an answer. If we're going to have a second round, hopefully—I'll deal with the budget first.

DOE'S ROLE IN CARBON SEQUESTRATION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND COAL R&D

Mr. DOYLE. Secretary Godley, what do you see the Department of Energy's role being in the carbon sequestration research? Is DOE going to take the lead in this area, and how are you going to coordinate that with other agencies? And then more specifically, how do you see FE being equipped to meet some of those challenges, in particular, carbon sequestration and the other challenges presented in light of the climate change needs we're facing due to Kyoto? And are there capabilities that FE has within those parameters that are not in the budget? And, last, are we doing enough in the area of coal R&D? And you've got 5 minutes to answer all that.

[Laughter.]

Ms. GODLEY. Okay.

Mr. DOYLE. Four minutes, I'm told. [Laughter.]

Ms. GODLEY. Okay. Let me attack or tackle the sequestration question first. DOE is going to be taking the lead in conducting R&D in the area of sequestration. We have basically work and a request in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget for fossil energy to work in three areas: studies of feasibility of storing greenhouse gases in geologic structures and R&D that can lower the cost of capturing, pumping, and storing CO2 from power plants. The second area is applied research to enhance natural sinks of CO2, and, third, research to identify and develop potential path-breaking technologies for the proposal in the budget of about $11 million covering those three areas of activities.

As Martha mentioned, the Office of Energy Research is approaching some basic research in the area of sequestration, focusing on the determination of which-in biology, for example-which plants can be induced to enhance their uptake of CO2, the role of carbon transfer from the surface to the deep ocean, and also improving the understanding of the geophysics and geomechanics in subsurface geological formations and photosynthesis, which is central to the global carbon cycling. The 1999 proposed funding for these activities is in the neighborhood of about $9 million.

EPA, as you may know, has focused on some issues with sequestration as well, primarily the environmental impacts of biomass technologies and land management practices associated with the growing of biomass fuels and environmental impacts associated with crop rotation. There are also some worked on in Agriculture and the Forest Service in some crop and forest management programs as well.

We're beginning in our coordination efforts of these various activities. Again, DOE will be taking as a team, we will be approaching this and DOE will be taking a leadership role in coordinator at least, consulting with each other, so that we will avoid duplication of effort in the area of sequestration.

With respect to your question on fossil energy's role in the Climate Change Program, as you know, our role is focused primarily

on power generation in that regard. As you know, power generation is responsible for about one-third of this Nation's CO2 emissions. Our Vision 21 Program, which we can discuss in more detail, if you wish, is really building on our existing Advanced Power Generation Technology programs to reach what I describe in my opening remarks as the ultimate power generation facility, where you're basically using every Btu of energy and fuel put into the power generation system, whether it's in the form of power output, electricity output, or fuels or other products that can be used in various industries.

And I'd like perhaps to think about this proverb up here, where there is no Vision 21, the people perish.

Mr. DOYLE. Or FE perishes.

[Laughter.]

Ms. GODLEY. And related efforts, we have in our Oil and Gas Technology Program, for example, efforts to improve the visioning or the imaging of underground reservoirs for purposes of CO2 storage. So there are a number of activities ongoing in fossil energy addressing climate change.

Are there areas where we could be doing more work? I really don't think so with respect to maximizing our resources as we have them now. I think, again, our program in power generation, gas power generation, is key. The Vision 21 strategic planning really captures the expertise, as well as previous investments we've made in that area, and we're proceeding I think as efficiently and effectively as we can.

USE OF ADDITIONAL RESOURCES BY THE DOE FOSSIL ENERGY R&D PROGRAM

Mr. DOYLE. If you had more resources, where would you put them?

Ms. GODLEY. In the area, again, of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. DOYLE. Anywhere in fossil energy. I mean, you're saying that you think you're doing everything you should be doing with the resources you have. If you had more resources, what would you do, in addition to what you're doing?

Ms. GODLEY. I would invest more money in our oil and gas exploration and production technology programs, for the simple reason that we have enough—we have a significant challenge with maximizing our domestic energy resources in this country and reducing our perhaps reliance and vulnerability to increased oil imports in this country. I think that would be a very important program to look at additional investments in. That traditionally has been a 50 percent cost-share program, industry-driven. We know we get a bang for the taxpayer's buck in those programs.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

I'll give you a break, Ms. Godley.

DOE DIESEL TECHNOLOGY WORK AND NEW CLEAN AIR STANDARDS

Mr. Reicher, I have a couple of questions. Mr. Roemer was asking about diesel. I specifically want to talk about diesel in the trucking industry. We are going to have a problem within that industry in moving to new technologies, especially with these new

clean air standards. Will the program that you've discussed help the trucking industry meet these new regulatory demands?

Mr. REICHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We're focused on a variety of important work in the diesel area that I think will respond to the increasingly-stringent clean air requirements. For example, a fair amount of attention to catalytic converters to clean up the exhaust from diesel. Secondly, a focus on improved diesel fuel; for example, reducing the sulfur content of diesel fuels, so that the input to the engine is cleaner to start with. And, third, continuing to make improvements on the actual efficiency of diesels, both large and small. So I think those three legs of the stool are key to cleaner diesels that will meet these requirements.

Chairman CALVERT. As you know, truckers tend to use their trucks as long as possible and rebuild their engines and get as much out of them as they can, and they're very expensive. Wouldn't it be logical to include some incentives to utilize some of these new technologies, new engines, or these catalytic converters that can be added to existing engines to help these folks be able to move into what we are going to require them to do under this new regulatory regime?

