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 mention, 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