    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015
                      BUDGET REQUEST FOR SCIENCE AGENCIES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 26, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-69

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    88-139PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 ZOE LOFGREN, California
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
        Wisconsin                        DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               DAN MAFFEI, New York
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             SCOTT PETERS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               DEREK KILMER, Washington
    STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas                AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
    CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              MARC VEASEY, Texas
    DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARK TAKANO, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
    RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    VACANCY

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 March 26, 2014

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     6

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................     7
        Written Statement............................................     8

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Dr. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
      Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
        Oral Statement...............................................    10
        Written Statement............................................    12

    Discussion.......................................................    27

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Dr. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and
      Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President...........    68

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Progress Report on Coordinating Federal Science, Technology,
      Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education..................   102

                          A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015
                      BUDGET REQUEST FOR SCIENCE AGENCIES

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``A Review of the
    President's Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Science
    Agencies.'' I am going to recognize myself for an opening
    statement and then the Ranking Member for her opening
    statement.
        The topic of today's hearing is the President's budget
    request for the coming year. This is the first of several
    hearings to examine over $40 billion in annual federal research
    and development spending within the Science Committee's
    jurisdiction.
        Unfortunately, this Administration's science budget
    focuses, in my view, too much money, time, and effort on
    alarmist predictions of climate change. For example, the
    Administration tried to link hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and
    droughts to climate change. Yet even the Administration's own
    scientists contradicted the President.
        The Administration also has not been as open and honest
    with the American people as it should. When the Committee asked
    the EPA for the scientific data being used to justify some of
    the costliest regulations in history, their response was that
    they didn't have it even though they were using it. When we
    asked the National Science Foundation last year for their
    justification in funding numerous research grants, the NSF
    refused to provide a response.
        All government employees and their agency heads need to
    remember they are accountable to the American taxpayer who pays
    their salary and funds their projects. It is not the
    government's money; it is the people's money.
        Further, an estimated $300 million was spent in building
    the website Healthcare.gov prior to its public rollout last
    October. Secretary Sebelius rightly called this ``a debacle.''
    In its haste to launch the Healthcare.gov website, it appears
    the Obama Administration cut corners that left the site open to
    hackers and other online criminals. According to experts who
    testified before the Science Committee, millions of Americans
    are vulnerable to identity theft from this website.
        For this reason, the Science Committee has twice asked the
    White House's Chief Technology Officer, Todd Park, to testify
    about his role in the development of the Healthcare.gov
    website. Rather than allow him to testify before Congress, the
    White House instead chose to make Mr. Park available for
    interviews with Time magazine. So much for accountability and
    transparency.
        The Administration's willful disregard for public
    accountability distracts from the important issues of how
    America can stay ahead of China, Russia, and other countries in
    the highly competitive race for technological leadership.
        Perhaps the greatest example of the White House's lack of
    leadership is with America's space program. The White House's
    approach has been to raid NASA's budget to fund the
    Administration's environmental agenda. In the last seven years,
    NASA's Earth Science Division has grown by over 63 percent.
    Meanwhile, the White House budget proposal would cut NASA by
    almost $200 million in Fiscal Year 2015 compared to what
    Congress provided the agency this year.
        And the White House's proposed asteroid retrieval mission
    is a mission without a budget, without a destination, and
    without a launch date. Rather than diminish NASA's space
    exploration mission, President Obama should set forth a
    certain, near-term, realizable goal for NASA's space
    exploration.
        Many experts believe that a Mars Flyby mission launched in
    2021 is a potentially worthy near-term goal. A human Mars
    mission would electrify the American public, excite American
    scientists, and inspire American students.
        Our leadership has slipped in areas such as space
    exploration where we currently rely on Russia to launch our
    astronauts into space; supercomputing where China currently has
    the lead; and even severe weather forecasting where European
    weather models routinely predict America's weather better than
    we can. We need to make up for lost ground.
        These budget hearings are about something far more
    important than simply numbers on a ledger. They are about
    priorities. And the Administration should reevaluate its
    priorities if we want to continue to be a world leader in
    science, space, and technology.
        That concludes my opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith

        The topic of today's hearing is the President's budget request for
    the coming year. This is the first of several hearings to examine over
    $40 billion in annual federal research and development (R&D) spending
    within the Science Committee's jurisdiction.
        Unfortunately, this Administration's science budget focuses, in my
    view, far too much money, time, and effort on alarmist predictions of
    climate change. For example, the Administration tried to link
    hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts to climate change. Yet even
    the Administration's own scientists contradicted the president.
        The Administration also has not been as open and honest with the
    American people as it should. When the Committee asked the EPA for the
    scientific data being used to justify some of the costliest regulations
    in history, their response was that they didn't have it even though
    they were using it.
        When we asked the National Science Foundation (NSF) last year for
    their justification in funding numerous research grants, the NSF
    refused to provide a response.
        All government employees and their agency heads need to remember
    they are accountable to the American taxpayer who pays their salary and
    funds their projects. It is not the government's money; it's the
    people's money.
        Further, an estimated $300 million was spent in building the
    website Healthcare.gov prior to its public rollout last October.
    Secretary Sebelius rightly called this ``a debacle.'' In its haste to
    launch the Healthcare.gov website, it appears the Obama Administration
    cut corners that left the site open to hackers and other online
    criminals. According to experts who testified before the Science
    Committee, millions of Americans are vulnerable to identity theft from
    this website.
        For this reason, the Science Committee has twice asked the White
    House's Chief Technology Officer, Todd Park, to testify about his role
    in the development of the Healthcare.gov website. Rather than allow him
    to testify before Congress, the White House instead chose to make Mr.
    Park available for interviews with Time magazine. So much for
    accountability and transparency.
        The Administration's willful disregard for public accountability
    distracts from the important issues of how America can stay ahead of
    China, Russia, and other countries in the highly-competitive race for
    technological leadership.
        Perhaps the greatest example of the White House's lack of
    leadership is with America's space program. The White House's approach
    has been to raid NASA's budget to fund the Administration's
    environmental agenda. In the last seven years, NASA's Earth Science
    Division has grown by over 63 percent. Meanwhile, the White House's
    budget proposal would cut NASA by almost $200 million in Fiscal Year
    2015 compared to what Congress provided the agency this year.
        And The White House's proposed asteroid retrieval mission is a
    mission without a budget, without a destination, and without a launch
    date. Rather than diminish NASA's space exploration mission, President
    Obama should set forth a certain, near-term, realizable goal for NASA's
    space exploration.
        Many experts believe that a Mars Flyby mission launched in 2021 is
    a potentially worthy near-term goal. A human Mars mission would
    electrify the American public, excite American scientists, and inspire
    American students.
        Our leadership has slipped in areas such as: space exploration
    where we currently rely on Russia to launch our astronauts into space;
    supercomputing where China currently has the lead; and even severe
    weather forecasting where European weather models routinely predict
    America's weather better than we can. We need to make up for lost
    ground.
        These budget hearings are about something far more important than
    simply numbers on a ledger. They're about priorities. And the
    Administration should reevaluate its priorities if we want to continue
    to be a world leader in science, space, and technology.

        Chairman Smith. And the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman
    from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this
    hearing and welcome, Dr. Holdren. It is always good to have you
    before our Committee.
        The Fiscal Year 2015 budget request makes it clear that the
    President remains committed to prioritizing investments in
    science and innovation. While limited by last year's two-year
    budget agreement, the President is proposing to identify new
    sources for research and development funding, including through
    much-needed tax reform. This new funding will also make a big
    difference for some of our top economic development and
    national security priorities. I welcome discussion on the
    Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative and I hope that my
    colleagues across the aisle will do the same before they
    outright dismiss it. For if we continue to flat-fund or cut our
    investments in science and innovation under the guise of fiscal
    constraint, our nation will suffer the consequences for many
    decades to come.
        Under flat and often uncertain budgets, we are not just
    ceding leadership in some areas of science and engineering; we
    are losing the next generation of discoverers and innovators.
    Early career scientists and engineers, even those in the top of
    their class, have increasingly come to believe that the Nation
    is unwilling to invest in them and their talents. If nothing
    changes, we will continue to experience a brain drain that will
    have profound implications for our country's ability to
    innovate and compete in the global economy.
        I will make just a few specific comments about the Fiscal
    Year 2015 budget proposal under discussion today. I am pleased
    with the Administration's continued commitment to advanced
    manufacturing R&D, and workforce development. I hope we can
    find a path forward for Congress to enact the bipartisan bill
    that would codify the national network for manufacturing
    innovation.
        I also support the increased funding for climate change
    research and mitigation. Climate change is real and its
    consequences are real, even if some uncertainties remain. It
    might be easy for the most privileged among us to sit back and
    say we will be fine regardless of the severity of the impacts,
    but the vulnerable among us are already hurting and scientists
    and economists predict it will get much worse. I am saddened
    that we keep debating this at all. I still hope we act before
    it is too late to direct our Nation's great brainpower to
    developing solutions to reduce the warming and mitigate the
    impacts in our most vulnerable communities.
        It is also why--this is also why I am pleased to see the
    Administration's strong budget proposal for the Department of
    Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, as
    well as ARPA-E, which will go a long way toward building and
    capturing the jobs of a growing sustainable energy sector.
        At the same time, I have some questions and concerns about
    the budget proposal, including with respect to other parts of
    the DOE budget. I am also disappointed that once again we have
    a NASA budget request that would cut funding for the Nation's
    human exploration program even as the Space Launch System and
    Orion development projects are building hardware and getting
    ready for flight tests.
        In addition, the Administration's budget request
    inexplicably would cut funds for science, one of the most
    exciting and productive of NASA's enterprises.
        I also want to learn more about the new scaled-backed
    proposal to overhaul federal investments in STEM education. Now
    that we have the federal STEM education five-year strategic
    plan, I hope we can have a more productive discussion about how
    the budget proposal is aligned with the goals of the strategic
    plan and how experts in the stakeholder community are being
    engaged in major discussions.
        The truth is we all have things to be concerned about in
    this budget, but the root of the problem is that there isn't
    enough money to go around to adequately fund all of our
    priorities. The President and the agencies had to make some
    very tough choices. Some of our own choices may be different
    and Congress will have this opportunity to express those
    choices in our authorization and appropriations bills.
        But today, I look forward to hearing more from Dr. Holdren
    about the President's choices. As we move forward to
    reauthorize several of the agencies and programs within the
    Committee's jurisdiction, we need to give due consideration to
    the President's own proposals. Most importantly, I hope that
    any legislation that we bring to the Floor of the House reflect
    both the needs to invest in our future and our faith and
    integrity and potential of our nation's STEM talent.
        Thank you, Dr. Holdren, for being here today and thank you
    for your continued contributions to ensuring continued U.S.
    leadership in science and innovation.
        I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson

        Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing and welcome,
    Dr. Holdren. It's always good to have you appear before the Committee.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget request makes it clear that the
    President remains committed to prioritizing investments in science and
    innovation. While limited by last year's two year budget agreement, the
    President is proposing to identify new sources for research and
    development funding, including through much needed tax reform. This new
    funding will also make a big difference for some of our top economic
    development and national security priorities. I welcome discussion on
    the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, and I hope that my
    colleagues across the aisle will do the same before they outright
    dismiss it. For if we continue to flat fund or cut our investments in
    science and innovation under the guise of fiscal restraint, our nation
    will suffer the consequences for many decades to come.
        Under flat and often uncertain budgets, we are not just ceding
    leadership in some areas of science and engineering, we are losing the
    next generation of discoverers and innovators. Early career scientists
    and engineers, even those in the top of their class, have increasingly
    come to believe that the nation is unwilling to invest in them and
    their talents. If nothing changes, we will continue to experience a
    brain drain that will have profound implications for our country's
    ability to innovate and compete in a global economy.
        I'll make just a few specific comments about the fiscal year 2015
    budget proposal under discussion today. I am pleased with the
    Administration's continued commitment to advanced manufacturing R&D and
    workforce development. I hope we can find a path forward in Congress to
    enact the bipartisan bill that would codify the National Network for
    Manufacturing Innovation.
        I also support the increased funding for climate change research
    and mitigation. Climate change is real and its consequences are real,
    even if some uncertainties remain. It might be easy for the most
    privileged among us to sit back and say we'll be fine regardless of the
    severity of the impacts. But the vulnerable among us are already
    hurting and scientists and economists predict it will get much worse. I
    am saddened that we keep debating this at all.
        I still hope we act before it is too late to direct our nation's
    great brainpower to developing solutions to reduce the warming and
    mitigate the impacts in our most vulnerable communities. This is also
    why I am pleased to see the Administration's strong budget proposal for
    the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy, as well as ARPAE, which will go a long way toward building and
    capturing the jobs of a growing sustainable energy sector.
        At the same time, I have some questions and concerns about the
    budget proposal, including with respect to other parts of the DOE
    budget. I am also disappointed that once again we have a NASA budget
    request that would cut funding for the nation's human exploration
    program, even as the Space Launch System and Orion development projects
    are building hardware and getting ready for flight tests. In addition,
    the Administration's budget request inexplicably would cut funding for
    science, one of the most exciting and productive of NASA's enterprises.
        I also want to learn more about the new, scaled-back proposal to
    overhaul federal investments in STEM education. Now that we have the
    Federal STEM Education five year strategic plan, I hope we can have a
    more productive discussion about how the budget proposal is aligned
    with the goals of the strategic plan, and how experts in the
    stakeholder community are being engaged in major decisions.
        The truth is we all have things to be concerned about in this
    budget, but the root of the problem is that there isn't enough money to
    go around to adequately fund all of our priorities. The President and
    the agencies had to make some very tough choices. Some of our own
    choices may be different, and Congress will have its opportunity to
    express those choices in our authorization and appropriations bills,
    but today I look forward to hearing more from Dr. Holdren about the
    President's choices.
        As we move forward to reauthorize several of the agencies and
    programs within this Committee's jurisdiction, we need to give due
    consideration to the President's own proposals. Most importantly, I
    hope that any legislation that we bring to the Floor of the House
    reflects both the need to invest in our future and our faith in the
    integrity and potential of our nation's STEM talent.
        Thank you, Dr. Holdren for being here today, and thank you for your
    continued contributions to ensuring continued U.S. leadership in
    science and innovation.

