quality and quantity of programs serving young people throughout the state. NEA FUNDING BOLSTERS LOCAL ECONOMIES: NEA funding also serves as an economic catalyst in communities, fueling the economy in several ways. The ripple effect of a thriving arts community includes greater employment opportunities and increased patronage of nearby restaurants and hotels. This contributes to the community's tourism industry as well as to the small businesses whose services are needed by arts organizations. In addition, the community's enhanced market appeal attracts new industry and corporations based on the higher quality of life and sense of community that arts organizations provide. The NEA is instrumental in creating an essential partnership between national approval and local support. NEA funds, on average, attract $11 or more from public and private sources for every $1 invested. The nonprofit arts sector also is a significant force in the national economy, contributing approximately $37 billion to the economy and 1.3 million jobs, and returning $3.4 billion to the federal Treasury in income tax. These numbers clearly demonstrate the significant economic impact of the arts. •Funding from the NEA helps to support the various activities of the Arizona Theatre Company, which presented over 300 performances of 16 mainstage, special and developmental productions in 1995 to an audience of nearly 175,000. The theatre employed over 400 theatre workers who paid federal and local taxes on $2.1 million of wages. That work was augmented by 475 volunteers. •In Santa Fe, New Mexico, a city that depends heavily on tourism, one community leader CONCLUSION: By investing in our nation's nonprofit arts institutions, the NEA fosters cultural awareness by our citizenry in unique and important ways: by expanding access to the arts; providing a catalyst for private sector funding; boosting local economies; and promoting understanding of our national heritage and experience. With the assistance of the NEA, nonprofit arts institutions, our country's national treasures, help to build a vibrant culture that is distinctly American. Again, we strongly recommend an increase of the maximum amount possible to correct the disproportionate cut that has hampered the important investment the federal government has made in bringing the arts to Americans across the country. We hope the agency will be able to continue its mission to "foster and support a form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to make people of all backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants." THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1996. DOE WITNESS DR. JEAN H. FUTRELL, COUNCIL FOR CHEMICAL RESEARCH Mr. BUNN. Dr. Jean Futrell, with the Council for Chemical Research. Good morning and welcome. Mr. FUTRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jean Futrell. I am the chair of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Delaware. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the Office of Industrial Technologies program of the United States Department of Energy. I speak in my capacity as chair of the Government Relations Committee of the Council for Chemical Research. The member organizations of the Council for Chemical Research are the research managers for chemical sciences in the United States: The heads of academic departments, of chemistry and chemical engineering, vice presidents for research and development at the major chemical industries, and lab managers at the Department of Energy labs. The CCR expresses, therefore, primarily the view of research managers in the chemical enterprise. First of all, I begin my testimony by thanking this subcommittee for its support for OIT in the Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations bill. I also would like to say that we're well aware that all programs funded by the Federal Government that are characterized as domestic and discretionary, are undergoing increasing scrutiny as you work to address the Nation's budget deficit. CCR fully supports your efforts to balance the budget and your scrutiny of R&D activities. Energy is a special consideration, in our opinion. It's something that you never notice until the supply vanishes and then it's too late. It has analogies to R&D quite generally. R&D is also focused on the future and not on the present. And the effects of decisions you make today will be felt when the future becomes our present experience. We urge that you consider energy R&D for what it is, an investment in the Nation's future. CCR agrees with the views expressed in the Yergin report, that energy is central to the Nation and is one of our top national issues. Federal support for R&D is most strongly justified when it serves the national interest and is not in areas that are addressed by market forces alone. It is our position that areas in which the national interest and support of energy R&D, coincides with industry relevance. And this is especially a meritorious consideration for Federal support. The R&D activities of OIT are strategically organized in the framework of what they describe as "Industries of the Future." They have focused on those industries which consume the most energy and generate the largest quantities of waste in the Nation. The chemical industry is one of the seven target industries that they focus on in their Industries of the Future initiative. The chem ical industry joins in their objective of minimizing energy use and minimizing waste. The CCR enters into this in our collaboration with the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Society of Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, the American Chemical Society, and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to develop a strategic vision for the future of the chemical industry. We also work with OIT within the same framework of a strategic plan to achieve energy conservation and