mr. chairman, that our energy imports have been sharply declining under this administration. we're moving in exactly the direction that you also endorse, which is moving toward importing less and i think that's very beneficial. on the nasa question, it's my understanding that nasa has in fact been able to apply its international space station visiting vehicle requirements to the cargo transportation development efforts that have been taking place. the contracts that will be awarded in the next phase of commercial cargo and commercial crew will also very clearly allow nasa to specify safety requirements and to oversee them. so i'm certainly confident the president is confident that we will continue to maintain nasa oversight of safety in these operations. >> i surely hope so.

my time is expired. i now recognize ms. johnson for five minutes. >> you forgot to look to see who is over here. it's woolsey. >> i'm sorry. >> i make about a five-minute speech of ms. woolsey. we're going to lose her and i'm going to miss her. i recognize you. and if ms. johnson was here, i would recognize here. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i have got to be more careful. >> yes, you do. more discerning about your women. so dr. holdren, thank you for all you do. we've put a lot on -- of importance on your office and we expect a lot. and we get a lot. how is the united states stacking up as compared to the rest of the world in our support for science and technology and the policies that we put in place? and feel free to tell us where we can do better.

>> well, first of all, i would say that the united states continues to lead the world in science, engineering, and innovation across a very wide array of crucial fields of fundamental research and applied research. the united states leads the world. we remain by far the largest funder of research and development in the world. the sum of our expenditures on r&d in the public and private sector together is over $400 billion a year. that's in the vicinity of 30% of world -- all of the world's expenditures on r&d. we continue as well to lead the world in space, although sometimes the contrary is asserted. our planetary exploration programs have absolutely no peer. we have missions on the way to or at seven out of the eight officially designated planets, and more, the voyager now

reaching the edge of the solar system, missions to asteroids. no one is even close. when you look at the first in space, some people say gee, china is overtaking us. 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 stem education, where the united states that used to lead the world in most indices performance in stem education has now fallen to the middle of the pack. that is a bad trend and one we are working very hard across a wide variety of fronts to help -- 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 has

clearly crucial in linking science and technology and innovation to the economy is the translation of discovery from laboratories in research universities and our great national laboratories celebrating the translation of those discoveries into commercial products and services and new processes. and they're the manufacturing partnership, the genome initiative, the start-up 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 is 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 stem education, one on national security and international affairs, and one on environment, natural resources and sustainability. under those standing committees are many subcommittees. this entity is exceedingly active. and the departments and agencies are stepping up and

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

that i've already mentioned a number of. i think the private sector is particularly interested in being sure, number one, that we maintain the found decision 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 and helping us maintain our emphasis on stem education, because they are well aware of the need to maintain the pipeline of the next generation of innovators and inventors, makers, discoverers, but also the skilled workforce they need across the board in our high-tech industries in order to compete and succeed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up. >> the time is expired. recognizing mr. rohrabacher, the 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 lightwater 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 the budget requests that the doe is 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 been going down to 15%. well, the spending on lightwater reactors, which is essentially old technology is being increased in the budget requests.

is this a matter of policy coming out of the administration? >> well, let me say first of all that the lightwater reactor investments that the doe is making are not investments in old technology. they're investments in advanced lightwater reactor technology, including modular lightwater reactors, which we think have an enormous potential to contribute not only to energy supply in this country, but to a substantial export market. >> basically, it's an old concept, but a new -- a new approach. is that it? >> 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 lightwater reactors. and we need to make sure that succeeds in order to provide a continuing base for nuclear energy. >> then will leave us with reactor, 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 lightwater 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 lightwater reactors of advanced varieties. and the secretary of energy does. >> right. >> for the next phase. we have a multiphase -- >> those that you're 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 we are taking steps to solve it. >> 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 that would help us. >> 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. i'd like to shift this now to -- because i only have a couple of minutes here. it's very clear in the appropriations act of 2011 that we have -- that congress as directed, the administration not to be cooperating on science projects with china, we have the world's worst human right

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 -- if your office complying with this law that 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, ordealing with people who are directly

involved in human rights violation. >> the gao doesn't agree with you. to kwoek a gao report, the plain meaning of section 1340 is clear. the ostp may not, may not, and that is a report 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? >> the gao was right at the time it wrote. that language has been subseeded by subsequent legislation which clearly specifies that we may cooperate with china subject to the conditions that i was mentioning. so we are in complete compliance with the current law on that subject. >> why it is that you feel this administration or this administration feels so compelled to reach out to the world's worst human rights abuse they're 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. but -- >> on issues like this, if when you raise issues like that when you go to china, don't your actions speak louder than your words? because you were 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 responsibility. so let's go do this. >> actually, congressman rohrabacher, the point that i make.

