobs, and most recently u.s. ignite, aimed at accelerating availability to u.s. users of ultra fast internet and new products and services based on it. second, in support of the administration goal that the united states lead the world in clean energy technology, we have prioritized budgetary support for basic and applied research in this important domain, and have pushed the development of advanced materials, in part through the materials genome initiative, which is another public/private partnership combining the comparative advantages of both sectors. third, ostp has very actively supported science, technology, engineering, and math education. we work with the president and

the domestic policy council to launch educate to innovate, a public/private partnership to improve grades education to work in classrooms across the country to improve instruction in science and mathematics and change the equation, a nonprofit organization that is mobilizing the business community to improve stem education across the united states. and we've been aggressively addressing stem education tasks specified in the america competes reauthorization act, including a comprehensive inventory of federal stem education programs. fourth, i want to mention ostp's leading roles with other leading white house offices in the implementation of the president's open government initiative. under the leadership of u.s. chief technology officer todd park, we have been opening the works of the american government to the american people and focusing heavily on making

government data a driver of private sector innovation and job creation. in closing, let me simply say with continuing support from our partners in congress, ostp is working every day to ensure that the policies and proposals emanating from the executive branch are informed by the most up to date and objective insights about the relevant science and technology and to strength the u.s. science and technology enterprise and the benefits to the nation that flow from it. i look forward to continuing to work with this committee to these ends, and i will be pleased to answer any questions that the members may have. thank you. >> thank you, sir. and i'll start up with some questions for you. ostp released a fact sheet highlig highlighting some of the president's energy priorities. the opening statement quote, we now face a make or break moment for the middle class and those trying to reach it, unquote. however, it's unclear whether the president's energy agenda is

actually good for the middle class. the administration is working to advance. these policies, policies to restrict oil and gas exploration and production and to reject the keystone pipeline which would enhance domestic energy security. an avalanche of epa regulations on coal plants, on refineries, on automobiles and numerous other industries that ultimately raise energy prices for all americans, and a clean energy standard that would mandate americans buy electricity from more expensive and less reliable energy sources such as wind and power, which are both good, but not as reliable. how does a regulated any cost approach to any policy benefit the middle class and the overall american community, not just the middle class, but all of us. explain that to us, if you would, sir. >> well, first of all, mr. chairman, the president and the administration have what the president has described as an all of the above energy strategy

in which development of our domestic resources of oil and gas and coal play an important part. nuclear energy plays an important part. renewable energy which you have mentioned plays an important part and increasing energy efficiency plays an important part. we recognize we need all of these energy options to secure our energy future. and we are working to enable all of them and lift all of them to their highest potential. we do not have a policy of regulation, no matter what the cost. in fact, regulations are reviewed very carefully in light of the science evidence that is available. before they are put forward. and i think we have been doing a good job in this administration of only putting forward regulations that are strongly based in solid -- in solid science. it is certainly our intention to provide an energy future in which the united states imports less energy, therefore pays less

to other countries for its imported energy, and relies on a wide diversity of domestic energy sources to provide the affordable and reliable energy supply that our economy need, that our consumers need, including, of course, the middle class. >> well, i don't totally agree with you there, and i think some of his indications evidence a disdain for energy. he certainly declared war on agriculture early in his -- and got around to energy. we have enough energy and enough energy access to be selling energy rather than buying it. and i think it's kind of a sad situation when we're in the situation we're in here.

in july or august -- i accept what statements you made. i just don't agree with it. in july and august, nasa's commercial crew program is going to select the next round of companies for the third phase of domestic -- of development known as commercial crew integrated capability program. nasa plans to give $300 million to $500 million each to two and possibly three companies used in space act groyms instead of more typical government contracts. according to don't permit nasa to impose or design safety requirements on the contracts. with regard to nasa's use of space act agreements on the commercial crew program, how can we be assured that nasa is developing safe systems, if it's prohibited from leveeing any design requirements, prohibited from demanding performance tests from the companies? >> before i turn to that nasa question, let me just