separation processes in the trade-off between purity and productivity. As the U.S. chemical process industry moves to cut greenhouse gases, its needs for measurements and data on the performance characteristics of membranes will grow accordingly. To help encourage the development and adoption of membrane-based separation processes, NIST proposes to develop a membrane technology database, conduct experimental and modeling studies of transport in membrane materials, and produce characterization techniques useful to both developers and end-users of membrane technology. Alternative Working Fluids for Energy-efficient Processes: Our third area of focus for measurements and standards for climate change involves alternative working fluids for energyefficient processes and reduced global warming effects. Fluid systems are pervasive in many important industrial processes such as electrical power generation, heating and cooling systems, industrial cleaning, and microelectronics manufacture. Often these fluids have significant global warming effects. In other cases, the use of a fluid in a particular application wastes energy because the fluid or fluid systems are not the best for the task at hand. In these cases, the process indirectly produces additional carbon dioxide in proportion to its inefficiency, thus contributing to global warming. Our goal is to address the measurements and data needed to develop energy-efficient and environmentally-acceptable alternative working fluids in several applications. These include power generation systems, next generation refrigerants and insulating gases, cleaning fluids in the semiconductor industry, and industrial-scale use of carbon dioxide to replace harmful organic solvents used in chemical processing. Power generation provides a good example of what we hope to enable. The United States relies almost entirely on water steam to transfer energy from a primary energy source to the rotation of a turbine, and then to electricity, with the primary energy usually coming from fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide. Alternatives to this approach, involving different thermodynamic cycles and working fluids, may provide significant potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. For example, if we could replace that water with an ammonia and water mix, we may be able to reduce coal consumption by 20 percent in coal-fired applications. Such a system may also make geothermal energy production competitive and an entirely non-polluting source of power. NIST's role would be to provide U.S. industry with the thermophysical property data and models needed to advance such technology. In the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, and the Measurements and Standards program, NIST has the staff expertise, experience, and industry partnerships to contribute to technology-driven economic growth and, at the same time, helps us reach our Nation's environmental goals. Conclusion In conclusion, let me ask you to examine the programs I have discussed today in the context of broad national policy objectives that I think we can all agree upon: a strong U.S. competitive position across a broad array of industries, a cleaner environment for ourselves, for our children, and for generations of Americans to come. Throughout our Nation's history we have made investments in research and development to meet critical national needs: to provide for the nation's defense, to ensure an adequate supply of food, to protect our health, and to ensure our safety. The linkage between sustained Federal R&D investments to meet these needs and U.S. global leadership in key industries-agriculture, aerospace, satellites, computing and communications, and biotechnology-is clear. In the same way, we must commit our Nation to the development of environmental technologies to ensure U.S. global leadership in an industry that is so closely tied to the vitality of our economy, the health of our people, and the future of our children. These programs make sense for America. U.S. Dept of Commerce TA Technology GARY R. BACHULA DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR TECHNOLOGY Dr. Mary L. Good resigned as Under Secretary for Gary Bachula is the Deputy Under Secretary for Technology at The Office of the Under Secretary also provides advice and assistance to the Secretary of Commerce for the formulation of new policies and program initiatives for science and technology policy matters. In this capacity, the Technology Administration assists in the development and promotion of Federal technology policies to increase U.S. commercial and industrial innovation, productivity, and economic growth. Bachula serves as the Department of Commerce representative to the Committee on With both a B.A. in economics and a law degree (J.D.) from Harvard, Bachula served as Chief of Staff to U.S. Rep. Bob Traxler of Michigan from 1974 to 1986, where he advised the Congressman on appropriations for NASA, EPA, the National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies. From 1986 to 1990 he worked for Michigan Governor James J. Blanchard, serving as Chairman of the Governor's Cabinet Council. The focus of the Cabinet Council was to "reinvent" Michigan's job training and education programs. Bachula also served as Vice President for Planning and Program Development for CIESIN, the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network. CIESIN is federally-funded project to intergrate and extend the value of current and future U.S. enviornmental data collection efforts (satellite and on the ground) to a broad array of applied users. A native of Saginaw, Michigan, Bachula is a 1964 graduate of Saginaw High School, was named Saginaw High's Distinguished Alumnus in 1990. He served at the Pentagon in the Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. Just as a procedural note, we'll be voting in 50 to 55 minutes on the resolution dismissing the challenge of