college professors teaching environmental courses, school bus drivers, regardless of whether the bus is hybrid or an alternative, workers who fuel school buses, employees at bicycle shops, antique dealers, because they sell recycled goods, salvation army employees, people who sell rare books and manuscripts because the items are used and it's 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 that it overstates the number of true green jobs that exist? >> the definition as you just described it seems to me to be overly broad, yes. i was not responsible for producing that definition. i would be inclyde to ask the council of economic advisers how they would define green jobs. i don't think the administration as a whole has embraced a decision, but i do agree the definition you read is overly broad. >> with respect to those seven

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

>> the gentleman's time -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. mcinernie. we'll get back to that question before we leave. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. holdren, thank you for joining us today. in your testimony you mentioned a few new projects such as the website about manufacturing data bases, and the robotics initiative. would you please discuss how these and other initiatives create jobs locally, and how they advance our leadership in the world with regard to innovation? >> all of the initiatives that we've been pursuing in this domain, advanced manufacturing, robotics, nano technology, and

others, are aimed, as i mentioned before, at accelerating the transfer of fundamental advances and discovery in science and engineering into commercial processes, products, services, and therefore, into economic growth and jobs. and the fact that all of these initiatives are constructed around partnerships, with the private sector working together with the public sector and the academic sector, is in fact leading to success in accelerating the transfer of these initiatives. we already see signs that manufacturing is moving back to the united states. we're already seeing benefits from this approach. and we're also seeing benefits from an approach in which we are working very closely between industry, government and community colleges to increase the extent to which the course work that the students take prepares them for the jobs in the industries that exist in their regions. this, i think, is an extremely

important concept that we've been pursuing, and it's already bearing fruit. one of the striking aspects of our current economic predicament is that in spite of an overall unemployment rate of over 8%, many high-tech ferms cannot find the high skilled workers that they need. they can't find the fit between the jobs they actually have open and the people who are available in the unemployed labor force. and we intend to fix that. >> thank you. well, as we all know, cyber security is an issue that's critically important to our national security, and our national economic well-being. how has your office created initiatives to help the cyber security effort, and what has the ostp done to strengthen our national cyber security? >> ostp has a number of responsibilities in the domain, particularly of national security and emergency preparedness communications.

and cyber security, therefore, intersects our responsibilities in that domain. but more generally, on cyber security, we work very closely with the national security staff, the homeland security staff, the fbi, the national security agency, the department of homeland security in an interagency process that is aimed at strengthening cyber security across the united states. we also have a variety of bodies and boards in which these government agencies sit with the ceos of the major communications internet service providers, and the like. to build the sort of cooperation that we need between the public and private sector to better protect our electronic systems from attack and from theft. i think everybody in this room knows this is an enormous challenge. and it's a high priority for the

administration. >> thank you. moving on then, i'm very interested in the stem education initiatives. would you please elaborate on how the stem initiatives you discussed will be utilized in our individual districts? >> i think going through the individual districts would be a great challenge. both change the equation, and the parent to innovate strategy, have a specific focus in scaling up models that have proven to work, to a much wider variety of locations. for example, under the change the equation initiative, they have a program to transfer to 100 new sites around the country successful efforts in improving the quality of k through 12 classroom education, through better teacher preparation. all of these approaches are, of

course, designed to work with educators at the local level, because that's where it happens. educate to innovate is, among other things, bringing practicing scientists, engineers and mathematicians from companies, from national labs and from universities into the classrooms all around the country, to work with k through 12 teachers. in improving the classroom experience with more hands-on activities, and also to serve as role models, so that the practicing scientists and engineers and mathematicians can relay to the students the excitement and the opportunity available from stem careers. so we're shutly trying to do this on the ground across the country, and taking models that have worked in particular places and translating them to many more. >> thank you, mr. holdren. i yield back. >> gentleman's time is expired. the chair recognizes mr. quail, the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. earlier this week, my colleagues

and i sent you letters seeking additional information on the national network of manufacturing innovation that was included in the administration's fy-13 budget request, and ostp has been tasked with the effort. the administration would create a mandatory account making available $1 billion, but really few details have been made available. my subcommittee held two hearings on the fy 13 budget, and specifically on the nnmi proposal. we've been really frustrated by the lack of information and the inability to receive answers on basic questions about the proposal's funding and structure. we have been told the administration is leading this initiative, so i would like to follow up directly with you. my first question is, how did the administration arrive at the funding level of $1 billion for the greater network? >> the basic answer to that

question is, we expect, number one, that the $1 billion from the federal government over a period of five years will stimulate at least matching contributions from the private and philanthropic sectors. so we're looking at a program which over five years would spend about $2 billion in total. the idea is to have 15 institutes for manufacturing innovation around the country. which would spend about $30 million a year each. so that's $450 million a year, times five years, is $2.25 billion. and basically that's where the $1 billion number came from. the government's share -- >> where did the estimates for the spending of each of those different institutes come from? how are you basing those estimates? i'm just trying to get an understanding -- >> obviously it's a back of the envelope calculation, how much money it would take to make a department in a regional institute with this focus.