>> okay. >> with my interlocutors in china is cooperation in which we're engaged, which is cooperation carefully selected to be beneficial to us as well as china is jeopardized by china's human rights and intellectual property theft. and that if those activities do not stop, that these beneficial activities, mutually beneficial activities will not be able to continue that is an explicit point that i make. >> 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 their president bow and scrape to the enemy on many occasions. the chairman recogni. >> thank you for the work that you do. you describe one mission of your office of advising the president on the office of science and technology to matters of national importance. one matter of serious importance in my district and to the nation

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

debris to carry invasive species from japan such as those that were discovered on the dock pose adds challenge to our scientists who have to assess the threat to the marine ecosystems. two of the federal agencies that have been working on the detection and monitoring from the tsunami are the epa and noaa. considering your office's coordination with federal agencies on science matters and the potential impact of the debris on our coastal ecosystems, where do you see your office fitting into the response effort at a federal level? and please describe any efforts that you have taken thus far on this issue. thank you. >> thank you for that question. my office is, of course, advisory and analytical more than operational. and so we try to work with the departments and agencies that have operational responses 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 noaa and epa in their responsibilities around the coast, including the responsibilities for monitoring and responding to what reaches us from japan as a result of that devastating tsunami. we have been particularly engaged in my office in conducting and overseeing assessments and the levels of radioactive that have reach order could reach the united states. and the reassuring thing i can say about that is although our ability to monitor is so good that we're able to detect even very tiny concentrations of radioactivity, the radioactivity that has in fact reached the united states so far is all in that very tiny category and does not reach levels of public health concern. but we will continue to work with noaa and epa to monitor particularly that radioactivity aspect of what reaches our coast, but also other aspects.

i will say that i think noaa, as with many agencies, has been struggling with 20 pounds of missions in a ten-pound budget. and we all struggle with that challenge today. i think noaa would tell you if administrator lubchenco 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 have i left will you discuss some of the work you're doing on increasing stem education? we all understand the importance of it, but could you discuss the deficiencies in our skilled workforce in promoting stem

education among young people in this country. >> i would mention since time is short just a couple of things. 3 budget proposal calls for $3 billion in programs across the government in stem 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 through 12 teacher effectiveness, where we're working very hard to prepare 100,000 new high-quality stem ed teachers at the k through 12 level over the next decade. and the post secondary stem education domain is one in which we currently lose about 60% of the students who enter college intending to get a stem degree. only 40% who enter do get a stem degree. the pcast on science and

technology has studied this question. and we conclude there are two basic reasons for it, both of which we're working to fix. one is the math gap, where students enter college without sufficient math preparation to succeed in college level science, math and engineering courses. and the other is what you might call a teaching effectiveness gap where the introductory courses in science, engineering and math are often so boring, that they drive even very good students into other majors. we have a variety of programs addressed at both of those problems. >> thank you very much. and my time is expired. >> the chair recognizes mr. palazo, the gentleman from mississippi, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. holdren, i agree with the comments you're saying on stem education. especially in light of the less than 15% of americans actually pursue stem, where other countries such as china, more than 50% of their youth are pursuing stem education.

in mississippi, actually they recognize the global implications of this, and through public and private contributions, we just recently opened a $30 million infinity science center with the sole purpose to educate, challenge and excite young people to consider studies in stem education, and ties in very well with the affiliation with nasa 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 the international space station and to buy certain engineering services to keep the iss operational, the nonproliferation act must be extended beyond the current 2016 expiration date. late last year the house passed the bill in the reliance on the russians through 2020, but the

prospects of the ep actment would be greatly enhanced if the administration would put forth a policy statement on inksna. do you anticipate the white house putting out a statement on it, and do you know when? do you agree it would be far better to address the issue now instead of waiting until the last moment and giving 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 korea and syria nonproliferation 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 are 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 it sooner is better than later. >> in the near future, can 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 close interaction with the congress on how to fix this, and that it will happen soon. >> so you'll definitely carry back our concerns? >> i will carry back -- >> sooner rather than later? >> i will carry back that concern. let me 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 connectedness of science centers, and the effectiveness they have in inspiring kids. i've had my own grandchildren in to a number of these centers in different parts of the country. 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 all or most of their milestones. as you know, the space x 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 earth, bringing cargo and garbage back down.

the other competitors are, i think, close on their heels, 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 it is

going to enable us to carry out these missions more efficiently and less expensively, but still very safely. >> 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 then we can wrap up my time. >> i would have to refer you on that to the legal counsel 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. i know -- i've heard from the administration, and from the president and can really see a

commitment to even 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 in advanced manufacturing. and so i have a question as to how we decide what our priorities are. the national academies 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 academies spend an awful lot of time putting together and exploring, and don't really match the administration's budgets and the priorities that we then set here in the congress. so i wonder if you could tell us how our science priorities are lined up in keeping with

recommendations that come out of the surveys, and then related to that, with respect to the mars program, it does seem to me that, you know, some time ago, fears were expressed at a hearing in this committee about cuts to plan tear 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