>> well, thank you for that question. the mars program remains robust. not withstanding 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 budgets. the deindicatal surveys we get from the national academy are very valuable. we look at them very closely. in the case of the deindicatal survey on planetary exploration,

while they put high priority on the mission, they specified what we should do in the event budgets did not permit carrying through with adequate support for that flagship mission. in fact, in the fallback position that we developed, we actually followed it very closely what the 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 decatal surveys, because they do a lot of work by the wider science community in those domains. but we have not by any means 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 rover ever landed anywhere on its way to mars, expected to land there

in august. we have a follow-on mission called may haven investigating t when we send human to mars. we're investigating a number of small and medium size 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 probes heading outward or scheduled for launch. while we determined 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. i'll just finish by saying, leaving 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 the

administration and this congress has a real commitment to science, to research, to advanced manufacturing, to making sure that our students have someplace to go, if we're encouraging them to engage in stem, 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, and i know it's frustrating for 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 if -- >> the gentle lady's expired. she gives you good advice. and i think she ought to give that advice to the epa. chair now recognizes mr. hol grem from illinois. >> thank you, dr. holdren, for being here. i 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 first place to probably third place as far as nations in 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, that it's now entering an extremely exciting phase, and i asked what you thought, what role the united states should play in that. i asked -- you thought the united states should be building world class physics facilities to be built here. your answer, and i quote, was, i think the u.s. should continue to play a leadership role in the field as the u.s. is doing even

for experiments taking place in facilities abroad. i'm confident that u.s. researchers can continue to be at the forefront of particle physics and other scientific disciplines. i share your enthusiasm for the u.s. leadership in these fields. not only did you not answer the question, you also implied we would be just fine without having any world-class facilities in the united states. that is really troubling to me. and i want just to ask for clarification on that, if i'm misunderstanding. very clearly, i would ask the question, yes or no, does president obama believe we should build large-scale leading physics facilities as we used to, or is he satisfied in spending on other things while our students go abroad for physics? >> i simply do not agree with the space news formulation that the united states has fallen

from first to third. as 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 support fundamental research broadly, and we support research in high energy physics. the president's 2013 budget has $800 million for research and facilities at the high energy, high intensity and cosmic frontiers, provides funds for new initiatives at all three of those. there is an ongoing planning exercise in the office of high energy physics at the d.o.e. for the development of new facilities at the lab in your state. and i expect that there will be positive developments coming out of that. we are not giving up on high energy physics, although, again, we are con strapd. everybody in this room knows the budget challenges under which

the government is operating. and within those challenges, we intend to continue to invest in cutting edge high energy physics in the united states as well as in the participation of our scientists in cutting edge facilities elsewhere when that's where they are. >> well, again, talk is very important, but action is even more important. we've seen significant cuts under the president's budget to many of our laboratories. significant increase going to some applied science that obviously the president supports. dr. holdren, i know you were able to train at m.i.t. and stanford here in the united states, and also taught at harvard and berkeley. you have a very distinguished career. wouldn't you have differently about your own career path if you didn't think there was an opportunity to have an accomplished career and that you had to leave the united states to pursue that career? >> well, the short answer is probably yes. if that had been my impression

of the state of play, it's possible i would have done something else. but i don't think that's a correct impression of the state of play today. i think 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 often awarded for work in the more recent past, rather than the distant past. this is a leadership role that we're going to keep. and i think we're determined to continue to inspire our young people to believe that there are exciting and rewarding careers in fundamental science in this country. we still have enormous flows of most talented and brightest students from around the world eager to study high energy physics and other topics in our great universities. i think we're 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 i think we all need to ask the question, you know, are the president's policies offering today's students the same opportunities your generation of scientists had in terms of training, learning, and working in world class facilities here in the united states? i think that's a real question. i would say no, the opportunities are not the same. they're not as good. it's declining. our space program is declining, while others are advancing. ours is declining. i've heard firsthand from physicists in my district that they would certainly think twice about starting a career in a field where they would have no choice but to fly to china, japan or europe all the time to be an active participant. that attitude of thinking that the president seems to have, the attitude we shouldn't build facilities here is a sure way to keep our physics programs from being competitive, not to say the deterrence for students to get into those fields. which i think is a huge failure

four or future. i know these are difficult times. but that's where difficult and important leadership must step up. so i hope we can continue to do that through these difficult times. setting that type of vision for our young people that, yes, not only can you study here, but you can apply it here, because we're going to continue to grow and build new world class facilities for basic scientific research. again, my time is up. i yield back. thank you. >> you asked your question, you did a good job of answering it. 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 earths and energy critical elements. the investigation in the subcommittee held a hearing after an article appeared in the press. i think principally "the new york times" about the topic. and we developed legislation to