but, you know, i could not produce a sharp enough pencil to tell you that $30 million is exactly the right number rather than $25 million or $35 million. it's a ballpark number that takes you to the ballpark number of $1 billion from the government. >> the proposal states it's a mandatory account, which is interesting, because most of the times these programs are discretionary. the proposal states that it's mandatory account in the authorizing legislation would be subject to pego. could you tell us the specific offsets that the administration has identified for establishing this mandatory fund? >> 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. and then on march 9th of this year, the president held a public event in virginia where he announced the creation of a

pilot program supported by up to $45 billion -- i mean, $45 million in fy 12 funds from twisting resources, including some within this committee's jurisdiction. more recently we heard nasa will also be participating in the pilot program. can you tell us specifically what efforts are going to be used in order to fund the 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're already authorized to pursue, and they're undertaking activities for which funds have been appropriated. but they're doing it under this overreaching rubric. >> are we overly funding these programs? it seems we're expanding what they're supposed to be doing by putting this additional money into new programs. did they not need that money before and they're just excess?

>> i think we're improving efficiency and coordination by focusing these under this rub c rubric. >> why would the administration propose to fund the nnmy in fy 13 when the pilot, which is supposed to serve as proof of concept for the greater network, and that won't be completed until at least the end of fy 14, why the discrepancy there when you're asking for the funds in fy 13 when you're not even going to get proof of concept until the end of fy 14? it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse here. >> actually, the solicitation for the additive manufacturing pilot closed last week. we expect to announce an award in the coming month to six weeks, and we, therefore, expect that the pilot would begin to operate before the end of fiscal 2012. >> but operation isn't proof of concept. you can have an operation, and say that you're going to try to improve a concept --

>> the proof of -- >> you're going to be spending $1 billion. you would think we would want to put forth the proof of concept in a totality, not just, hey, we've started the process of a proof of concept, which seems what you're doing. if you're talking about those awards, that's not a proof of concept, it's just the beginning of that process. >> i think we're talking about a phased process, and we think that the order we have laid out makes sense. >> okay. thank you, dr. holdren. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. 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, that ostp experiences a high turnover, both during the transition in leadership, and throughout any given administration, because of your heavy reliance on details from the agencies. 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 tend to carry over from the administration to the next? at least, what are your -- what's your experience? >> 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 there are now probably more like 10 or 12 who have carried over from the previous administration. the continuity is obtained in a lot of ways. partly as the focus of the carryover.

partly is the really extraordinary performance of ostp directors from one administration to another in 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, the late john marburger who served in this capacity in the bush administration, who in turn got a tremendous amount from his predecessors in the clinton administration. there's also continuity that comes from people coming in and out. that is, i was in and out of ostp throughout the clinton administration in my role as the council of advisers on science and technology. so i actually knew quite a bit of what goes on in ostp before i ever got the job. there are other folks who have been in before and are now back again but weren't carried over from the previous administration. because in a lot of ways, we

deal with continuity. but i think we're doing well. >> the benefits -- i know there are benefits and limitations of this current model. but i think what it does emphasize is that outcomes are not necessarily partisan. they're strictly based on -- >> we think of science and technology policy as bipartisan over the years. i think it continues to be. there is wide bipartisan support for at least most of what we do. and we don't think of ourselves as a partisan office. >> does your budget adequately support the mix of staff, and that you think might be best? or do you get too much? >> of course, we took a 32% budget cut for fiscal year 2012. and fortunately -- 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 the senate have this year voted out the president's full request of $5.85 million as opposed to the $4.5 million we got in 2012. and we hope that ends up obviously in 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 a shoe string. and we do it in part, as your question implies, with the help of a lot of detailees, who come from the science agencies, and from noaa, nasa, d.o.d., and bring insights about those domains. and they enable us to cover the broad terrain in a way that we would not be able to cover if we had to do it all on our own

budget. >> now, one last quick question. the current statute of limits of the office for social directors makes them subject to senate confirmation. and right now you're taking advantage of all four slots. but unfortunately, without any senate confirmed directors. do you have any thoughts, either on the number of the directors, or the requirement for senate confirmation? >> well, i think four confirmed directors corresponded to the four divisions. i think it's the right number. we started out after some delays in confirmation, having three of the four senate confirmed. the fourth, the president's nominee for national security and international affairs, was never confirmed, got an interim appointment, and subsequently that expired. and so he has left.