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        Let me welcome Dr. Holdren back to the Committee and we
    appreciate his being here today. He is our only witness.
        Dr. Holdren serves as the Director of the Office of Science
    and Technology Policy at the White House where he is both the
    Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Co-
    Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
    Technology.
        Prior to his current appointment by President Obama, Dr.
    Holdren was a professor in both the Kennedy School of
    Government and the Department of Earth Science at Harvard.
    Previously he was a member of the faculty at the University of
    California Berkeley where he founded and led a graduate degree
    program in Energy and Resources. Dr. Holdren graduated from MIT
    and Stanford with degrees in aerospace engineering and
    theoretical plasma physics.
        Dr. Holdren, welcome, and we look forward to your
    testimony.

                  TESTIMONY OF JOHN HOLDREN, DIRECTOR,

                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY,

                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

        Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Smith,
    Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. I am pleased
    to be here to discuss the civilian science and technology
    components of the President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget.
        I want to start by observing that science and technology as
    a whole do better in this budget than might be expected given
    the stringent caps that apply. Under those caps, we are not
    able to propose as much for R&D and for STEM education as the
    challenges and opportunities warrant, but the priority that the
    President places on these domains is evident in the fact that
    the 1.2 percent increase for R&D in his budget over Fiscal Year
    2014 enacted is six times bigger in percentage terms than the
    0.2 percent increase in discretionary spending overall set by
    Congress in the bipartisan budget act last December. And STEM
    education in the President's budget is up 3.7 percent over
    Fiscal Year 2014 enacted.
        While the base budget in the President's submission for
    Fiscal Year 2015 comports with the caps in the bipartisan
    budget act, he has also put forward in his submission a vision
    for stronger investments in America's future in the form of a
    supplementary $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative. While requiring additional Congressional action, it
    would be fully paid for by spending reforms and closing tax
    loopholes and would come close to restoring Fiscal Year 2015
    discretionary spending to the level originally planned in the
    Budget Control Act of 2011. The $56 billion would be divided
    equally between the defense and nondefense categories and $5.3
    billion of it would support research and development. This
    would take the $135.4 billion for R&D in the regular budget up
    to $140.7 billion, which would be a 5.2 percent increase over
    Fiscal Year 2014 enacted. And that supplement would include
    nearly $900 million for NASA.
        In my written testimony I describe some of the other
    supplementary R&D investments proposed in the initiative. I
    just want to mention here a few other points in my written
    testimony that I think deserve particular emphasis.
        First of all, within the spending caps, the budget provides
    for a 1.2 percent increase in the combined budgets of the
    National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office
    of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology labs to $13 billion. These three agencies were last
    authorized in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.
    I look forward to working with the Congress on reauthorizing
    the COMPETES legislation and its support for these three
    crucially important science agencies.
        The President's budget for NASA within the spending caps is
    $17.5 billion. Consistent with the provisions of the NASA
    Authorization Act agreement between the Congress and the
    Administration, the budget funds continued development of the
    Space Launch System and the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle to
    enable human exploration missions to new destinations. It funds
    the continued operation and enhanced use of the International
    Space Station, which the Administration recently announced its
    commitment to extend through at least 2024.
        It funds the further development of private sector systems
    to carry cargo and crew into low-Earth orbit thus
    reestablishing a cost-effective U.S. capability for these
    missions and shortening the duration of our sole reliance on
    Russian launch vehicles for access to the Station.
        It funds a balanced portfolio of space and Earth science,
    including a continued commitment to new satellites and programs
    for Earth observation. It funds a dynamic space technology
    development program and it funds a strong aeronautics research
    effort. I look forward to continuing to work with Congress and
    with this Committee on reauthorizing NASA.
        The budget requests $5.6 million for OSTP, my office, the
    same as Fiscal Year 2014 enacted, to support OSTP's diverse
    missions in overseeing and coordinating science and technology
    efforts across the Executive Branch, including efforts that
    Congress asked us to undertake in the two COMPETES Acts, the
    NASA Authorization Act, and other legislation.
        As a final point, I want to emphasize the Administration's
    ongoing commitment within the President's science and
    technology budget not just to R&D but also to STEM education to
    better prepare the next generation of discoverers, inventors,
    high-skilled workers, and science-savvy citizens. As I noted
    earlier, the budget's $2.9 billion for STEM education programs
    is a 3.7 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2014 enacted.
        My written testimony and the STEM Education Report I
    delivered to Congress this week update the Committee on how the
    2015 budget proposal for STEM education differs from last
    year's. To summarize, the 2015 budget makes important changes
    that reflect input from the STEM education community and from
    the Committee. This budget continues to reduce fragmentation of
    STEM education programs across government but it does not
    transfer functions and the associated funding between agencies
    and it focuses strongly on the five key areas identified by the
    federal STEM education five-year strategic plan released last
    May.
        In closing, I look forward to continuing to work with the
    Committee to strengthen the Nation's science and technology
    portfolio and to achieve the economic and other societal
    benefits it underpins. I will be happy to try to answer any
    questions the Members may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Holdren.
        I will recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
        My first one goes to the budget, and in your testimony you
    cite three agencies: the National Science Foundation, the
    Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the NIST labs as
    having been identified as especially important to the nation's
    continued scientific and economic leadership, and I agree with
    you. But the last budget request by President Bush in 2008 was
    higher in real spending terms for those three agencies than
    President Obama's current budget.
        [Chart:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. And on the screen to our left and right you
    will see a chart that shows that in equivalent 2015 dollars,
    President Bush's Fiscal Year 2009 COMPETES request was about
    $300 million more than that of President Obama. This will
    surprise a lot of people who may have read otherwise. My
    question is fairly simple. Why is the Administration's budget
    request, at least in my view, going in the wrong direction?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, I will agree with Ranking
    Member Johnson in her opening statement that there simply is
    not enough money to fund all of the Administration's
    priorities. We are suffering through an era of very difficult
    choices. The essence of the matter I think is the President's
    proposal for the supplementary initiative--the Opportunity,
    Growth, and Security Initiative--which would boost the funding
    of NIH by almost $1 billion, boost the funding of NASA by
    nearly $900 million, boost the funding of NSF by half-a-billion
    dollars, and so on.
        So what we are hoping is that the vision of the President
    for science and technology as embodied not just in the base
    budget but in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
    will be welcomed by the Congress and will lead to funding
    levels that more adequately address the challenges and the
    opportunities.
        Chairman Smith. And, Dr. Holdren, as I mentioned in my
    opening statement, it really comes down to a matter of
    priorities, and in this instance, as I also emphasized, I think
    the Administration needs to perhaps reevaluate its priorities
    when we had the Bush Administration spending more on those
    nondefense research and development than the current
    Administration.
        Let me go to a question about the National Science
    Foundation. When you testified last year, you agreed that there
    was room for improvement as to how the National Science
    Foundation prioritizes grants.
        [Chart:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. On the screen now are six NSF-funded
    studies out of many dozens that to me are questionable. You
    have studied fishing practices around Lake Victoria in Africa,
    $15,000; $340,000 to study the ecological consequences of early
    human-set fires in New Zealand; a three-year, $200,000 study of
    the Bronze Age on the island of Cyprus; surveying lawsuits in
    Peru from 1600 to 1700, $50,000; the Climate Change Musical
    that was prepared for Broadway but I am not sure ever was
    actually produced, $700,000; and causes of stress in Bolivia,
    $20,000. Well, what causes a lot of the stress is studying
    stress in Bolivia.
        My question is this: Do you think the National Science
    Foundation should in fact provide the public--it is their
    taxpayers' dollars that are paying for these--with
    justification for why the research grants they choose are
    worthy of funding?
        Dr. Holdren. Let me make a couple of comments to that
    question. First of all, I did say improvement was possible at
    the NSF with respect to transparency, effectiveness, and so on.
    I think improvement is possible in virtually every human
    institution, and I think the NSF has improved in the
    intervening time. They have issued new guidelines both to their
    grantees and to their employees about transparency and
    explanations of the importance and relevance of the research
    that they fund. These are posted on the NSF website. I am not
    in a position to address on the fly individual grants.
        Chairman Smith. I understand that.
        Dr. Holdren. I suggested in the last time I testified here
    I am not sure any of us in this room are as good a judge of the
    relevance of research projects and social----
        Chairman Smith. Dr. Holdren, excuse me for interrupting you
    but I want to finish up one more question in a second. But I
    think my question really went to whether you feel that the
    National Science Foundation should justify these grants one way
    or the other? And I know they--as you say, they have been
    making some changes. So far, all we have heard is that words;
    we haven't actually seen these changes implemented yet and I
    know you are going to help us with that. But don't you feel
    that NSF should justify these grants to the American taxpayer?
        Dr. Holdren. I believe they do justify the grants to the
    American taxpayers in what they post on their site about the
    evaluations, but I would also note that the Organic Act, the
    National Science Foundation Act of 1950, says that what the
    Foundation is supposed to do starts with promoting the progress
    of science and then it goes on to say ``to advance the national
    health, prosperity, and welfare to secure the national
    defense----
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. --and other purposes.'' Funding basic research
    is in the NSF's mission. It is our most important funder of
    basic research. We should let it continue to do that.
        Chairman Smith. We are going to have to agree to disagree
    perhaps. I do not think that they have justified these grants,
    at least in what they have publicly posted. And as I mentioned
    to you earlier, I wrote a letter almost a year ago to the head
    of the National Science Foundation and I am still waiting for
    justification on a number of grants, and I think you are going
    to try to help me get those justifications.
        Dr. Holdren. I will try to help.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Let me yield myself an additional
    minute, and I don't do that very often but I would like to
    squeeze in one more question and this goes to NASA.
        In December 2012 the National Academy of Sciences released
    a report about NASA's strategic direction. That report stated
    that ``the committee has seen little evidence that a current
    stated goal for NASA's human spaceflight program--namely, to
    visit an asteroid by 2025--has been widely accepted as a
    compelling destination by NASA's own workforce, by the nation
    as a whole, or by the international community.''
        NASA's own advisory group found the asteroid retrieval
    mission ``to be very interesting and entertaining,'' but ``it
    was not considered to be a serious proposal.'' Combine the
    asteroid retrieval mission with the Obama Administration's
    track record of canceling space exploration programs, first the
    Constellation program, then a joint robotic mission to Mars,
    and now SOFIA, an infrared telescope that flies aboard a Boeing
    747, and then add in the Administration's proposed budget which
    cuts NASA by $186 million, and you have to wonder if the
    Administration is really committed to space exploration.
        [Chart:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        My question is this: As we can see from this chart, the
    Administration's budget request is down nine percent in real
    dollars compared to the last year of the Bush Administration.
    Is there a good explanation for this?
        Dr. Holdren. First of all, Mr. Chairman, the last Bush
    Administration was not laboring under the budget caps that we
    are laboring under now.
        Chairman Smith. As I said a while ago, it is a matter of
    priorities.
        Dr. Holdren. It is a matter of priorities. There is not
    enough to go around, and if we get the Opportunity, Growth, and
    Security Initiative, it will enable boosting NASA very
    substantially.
        Chairman Smith. But meanwhile, the Administration doesn't
    give as great a priority to NASA as it does to a lot of other
    programs. Obviously, that is the result.
        Dr. Holdren. Let me address your comment about the asteroid
    mission. The quote you mentioned was two years old. The
    asteroid mission has been reformulated and better explained and
    now has a strong buy-in, not only from NASA staff----
        Chairman Smith. They still don't have a budget and they
    still don't have an asteroid and they still don't have a launch
    date. That doesn't sound to me like a very serious program.
        Dr. Holdren. There is a budget. There is a target in time
    for achievement of the mission, and it uses--one of the great
    attractions of the asteroid mission is it uses capabilities we
    are already paying for. It will use the SLS, it will use the
    Orion, it will use an electric propulsion----
        Chairman Smith. And other missions would use those same--
    use the same equipment I think much sooner. And you had the
    Administration actually cutting SLS and Orion. Again----
        Dr. Holdren. Not a bit.
        Chairman Smith. --I don't agree with their priorities.
        Dr. Holdren. They are going to stay on schedule. We will
    have SLS. We will have Orion----
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. --and we will use them for the next space
    exploration.
        Chairman Smith. And again, it appears by the cuts that the
    Administration's priorities do not coincide with this
