distrust, rigorous controls and checks. the report went on to note the increasing operational formality of being dictated by the nnsa 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. >> we discussed it offline. we have a task force in osdp in the national security and international affairs division

following up on that report's recommendations looking at the health and adequacy of the way we're running our national security science technology and no innovation enterprise. i myself two weeks ago visited both the sandia national labs and loss alos alamos lab to tal to them about problems among others and what we can do about them. i've talked to secretary chu about it with administrator dog steen notice. they understand this is a problem, and they are 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 continuing

employment for our brightest scientists and engineers at these labs. 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 you're taking responsibility for this issue. as you know, i'm very interested in inertial confinement confusion, and i'm aware both the former undersecretary for science were instrumental in calling for the report from the national academy of sciences to assess our prospects on inertial confinement fusion energy. the national academy released their interim report, and i'd ask unanimous content 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 do that. >> oh, i wasn't aware of that,

mr. chairman. >> there would be an objection unless you want to work it out with them. >> it's a national academy of science report. it's on the internet. >> i understand it's a 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 do it. >> that would be fine. >> that will be before we close. >> sure. be happy to do that. i would like to note that the report basically is a long report, but it is i'd a enthusiastic about the prospects. originally the goal for ignition was 2014. somehow that morphed into 2012. as the report -- the national academy report indicates, there's no guarantee. this is science, not engineering. we may get this this year, maybe

next year. would it be your belief, doctor, 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 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 n.i.f. is a national resource and facility. it has the potential to achieve ignition, although there's obstacles in the way of that. we think that 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 others. >> my time is up. i'd like to see, doctor, it's a delight to have you here and to listen to your wisdom. thank you very much. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes mr. brooks, the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the state of the union i

addressed the president reiterated his call to congress to pass a clean energy standard which would require ufilters to sell and use electricity from sources like wind and solar. the department of energy has undertaken numerous analyses of the impact of the obama's clean air standard on prices including one requested by xharm hall and another requested by senator bingham. both department of energy studies found that obama's clean energy standard would significantly increase electricity price and result in heavy economic costs to to the people of america. doctor, 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. it's the view of this admission we need all of those in increased measure in order to provide the reliable and affordable energy the country needs while addressing the need to reduce emissions, including emissions that are threatening to change global climate, which itself impacts on the economy. >> that doesn't answer the question. 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. we're talking about a portfolio of energy sources that would fall under the clean energy roux brick, and my assumption is that portfolio will be pursued in a way to minimize impacts on energy prices and skurls.

>> do you have a judgment 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 use the word "minimum." is there an increase? do you have a judgment? >> i think the answer depends on a lot of factors that i haven't analyzed, but we know that at present time both solar energy and wind are more expensive than other options. at the same time the prices of other options are changing. >> are you testifying to congress in your capacity with o ostp you have no judgment 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 alone. what happens to prices depends on the portfolio.

zooif lim >> i have limited time. i have focused my wind 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 xauour xart with o. if you have no capacity, 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 you if you had a judgment. >> i do not have a judgment on the question as he has posted it. >> go ahead with your question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in as much as he doesn't have an answer. president obama made green jobs 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 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 options constitute green jobs under the administration's definition. college professors teaching environmental courses and school bus drivers regardless whether the bus is hybrid or an alternative. workers who fuel school buses. employees at bicycle shops. antique dealers because they seal recycled goods. salvation army employees, people who sell rare books and manuscripts because the items are used, hence, recycled. doctor, as the president's top science and technology adviser, would you agree that the administration's dwix of "green jobs" is flawed and overstates of the number of true green jobs you exist. >> the dwing seeming for overly broad, yes. i was not responsible for producing that definition. i'd be inclined 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 agree the definition you read is overly broad. >> with respect to seven different proefgss that the senior labor official testified to congress constitutional green jobs, are there any you consider to be a green job of those seven. >> i would want to look at that in more dpee tail. you went by the seven quickly, and i have not focused on this issue. >> would you like me to go through them again? >> no, that's not necessary. i can respond to you in writing following the hearing. this is not a domain in which the office of science and technology policy actually gotten involved. >> thank you for your agreement then that the senior labor department's officials differs from yours. >> his view may not be the administration's. >> wait a minute a second. this results 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. >> gentleman's time is over. >> thank you. >> we'll get back to that question before we leave. >> thank you, mr. chairman. doctor, thank you for joining us today. in your testimony you mentioned a few new projects such as the website about manufacturing databases 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 we're pursue in this domain, advanced manufacturing, robotics and nanotechnology 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. 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. 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

