Important Hearing on DOE Science Request Office of Energy Research

Director Martha Krebs appeared before the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee on March 13 to testify on her office’s FY 1998 budget request. This was a hearing largely without surprises for Krebs, although another DOE witness was the subject of harsh questioning.

This subcommittee actually writes the House version of the budget for the Office of Energy Research. Its chairman - Rep. Joseph McDade (R-PA) - is new to his job (see 1996 FYI #160.) In past years, a hearing was held exclusively on the Energy Research budget. This year, Krebs shared the witness table with Christine Ervin, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Terry Lash, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy. Most of the subcommittee’s questions were directed toward Ervin and Lash.

Krebs’ oral summary of her 35-page written testimony touched on the contributions high energy physicists made to the development of the internet, DOE’s science facilities and their utilization, the restructured fusion program, and the proposed $450 million DOE contribution for CERN’s $6 billion Large Hadron Collider. Krebs said of the latter, “we think it’s a pretty good deal.”

McDade’s first question was to Lash, asking why “John Q. Citizen’s” taxes should be spent on medical isotopes, specifically for coronary diagnosis. When told that isotopes made tests faster, cheaper, and less painful, McDade asked for more data about taxpayer benefits and market penetration. McDade also wanted to know about DOE’s plans for a follow-on to advanced light water reactor technology. The chairman spoke of “intense pressure on the budget,” adding “new starts are rare in this budget.” He asked no questions of Krebs.

Rep. Vic Fazio (D-CA), the subcommittee’s Ranking Democrat, asked Krebs about fusion. He wanted information on the restructured program, DOE support for university research on fusion, and ITER. Fazio told Krebs that for the subcommittee to continue its support of fusion, “we need to think of it as more than just two places on the map,” again asking for data on university physicists.

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) put questions to Krebs about DOE support of alternative fusion concepts, and how DOE would maintain the effectiveness of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in light of major budget reductions in the last two years. Krebs said it was “crucial to maintain capability at Princeton,” and that it is “something very much on the minds of us.” Krebs, when asked if there was a problem with ITER’s design, said, “we don’t think so,” and that the matter was now under review. Regarding ITER’s future, Krebs offered, “I don’t think there is a bottom line I can give you at this particular point in time.” Speaking of the entire fusion budget, Krebs described it as “a bare bones request.”

Other subcommittee members asked about DOE support of technology transfer, applied research, nuclear power, wind energy, Russian reactor safety, weatherization, hydrogen energy, and neutron science. Of the proposed National Spallation Neutron Source, Krebs warned that the U.S. would continue to lag behind the Europeans if we don’t “bite the bullet.”

Rep. Mike Parker (R-MS) was harsh in his questioning of Assistant Secretary Ervin about programs under her control, especially those which he characterized as “corporate welfare.” He also called the SSC that “ditch out in Texas,” and expressed disdain for how its contracts had been spread around various states.

In a question to Krebs, but which perhaps could also be addressed to the science community, Rep. Chet Edwards (R-TX) said that “we’ve got to do a better job” of educating the public and Congress about the benefits of research, adding, “people don’t understand the benefits of what you do.” He said he would be willing to bet money that if he went to the floor of the House of Representatives, there would “not be 20 Members of the House that could identify five practical benefits of energy research.” Edwards asked if DOE had a single publication describing these benefits aimed at farmers, lawyers, and business people. DOE does not have a such a publication, Krebs said. Edwards concluded, “we need tools to help educate people about what you do.”

McDade said his subcommittee would start mark up of the FY 1998 appropriations bill around the middle of April, although a more recent statement by full House Appropriations Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA) said this would occur about May 15. FYI #8 provides information on new subcommittee chairman McDade and his ten colleagues who will play a major role in shaping the budget for the Office of Energy Research in FY 1998.

******
A final note: The American Institute of Physics has produced 12 two-sided exhibits addressing the need Rep. Edwards described about educating Congress and the public about the benefits of scientific research, specifically physics research. We will be happy to provide you with copies of these exhibits for use in writing to or meeting with a Member of Congress (or other interested individuals.) There is no charge for a limited number of copies of these “Physics Success Stories;" contact us about bulk order pricing.

Please send you name and U.S. mail address to fyi@aip.org or to:

American Institute of Physics
Public Information Division
One Physics Ellipse
College Park, Maryland 20740-3843

Our fax number is 301-209-0846

You may request specific titles or an entire set.
Subjects covered are:
Medical Imaging - Lasers - Global Positioning System - The Environment - New Materials - New Materials - Telecommunications - Computers - Consumer Goods - National Defense - Transportation - Energy Efficiency - Medical Physics

This material may be reviewed on the AIP Home Page at the following address:
http://www.aip.org/success/

We encourage you to request the free, high-quality hard copy versions of Physics Success Stories when visiting with or writing to a Member of Congress.