    Committee's priorities, but I thank you for your answers.
        The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for
    her questions.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Holdren, a number of my colleagues continue to question
    the value of the federal investments in social, behavioral, and
    economic sciences. In the most recent effort among many, the
    FIRST Act, as introduced, proposed to cut NSF's modest
    investment in social sciences by 40 percent. And my colleagues
    seem unable to connect the dots between human sciences and our
    national interest. Can you please remind us once again both how
    small our social science budget is relative to our overall R&D
    budget, and more importantly, what we lose in terms of benefits
    to society when we arbitrarily cut and restrict support for
    competitively awarded social science research?
        Dr. Holdren. Okay. Let me start with the Social,
    Behavioral, and Economic Sciences line within NSF. It, in the
    Fiscal Year 2015 request, is $272 million out of a total
    research sum of $5.8 billion, so it is a very, very modest
    proportion of the NSF budget.
        The second thing I would say is there has been abundant
    documentation of the benefits to society of NSF's investments
    in this domain. Those fall in the categories of making our
    democracy work better, including work on the conduct of
    elections, management of common property resources without
    regulation, decision-making under uncertainty, understanding
    negotiation and compromise, and more. Tracking and improving
    economic and social well-being, economic and social databases
    and statistics, understanding poverty, understanding what works
    in teaching, improving public health and safety, risk
    communication, what causes people to get out of the way of
    hurricanes and tornadoes, what works, optimizing disaster
    response, controlling the spread of infectious diseases through
    social behavior, reducing human trafficking, understanding the
    patterns of crime enabling us to map crime, allocate law
    enforcement resources better, national defense and
    international relations, understanding the conduct of other
    nations, understanding the effectiveness of sanctions,
    nonverbal communication which helps our troops function in
    environments where other languages are spoken,
    interdisciplinary work involving social and economic sciences
    in cybersecurity, in geographic information systems, in
    neuroscience, psychology, language learning, decision
    processes.
        I think we are getting a lot of bang for the buck out of
    social, behavioral, and economic sciences in NSF.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        In the FIRST Act, some of my colleagues are proposing to
    move the interagency STEM education coordinating committee,
    known as CoSTEM, from the National Science and Technology
    Council to NSF. CoSTEM was created at the NSTC in response to a
    requirement that we put in the 2010 COMPETES Act. I have a few
    concerns about this, including taking resources out of other
    important NSF programs and also the decreased stature of the
    Committee if we move it out of the White House. What are your
    thoughts on moving CoSTEM's responsibilities to NSF?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, thank you for that question. I think the
    CoSTEM, the Committee on STEM education, should stay where it
    is in the National Science and Technology Council. The reason
    for that is the NSTC is the body that was set up to coordinate
    and oversee STEM-related activities that cross agency and
    department boundaries.
        And of course, as further discussion will doubtless
    illuminate and as this Committee knows, the STEM education
    function is spread across many different departments and
    agencies in this government, harnessing the special
    capabilities of NASA, of NIH, the Department of Education, the
    NSF, the Smithsonian Institution. And it is obviously in the
    interest of coordination and efficiency that the oversight of
    that operation be in a place that includes all of the
    stakeholders, all of the participants as the NSTC CoSTEM does.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Well, I have 15 more
    seconds.
        Many of us have concern about some of the numbers in the
    President's R&D budget request. For example, the request for
    NSF is below inflation, but the President is also proposing R&D
    funding as part of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative. How does this initiative fit into the President's
    commitment to continue our investments in science and
    innovation?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, as I said in my testimony, we think the
    base budget doesn't have enough room for all of the priorities
    of the President and what we think should be the priorities of
    the Nation, and that is why that supplemental Opportunity,
    Growth, and Security Initiative was devised, to provide an
    opportunity for the President to say what he thinks we really
    need and to provide the Congress an opportunity to provide it.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
    recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        And Dr. Holdren, thank you very much for being with us
    today.
        We have heard the word prioritize a lot here, and in order
    to prioritize of course we have to make sure that judgments are
    being made and priorities are being made based on accurate
    information and especially when we are talking about major
    energy and environmental decisions that would have amazing
    costs to society, as well as jobs and reflect the standard of
    living of our people.
        The Acting Assistant Administrator of EPA Janet McCabe was
    here just a short time ago and I had to ask her a question five
    times before I got an answer, and then she really didn't answer
    it at that point. So I would kind of like to ask you if I could
    get an answer to this question from the Administration.
        We keep seeing this being presented to us as a fact saying
    that global warming is being caused by human activity and that
    97 percent of all the scientists believe that global warming is
    caused by--that there is global warming and it is caused by
    human activity. When I am looking at where they get the
    information and as you look very closely at this, you find out
    that invitation was sent out to 10,000 Earth scientists. Less
    than 1/3 responded, and of those, the pool is narrowed down and
    this turns out to be 97 percent of 77 scientists who were
    selected. And we have even heard this figure repeated here in
    this chamber and in our debates.
        Now, let me just ask you now. Do you believe that 97
    percent of the scientists believe that global warming is a
    product of human behavior?
        Dr. Holdren. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in any
    particular number to two significant figures. I believe that
    the vast majority of scientists who are actively working in the
    domain of climate science take it as the established consensus
    view----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. --that global warming is real, it is
    happening, it is caused in substantial part by human activity--
    --
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So you agree---
        Dr. Holdren. --and it is already doing harm.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. But you agree that this is a
    bogus figure?
        Dr. Holdren. No, I wouldn't say it is a bogus figure. I
    would just say that there are considerable uncertainties around
    an exact figure. But the fact is, for example, that the
    National Academies----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Holdren, I am asking----
        Dr. Holdren. If I may finish----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --you a direct question. Why can't anybody
    admit that you have got a group of people reading out a bogus
    theory here?
        Dr. Holdren. This was published in a peer-reviewed article.
    It was based on generally accepted social science practices for
    doing polling where you never get a complete response. I am not
    going to defend 97 percent as accurate to the two significant
    figures that provided----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. That is good.
        Dr. Holdren. --but I would remind you----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So that----
        Dr. Holdren. --that every National Academy of Sciences in
    the world, including all of the National Academies of the
    G8+5----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Dr. Holdren. --or what is now the G7+5----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Dr. Holdren. --have agreed and issued a joint statement
    that climate change is real, largely caused by humans,
    dangerous, and we need to take action----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And does the Russian Academy of Sciences
    agree with that?
        Dr. Holdren. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Then why did the head of the Russian
    Academy of Sciences tell me just the opposite?
        Dr. Holdren. I have no idea----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Dr. Holdren. --about a conversation----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Dr. Holdren. --that you might have had with the president
    of the Academy. They signed the statement.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Dr. Holdren. I can provide it to you for the record.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, let me just note----
        Dr. Holdren. I would be happy to do so.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me note for the record that I
    had a meeting with a large number of the scientists in Russia
    and the head of the Academy of Sciences said just the opposite
    to me.
        Let me ask this--about this. Do you believe that tornadoes
    and hurricanes today are more ferocious and more frequent than
    they were in the past?
        Dr. Holdren. There is no evidence relating to tornadoes,
    none at all, and I don't know of any spokesman for the
    Administration who has said otherwise.
        With respect to hurricanes, there is some evidence of an
    increase in the North Atlantic, although not in other parts of
    the world.
        With respect to droughts and floods, which were mentioned
    in an earlier statement, there is quite strong evidence that in
    some regions they are being--some regions----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. --they are being enhanced if you will----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. --by climate change, not caused by climate
    change but influenced by climate change.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Well, I note all of the--I
    don't want to sound pejorative but there are weasel herds what
    I used to call it when I was a journalist that in some areas--
    globally, it is--there is not more droughts. Globally, there
    are not more hurricanes and they are not more ferocious, is
    that correct?
        Dr. Holdren. If you want to take a global average, the fact
    is a warmer world is getting wetter. There is more evaporation
    so there is more precipitation, so on a global average, there
    are unlikely to be more droughts. The question is whether
    drought-prone regions are suffering increased intensity and
    duration of droughts, and the answer there is yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So we actually have more water and more
    drought. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Holdren. Absolutely.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized
    for her questions.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much.
        And thank you very much, Dr. Holdren, for being here today
    and also for your tremendous service to our nation and your
    leadership in science generally. I am so pleased by the efforts
    that you have made.
        And I want to discuss in particular just a couple of things
    where I hope that we can have some--a different outcome than in
    the proposed budget. First, the reduction--SOFIA is something
    that has produced terrific results, and I realize that the--it
    is kind of ironic to hear people who voted for the sequester
    question the amount of budget available for science, but we do
    have a tight budget.
        But to me it is a problem to reduce when you have spent so
    much to get the results. And so I won't get into it. I will
    just say I do not believe that the Congress is going to accept
    the elimination of SOFIA. There will be a bipartisan effort to
    change that and I hope to be and plan to be part of that
    bipartisan effort.
        I wanted to raise the issue of the budget for fusion. As
    you know, last year, the National Academies released a report
    which found that several inertial fusion concepts, including
    the approaches taken by the National Ignition Facility and the
    Z Pulsed Power Facility have enough technical promise to
    justify dedicated federal support for inertial fusion R&D
    relevant to energy, not just the weapons reliability. However,
    there is no program currently in the federal government which
    directly officially supports inertial fusion research and
    technology development activities as it relates to energy
    production.
        Now, we have discussed this--I know Congressman Swalwell
    will probably have his own set of questions--with the
    Department of Energy and the new Secretary, but it--I would
    like to ask you to--whether you and the Secretary of Energy
    have had an opportunity to discuss the National Academy report
    and whether a collaboration might be in order to actually bring
    that National Academy suggestion into reality?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, let me start by saying, Congresswoman
    Lofgren, that the 2015 budget does provide $329 million for the
    continued operation of the National Ignition Facility and the
    Inertial Confinement Fusion program at Livermore, and I
    believe, and I think the Secretary of Energy would probably say
    the same, that the energy goal at NIF is served by the
    continuing effort to achieve ignition. The principal challenge
    with NIF is to get to ignition.
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. There have been important steps forward but we
    are not there yet, and until NIF can get to ignition, there
    won't be a basis for figuring out how to turn it into an energy
    source. And we got $329 million that is going to that facility
    in continued pursuit of that goal.
        Ms. Lofgren. If I may, Dr. Holdren, and I do appreciate
    that you have been out there and certainly have boosted morale
    considerably by your visit to Sandia and Livermore. We have
    lost hundreds of employees at Lawrence Livermore lab and the 80
    scientists, and I was actually out at the lab a few weeks ago
    and the attrition rate is about 1-1/2 scientists a week.
        And here is my concern, that unless we can give some
    assurance as to stability, I mean Livermore is not in my
    district but it is an hour's drive from Silicon Valley and we
    have competition for these scientists and they are looking--
    they are leaving. And so I want to make sure that we have the
    capacity to actually pursue. We have had some tremendous
    successes in the last few months. Obviously, we don't know, but
    recently one of the top scientists there said we don't have
    ignition yet but we have a lit match. And so we want to make
    sure that we get this done and I will just leave it at that.
        I wanted to touch on the open access issue. You have just
    given us the update, which I appreciate so very much. As you
    know, we had a little disagreement here in the Committee, the
    Subcommittee recently, and I just wanted to thank you for your
    efforts and to make sure that you are aware we are going to do
    our best that that does not go off the rails. I think it is
    essential that when the taxpayers pay for research, that
    scientists get access to that research, and I wanted to commend
    your efforts in that regard.
        And with that, I would yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holdren, thank you for being here this morning. Two
    years ago in April of 2012, the President signed an Executive
    Order announcing the formation of an interagency working group
    led by the White House to coordinate and plan agency activities
    for hydraulic fracturing research. I think that was composed of
