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 ste 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 priorities? >> 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