but in the meantime, the senate confirmed associate director for technology, and chopra has left a few months ago. and environment and energy, sherri abbott left a little longer ago. and the senate confirmed associate director for science, dr. carl wyman, nobel laureate in physics, left a couple of weeks ago for personal reasons, health reasons really. and so we're currently in a position very late in the term when the prospects of getting additional nominees through the senate are rather poor. we have one nominee, the president's nominee for associate director for national security and international affairs, dr. pat falconi, has had her hearing. we hope she will be confirmed. but the other divisions are currently under strong leadership. the leadership that i've delegated the responsibilities

to on an interim basis, and i think it is, while we're working on the problem, finding people problem to find people who would be senate confirmed for chose slots, i'm not sure how many we would be able to get confirmed before the election. >> thank you have been much, my time has expired. >> the chair recognizes dr. harris, the gentleman from maryland. an open government, with that in mind, as the president's science adviser, do you think it's a matter of principal that the government should make regulatory actions public? specifically if you have an

issue with the epa and some of their regulatory actions. as a matter of principal, do you think we should expect that? >> yes. would you work with the committee to see that we get -- >> be appear to do that, if there's a problem with that, i would be happy to work with you, i think the principal is absolutely the data on which regulatory decision and other decisions are based, should be available to the committee and should be made public, unless there's a classification reason. unlikely in this case. >> let me ask you, when you talk about -- he actually included natural gas as clean energy. you left it out of your testimony, do you consider natural gas a clean energy source in? >> yes. >> is there a reason you left it out of your testimony?

>> natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuel resources. >> i don't any we need a large federal r & d program, although we do need to ensure that hydrofracturing can be done in a way that protecting drinking water and projects other environmental value. >> if you're a scientist, is there a documented case of drinking water from hydrofracturing? >> there is not. >> so 1.2 million -- despite 1.2 million applications, we should be expending money in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrofractures. >> 1.2 million applications, doctor, you admit no documented

cases of drinking water contamination. to me it looks like a why would goose chase. >> i think it's very important that we develop hydrofracing to where the american people have confidence in it. >> i'm going to interrupt you for a just a few minutes. do you think it's -- fearmongering press relief from the data from pavilion study and has to go back and collect some more data. do you think that's good science? >> i don't want to defend a particular press release. >> you have to have kchs in a technique that's been used 1.2 million times with no document case of water. we're going to look at it, but it's a baseline, it looks pretty safe.

it's exactly 180 degrees from what science and administration said. in my final minute, there's a conference going on in rejoe io janeiro next. they're concerned that our taxpayers are going to bear the tax and economic bushrdens that come from these. in 2007, at the climate change conference in bali. americans need to reduce their living standard and this is a quote, and i need to know whether it's accurate. there's going to have to be a redistribution about an accurate -- is what you said in 2007? >> i do not remember, sir, exactly what i said in 2007, but it sounds to me that i would have been talking about distribution between clean energy technologies and dirty energy technologies and where we get our consumption, what the processes are more broadly by

which we support our standard of living. let me note as well what the president has said and what i have said that we believe the country's natural gas resources can be developed safely. we have both been clear on that. the question that you're getting at is whether the government needs to pay any attention at all to the range of potential environmental impact. >> the specific question is whether you said there's going to have to be a redistribution of how much we consume e. and i'll pull the final quote as to whether we're talking about energy or whether we're talking about this perception that the government thinks that americans just consume too much and that maybe this is not fair somehow. i would suggest that if you think that what we ought to do is reduce our gdp, consume less and have a lower gdp, that's certainly consistent with the american policies. >> that's not what i think, and it's not what the president thinks. >> when they continually --

folks in the administration have said we ought to redistribute our consumption and you have other administrative officials are saying it's nice if the price of natural gas were at energy levels some people were skeptical with that. that was just a rhetorical question. i thank the chairman. >> the chairman recognizes mr. lapinski for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you dr. holder for all the work that you're doing. it's listen almost two hours now and a couple of questions that i have here. first is the america competes reauthorization act provision.

i'm particularly interested in talking about induce mngtd -- s is -- i have continued to promote the use of innovation prizes. so if you can update us on what the prizes authority has done in 2012. and what been done to reduce the prizes at the national science foundation? >> thank you for that question--making clear that they had the authority to use prize competitions to achieve the goals of the departments in

agencies where they made sense. officially to generate innovation because you end up only paying for success, you describe a goal but don't prescribe the ways to get there. and you draw on the creativity of a very wide community to find the innovations, we now have prize competitions. transportation and many others, and the ones that have already come to completion have shown some quite remarkable results. i mean one that i'm sure you know about is the auto motive x prize which was corporate money,

doe or kes strags of the prize competition, there was $10 million in prizes for folks who could demonstrate a vehicle that gets more than 100-mile-per-hour fuel economy. and three vehicles succeeded and split the prize money. but the interesting thing is, kmt for