    the Department of Energy, EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey. It
    committed to developing this interagency plan. And I think at
    that time the Administration told Congress that they would see
    the research plan January of last year, and so that would have
    been January of 2013. That date came and went and January of
    2014 has come and gone. And it has been two years and we
    haven't seen anything from the report. Dr. Holdren, where is
    the plan?
        Dr. Holdren. Congressman, I will have to get back to you on
    exactly where the plan is. We certainly have been looking at
    the issue of fracking and with an eye to making sure that the
    very important resource represented by the gas and oil that can
    be produced in this way continues to be available to the
    American people by virtue of ensuring that the practices
    continue to warrant the confidence of the public that this is
    being done in a way that is not imperiling groundwater, that is
    not aggravating air pollution, and so on.
        As to the exact fate of this report, I would propose to get
    back to you for the record.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I think I am troubled by a couple of
    things. One is that there was really not a lot of evidence to
    really justify, you know, moving down this road. You know, I am
    from Texas and we have been doing hydraulic fracturing in Texas
    for a very, very long time. And it appears that this
    Administration is on some kind of a witch-hunt trying to find
    some example somewhere, but unfortunately--or fortunately for
    the industry is that, you know, there has never been any
    evidence. But then we are going to go spend a bunch of money
    and promise, you know, that we are going to do this study, two
    years come and go, there is no study, yet the Administration
    still continues to take, in my opinion, a very negative,
    slanted view towards that technology.
        And so I have a couple questions that--if--while you are
    going to do a little research on there, I would like to know
    when we are going to see the report and----
        Dr. Holdren. I will be happy to let you know as soon as I
    find out when the report will be available, but I want to
    emphasize this is not a witch-hunt. It is not spending much
    money. But the point is there is widespread concern in the
    American public at least in some parts of the country that we
    have to make absolutely sure that this is done safely. I don't
    want and the President doesn't want to lose access to this
    natural gas and this oil because we have messed it up, and our
    intention is to maintain access to this economically--and in
    terms of security also very important--set of resources by
    making sure that the country does it right.
        Mr. Neugebauer. And while you are doing your research, it
    would be interesting to see, you know, how much money has been
    spent by the various agencies on this and how much time has
    been devoted to it. And I guess the other question is when the
    report is completed, you know, how will it be distributed?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, of course all of these reports that we
    produce end up being posted on the website of the relevant
    agency. Many of them end up being posted on the White House
    website. I will be happy to make sure that you personally get a
    copy when the report is ready, and I will again, as I have said
    for the record, provide you with an answer on the pace of
    development of this report, how much money has been spent, and
    so on.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, Dr. Holdren, thank you for your leadership at
    OSTP and for the Administration's commitment to advanced
    manufacturing. It is big area of focus for me and something
    that I believe is a big need for the country and looking to
    what our future is going to be in terms of economic growth and
    job creation.
        Institutes like the recently announced Digital
    Manufacturing Design Innovation Institute in Chicago which
    utilizes high-performance computing and digital tools to help
    industries make products better, faster, and more profitably
    are vital to reinvigorating our manufacturing base. And I think
    we should be doing more of those, as the Administration has
    been proposing.
        I also would like to thank you for your strong support for
    social science at NSF in the President's budget request. I know
    that Ranking Member Ms. Johnson had raised this issue and I
    just wanted to say I am glad to see healthy increases in
    spending for SBE for next Fiscal Year in the request, as you
    had mentioned in--earlier in answering the question.
        The first question that I wanted to raise addresses the
    future of exascale computing. I greatly appreciate the
    Administration's leadership on high-performance computing. In
    Illinois we are blessed to have two of the fastest
    supercomputers in the world with Mira at Argonne and Blue
    Waters at the University of Illinois. These two supercomputers
    make the DMDI Institute possible, make the--what is going to be
    done there and make Illinois a great place to put that
    institute.
        Unfortunately, the rest of the world is catching up to us
    and we need to continue making strides towards exascale
    computing. Could you give your thoughts on the future of the
    federal high-performance computing projects and how the budget
    helps us push the boundaries towards exascale?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, let me start by saying that the Obama
    Administration shares your view of the importance of high-
    performance computing, which includes but is not limited to
    getting to the exascale. It also includes capabilities relating
    to handling very large, very high-velocity flows of data for
    those high-performance computers to use. It involves advances
    in software so that the capabilities of these multiple
    processor machines can be effectively utilized.
        We are currently engaged in a review of the whole high-
    performance computing program, which OSTP is leading, along
    with all of the relevant departments and agencies with an aim
    toward ensuring that United States' capabilities in this domain
    remain the best in the world.
        And I would note that although it was pointed out earlier
    that the fastest computer in the world is currently a Chinese
    computer, its capabilities when one takes into account the
    data-handling capabilities and software performance
    capabilities, the United States is still in the lead in terms
    of real capacity of our high-performance computers.
        Mr. Lipinski. Any idea of when that review is going to be--
    that you are conducting is going to be completed and----
        Dr. Holdren. I think a matter of months, not weeks but--
    well, within a few months.
        Mr. Lipinski. All right. My next question focuses on STEM
    education. I recently learned that a new study will be released
    tomorrow on a Chicago-based STEM teacher professional
    development program at the Museum of Science and Industry. I am
    told the study will confirm the museum's innovative approach
    increases teacher knowledge and achieves higher rates of
    student growth. One-third of Chicago Public K-8 schools are
    involved with this program. I think this is an excellent
    example of the value that museums and science centers bring to
    the table not just for student learning but for teacher
    professional development.
        A lot of museums and science centers like MSI are looking
    at declining funding from federal programs, particularly with
    the proposed elimination of the competitive Education Grant
    program at NOAA and the lack of a line item for the program for
    science museums and planetariums at NASA. The Administration
    reorganized--reorganization proposal is somewhat changed from
    last year including 10 million for the Smithsonian rather than
    last year's 25 million. Can you give your thoughts on the value
    of the informal science education that museums and science
    centers provide and tell the Committee how this new proposal
    would fund STEM education broadly but also support these
    informal types of activities?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, to make this relatively brief, the
    proposal, as it has emerged in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget,
    does take account of the value of informal education, and that
    happens not just through what the Smithsonian does but it
    happens through what agencies like NASA and NOAA and NIH do in
    partnership with museums around the country. There are a lot of
    these partnerships; there are a lot of joint efforts which also
    involve the Department of Education.
        I happened to speak with NASA Administrator Bolden
    yesterday about NASA's STEM education programs and what they
    plan to do under the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, as well as what
    they are doing in Fiscal Year 2014, and he stressed, as I
    expect he will in his testimony tomorrow before the Space
    Subcommittee of this Committee, that NASA is working in close
    collaboration with a number of departments, the Department of
    Education and with a number of entities around the country, on
    this continuing use of NASA's extraordinary resources for
    inspiration and instruction to reach the wider community.
        Mr. Lipinski. I ran out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
        The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo, is recognized.
        Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holdren, I heard SOFIA mentioned a little while ago,
    and could you kind of explain for this Committee why NASA
    invested about $1.1 billion and has been working on this
    project for over 23, 24 years; it just became operationally
    capable I believe 11 days before the President's proposed
    budget decided to eliminate this project and no longer invest
    in it leaving basically our German partners who have been a
    partner of NASA on this for over 20 something years; can you
    tell us a little bit about the project and why it was so
    important 20 years ago but it is no longer, I guess, relevant
    to our space program today?
        Dr. Holdren. I wouldn't say, first of all, that it is not
    relevant, but its high operating costs are very difficult to
    accommodate within the current budget caps. Just to explain to
    the group what it is, SOFIA stands for Stratospheric
    Observatory for Infrared Astronomy. It has been a joint project
    of NASA and the German Aerospace Center. It is an airborne
    observatory based on a Boeing 747 SP wide-body aircraft. It has
    a 2.5 meter diameter telescope, which accesses the sky through
    a special door built into the airplane. That telescope has
    particularly attractive capabilities because the Boeing 747 is
    flying above most of the water vapor in the atmosphere which
    would interfere with the infrared capabilities of the telescope
    and it is an attractive project----
        Mr. Palazzo. So you----
        Dr. Holdren. --but it was ranked behind other projects----
        Mr. Palazzo. Who ranked----
        Dr. Holdren. --by the Decadal Survey----
        Mr. Palazzo. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. --conducted by the National Academy of
    Sciences----
        Mr. Palazzo. Right.
        Dr. Holdren. --which we rely on very heavily in making
    these----
        Mr. Palazzo. Was an internal review done? I mean you----
        Dr. Holdren. Oh, absolutely.
        Mr. Palazzo. Okay. And an external review? You are taking
    the Decadal report and saying it was a lower priority----
        Dr. Holdren. We are taking the Decadal report----
        Mr. Palazzo. Did you do a senior review, which is of course
    the process of where you have the community come in and
    actually analyze it for, you know, its benefit to the program?
        Dr. Holdren. I would have to defer to Administrator Bolden.
    You may want to ask him this tomorrow.
        Mr. Palazzo. Can we see a copy of this? I mean you said a
    report----
        Dr. Holdren. I say I will defer to Administrator Bolden. I
    know the issue was reviewed within NASA; I don't know that
    there was an external review beyond the Decadal Survey, which,
    as I say, ranked it behind other projects that we are
    continuing.
        Mr. Palazzo. I understand that, Dr. Holdren, but, you know,
    we invested $1.1 million in this project, been working on it
    for over 23, 24 years. It comes--it came operationally capable
    11 days before the President's budget was announced that it was
    no longer going to fund this project. So I mean we have to
    understand why we had invested American taxpayer dollars in
    something that apparently was extremely important to NASA and
    just as a--you know, a wave of a wand it is no longer
    important. The American taxpayer deserves this. Congress
    deserves an answer as well.
        And just real quick, I mean we understand that the Chinese
    are cultivating, you know, relationships in Europe a lot. You
    know, they are very aggressively pursuing our European friends.
    And so when this Administration just unilaterally cancels a
    project with one of our strong European partners, what kind of
    message does this send to the international community?
        Dr. Holdren. It is not a message I relish sending, but
    again, I would emphasize that there is not enough money to go
    around, and if the Congress will pass the President's proposed
    Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, there will be
    nearly another $1 billion for NASA, and that SOFIA decision can
    be revisited.
        Mr. Palazzo. Well, I agree. There is--you know, we continue
    to fight over shrinking discretionary pots of money, and until
    this Administration and our colleagues get serious about
    addressing the number one drivers of our deficits and our debt,
    we are going to continue to have these issues where we are not
    going to be able to fund not only just NASA priorities, we are
    not going to be able to fund our Armed Forces. And, you know,
    at a time when the world has become a lot more dangerous, not
    safer, we are skirting our responsibilities. And I hope this
    President, I hope this--his Administration and future
    Congresses will address that serious issue in the future.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
        The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would just like to say to my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle I would be happy to work with them and I know
    the Members on the side would be if we are talking about
    increasing budgets that NASA would have, whether it is for
    SOFIA or other priorities so that those priorities meet the
    needs of the American people, but we haven't seen that kind of
    cooperation frankly.
        Dr. Holdren, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to
    how some Members use the titles--and we have heard it today--of
    a few National Science Foundation grants to imply that the
    research that was funded by the grant wasn't necessary or it
    wasn't of national interest. We have heard that this morning
    and I think it is fairly easy to imply that research may not be
    in the national interest by only giving the title, but when you
    really look into these studies--and I would urge my colleagues
    to do that before just reading the title--you realize their
    importance.
        For example, some Members have questioned grants studying
    stress in Bolivia. Well, if someone looked into the research
    and not just the title, what they would find is that this study
    was investigating a relatively isolated group of people who
    were remarkably resilient. Understanding a group like that and
    comparing it to the U.S. population, which is less resilient in
    some cases, could be helpful to understand the link between
    behavioral and social factors and diseases like cardiovascular
    disease that we are seeing in the U.S. population.
        Other grants that have been mentioned are similar, and once
    you look into the research, you actually read, you understand
    its importance.
        And so I wanted to give you a chance to respond to that and
    if you could leave me some time so that I can ask you about
    NASA.
        Dr. Holdren. I get the impression some of my answers have
    been a little long. I apologize.
        I would just point out that NSF, with the help and