Congresswoman Sanchez's election. I would like to wrap this hearing up so that Members will not have to come back and the witnesses and the audience can go on their separate ways. So I'm going to be kind of ruthless in enforcing the 5-minute rule. So I will yield myself 5 minutes. RELATIONSHIP OF SENATE RATIFICATION OF THE KYOTO Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The testimony we have heard from the Administration witnesses today, to me operates under the assumption that the Administration is operating under the Kyoto Protocol even though it has not been signed by the President and not been submitted to the Senate for ratification. If the Kyoto Protocol does not get ratified by the Senate at some time in the future, how much of this budget submission would not be present today? Dr. GIBBONS. I don't think much would be missing at all, Mr. Chairman. Everything that the Administration proposes to do isreflects our concern that we're facing a global environmental challenge for which the United States is responsible for about 20 percent of the whole global contributions. The program the President has outlined, as you heard from the witnesses today, makes sense for a variety of reasons. They attack the fundamental issues of continuing to grow our economy to innovate with new technology and to become more resource efficient in the process. It's preparing for the kind of 21st Century economy that we feel is going to be important. The federal role is minor. It attempts to catalyze and partner with the private sector in these ventures, so I dare say that it would have very little change. DEPENDENCE OF BUDGET INITIATIVES ON PROPOSED TOBACCO SETTLEMENT Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Much of the new spending initiatives the Administration contains in the budget in this area and in other areas seem to be predicated on a tobacco industry settlement being approved by the Congress. I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and let me say that at least the immunity parts of the tobacco industry settlement are in deep, deep trouble over there. What happens if Congress does not approve the tobacco settlement in a manner that is agreeable to all parties, particularly the tobacco companies who are going to pay for a considerable part of this? Do we have to drop a lot of the initiatives that you have proposed off? Should that happen in Congress on the tobacco settlement? Dr. GIBBONS. I should certainly hope not, Mr. Chairman. The President's budget has offsets specifically identified for all of the expenditures so that we are containing ourselves within the cap as agreed upon. There is an anticipation of some revenues from a tobacco settlement; that's not in question. The question is it really relates to the Congress' decision about how to fund the budget. We have made a proposal which includes certain assumptions including a modest projection of income from some tobacco settlement. The President's plan for, for example, global climate change is a 1 spending plan, and if the Congress wants to provide funding it with some other mix of resources, that's the Congress' responsibility. We propose Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Or how about not spending the money at all, because we aren't going to get the money from the tobacco companies if the settlement is rejected by Congress? Dr. GIBBONS. If the tobacco money doesn't come in or other sources or revenue do not appear, then Congress and the Administration have to be concerned. But we do cut out-my point is that Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Dr. Gibbons, I guess what I'm hearing from you is that we've kind of got a club over our head that we're going to have to approve a tobacco settlement in order to do all of these nice things, and if Congress should not approve a tobacco settlement for a whole host of reasons, then our goal in achieving a balanced budget is either down the drain or we're going to have to take the heat for the Government not being able to fulfill the promises that are contained in this budget. Now, when are you guys and ladies going to quit making Congress into the bad guys and girls on this and start working in a partnership? Dr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, as I think you know, I've been pretty much an advocate of partnering for a long time. I think that's an unfair cut. Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, from what you've been answering these questions, I think you've been slipping from what your previous Dr. GIBBONS. Well, let me answer your question, if I might; if I have to repeat myself. We proposed a budget which includes a substantial increase in our research and development as one of our investments for the 21st Century. Along with that are identified sources of revenue so that we have a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 1999. If Congress chooses to balance that budget in some other way for 1999, that's an important role for Congress to play, but we still stand by our proposal for expenses which include this important change in the research and development budget which is considerably less than you and others have spoken about, and we support-if Congress can come forward with an even greater increase in the research and development, we'd be delighted to work with you. Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, Dr. Gibbons, I can assure you that when Congress comes forward with increases in the research and development budget, it will be funded by real money not by illusory money. My time has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to the witnesses that I'm going to have to be leaving very shortly, and before I leave I want to announce that our senior staff member on this Committee, Dr. Smith, will be leaving at the end of this month, and this may be his last hearing, and I want to acknowledge the great contribution that he's made over the years. Dr. Smith. |