Page images

my good friend from Pennsylvania as well too who has put together, I think, a good commonsense bipartisan bill that I have also co-sponsored, and after my brief remarks I want to yield my remaining time to Mr. Doyle from Pennsylvania.

Before I get into some of my brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'd just ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be entered into the record.

Chairman CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. ROEMER. As America entered the 20th Century, the public saw the introduction of mass-production automobiles along with the sprouting of gas stations throughout the United States. The building of large, hydroelectric dams in the Southeast and West provided inexpensive energy to millions of new and relocated Americans and the wiring of the houses of an entire Nation for electricity.

They felt they were lucky to live in such a powerful and innovative age. Of course, they could not foresee how incredibly powerful and innovative Americans would continue to be and the inventions that would come throughout the next century. Now, we're talking about 80-mile per gallon engines, possibly by the Year 2004 in some of our cars. We're talking about innovations in wiring the "Net" instead of further wiring for electricity some of our housing. We're talking about innovative ways to bring very, very inexpensive technologies to the marketplace to help our consumers with better choices and less expensive choices.

We are in much the same position today as we prepare to enter the 21st Century. Innovation and economic forces will shape our future for the better in ways that we cannot even predict. To ensure that the future holds promise, we must continue to invest in research and development. This truth that R&D investment is the key to our collective future has become more evident in recent decades and has been recognized by Republicans and Democrats and of course the President and the Vice President of the United States.

I think this budget that DOE is talking about today reflects many of those important choices and investments. I'm proud to cast my support for the majority, the overwhelming majority, of the choices that DOE has made. I do have some individual disagreements that I will express during the question and answer period, but, overall, I think this is a sound budget proposal and look forward to the opportunity to ask some questions to the panel, and with that, I would yield my remaining time to my friend, Mr. Doyle.

The prepared statement of Mr. Roemer follows:)

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]


Mr. Chairman, while I remain deeply troubled by continuing cost escalation and over problems associated with the international space station. I acknowiedge that NASA is not prepared to go into details at this time due to the recent change at the position of Associate Administrator for Space Flight.

Therefore, at this time, I wish to welcome Mr. Joe Rothenberg and congratulate him on his appointment. I look forward to working with the new Assistant Administrator.

I acknowledge that a future hearing on this subject has been planned by the House Committee on Science. I expect that during the hearing, NASA will fully explain how it plans to address and remedy the cost overruns. Certainly, this committee deserves to understand more than $4 billion in new costs and two to four years in schedule delay.

In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the many contributions of Wes Huntress, the Associate Administrator for Space Science. Knowing that this may be his final appearance before this Committee, I wish him a happy and fulfilling retirement.


Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Roemer. In the interest of time we have six people that I'm anxious to hear from I just want to thank Chairman Calvert for holding this hearing today and especially for putting H.R. 1806 on the hearing schedule. I appreciate it very greatly, and I look forward to speaking with all of the panelists after we've heard their testimony. And I do have a statement I'd like to submit for the record.

Chairman CALVERT. Without objection; so ordered.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Doyle and Mr. Fawell, the text of H.R. 1806, the text of S. 965, and Senate Report 105–69 follow:)

The Honorable Mike Doyle


February 25, 1998

I want to thank the Chairman for today's hearing.

While there is a great deal that needs to be discussed about our nation's energy R&D policy, my comments today are going to focus on H.R. 1806, legislation I have introduced with Chairman Calvent that would merge DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EE) and Office of Fossil Energy (FE) into a single entity.

This merger is appropriate as these offices are similar in structure, and their missions and objectives overlap in research areas such as advanced materials, biomass, alternative fuels, hightemperature superconductivity, and hydrogen. A unified administration would eliminate duplicate work, improve program integration, and achieve savings in such crosscutting areas as program planning, policy analysis, external communications, and administrative services.

Also, in the past, there has been a politically motivated rivalry between supporters of FE and EE, one that is based on labels rather than fact. This has been detrimental to both programs and seems foolish when one recognizes that when DOE was originally formed, these research areas were all located under the jurisdiction of a single Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology. This bill eliminates that rivalry without harming important energy R&D.

Assistant Secretary Dan Reicher and Assistant Secretary Pat Godley have submitted a joint statement for today's hearing expressing some concerns over H.R. 1806. While I appreciate that the Department is not in direct opposition to this legislation, I must take issue with some of their comments.

In their statement, DOE seems to be saying that there is no need for this legislation because there is both a high degree of coordination and also that the programs are too dissimilar to be merged On the face of it, these assertions seem mutually exclusive. Also, despite claims that EE & FE do a great deal of coordination in program planning, I do not believe that this coordination exists on the operational level.

Thus, despite the concerns of the Department, I believe that we should move this bipartisan bill, which enjoys the co-sponsorship of the majority of the Energy & Environment



Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the Department of Energy's budget request. I also want to thank our witnesses from the Department of Energy for their testimony.

As many of you may know, for the past 13 years, I have had the pleasure of representing one of our nation's leading national laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory. As one of the Department of Energy's multi-program labs, Argonne has made enormous strides for the future of our country in the advancement of scientific research.

As I looked over the Department of Energy's budget request I was pleased to see the Administration give high priority in the area of Nuclear Technology R&D, particularly that of the Electrometallurgical Treatment Program. The Electrometallurgical Treatment Program, or ET, is a promising technology to reduce the volume and toxicity of DOE-owned spent fuels that have become degraded during storage or that contain chemically reactive materials. I am pleased to see that the Administration's FY 1999 budget request reflects the full amount of $25 million needed to continue this critical program.

Also at Argonne National Laboratory is the Advanced Photon Source (APS). The APS, which is now fully operational, is the nation's brightest source for X-ray research on mat als. More than 500 scientists are already using this facility, which is capable of serving and supporting 4,000 researchers at full use. Researchers are making significant advances in material sciences and microelectronics, and new bimolecular structures are being determined that will lead to new drugs and pharmaceuticals.

The Department of Energy's FY 1999 budget request for the Basic Energy Sciences Program demonstrates strong support for the APS and other Basic Energy Sciences facilities. Continuing strong support for this program is crucial to our leadership in materials research and to our nation's continued competitiveness and economic growth.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on these issues through the authorization process as well as the Department of Energy.

Thank you.

« PreviousContinue »