    encouragement from this Committee, has taken steps to make more
    transparent and accountable their whole process. They have
    established an internal transparency and accountability working
    group, they have sent out instructions to all of their staff on
    standards for transparency and accountability in describing
    grants, and I think that is already showing up in the detail
    being provided in the justifications for grants on the NSF
    website. And I emphasize that that information is available on
    the NSF website, and people who are interested can take a look
    and find out whether the justifications for these awards are in
    fact persuasive.
        My own view is that NSF has done a great job with the peer
    review on these grants. Some of the funny-sounding titles, as
    you point out, when you look into them do make a lot of sense.
    And, you know, I just don't feel that I am well-qualified or
    that most people in this room are well-qualified to second-
    guess NSF's superb peer-review committees. And the one place
    where improvement has been made is in the transparency of those
    justifications available to the Congress and available to the
    public.
        Ms. Edwards. Well, thank you very much. And I mean I will
    go to the NSF website and I would encourage my colleagues to do
    the same.
        Dr. Holdren, I wonder when we talked about SOFIA--and you
    can get back to the Committee about this and I know that we
    will be exploring it even more--it would be helpful to know the
    process that the Administration and that the Agency uses in
    justifying a cut to a program or eliminating a program. I think
    that is always difficult to absorb because programs aren't just
    programs; they are jobs and they are science and they are
    investments that have been made. But every once in a while, you
    know, you do have to kind of, you know, cut. And we understand
    that.
        But I would like to know with respect to SOFIA at some
    later point as we continue to examine the budget what the
    rationale was, what are the steps, the internal processes
    within the Administration to make a determination that SOFIA
    had to go. And if we were to restore SOFIA, wouldn't that mean
    adding another $83 to $85 million into the budget in order to
    restore that? And I just hope our colleagues understand that
    that is what the choice is.
        Dr. Holdren. Thank you. I will provide more information on
    SOFIA.
        I would note that NASA is looking at the possibility of
    other potential partners in the international community to
    defray those costs because, again, precisely the problem is
    there is just not enough money in the current budget to support
    the operating costs of that mission with just the partnership
    of the Germans. But if we can expand that partnership, that is
    one avenue, and another avenue of course is finding more money,
    which the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative would
    do.
        Ms. Edwards. Great. Thank you very much and I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr.
    Holdren, for being here.
        From our previous discussions, I hope you know that I do
    appreciate you and appreciate the critical role that the Office
    of Science and Technology Policy can have in ensuring a
    competitive future for our children.
        That being said, it is hard for me to understand the
    misaligned science priorities this President has put forward in
    his budget yet again. Whether it is the federal government
    getting involved with things best handled at the state and
    local level or this Administration's focus on applied research
    and subsidies for favored industries that I see as crowding out
    the basic scientific research needed to bring about the next
    great technology, invention, or cure. This Administration does
    not seem to have its priorities in the proper place.
        I am a staunch supporter of STEM education and have been
    greatly impressed by the student-led robotics team in my
    district. Some of them guided me to complete an Hour of Code,
    programming a computer game through computer coding.
        The federal government has been funding STEM education for
    decades. Every year, a larger emphasis is placed on the subject
    and every year we hear how America is falling behind other
    countries in math and science.
        Dr. Holdren, do you get the sense of that the real problems
    with America's science education cannot simply be solved with
    more federal spending? Do you think there are larger societal
    issues to address that would place more value in spurring our
    kids to study math and science?
        Dr. Holdren. The short answer is, Congressman, that it is a
    larger societal issue. And one of the things we discovered
    going to other countries and the President has discovered
    talking to other heads of state in places where kids do better
    than our kids on the standardized tests is they are feeling
    more pressure from parents to do well in education. We need to
    get parents more involved in the importance of the education
    their kids are getting----
        Mr. Hultgren. I agree.
        Dr. Holdren. --and it is not just a matter of federal
    spending.
        Mr. Hultgren. I have seen it really with our robotics
    teams, the amazing commitment of the parents and mentors being
    engaged in this as well.
        There is a raging debate in my home State and across the
    country about the adoption of the Common Core State Standards
    and whether or not they are wise and sufficient to bring up the
    level of competitiveness of our country--that our country is
    pursuing. I would like to know what the role OSTP has had in
    consultation with stakeholder communities, federal agencies,
    and the States in developing curriculum for Common Core?
        Dr. Holdren. OSTP, to my knowledge, has not had a role in
    that Common Core process so I would need to look into whether
    there has been such a role in earlier times.
        Mr. Hultgren. If you could check, that would be great. You
    know, these standards are purported to be state-led efforts for
    Common Core. This is a--was through the action of the States
    and not coercion by federal government that they adopted these
    standards. But when I talk to my educators and local officials
    back in my district, they are only seeing this as a top-down
    initiative. Now, it is getting to the point where our schools
    are feeling as if they are being coerced into adopting these
    standards or their funding will get cut off. That kills the
    ability to collaborate and focus our education system on our
    kids.
        I want to switch subjects a bit. I would like to talk about
    federal R&D funding, one of my favorite subjects, especially in
    basic research where government does play a key role. The
    President has tried to turn science into a political wedge
    issue, which it is not and should never be. So I would like to
    clear up what his budget actually does to science and his
    precedents. Your budget provides $135.4 billion for federal
    investment in R&D. Do you know what the previous Administration
    proposed, Dr. Holdren?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, it would depend on which year they
    proposed it.
        Mr. Hultgren. Well, what I saw is $147 billion, which was
    20 percent more funding than we use in constant Fiscal Year
    2015 dollars. This certainly does not seem to match with the
    President's rhetoric, but what I find most alarming are the
    cuts in basic scientific research. Your proposal has $32.1
    billion going to basic research, is that correct?
        Dr. Holdren. I think that is right.
        Mr. Hultgren. When we are talking about budgeting, we are
    really talking about priorities and that is really what all
    this is about. There are limited resources. Families in our
    district are having to tighten their belts. We have to have
    priorities here as well.
        Under President Bush, the request was $32.2 billion in
    constant dollars but the basic R&D share was much higher. Under
    the current proposal, basic research will be at .8 percent of
    the federal budget. The previous Administration had it at 1.1
    percent, significantly higher. I know that you may try to
    justify these overall cuts by singling out the defense R&D cut;
    non-R&D was still a high priority during the Bush
    Administration. We need to get our priorities right or we will
    not continue to have the best research universities and in fact
    facilities available to our kids moving forward.
        In our constrained budgetary environment, we need to be
    sending clear signals to our kids as well as the increasingly
    international scientific community that science is important to
    us. The President's budget, I believe, fails to set this
    message--send this message, and I want to see that changed.
        So my time is expired. I yield back, Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is
    recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Holdren--Dr.
    Holdren, it is good to see you again. Thank you for being here.
    Thank you for spending the time.
        I want to start, Doctor, by going back to an issue that I
    know you know is important to me and one that we have discussed
    at length on a number of occasions and I appreciate your
    followup and your advocacy on these.
        As you know, STEM education has been an issue that has been
    very important to me and important to Massachusetts and my
    district. The area of particular interest to me and I wanted to
    push on with you a little bit is middle-skilled jobs in
    coordination with community colleges and vocational schools.
        There is a report from the Brookings Institution--or
    Institute that came out about a year ago that highlighted facts
    that I am sure you are very familiar with, but that 26 million
    of all jobs--or, excuse me, 26 million U.S. jobs, 20 percent of
    all jobs require high knowledge in any one STEM field. Half of
    all STEM jobs, though, are available to workers without a four-
    year college degree and those jobs pay on average $53,000 a
    year, about ten percent higher than jobs with similar
    educational requirements. STEM jobs that require high level of
    knowledge or high--over at least a bachelor's degree are
    clustered in certain Metropolitan areas that we all know--
    Silicon Valley; Cambridge, Massachusetts; San Jose--but other
    STEM-based economies like--require--jobs are available for
    those that require less than a bachelor's degree. There are
    robust economies in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Birmingham,
    Alabama, and Wichita, Kansas, as well.
        And I guess my question for you, Doctor, is through much of
    the report that I have reviewed, there seems to be an absence
    of focus on community college, vocational schools, vocational
    training, technical training, and I want to get your thoughts
    as to 1) where the Administration is on this and 2) how we can
    be helpful and supportive.
        Dr. Holdren. We are aware of the gap in high skills worker
    education short of four-year colleges. Just a couple of months
    ago we brought a large number of community college Presidents
    into the White House to discuss what they are doing and how we
    can be more helpful in what they are doing to link up with
    manufacturing firms in their regions to create curricula that
    match training to the jobs that are actually available in those
    regions.
        The National Science Foundation's budget in the President's
    Fiscal Year 2015 proposal has something over $60 million for
    NSF's Advanced Technological Education program, the ATE
    program, which centers on education of technicians for high
    technology fields. So this is something we are working on.
        Mr. Kennedy. And what--and I appreciate that, Doctor.
        I visited a number of vocational schools and technical
    training schools in my district. These kids are coming out
    excited about math, excited about engineering, excited about
    science, building things that I certainly never built when I
    was in high school. I was--I still know the quadratic equation.
    I don't know what good that is doing me. These kids are
    building things that actually can work, and when their plumbing
    gets backed up, they can fix it and I have got to call one of
    them to come fix it.
        So I guess my point is these are jobs that aren't going to
    get outsourced. These are jobs that, as studies have shown,
    are--have a high earning capacity, and there are jobs that are
    available today that are going to be available in the future.
    And I would just ask that the Administration continue to focus
    on this, and if there are ways that we can be helpful on it, we
    certainly would like to be as well.
        Dr. Holdren. Thank you. And we will keep focused on it.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. And one other issue that I just--I
    know my time is running short, but I wanted to see if you could
    comment on there has been a couple of articles of late, even
    just in the past couple of weeks, about the prevalence or
    increasing prevalence of private philanthropy to take over some
    of the--or to fill the need--the gap if you will from some of
    these--from the retraction in the government funding for basic
    research. Much of this philanthropy is obviously very well-
    needed and we should encourage it and I certainly encourage it.
        The issue with it is that it is often pinpointed or--to a
    specific target by the donor, which is great and it is their
    money; they should do what they want with it. But do you see
    any long-term challenge with relying more and more on private
    philanthropy to fill the need here if we are not making the--
    there seems to be broad-based support for this idea that this
    is one of the essential areas of basic responsibilities of
    government, yet an unwillingness to make that commitment.
        Dr. Holdren. I don't like the idea of calling it reliance
    on the philanthropic sector. I think we should welcome the
    engagement of the philanthropic sector and funding research in
    general and basic research in particular. And there is a new
    consortium of major private foundations which is working
    together to try to boost funding for basic research rather
    than, as you note, targeted research.
        There is a lot of the latter. We have some very important
    philanthropic support for the BRAIN Initiative----
        Mr. Kennedy. Um-hum.
        Dr. Holdren. --that this Administration has launched from a
    number of private foundations, but we are getting support as
    well for increased philanthropic funding of basic research. But
    that does not mean that the country can rely on that. It is not
    going to be big enough. The government needs to continue to
    meet its fundamental responsibility to support basic research
    in this country. We would like to be able to support more of it
    in this budget, and again, we will support more of it in this
    budget if we get the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative supported by Congress.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Doctor.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the extra time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holdren, always a pleasure to have you here.
        I wonder if you could give us a status on the supply,
    availability, inventory of Pu-238 and any other nuclear fuel we
    may need to travel in space?
        Dr. Holdren. My understanding is that there is a new
    agreement between NASA and the Department of Energy on
    producing plutonium-238 for our space missions, and I believe
    that that agreement will be to meeting the needs that we
    foresee.
        Mr. Posey. How much do we have in stock now?
        Dr. Holdren. I would have to get back to you on what is
    actually in the stockpile at this moment.
        Mr. Posey. Are you aware that they are getting rid of
    anything that we have in inventory now?
        Dr. Holdren. I am not sure what you mean by ``getting rid
    of.''
        Mr. Posey. That there may be plans to eliminate part of the
    inventory that we now have.
        Dr. Holdren. I am not aware of any such plans, but I will
    look into it. This is something I would have to explore with
    the Department of Energy.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. Do you have a pretty good idea of how long