coursework that students take in community colleges prepares them for jobs in the industries that exist in their regions. this, i think, is an extremely important concept we've been pursuing, and it's already bearing fruit. one of the striking aspectses of our current economic predicament is in spite of an overall unemployment rate of 8%, many high-tech firms can't find the high-skilled workers they need. they can't find the fit with the jobs on open and the people who are available in the unemployed labor force. we intend to fix that. >> thank you. well, as we all know, cyber security is an issue critically important to our national security and our national economic well-being. how has your office created initiatived to help the cyber security sxefrt what they have 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. more generally on cyber security we work closely with the national security staff, the hold land security staff, the department of homeland security in an enter agency process aimed to strengthening the cyber security across the united states. we 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 it to build the cooperation we need between the public and private sector to better protect our electronic systems from attack and from

theft. as everybody in this room knows, this is an enormous, enormous challenge, and it's a high priority for the administration. >> thank you. we're moving on, then. you know, i'm very interested in this the stem education initiativ initiatives. can you elaborate how they will be utilized in our individual districts? >> i think going through the individual districts would be -- would be a great challenge. both change the equation and the parent educate it to innovate strategy. they have a specific focus in scaling up models that have proven to work to a wider variety of locations. under the example change the equation anybody active, they have a program to transfer to 100 new sites around the

country. successful efforts in improving the quality of k through 12 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 inoue vatd is among other things bringing practicing scientists and engineers from companies and national labs and universities into classrooms all around the country to work with k through 12 teachers in improving the classroom experience for more hands-on activity and also to serve as roll models so the practicing scientists sxwh and engineers and mathematicians can relate to the career. we're tryinging to do this across the country, and taking models that have worked in particular places and translating them to many more. >> thank you. i yield back.

>> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes mr. quail, gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman, doctor for being here. earlier this week we sent a letter seeking additional information on the national network of manufacturing innovation that was included in the administration fy 13 budget request. they've been tasked with coordinating the interagency effort. the original budget said that the although mgs wool propose legislation and making available $1 billion. few details have been made available. they have held two hearings on the fy '13 budget request and others on the mmni proposal. we've been really frustrated by the lack of information and the inability to receive answers on basic questions about the pro p pofl's funding and structure. we've told the administration is leading this initiative, so i'd like to follow up directly with you. my first question is how did the

arrive at the funding level of $1 billion for the greater netwo network. >> the baufk answer it to that question is we expect the $1 billion from the federal government over a period of five years will stimulate matching contributions from the private and fill tlop pick sectors. we're looking at a program over five years spend $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 225 billion dollars. that's where the $1 billion number came from. the government's chair. >> where did the estimates for the spending for each of those different institutes come from? how are you bagsing those estimates?

i'm trying goat an understand. >> it's a back of the envelope calculation designed to estimate how much money it will take to make a dent in a regional institute with this focus. you know, i could not produce a sharp enough pencil to tell you that 30 million is exactly the right number rather than 25 or 35. >> okay. it's a ballpark number that takes you to a ballpark government with the government. >> the proposal states it's a mandatory account, because most of the time they're discretionary. they say the authorizing legislation would be subject the to pay go. can you tell us the specific offsets that the administration has identified for managing this 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. >> on march 9th of this year, the president held a public event in virginia where he announced a pilot program smted by 45 du$45 million drawn from existing resources and multiple agencies including some within this committee's jurisdiction, nsf and the d.o.e. we heard that nasa will also be participating in the pilot program. can you tell us specifically what p activities are going to be reduced in order to fund the pilot program? >> i don't think any activities are going to be reduced. the agencies that are going to collaborate in the administrative manufacturing pilot are advancing specific missions they're already authorized to pursue and there's undertaking activities for which funds have been appropriated. >> were the funds not necessary.