address the problem that kathy introduced in the last congress. and i introduced in this congress. and there has been interest by republicans on this committee as well. rare earths, of course, are something most americans have never heard of. or if they've heard of them, they heard about them in high school chemistry and promptly forgot. they're increasingly being used in sophisticated technologies. and we are at a distinct disadvantage to the chinese, who largely have a monopoly on many rare earths and energy critical elements. and they are using those, which many of the technologies are important to our national security, and they're leveraging their control of those elements to require that manufacturing using those be done in china. to some extent, i understand that. i understand they don't want to have an ex track tiff economy. they don't want to be angola. but it's certainly not

acceptable from our point of view that we're closed out of that important manufacturing that would be a source of jobs, very highly skilled, well-paid jobs for american workers. but the problem dealing with it is complex, as i'm sure you know. there is a variety of suggested programs. and it does sound certainly like -- it does certainly appear that we need a strong role by our government in coordinating those efforts. dr. holdren, what do you think are the appropriate activities for the government in this area, and what are the notable research gaps? >> thank you for that good question. we have been paying a lot of attention to this challenge, and the critical materials challenge, and the challenge of rare earth minerals in particular. let me just say as a start, that china does not have a monopoly on resources of rare earth minerals, but they currently

have a practical monopoly on the whole production system. because they were able to undercut everybody else, and so everybody else got out of the business. and this is something obviously that we need to fix. ostp has been leading an interagency process on how to address the rare earth minerals and related raw materials issues as involved in the department of energy, the department of commerce, the u.s. trade representative, 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 our national security, or our economic future. we have hosted roundtables with industry on this subject. and looked into what we can do to encourage industry to rebuild some of these supply chains in the united states, while we actually have the raw resources, but have let the supply chains atrophy. d.o.e. has been pursuing

research and development in the separation processing and reducing the intensity of use of these materials in different applications, so that we can make the materials that we do have go further. in the 2012 appropriation d.o.e., we received $20 million for an innovation on critical materials. the 2013 budget request continuation of funding for that hub. both d.o.e. and epa have announced small business innovation research, isbr grants, addressing processing of these critical materials. we also have an r&d program at d.o.e. aimed at early stage technology alternatives that can reduce or eliminate the dependence we have on minerals that we're not in a position to produce in this country. so we have a lot going on in this domain. we understand its importance. we agree with you about that.

and we're putting money and resources into remedying the problem. >> i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. dr. holdren, the administration's big data research and development initiative announced earlier this year, focused on improving our ability to derive new insights 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 comparable advances in high end or high performance computing platforms, if we're going to effectively and efficiently and affordably extract value from large and growing volumes of data.

the power demands alone will limit the development of larger and faster super computing systems and their ability to process big data. and i don't view this as an either/or proposition. while the administration is proposing new financial commitments to big data, we have yet to receive a report from the administration for achieving the extra scale computing. it's my understanding a report was due out in february of this year outlining the research, development, engineering efforts to achieve the extra scale, and again, that was due in february. so when can we expect to see it? >> let me start by agreeing with your point that the future of computing is going to involve both what we call big iron and big data. and you're asking about the big iron part, the hardware

development and the energy requirements. i will have to look into where in the process that computing report is and how soon you can expect it. i'll get back to you on that. but i know that we are paying a lot of attention to the needs in that domain, and particularly the need that you mentioned to reduce the energy requirements of our fastest computers. there have been some very important developments in that domain, which promise to substantially reduce the otherwise soaring requirements for power of petaflop computers and more. >> i worry about, you know, what's happening in the world, and we're just on hold, because of a report. but i was pleased to see that the ibm mira super computer at the lab in my district ascended to number three, as one of the fastest in the world.

and the fastest computer is at lawrence livermore, and behind that is the japanese super computer. but i think that all of the -- the group should be proud of their hard work. but clearly the u.s. leadership is being challenged in this area. as one article put it, the latest list marks the return of the european systems in force, with the addition of two german systems and one italian system. and the u.s. based super computer got the top billing in this latest report, is now ranked number six. and i've certainly been looking at this for a long time, and we are facing stiff competition. and the value of super computing seems to be globally understood, and we can't let us fall behind. we have to have that plan for achieving the xta scale. i would urge that you see it's

completed and submitted to the congress as soon as possible. >> i agree. and i will certainly get back to you on the report. we intend to stay number one. we can expect challenges from around the world in this domain and others, in high technology. but we intend to stay number one. we recognize the importance of this one. >> yeah. well, it certainly has been -- you know, there is now in the 2013 budget, there's been a submission for $21 million for new data intensive science efforts. but the xa scale remains on hold. we need to get those two to be balanced. thank you. yield back. >> the chair recognizes mrs. laufgren, the gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and 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'd ask mr. chairman unanimous consent to submit 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 scientists at our research labs. one senior scientist at los alamos was quoted in the report as saying this. when i started as a young postok and later in my career as a university professor and also here at the lab, there was a social contract which basically said, you'll never get rich in science, but we treat you as adults, respect you for your commitment, and in turn you can pursue science and have fun. today this contract is badly broken, an atmosphere of distrust, rigorous control and checks. the report went on to note the increasing operational formality of being dictated by the mmsa