    it takes to purify this plutonium and how much it costs to do
    that?
        Dr. Holdren. Not off the top of my head. I would expect
    that in terms of production, we are talking about a timescale
    of six months to a couple of years I would guess.
        Mr. Posey. And a whole bunch of money, but if you would
    check on that and seriously get with me and let me know the
    status of it----
        Dr. Holdren. Happy to do that.
        Mr. Posey. We had somebody here from the National Science
    Foundation, who had actually--who said she wasn't a scientist
    and so couldn't answer any questions. And I was just curious. I
    asked her how many Ice Ages she thought that this Earth had
    been through. I mean everything I can gather a minimum of
    three, a maximum some say from five to seven, but I just want
    to know how many Ice Ages you think we have gone through?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, again, I don't remember off the top of
    my head. I think the numbers you mentioned are in the ballpark
    but I would have to look at the record. The Earth has undergone
    climate changes throughout its entire history. The difference
    is that for most of that history there weren't seven billion
    people on the planet who needed to be fed, clothed, and kept
    prosperous, and the other difference is----
        Mr. Posey. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. --that the pace of change was generally much
    slower.
        Mr. Posey. I am running out of time. I am running out of
    time. I am aware of that.
        You know, obviously we have had global warming for a long
    time. You can't have one seamless Ice Age that encompasses
    three Ice Ages. We had to have warming periods between each one
    of those. And so it is a natural phenomenon and, you know, just
    because we are alive now, the tectonic plate shifts aren't
    going to stop, the hurricanes and tsunamis aren't going to
    stop, the asteroid strikes aren't going to stop. These things
    have gone on for eons and they are going to continue to go on
    for eons.
        What do you think the temperature was on Earth before the
    disappearance of the dinosaurs?
        Dr. Holdren. There have been periods when the temperature
    was three, four, five degrees Celsius warmer than it is now,
    and the difference between the circumstances you are describing
    and the circumstance we are in now is the changes that are
    being imposed on the climate, in substantial part as a result
    of human activity, are faster than the ability of ecosystems to
    adapt and maybe even more importantly faster than the ability
    of human society to adapt. There are a lot of stresses, as you
    point out, that we can't control, but the stresses we can
    control that are imposing burdens on our society we ought to
    think about controlling.
        Mr. Posey. No doubt about that. And I don't think there is
    anyone--I haven't heard anyone say ever from either side of the
    spectrum that there is no such thing as climate change. I mean
    it is--we have had climate change since the day the Earth was
    formed, whenever that was depending on how--whatever you
    believe, and we will have climate change until the day the
    Earth implodes, whenever that is.
        The question is how much of the climate change do you think
    is influenced by human behavior?
        Dr. Holdren. The climate change we are experiencing now,
    the climate change we have been experiencing for the last
    several decades is, according to the Academies of Science,
    according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
    according to the view of most of the scientists who work on
    this, largely due to human activity. We are superimposing on a
    slow natural climate change a rapid human-induced climate
    change.
        Mr. Posey. But as a percentage, like you anticipate the
    climate would change X amount in a year without the existence
    of humans on it, how much more do you think as a percentage of
    the change is influenced by human behavior?
        Dr. Holdren. The natural changes which we understand and
    which are underway on a long-term basis as we speak would, if
    they were the only influences, be cooling the planet rather
    than warming it. We would be in a long-term cooling trend as a
    result of the natural forces affecting climate that we
    understand. We are instead in a warming trend which suggests
    that human activity is overwhelmingly responsible for the
    difference. We would be having cooling based on natural forces.
    We are having warming.
        Mr. Posey. I remember in the '70s that was a threat. We are
    going to have a cooling that is going to eventually freeze the
    planet and that was the fear before Gore invented the Internet,
    or the other terms.
        I had read that during the period of the dinosaurs, the
    Earth's temperature was 30 degrees warmer. Does that seem
    fathomable to you?
        Dr. Holdren. Thirty degrees sounds like a stretch to me but
    I will review the literature and get back to you.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Dr. Holdren, very much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
        The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Bera. Mr. Kilmer is not here so----
        Chairman Smith. Dr. Bera for his questions, the gentleman
    from California.
        Mr. Bera. Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Dr. Holdren, for being here.
        Obviously, we are in a very competitive global environment.
    We are in a very competitive global economy and, you know, that
    is not going to change in the near future. The one area that we
    do have a very competitive advantage over the rest of the world
    is in innovation. And clearly, we are still the most innovative
    country in the world; we are still the most innovative economy
    in the world, but we also recognize that we are starting to
    lose that advantage by not making the necessary investments to
    continue to move things forward.
        We also recognize that many of my colleagues have touched
    on the importance of training scientists and engineers to
    continue that economic advantage. Recently, I had a town hall
    at Intel with--Intel has a major presence in my district and I
    had the chance to meet with their leadership to talk about
    their future investments but also talk about their challenges.
    And clearly, one of the challenges that their leadership
    brought up was the lack of availability of engineers and also
    the lack of availability of folks that know how to write code.
    On this Committee we have also had a hearing on that as well
    and it is--you know, we have the folks from code.org testify.
        There are two things that really jump out in my mind. One,
    they said, you know, it can't happen at the college level. If
    we actually want to start our kids on coding and teach them
    those skills, it has to happen at the elementary school level.
    And, Dr. Holdren, I would be curious about your comments.
    Within the President's budget, within the STEM budget, if we
    truly want to have our kids not just learn reading, writing,
    and arithmetic but also have them learn the language of the
    future, which, you know, increasingly appears to be coding, are
    there initiatives both to put that into part of the Common Core
    as well as one of the challenges that repeatedly comes up is
    the lack of educators who actually know how to teach that
    coding as well and if there is funding to train the trainers or
    train the teachers?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, I would make--sorry. I would make a
    couple of comments on that. One, there is certainly funding in
    the President's budget for recruiting, preparing, and
    supporting more outstanding teachers in the STEM fields, which
    would include teachers who know how to code and who know how to
    teach coding. There is $40 million in the budget to support the
    goal of preparing 100,000 excellent STEM teachers over the next
    decade. There is $20 million to launch a pilot STEM master
    teacher corps.
        In addition, I would note that we have a problem with
    inadequate exploitation of the talent pool. Women are
    drastically underrepresented in engineering and in computer
    science. African-Americans and Hispanics are drastically
    underrepresented in these fields, and we have a series of
    programs aimed at improving inclusion opportunities for girls
    and women in STEM fields, opportunities for other
    underrepresented groups, including minorities. We have had a
    lot of effort on that front just in the last couple months in
    connection with Black History Month and then Women's History
    Month. And tapping a larger fraction of the Nation's talent
    pool for these purposes is going to be a very important part of
    the solution.
        Mr. Bera. Dr. Holdren, I am glad that you brought that up.
    I think the statistic that was quoted to me last week was it is
    less than 20 percent of all of our engineers are women at this
    juncture, the ones that are graduating. If you were to
    recommend to--again I think this committee has a desire to
    train those folks to fill those future jobs. What
    recommendations would you have for us as a body in getting more
    girls to think about engineering futures and careers, as well
    as some of the minority groups that are certainly
    underrepresented?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, this will seem very self-serving but I
    would hope that the Committee will support the President's
    budget in this domain because it has a lot of focus on those
    issues.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Last question. In my remaining time, the
    other area that I have focused on certainly is--as research
    budgets get tighter and so forth, one area that, you know,
    coming out of a background in higher education as an associate
    dean in a public university, research funding is becoming
    increasingly tight and we have talked a little bit about what
    we can do to enhance technology transfer and so forth. Do you
    have any recommendations that are both within the President's
    budget to allow the private sector to come in at an earlier
    phase?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, the President has been a strong advocate
    from the outset of his Administration of strengthening
    partnerships between the private sector, the academic sector,
    and including the national laboratories in that. The National
    Network for Manufacturing Innovation is a good example of that.
    The Energy Hubs that the DOE has set up are great examples of
    that. They are bringing private sector enterprises together
    with folks from research universities and national labs to
    build partnerships to grease the tracks if you will between
    discovery in the laboratory and a productive application in
    society. And we want to continue to do that and there is
    substantial support for that in the President's Fiscal Year
    2015 budget.
        Mr. Bera. Well, fabulous. We look forward to supporting
    those investments.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins, is recognized.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wasn't attempting to go down this road, Dr. Holdren, but
    you stated really twice today that SOFIA would be a priority
    under OGSI with increased funding, certainly implying very
    directly that SOFIA is an Administration priority. I would like
    to direct your attention to statements by NASA that actually
    brags about cutting SOFIA's budget to fund other programs.
        And I have here a letter, a document from OGSI that
    specifically states how they would spend the extra money, the
    $187 million. SOFIA is not listed there twice. I would like to
    ask you very directly why you have left this Committee with the
    impression, very direct impression, that SOFIA is a priority
    for the Administration where clearly it is not?
        Dr. Holdren. What I have said is SOFIA was ranked behind
    several other----
        Mr. Collins. Okay. So what you are admitting is it is not a
    priority.
        Dr. Holdren. --but----
        Mr. Collins. Is it or is it not a priority?
        Dr. Holdren. In better financial times----
        Mr. Collins. I am asking a direct question.
        Dr. Holdren. In better funding times----
        Mr. Collins. Would you answer the question, sir?
        Dr. Holdren. --we would support SOFIA----
        Mr. Collins. Is it a priority or not?
        Dr. Holdren. It is a lower priority than the things----
        Mr. Collins. Okay. Thank you, sir----
        Dr. Holdren. --that we are funding.
        Mr. Collins. --because you have implied it differently
    today and I don't appreciate the implication. It is
    hypocritical and disingenuous to leave this committee with the
    impression SOFIA was a priority and it is clearly not.
        So my next line of questions concerns security on
    Healthcare.gov. I Chair the Subcommittee on Healthcare and
    Technology in Small Business. We have had folks here on both
    sides of the aisle testify. Healthcare.gov was not secure when
    it was launched, is not secure today, and we have been
    attempting to get Mr. Todd Park to testify in front of this
    Committee on three occasions. The Administration has refused to
    make him available, and yet clearly Mr. Todd Park has had
    involvement in Healthcare.gov, and certainly with his
    background and his position now as an advisor to the President
    would and should have been involved with the security issues.
        So, you know, I guess, you know, I can read all the times
    Mr. Park has been involved, his involvement with CMS, his
    involvement with various meetings, his attendance at all these
    meetings and just have to ask you once again, in light of all
    the information and all the meetings and all the involvement of
    Mr. Park, how can your office state, which they have done just
    again recently with a letter to Chairman Smith, that none of
    your personnel have been involved with Healthcare.gov? Pretty
    bold statement.
        Dr. Holdren. We have not said that none of our personnel
    have been involved with Healthcare.gov. Mr. Park in particular
    was asked by the President--after the problems with
    Healthcare.gov materialized after its rollout, he was asked to
    become heavily involved. He has been very heavily involved in
    trying to address the problems of the website since that time.
        Mr. Collins. So you are implying----
        Dr. Holdren. We never said no----
        Mr. Collins. --he had no involvement prior to the launch?
        Dr. Holdren. We said his involvement has not been primarily
    associated with the security of the site. He is not a
    cybersecurity expert and the responsibility for the security of
    the site rested with CMS and with the interacting activities of
    CRS, the IRS, and the Social Security Administration.
        Mr. Collins. So you are suggesting that he was blindsided
    by the problems in this, had no knowledge of this as the
    advisor to the President, and all of a sudden when all of the
    problems, including experts who said this website should never
    have been launched, it was not secure the day it was launched,
    it is not secure today, Americans' privacy is in danger, their
    identity theft is real, and so you are saying this Mr. Park--
    and that is why we want him to testify here. So let me just cut
    to the chase. Why won't you allow him to testify?
        Dr. Holdren. It has been the practice of this
    Administration from the beginning that assistants to the
    President who are not Senate-confirmed do not testify. We have
    other people who are experts in cybersecurity who are willing
    to testify before this Committee on cybersecurity issues. Mr.
    Park is not an expert in the cybersecurity aspects of the
    Healthcare.gov website and he is a direct report to the
    President of the United States. I can't compel him to come and
    testify. He doesn't report to me. I am not sure what else you
    want for an answer.
        Mr. Collins. Well, you know, much like SOFIA, I would like
    a more direct answer, not a dance like you have been dancing
    today. And the fact is the experts have testified that the
    website was not secure the day it was launched, it is not
    secure today, and yet, your office and others within your
    office are now just claiming ignorance; you had no idea this
    was coming. You woke up one day, oh my goodness, it is not
    secure. I think you--again, today, I have been very