Mr. REICHER. Well, I think, first of all, cleaner fuels, obviously, will help. For example, in California the diesel fuel there has been improved from the sulfur perspective.

Chairman CALVERT. However, there's been some problems with the engines because of that, and if the truckers don't put some money back into those engines or add some components to that, the fuel tends to have some negative effects on the engines.

Mr. REICHER. Yes, it's clear that R&D is not going to be enough. We have to look at implementation and how things actually work out in the field, and we have a testing program that's focused on engine performance.

Chairman CALVERT. And I say that in a positive way, that we do have better engine technology out there on diesel. If we're going to encourage the trucking industry to turn that fleet, then, especially on particular problems that we're going to have, we're going to have to get these new technologies online, and give them the ability to do that and some kind of reasonable incentive maybe needed to do that.

Mr. REICHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just briefly, let me say, I think it would be very useful to discuss the role of incentives and how we could stimulate the turnover of those technologies. I'd be happy to do that.

REQUEST FOR A 50-PERCENT INCREASE IN THE MANAGEMENT STAFF OF DOE'S OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Chairman CALVERT. While we're with you, your request calls for an increase of over 50 percent for management staff. Can you tell us how many new, full-time employees will be added, how many of these will be political appointees, how many political appointees do you have on staff now? We have a lot of new people here you're requesting.

Mr. REICHER. Well, first, let me respond to the 50 percent increase. In fact, your statement and the statistics you use doesn't

reflect a major change we've made in the way we fund and account for program management. Let me take 30 seconds to explain that because, in fact, the statistic is quite different than the one you use, and we point that out in our budget.

In previous years, the overall program management, the corporate management, was funded both out of the Assistant Secretary's Office and the program sector offices, and that got combined. In Fiscal Year 1999, we have asked for funding that's adequate to cover virtually all of the program management without asking for dollars from the sector program. So if you actually recalculate on an apples-to-apples basis what our increase is, it's on the order of about 19 percent, and if you look at both page 652 and page 174 of the budget, we make specific note of this. So I encourage you-and let me then ask the I'm sorry.

Chairman CALVERT. I'm saying, I'm sure that we're going to be keeping an eye on that. That's one of the reasons why I'm supportive of Mr. Doyle's bill, is to try to consolidate some of this staff, rather than add to it.

Mr. REICHER. I understand. Let me quickly respond to the issue of new hires. We embarked several years ago on a strategic alignment initiative to dramatically bring down the size of the Department of Energy. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office is down 26 percent. We are on our way to being down 31 percent. So in terms of its program management, which is up 19 percent, although I would point out that that's substantially less than the increased budget request, we don't expect to add very many at all to the FTE

Chairman CALVERT. I will be keeping an eye on it. I have one other question, and then I'll turn it back over to Mr. Roemer or Mr. Doyle.

THE PCAST REPORT AND DOE'S REQUESTS FOR FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH IN PHOTOVOLTAICS AND MARKET PROMOTION ACTIVITIES

Chairman CALVERT. The PCAST report called for fundamental research in photovoltaics, the heart of the solar program-excuse me, the weakest part of the program. This year's request calls for zero increase in fundamental PV research, $11 million, and an $8 million increase in solar international, promoting the sale of existing products around the world. So rather than spending money on research, we're going to spend money on promotion. Don't you think those priorities are opposite?

Mr. REICHER. Well, I think we have a pretty robust, fundamental research program, particularly when it's linked, as we do increasingly, to the work we do in the Energy Research Office on photovoltaics. When you put those two together, we have a robust program. In terms of the additional requests for international deployment-related activities, our feeling there is that we have an industry that's on the brink of a real massive increase in its sales potential, and it's time to support that sales in any way we can. We, at one point earlier in this decade, lost the lead on photovoltaics to other countries. We've brought it back, and we want to continue to make progress in that area.

Chairman CALVERT. As you know, I'm from California. We produce most of that product in that State, and we're very interested in seeing its sold, but we're also very interested in seeing research and development. The successful companies will do a very good job of selling it, and are.

But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Roemer.

U.S. HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS' POOR PERFORMANCE IN MATH AND SCIENCE AND DOE'S PROPOSED UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr. ROEMER. Dr. Krebs, yesterday we received some startling news, actually stunning news, that was reported on the front page of The Washington Post today, and I hope it's in every newspaper across the country. I also know that the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Peña, has been very interested in what this news reported. And that is that U.S. students in our high schools fell woefully short of international standards and testing with other countries, at and near the bottom in almost all categories of science and math. I know the President's worked closely with the Secretary in trying to establish some ways to address that and other concerns. One of the most startling things to me about this test was not only the results that were reflected on the part of the American students, that they are at the bottom with the Czech Republic and other countries, but that, when asked why, Secretary Riley, Department of Education Secretary, said that one of the reasons might be that about 50 percent, half of our physics teachers in high schools don't have a minor or a major-a minor or a major-in physics. So they may be gym teachers; they may be I don't know-geography teachers, social studies teachers that are then asked to teach physics. Now I don't know about you, but I had a tough enough time with my advanced science programs, let alone learning it from somebody that was a gym teacher.

How might you tell us what your program accomplishes? And I'd certainly like to know about it in follow-up conversations and written testimony.

Ms. KREBS. Well, I'd be happy to do followup.

[The following information was received for the record.]