>> were we overly fundsing these programs? we're expanding what they're supposed to be doing. did they not need that money before and there's just excess? >> i think we're improving efficiency and coordination by focusing these efforts under this rubrik. >> why would the administration propose to fund the fy 13 when the pilot, which was supposed to serve as proof of concept for the great network, and that won't be completed until the end of y-14. why the discrepancy here when you ask for funs when you don't 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 pilot closed last week. we expect to announce an award in the coming months, sick weeks. we begin that the pilot will

begin to operate before the end of fiscal 2012. >> operation isn't proof of concept. you can have an operation and say that you're going to try to improve a concept. you're going to be spending a billion dollars, you would think that we would want to put forth the proof of concept and the total although, not just we started the proz of a pruf of concept, which is what you're doing, and if you talk about those aawards, it's not a proof of concept. it's the beginning of the proz. >> wear talking about a phasing process and we think the order we laid out makes sense. >> okay. thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes miss johnson from texas for five minutes.

>> over from the administration to the next. or at least what are your own dairs what's your experience at it. >> of course there is continuing turnover in these admissions, when i took over the office in march of 2009, there were 40-some people who had stayed from the previous administration. there are more like 10 or 12 that carried over from the

previous add p mgs. the continuity is obtained in a lot of ways, partly as the folks who are carried over. partly is the really extraordinary performance of ostp directors from one administration it 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 marchburger who served in this capacity in the bush administration who got a tremendous amount from his predecessors in the clinton administration. there's continuity that comes from people coming in and out. that is, i was in and out of ostp throughout the clinton administration in ms. role as a member of the president's council of advisers of science and technology. i knew quite a bit before i got

the job. there are other people back again but weren't carried over from the previous administration. thardz a lot of ways toe deal with continuity, but i think we're doing well. >> i know there are benefits and limitations of this country model. i think it does emphasize is outcomes are not necessarily part of something. it's strictly based upon finding -- >> we thif science and technology policy of a domain that's bipartisan over the yeerdz and 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 that you think might be best? do you get too much? >> of course, we took a 32% budget cut for fiscal year 2012.

and that caused a lot of stress and a lot of challenge 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 we got in 2012. 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 dpo a lot on a shoestring and with the help of a lot of detailees who come from the science agencies and nsf, noaa, nasa, d.o.d., nih, and they bring insights about those

domains. they enable us to cover the broad terrain in a way that we could not recover if we had to do it all on our own budget. >> now, one last quick question. the current statute of limits, the office it to four associate directors and makes them subject to senate confirmation, and right now you had taken advantage of all four slots. but unfortunately all without any senate confirmed directors. do you have any thoughts on the number of directors or requirement for senate confirmation? >> i think they respond to the four divisions and the international affairs is 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 but subsequently that expired and so he's left. but in the meantime the senate confirmed associate director for technology left just a few months ago. the senate confirmed associate director for environment and energy sherry abbott left a little longer ago. and the senate confirmed associate direct for for science dr. carl wyman left a couple of weeks ago for personal reasons, health reasons really. and so we're currently in a position late in the term when the prospects of getting additional nominees through the senate are rather poor. we have one nominee, the president's naum anyway for associate director of national security and international affairs. she's had her hearing, and we

hope she will be confirmed. the other divisions are currently under strong leadership, the leadership that i've delegated their responsibilities to on an interim basis. and i think it is -- whim we're working on the problem of finding people senate confirmed for those slots, imt not sure how many of those we'll be able to get confirmed before the election. >> there's more of a challenge. thank you very much. my time has expired. >> dr. harris, the gentleman from maryland, five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. xharm and thank you, doctor, for appearing in front of the committee. >> one of the issues before the subcommittee has to do with transparency. in your testimony you brag about the first day in office, the president signing the memorandum of transparency and open government. with that in mind as the president's science adviser is