    disappointed in your testimony, disingenuous, not direct, and I
    think deliberately misleading to this Committee.
        And with that, Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
        The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr.
    Holdren, for your many decades of service to this country and
    your willingness to serve in this challenging time.
        I wanted to briefly touch on three topics: first, STEM
    education, which I think you have now gathered is an extremely
    high priority of this Committee; secondly, the regional
    innovation initiatives; and third, climate change resiliency.
        I am very glad to hear that you mentioned the importance of
    including and reaching out to young women and to children of
    color. We cannot be competitive in the 21st century, globally
    competitive if we are leaving 60 percent of our workforce out
    of the STEM fields. So if you can elaborate on that aspect of
    how exactly you plan to do that. I would also recommend to you
    and ask you how you are reaching out to local stakeholders.
        I come from Connecticut. We have local companies like
    Stanley Black & Decker who are partnering with places like the
    Connecticut Science Center as well as our local community
    colleges, like Naugatuck Valley Community Colleges. They are
    working together with our local manufacturers to try to design
    some of these programs. I brought astronauts into the inner-
    city to meet with middle school students to inspire them about
    the opportunities that are available.
        Can you talk a little bit with us about what efforts, going
    forward, the Administration is going to utilize to engage these
    local stakeholders to make sure that our programs actually will
    work on the ground?
        Dr. Holdren. Sure. Let me mention a couple of elements of
    the Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal that address those issues.
    One is the STEM Innovation Networks. There is $110 million to
    help school districts individually and in consortia build
    partnerships, STEM Innovation Networks that would be
    partnerships with businesses, universities, museums, federal
    science agencies, and other entities to basically transform
    STEM teaching and learning and, I would add, inspiration by
    developing coordinated plans to do that in the STEM fields.
        There is $150 million in the budget in a program to
    redesign high schools to teach real-world skills basically
    relating to the earlier point that Congressman Kennedy was
    making as well to rethink the high school experience,
    challenging schools to scale up innovative models that provide
    rigorous and relevant education including for folks that are
    not going to go on to college but are going to go into high
    skills careers.
        The Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes will
    also be obviously a regionally focused set of efforts to link
    up schools, universities, national labs, businesses to the ends
    of that you are discussing.
        Ms. Esty. That is a great point to segue to the regional
    innovation centers, strong--I am strongly supportive of the
    efforts to expand those centers. I think they are going to be
    critically important to have this sort of innovation and
    linkage we need from basic research in our high-tech research
    universities, places like UConn whose medical center is in my
    district, Yale, which is right nearby, with our local
    communities, community colleges, high schools, elementary
    schools----
        Dr. Holdren. Um-hum.
        Ms. Esty. --as well, and our manufacturers. So I am
    strongly supportive of efforts to expand those efforts.
        Dr. Holdren. Right.
        Ms. Esty. And one thing I would like to flag that we have
    learned since this is a real passion of mine and very important
    to my district, it is going to be really important to engage
    the private sector in providing internship possibilities for
    students. Many of the--and this goes back to the inner cities
    in part and to girls. They need to have the opportunity to work
    and see in environments where they are actually doing this
    during the summer in a workplace setting where they understand
    the soft side skills as well as the culture, and that is
    critically important to inspire them and encourage them to
    pursue these fields, which are often very tough. So I just want
    to make a plug for that.
        Coming from the Northeast, living through this extremely
    challenging last couple of years, I would like quickly with the
    time I have remaining your thoughts about the climate
    resiliency--climate change resiliency theme in the budget
    through NOAA and EPA about the development of a climate change
    resilience toolkit and web portal? And how will improved access
    for this data help protect our communities on the impacts of
    climate change? And it seems more focused on attention to
    understanding and mitigating regional impacts. And can you sort
    of describe the reason to take that approach?
        Dr. Holdren. Okay. And very quickly, before I answer the
    last question, I do want to mention that the America COMPETES
    Act in 2010 authorized a number of Department of Commerce
    programs focused on regional innovation, and the President has
    proposed those. The Congress has funded them. They have created
    a variety of regional innovation clusters and partnerships of
    the sorts I described, so I think that is something we remain
    committed to in partnership with the Congress.
        We just rolled out last week the first tranche of the
    Climate Data Initiative, which is one of the elements of the
    President's Climate Action Plan. That Climate Data Initiative
    is being led by NOAA and NASA but has participation from a wide
    variety of other departments and agencies. The aim of it is to
    provide data that is transparent and informative and rigorous
    that local and regional decision-makers, communities,
    businesses, farmers, fishermen, individual citizens can use to
    better anticipate what climate change will be doing in their
    regions or their localities and to be better able to take steps
    to prepare for it and to minimize the damages that result from
    it.
        The first focus of the Climate Data Initiative is on sea
    level rise and coastal flooding. The next phase will be looking
    at agriculture. The phase after that I think will be looking at
    impacts on health. It will be followed by a resilience toolkit
    that provides a variety of applications which will make it
    easier for people to make use of these data, understanding what
    they mean, and applying them to their local needs.
        Climate change obviously is a problem that is global in its
    origins and in its dynamics but its effects are local, and that
    is why the focus of the Climate Data Initiative and the whole
    resilience and preparedness approach is local and regional,
    because climate change is not uniform and people in different
    regions and localities need to be prepared for what is going to
    happen there.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you. And I appreciate your indulgence, Mr.
    Chairman, in letting him finish the answer to that question.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
        The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized.
        Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Professor, I have got to tell you, out of all the positions
    in government, you actually I think may have one of the most
    interesting jobs but you also have an interesting effect on
    what the future, long after you and I are probably gone, will
    have.
        I will do my best here to sort of have a linear thought in
    these questions. The--in your discussions with the
    Administration--and the first one I am going to ask you about
    is the ICANN decision recently. I am a great believer that sort
    of egalitarian access, you know, crowdsourcing of information
    and data being available is crucially important and it is also
    sort of the ultimate vetting of what is out there in science.
    Has there been any discussion of protocols of what will be done
    to make sure that if we have given up dominance of sort of
    internet policy, that that dominance won't be taken by whether
    it be the U.N. where the majority of member states are not, you
    know, free democracies, how do we make sure that the world has
    sort of an open free speech environment on the internet?
        Dr. Holdren. There has of course been discussion of that.
    It is a focus of ours. We are certainly not giving up influence
    and it is not our intention to allow the internet to go in a
    direction that imperils free speech.
        Mr. Schweikert. One of my real concerns here is that, you
    know, as Americans we are all free speech advocates but I
    believe the head administrator of ICANN now has often spoken
    that he would like a U.N. body. Well, you and I know the
    majority of member states in the U.N. aren't anywhere near
    where we are culturally in the protection of free exchange of
    speech. So it is just--it is a real concern. Has this at least
    hit a high level of discussion?
        Dr. Holdren. It has. We are concerned about it, too, and we
    are determined to hold the line.
        Mr. Schweikert. Why would we have made sort of the
    statement that we are going to walk away from sort of our
    managerial control until that sort of underlying agreement was
    designed?
        Dr. Holdren. This is not my field of expertise and I am not
    sufficiently familiar with the arguments that were gone
    through. I know they were intensive. As in many other domains,
    this is an area where globalization has been going on and it is
    sometimes difficult to retain a position of absolute dominance
    over time when that is happening. But I would be happy to get
    back to you----
        Mr. Schweikert. It is just----
        Dr. Holdren. --with more information about that process.
        Mr. Schweikert. --as you know, for many of us who are, you
    know, free speech advocates, we always have a concern that we
    are paying for NSA sin in perception, so just where that may
    be.
        Science advisory body, the advice, the information that is
    often given to agencies that are asking for direction and
    modeling, this Committee is dominant in the statute that
    actually creates. What do you think your obligations are or the
    advisory board--or body's obligation is to respond to our
    inquiries? Because my fear is there is advice being given to
    agencies and we say tell us--you share with us the direction
    you are going there and we get stonewalled.
        Dr. Holdren. Well, I am not sure what in particular you are
    referring to. My office--the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy is of course responsible for providing above
    all science and technology advice to the President and his
    other senior advisers----
        Mr. Schweikert. Well, but if----
        Dr. Holdren. --but I testify regularly before Congress and
    our reports, which embody the bulk of our advice, are available
    on our website----
        Mr. Schweikert. Well, but no. We had already had several
    occasions on this Committee where we have reached out to--is it
    ERDDA--and said share with us the advice you are giving to
    certain agencies and we don't get it back.
        And let me sort of do a hop-skip and we can--and I will
    even follow up with this one in writing. Congressman Neugebauer
    was asking a question about within the budget line, the study
    of hydraulic fracturing horizontal drilling, correct?
        Dr. Holdren. Yes, he was asking.
        Mr. Schweikert. And within that, part of his question he
    was trying to ask is you have designed budget line items but
    yet you apparently haven't actually designed what the study is
    going to look like.
        Dr. Holdren. Oh, the study is underway.
        Mr. Schweikert. Then when we had asked for how are you
    doing your sample set, are you reviewing the literature? Are
    you sending people out to do actual, you know, hard samples?
    How come we are having trouble getting that information
    delivered to us?
        Dr. Holdren. I had not been aware that you were having
    trouble but if you direct that inquiry to me, I will provide
    you with answers.
        Mr. Schweikert. So could you at least commit to myself or
    more importantly the Chairman, could we have the design plan? I
    have a fixation on baseline data sampling because I believe it
    often ends up--you know, we often talk about the modeling that
    you and I know your first sin is always--or your first
    cornerstone is in how you choose to collect the data. So if you
    would be willing to provide us a plan on how the study is built
    and obviously that would be reflected in the budget request,
    that will go a long way for confidence in this Committee.
        Dr. Holdren. Good. I will try to do that.
        Mr. Schweikert. Last two things, and I know I am way over
    time, there is some complement out there, but I also think we
    need to make sure our friends on both sides understand some of
    the groups you oversee have protocols on blinding personal
    data. We do it in the census; we do it in medical research. And
    so there is sort of a national standard for doing that. I do a
    sample set. I have individual personal data. If that data is
    going to be made public, you have a way of doing placeholders,
    correct?
        Dr. Holdren. Correct.
        Mr. Schweikert. So--because we had sort of a bizarre
    conversation in this Committee about six weeks ago where there
    seemed to be a misunderstanding that there is--it is standard
    protocol on how to blind individual data.
        The last thing, do--who in your organization sort of
    watches peer-review publications because I now have a binder on
    my desk in my office now of articles where we are realizing how
    much--I am uncomfortable using the word fraud but how many
    outliers we are finding where really bad data is being used in
    peer-reviewed studies, publications, grants, and how do we fix
    that? And I am a believer that, you know, the crowd putting
    things out in the internet and having lots of voices talk about
    it will help us find where we are funding studies that the
    underlying data sets either were grossly misinterpreted or
    actually outright fraud.
        Dr. Holdren. This is a really important issue. We devoted a
    public session of the last meeting of the President's Council
    of Advisors on Science and Technology to it. We invited the
    editors-in-chief of both Nature and Science, the two most
    important science journals in the world, plus a number of
    experts on data and the pitfalls that occur. Within my
    organization, the Associate Director for Science currently
    awaiting confirmation is the person who has the most direct
    oversight of that set of issues, but we are concerned about it.
    We are interested in it--
        Mr. Schweikert. Professor----
        Dr. Holdren. --and we will look at it.
        Mr. Schweikert. I am elated to hear that it is--because as
    you know, so often we base public policy and spending and then
    later find out there was something horribly wrong in that model
    or the underlying samples or just outright fraud to get the
    grant.
        Can I beg of you, send me a note--send me something in
    writing of who I should reach out to because I----
        Dr. Holdren. Sure.
        Mr. Schweikert. --actually have a powerful interest in
    this----
        Dr. Holdren. Yes.
        Mr. Schweikert. --because of my concern that resources may
    be going askew because of bad acts.
        Dr. Holdren. I would be happy to respond to you----
        Mr. Schweikert. And with that, I know I am way over time.
    Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert.
        The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Holdren, welcome back. Thank you so much for your
    testimony and for your work. I want to start by saying I am
    glad to see the Administration acknowledged the importance of
    the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. That was
    several companies in Oregon who have benefited from the MEP
    program so--through NIST. Thank you very much.
        I am also encouraged to see the Administration focusing
    resources on innovative energy projects at ARPA-E, specifically
    the potential of battery technology. I recently spoke with
    someone from a utility in Oregon, Portland General Electric,