headquarters that had contributed to a bias against experimental work and the report said without a strong experimental program, the quality of scientific and engineering at the laboratories will be at risk, as will the core mission of these laboratories. since this report came out last year, are you aware of anything that nnsa has done to repair the distrust and the damaged relationships that the report outlines, both with the directors and with the scientists at our national labs? >> thank you for the question. first of all, i'm very much aware of the report -- >> i know you are. >> and we discussed it offline. we have a task force in ostp in the national security and international affairs division, following up on that report's recommendations, looking at the health and adequacy with the way we're running our national security science technology and

innovation enterprise. i myself, i just two weeks ago visited both the sandia national labs and los alamos lab. i spoke with the directors of both labs and i will be going to livermore to talk to the management at livermore about this set of problems, among others. and what we can do about them. and i've talked to secretary true about it. and with the administrator augustineo. and they understand there is a problem. and they're as 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 excessive micromanagement is obviously not contributing to the attractiveness of continued employment for our brightest scientists and engineers at these labs. so we are determined to fix that. >> thank you very much for that

report. that is very encouraging news. and perhaps i can follow up offline with some of the details of that. i'm so pleased that you're taking responsibility for this issue. as you know, i'm very interested in inertial confinement infusion. and i'm aware that both you and dr. kuehnan, the former undersecretary for science, were instrumental for calling to assess our prospects on inertial confinement infusion of energy. the national academy released their interim report, and again i would ask unanimous consent to put the interim report into the record. >> excuse me. this is not a report that's been discussed with the other side. normally you know we'd 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. >> very big report. we're aware of it. the normal procedure is to have it worked out. and i think they would probably work with you, if you'd do it -- >> that would be fine. >> do it later before we close. >> would be happy to do that. but i would like to note that the report, basically it's a long report, but it is i'd say enthusiastic about the prospects. originally, the goal for ignition was 2014. somehow that morphed into 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, it may be next year. would it be your belief, dr. holdren, that we should not -- especially given that china and russia are trying to overtake

our lead in this matter, that we should not give up as close as we are on this quest for ignition at this point? >> certainly i agree with that. and secretary chu agrees with it, i know. the nif is a national resource, national ignition facility. it has the potential to achieve ignition, although there are still obstacles in the way of that. we think 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. i'd just like to say, dr. holdren, it is a delight to have you here and to listen to your wisdom. thank you. >> chair recognizes mr. brooks, gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in a state of the union address, the president reiterated his call to congress to pass a clean energy standard which would require utilities to produce and sell electricity from expensive

sources such as wind and solar. you may also be aware of 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 bingamon. it would significantly increase electricity prices and result in heavy economic costs 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? >> first of all, let me note that the clean energy standard is not just about wind and solar. it's about nuclear energy. it's about fossil fuel energy, with improved emission control technologies. and it's a view of this administration that we're going to need all of those in increased measure in order to provide the reliable and

affordable energy to country needs, and reducing emissions, including emissions that are changing global climate. which itself -- >> dr. holdren, thank you. 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 have not personally read that study. so i don't want to endorse or criticize its findings without having done so. but we're talking about a portfolio of energy sources that would fall under the clean energy rubric. and my assumption is the portfolio will be pursued in a way to minimize impacts on energy prices and on american consumers. >> okay. do you have a judgment as to whether the solar and wind aspects of obama's clean energy standards program will increase

costs to consumers? you still haven't answered that question. you used the word minimum. i'm asking, will there be an increase? >> i think the answer depends on a lot of factors that i haven't analyzed. but we know that at the present time, both solar energy and wind are more expensive than some of the other options. at the same time, the prices of the other options are changing. >> are you testifying then to this congress that in your capacity with ostp, you have no judgment, no idea as to whether energy costs 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 -- >> no, no, you're -- dr. holdren, i have limited time. you've already covered it spans 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 if you don't have a judgment, 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? >> i think it depends on what the alternatives are. >> answer the question. he asked if you had a judgment? >> i do not have a judgment on the question. >> that answers the question. go ahead with your questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in as much as he doesn't have the background or knowledge to answer that question, i'll go to another one. president obama has made clean energy spending and the green jobs associated with them a centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda. however, as we review and consider the impact of these programs, there's been some controversy regarding the administration's definition and accounting of what constitutes a green job. this resulted in many headlines a mere two weeks ago when a senior labor department official testified to congress that the following occupations constitution green jobs under the