« PreviousContinue »
International Co-operation Agreement Concerning Scientific and Technical
Cooperation on Large Hadron Collider Activities: Accelerator Protocol between the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Department of Energy of the United States of America, December 19,
1997 International Co-operation Agreement Concerning Scientific and Technical
Co-operation on Large Hadron Collider Activities: Experimental Protocol between the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Department of Energy of the United States of America and the National Science Foundation of the United States of America concerning Scientific and Technical Co-operation on the Large Hadron Collider ATLAS and CMS Detectors, December 19, 1997 "HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel] Subpanel Report on Planning
for the Future of U.S. High-Energy Physics, U.S. Department of Energy,
from Martha A. Krebs, Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Depart-
Technology Research," U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Re-
ITER-Relevant Portions of the November, 1997 PCAST Report
VOLUME II Appendix 2: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Members
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION REQUEST; HR. 1806, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE OFFICE OF FOSSL ENERGY AND THE OFFICE OF RENEW. ABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; S. 965, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE II OF THE HYDROGEN FUTURE ACT OF 1996
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1998
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,
Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:11 p.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Chairman CALVERT. This hearing of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee will come to order.
First, I apologize; we had a bipartisan news conference dropping a bill to save the Salton Sea. We call it the Sonny Bono Salton Sea Restoration Act, which I hope all of our Members sign onto. It's a worthwhile thing to do, and we had a very successful news conference, so I apologize for being late.
Today we will review the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request and also take testimony on two pieces of legislation that would affect Department of Energy programs. They are H.R. 1806, the Department of Energy Research Consolidation Act and S. 965, which would extend the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 to Fiscal Year 2002.
The Administration request totals just under $5 billion for programs under our jurisdiction, an increase of 10.3 percent over Fiscal Year 1998 appropriations.
I won't bore you by going through all the numbers, but there are some aspects of the budget that are worthy of comment. Unlike recent budget submissions, the request includes more money for science programs including basic research as well as DOE's more questionable market development and promotion programs. For the first time in this Administration, a new research initiative is requested in the field of nuclear energy. In a reversal from last year, there is a little more money requested for our scientific user facilities, which in recent years could better be described as our seldomused facilities. Nevertheless, much of the money that could have substantially increased the ability of researchers to take advantage of these facilities is being diverted to the neutron source construction project at Oak Ridge. Much of this change can apparently be credited to recommendations from the President's scientific advisory council, known as the “PCAST” Report.
Conspicuously absent from this largesse is funding for the Fusion Energy program. Despite the PCAST recommended level of $250 million, the request is a slight decrease to $228 million. Whether this reflects a change in DOE's priorities is one question we will explore today.
Not changed from recent budget requests is a whopping increase proposed for energy efficiency programs—31 percent-and a onethird increase in renewable energy programs. The request also includes an increase in funds for program management. In other words, bureaucracy of over 50 percent. History tells us that major short-term funding increases in one particular office coupled with an expanding bureaucracy is not a good deal for the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing how DOE would manage this money.
As I mentioned at the start, we will also take testimony, today, on two relevant bills. I was pleased to co-sponsor H.R. 1806 with my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. This is a commonsense bill that makes a start on solving a long-standing problem at DOE: energy programs within the Department going in different directions and competing for funds. The bill would consolidate the Offices of Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The DOE testimony on this bill today actually makes our case for us. It points out the common goals of many of the programs and the increasing collaboration between these offices on advanced technology programs such as fuel cells and advanced gas turbines.
The main objection seems to be there might be fewer Deputy Assistant Secretaries and other bureaucrats to go around after the consolidation and that the programs would therefore be weakened. In fact, I think both of the energy programs would be strengthened by consolidation. Eliminating the contest for funds between these programs alone should allow for trimming the bureaucracy as called for in the bill.
S. 965 would extend the Hydrogen Future Act due to expire this year to 2002. Although the Department of Energy resisted this bill when it passed the 104th Congress under the sponsorship of our former Chairman, Bob Walker, and has tried to cut hydrogen research funding in the past, DOE apparently has seen the value of this program and is requesting a substantial increase in hydrogen funding for Fiscal Year 1999. It makes sense to extend this bill so the framework for this program can stay in place.
Before I introduce today's witnesses, let me turn to my friend from Indiana, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Roemer, for his opening remarks.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman from California, the Chairman, and my good friend, and I also want to join in welcoming our expert panel of witnesses from DOE and look forward to their testimony. I want to join with my friend from California in commending