    and they recently installed a 5 megawatt lithium ion battery-
    powered energy storage facility. It happens to be on top of the
    Kettle brand facility rooftop, so we can think about that
    whenever we are eating Kettle chips.
        So that is in Salem, Oregon, and it is partially funded by
    the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest Smart Grid
    Demonstration Project, but they have learned an immense amount
    about how efficient battery technology can help the grid
    integrate renewable energy resources, so more R&D in battery
    technology I see as a win-win. Really a common goal and what we
    have been talking about throughout this hearing and all the
    disciplines is how we keep our country competitive, how do we
    have an innovative workforce.
        I want to mention the Innovation Corps program with NSF to
    commercialize university research, which you mentioned in your
    testimony. I was wondering how that program will be structured
    and I encourage you to look at the Oregon ONAMI, Oregon
    Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute. They are doing
    great work with commercialization of materials science and
    systems technology.
        I want to follow up on the STEM education discussion as
    well. You referenced the 21st century community learning
    centers, a way to bring STEM education outside the traditional
    school day. I recently met with students at the Forest Grove,
    Oregon, high school who are part of the 4-H Tech Wizards
    afterschool program. That is a great opportunity for students
    to engage outside of the school day.
        And on that note, we have had great discussion already, Dr.
    Bera and Representative Kennedy, and Representative Hultgren
    mentioned the FIRST robotics program. Hands-on learning is so
    important.
        And I wanted to follow up on that. You may recall I am the
    Co-Chair of the bipartisan STEAM Caucus, integrating arts and
    design broadly defined into STEM learning. There is plenty of
    research to show that educating and exercising the right brain
    helps to educate creative and innovative students who become
    innovators and entrepreneurs, and simply put, we want people
    who cannot just answer questions but also know what questions
    to ask.
        So you talked about the updates to the STEM reorganization
    plan for the Fiscal Year budget, and on the Hill we have
    witnessed a growing consensus about how do we expand STEM
    education. You mentioned reaching out to underrepresented
    populations. So can you expand on whether that plan
    acknowledges the benefit of including alternative approaches to
    STEM education?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, I commend your interest in
    the STEAM approach and the progress being made with it. I think
    it is important to remember the relevance of the humanities and
    the arts as we think about our education portfolio overall. And
    I think some of the kinds of activities that are in the various
    programs listed under STEM undoubtedly are including these
    other dimensions as well. I think many of the outreach and the
    community-based programs are doing that, so basically, I could
    only agree with your comments.
        Ms. Bonamici. Well, thank you. The more we learn about the
    parallels between the science and art--and the last time I
    asked this question I mentioned a study that was done about the
    number of Nobel laureates in sciences who also engage in arts
    and crafts is phenomenal and they recommend that students
    studying in the STEM disciplines also have art and crafts
    experience. It really is hands-on learning but again leads to
    that creativity and innovation that we want in our workforce.
        And could you follow up a little bit about the Innovation
    Corps and how that program will be structured through NSF to
    help commercialize research?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, that is a program that has already been
    going on in NSF, and my understanding is that it is already
    successful in basically including, in a number of the
    activities that NSF funds, training on how to be an
    entrepreneur, how to translate discoveries in the laboratory
    into practical applications that can become the basis of
    businesses and social good. So I think it is a great program. I
    think it is working and we should continue to support it.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I
    yield back.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici, appreciate that.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr.
    Holdren. Appreciate you being back again.
        I don't remember if it was Mark Twain or Will Rogers or
    Ambrose Bierce or somebody like that that said all scientists
    are only sure about one thing and that is that all scientists
    before that were wrong. Have you ever heard that comment?
        Dr. Holdren. I have heard of versions of it.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, who was it that said that? No idea.
        So when you guys do your research you start with the
    scientific--what do they call it--postulate or theory and you
    work from that direction forward, is that right?
        Dr. Holdren. It depends on what sort of science that you
    are talking about, but the notion of posing a hypothesis and
    then trying to determine whether it is right is one of the
    tried-and-true approaches in science, yes.
        Mr. Weber. So I am just wondering how that related to like,
    for example, global warming and eventually global cooling? And
    I may want to get your cell phone number because if we do go
    through a couple cycles, global warming and then back to global
    cooling, I will need to know when to buy my long coat on sale.
    So I just don't know how you all prove those hypotheses going
    back 50, 100, you know, what you might say is thousands of if
    not even millions of years and how you postulate those forward.
    But we will get into that in a little bit.
        The Keystone pipeline I am very, very interested in because
    it comes into my district, delivers 840,000 barrels of oil a
    day. It will help get us off oil from the Middle East or
    Venezuela and produce jobs over here. And the State Department
    actually came out with a finding and said--it was one of those
    scientific hopefully findings I guess--that ``the approval or
    denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the
    proposed project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate
    of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for
    heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States.'' Do you
    agree with that statement from the State Department?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, I would say, number one, I have not done
    a review----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. --at this point of the State Department's
    analysis of that----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. --and not having looked at the analysis, I
    don't want to say whether I agree with it or not----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Holdren. --but it is a respectable position. There are
    others.
        Mr. Weber. So they are from the government and they are
    here to help.
        So looking at your budget as you have put it forward in the
    different areas there is one, like Congressman Neugebauer said,
    on fracking where that study has never been done. Do you know
    if there is any plans--in Texas--one of my other colleagues--
    and maybe it was Congressman Neugebauer--refer to the fact that
    we have been in fracking since 1945, which if my high school
    math holds up would be 65 years.
        Do you all ever think about perhaps getting with the
    agencies in Texas that actually have that experience and that
    deal with it every day? And in fact in Texas we would say we
    have been doing it longer than anybody else. Any plans to get
    with the TCEQ and those that have experience?
        Dr. Holdren. I suspect that that outreach has happened as
    part of the study----
        Mr. Weber. Could that help your budget--would that help
    your budget numbers go down because you could rely on their
    experience?
        Dr. Holdren. I suspect the budget numbers take into account
    the fact that we have been reaching out to the constituencies
    that do this.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Do you think that it is possible that if
    we had more manufacturing jobs based on this energy renaissance
    that we are about to experience if the government will get out
    of the way--that if we had more manufacturing jobs, that we
    could take more Americans off of the unemployment rolls and
    welfare so to speak and that we could actually get more
    taxpayers on the rolls and then we could actually have more
    money for the budget to do the very thing you want to do, which
    would be more research and to put more money into an all-of-
    the-above energy program? Does that make sense to you?
        Dr. Holdren. Absolutely it makes sense and the
    Administration is all in favor of increasing the number of
    manufacturing jobs, and we have been trying to do that in a
    number of ways.
        Mr. Weber. Well, they keep saying that, but looking at the
    energy renaissance and the war on coal plants and the--I mean I
    don't think that is deniable, war on coal plants and war on
    fossil fuels and the dragging of the Keystone pipeline permit,
    which has been now five years, five years.
        Do you have any plans--do you weigh in with the President?
    Do you say, Mr. President, in our--from our vantage point if
    you would approve the permit, as the State Department said,
    using the State Department language--it was an amendment I got
    on a bill in the--through the House taking the permitting
    process away from the President, do you have any--can you say
    to the President, Mr. President, the State Department is saying
    it is a go. What is the holdup?
        Dr. Holdren. As I understand it, the ball on that issue is
    still in the State Department's court. That was an analysis.
    The Secretary of State has not made a national interest
    determination at this point and so we are awaiting that.
        Mr. Weber. But you are the scientist. You have the budget--
    you are putting together the budget. You want more research,
    you want more money to do these kinds of things, and if we can
    get more taxpayers, we can increase the budget, right?
        Dr. Holdren. Absolutely. As I have said, we are in favor of
    increasing manufacturing jobs in this country and it would
    bring many benefits.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I hope when you leave here you will call
    the President and tell him you and I had this conversation and
    I am recommending approval of the Keystone pipeline.
        Thank you, Dr. Holdren.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
    Holdren.
        And, Dr. Holdren, I have to say I am disappointed that many
    of my colleagues across the aisle have used this hearing,
    titled key issues for the President's Fiscal Year 2015 research
    and development budget, to re-litigate whether climate change
    is happening and whether it is manmade, and at this rate,
    frankly, I have to say you should be prepared to address
    whether the Earth is round or flat; that might come up, or
    whether indeed gravity is happening. You never know what can
    fly at you from what we have seen already.
        And I have to say that with 97 percent of the scientists
    stating, and as you pointed out that that is an approximation
    based on statistics, that climate change is manmade, I am
    encouraged to see that some of my colleagues across the aisle
    have been a voice for the minority, three percent of scientists
    today.
        This is encouraging for other minorities that my colleagues
    across the aisle have not helped out, including immigrants who
    are waiting for comprehensive immigration reform, minorities
    like women who have not received equal pay for equal work,
    minorities who are affected by the Voting Rights Act where
    action has not taken, as well as gay and lesbian minorities who
    have been oppressed by some of the policies that my colleagues
    across the aisle have put in place.
        So the colleagues who are standing up for the three percent
    scientists who do not believe in climate change, I am
    encouraged that they are now a voice for the minority.
        But you are here to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
    2015 budget, and I have a question first about the National
    Ignition Facility, which is in my district in Livermore,
    California. And I want to know, in light of the recent alpha
    heating phenomenon that occurred there, do you still believe
    that that fusion project is near the goal line and that
    ignition is near achievement and what that means for future
    rounds of funding?
        Dr. Holdren. Well, first of all, I applaud the advances
    that have been made at NIF over the past year. I think they are
    important. I think it is still quite some distance from the
    finish line. When you look at the energetics every step of the
    way, there is considerably more progress that needs to be made
    before we can say we actually have ignition, and there would be
    more progress beyond that that would be needed to convert that
    achievement into a workable fusion reactor. But the project is
    well worth pursuing. The 329 million in the budget for pursuing
    it should enable a good deal of further progress and I look
    forward to seeing that.
        Mr. Swalwell. I also wanted to talk a little bit about the
    inertial fusion research that is in the budget, and
    particularly that the National Ignition Facility and the Z
    Pulsed Power Facility have enough technical promise to justify
    dedicated federal support for inertial fusion R&D relevant to
    energy, not just weapons reliability, as Ms. Lofgren pointed
    out.
         However, there is currently no program in the federal
    government which directly officially supports inertial fusion
    research and technology developments activity for energy
    production purposes. Rather, the Administration is proposing to
    eliminate all of the activities in the Fusion Energy Sciences
    program that could make important contributions to fusion
    research, including an experiment at Lawrence Berkeley National
    Laboratory that is only beginning to operate this year.
        So my question is do you believe that the Department should
    address the findings of this National Academies report, which
    found that these concepts have technical promise and at least
    find a way to allow strong merit-reviewed proposal for inertial
    fusion energy research to be eligible for federal support?
        Dr. Holdren. Let me make a couple of quick comments. We of
    course are aware of the National Academies report. We recognize
    the progress that has been made in inertial confinement fusion
    in a number of different ways, with the lasers, with pulse
    power, with ion beams. Those approaches of course have not yet
    demonstrated the level of performance that would be needed to
    convert them into an energy source. They are in fact still well
    short of the performance of the magnetic confinement approach,
    which is being pursued in parallel.
        Under the budget restraints we face, we think the most
    important thing to continue funding in the inertial confinement
    space is the NIF and its progression toward ignition.
        The experiment you mentioned at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab
    is a small one completed at a cost of about $11 million. It
    began operating two years ago but it has fallen far short of
    its design specifications and so it is hard to keep it near the
    top of the priority list given the tight budget and the
    performance shortfalls in that particular device.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. Thank you for your
    service to our country, for your belief in science, and for now
    knowing what to be better prepared to discuss next time you
    come back, including whether gravity is really occurring and
    whether our Earth is flat or round.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
        Dr. Holdren, thank you for your testimony today. We
    appreciate that very much.
        Our record will stay open for a couple of weeks in case
    Members have additional questions to submit. And with that, we
    stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]