minimize waste. We in fact anticipate that our organization, the Council for Chemical Research, will assume a leading role in implementing these plans that address the strategic future of our Nation. The CCR is an organization that exists because the research leaders from all three sectors-from our research universities, from industry, from government laboratories-recognize that all of these sectors and the whole range of research, from the most basic and fundamental to the applied research that is the basis of OIT, are part of a seamless whole that needs to be considered in all of its parts. As the Congress struggles with the necessity to rein in our budget deficit, we know that tough choices will have to be made. The role of the Department of Energy in areas of science and technology remains as valid and essential today as it was when OIT was created in 1976. And the CCR respectfully recommends that you stay the course, in terms of supporting and sustaining this process. Mr. BUNN. Thank you very much. [The statement of Mr. Futrell follows:] KEY POINTS The members of the Council for Chemical Research (CCR) are universities, companies, and government research laboratories that conduct research in chemical sciences and engineering. They are represented in CCR by vice presidents, directors, deans, and department chairs with primary responsibility for chemical R&D. The U.S. is a declining oil producer that continues to be heavily dependent on foreign oil. The world oil market is stressed and continues to be politically vulnerable. We believe that a balanced national research and development portfolio is essential to assure the Nation's future energy security. Because industry consumes more than one-third of the energy used in the United States, and the impact of shortages or disruption for industry would affect everyone, DOE's R&D portfolio must include programs with direct linkage to industry. We believe that such linkages must be collaborative and should stimulate the participation of all sectors in the necessary research. Over its 20-year life, DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) has succeeded in building trusting, collaborative, and cost-shared research relationships with industry that yield substantial energy savings. The activities conducted by OIT are a vital element of our national energy security strategy and must be sustained under any budget scenario. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Jean Futrell and I am the Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Delaware. I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) program of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). I am speaking in my capacity as Chair of the Government Relations Committee of the Council for Chemical Research (CCR), an organization whose members are universities, companies, and government laboratories that conduct research in chemical sciences and engineering. We wish to begin our testimony by thanking this Subcommittee for its support of OIT in deliberations on the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. We are well aware that all programs categorized as domestic and discretionary are undergoing increasing scrutiny as you work to address the Nation's budget deficit. We are most familiar with discussions concerning federal support for R&D and note with concern the arguments taking place concerning the role of government in R&D that can be applied to near-term problems. CCR exists because chemical research leaders from universities, industry, and government laboratories know that all sectors--and all levels of research--are integral parts of the research chain. From our perspective, programs that provide the leadership and resources needed to facilitate industrial collaboration --especially in areas of broad impact such as energy R&D -- are vitally important to the Nation. Energy is one of those things that you don't notice until it's gone, and then it's too late. The reality is that industrial research is focused on relatively near-term production, product development, and profitability issues. Relatively long-term issues with unclear profitability, especially ones requiring special research capabilities, often receive lower priority. Because the impact of energy disruption and shortage on industry is felt by everyone, the government's role in fostering improved industrial efficiency and productivity is both appropriate and necessary. The work of DOE's Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) might be described as good science and technology with an energy objective. OIT improves our nation's energy future by supporting research, development, and demonstration that improves energy efficiency and productivity in the industrial sector of the economy. Virtually every industrial process could be improved to be more energy efficient through new technology. When you reduce energy consumption and waste in industrial processes, you also tend to reduce capital, operating, and maintenance costs, and improve productivity and product quality that enhances the competitiveness of U.S. industries. We believe it is good to reap economic growth as an added benefit of the Nation's investment in energy R&D. Facing Energy Challenges While there is much discussion about the mission of the Department of Energy, it has always included a strong focus on energy sources and utilization. We read with interest the final report of the Secretary of Energy's Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development (the "Yergin report") which was published last June. This report summarizes important trends, including: • Energy is fundamental to the ability of industrial societies to function, and the demand for energy is growing world-wide. • The U.S. is a declining oil producer that continues to be heavily dependent on foreign oil. The world oil market is stressed and continues to be politically vulnerable. |