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 administration's definition. 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