Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
GARY A. STYLES, MANAGER, PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC. Mr. NETHERCUTT [assuming chair]. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're prepared to continue with testimony of outside witnesses on the Department of Energy and other programs for the Interior and Related Agencies House Appropriations Subcommittee. I'm George Nethercutt from Washington State, sitting in for the Chairman temporarily. So I'm delighted to welcome all of you. We'll start this morning with our first witness at 10:00 o'clock, the Southern Company Services, Inc., Gary A. Styles, Manager of Planning and Analysis. Welcome, sir. Mr. STYLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Styles, your prepared testimony will be made a part of the record, and we're delighted to have you testify under your five minute time allotment. It seems unfair, but we're trying to get everybody in. Welcome to you, sir. Mr. STYLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to tell you about the power systems development facility. I have a brochure for your information about our project. The objectives of the power systems development facility research program are to improve the environmental performance, including a 25 percent reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide, and to reduce the cost of producing electricity from coal, our Nation's most abundant fossil fuel resource. The fundamental purpose of the power systems development facility is to support the national program to assure competition between energy resources and thereby keep electricity rates low. The power systems development facility is the only facility in the world where all the components of advanced coal-fired power plants can be tested in an integrated system at a practical engineering scale prior to assuming the risks and the costs of commercial application. This facility and other Department of Energy fossil energy research programs will allow U.S. electric utilities to maintain reasonable domestic energy prices well into the twenty-first century. Recent economic studies completed by the Electric Power Research Institute, the Department of Energy and Southern Company showed that if advanced coal research projects and programs are successful, the capital costs of advanced coal-fired power plants can be reduced to less than $900 a kilowatt. Based on the latest fuel cost estimates developed by the Energy Information Administration, coal can regain its competitive advantage as early as 2007 if this $900 per kilowatt capital cost can be achieved. To support continued operation of the power systems development facility, we request $20 million, about a $2.26 million increase above the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request, be included in the advanced clean and efficient power systems program in the Department of Energy's budget for fiscal year 1999. Thank you again, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. [The information follows:]
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thanks very much, Mr. Styles. Where is this picture, where is that? Mr. STYLES. It's in Wilsonville, Alabama. Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate your being here. Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FUEL CELL/GAS TURBINE HYBRID SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
WITNESS
SY A. ALI, DIRECTOR, ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL PROGRAMS, ALLISON ENGINE COMPANY
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Next witness will be Allison Engine Company, Dr. Sy A. Ali, Director, Advanced Industrial Programs. Welcome, sir.
Mr. ALI. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
I'm with Allison Engine Company. Allison makes and sells gas turbines for power generation, cogeneration, military and aircraft applications as well. I'm here to urge the subcommittee to appropriate in fiscal year 1999 for DOE's industrial advanced turbine systems program $35 million. The Administration has a request in under cogeneration for that.
For the total management system development for fuel cell gas turbine hybrid, $3 million, and $5 million for the stationary ceramic microturbine technology development. Industrial ATS will provide low-cost, clean electric power and cogeneration. The TMS development for the fuel cell gas turbine hybrid will enable timely development of clean energy sources with greater than 70 percent efficiency, which is roughly about twice the current state of the art technology.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The stationary ceramic microturbine will enable producing small power packages of high efficiency. These programs——
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I'll relinquish to the real Chairman.
Mr. REGULA [resuming chair]. Okay, how much time has he used? [Laughter.]
Mr. ALI. I'm in trouble already.
Mr. REGULA. Well, you have four minutes left.
Mr. ALI. The three programs I just mentioned, the industrial ATS, the fuel cell gas turbine hybrid and the microturbine ceramic stationary microturbine are recommended for accelerated financial support in the PCAS report.
And also these products from these programs will enable the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the Kyoto protocol, create high-skill jobs, and enable the U.S. to meet electric power and cogeneration needs. This subcommittee's foresight has now brought the industrial ATS to a critical stage of proof of concept testing. Completion of this phase would enable converting technology R&D into a successful product to serve electric and cogeneration needs of the U.S. and worldwide.
The ATS program was approved by this Congress in 1994 and it has been proceeding. The Allison ATS is a simple cycle high performance, low-cost system. It incorporates several advanced technology features from Allison's military and commercial aircraft engines.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our accomplishments over the past years consist of clean combustion technology using catalytic approaches to complement the high efficiency turbine. Testing of the catalytic technology verified DOE's emission goals.
We made significant achievements in converting advanced military and commercial aircraft technology to industrial ATS products. The Allison ATS will add approximately 300 high-skilled jobs, Cooper Rolls and Mount Vernon, Ohio and Indiana, Illinois and Washington.
ATS program represents a true government-industry partnership, and we urge this committee's continued support of that. As you may know, the Japanese government is putting in greater than 7 percent of GDP into R&D, whereas this country's R&D support has gone down to less than 2 percent.
The benefits from these programs would help the 140,000 megawatts of new electric power to be added in this country, and the 450,000 worldwide. This would increase our potential export opportunity to over 200 billion. The U.S. taxpayers will benefit directly from the significant improvement in environmental quality. We estimate that 160 million tons of CO2 can be reduced by industrial ATS alone. National electric bills will be reduced, protection of the primary jobs of about 60,000 and many more supporting jobs in the U.S.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Let me ask you a couple of questions. How soon do you think fuel cells will be commercially viable?
Mr. ALI. We are looking at a plan which would start selling fuel cell gas driven combined systems by the year 2001.
Mr. REGULA. So the fuel cell would drive the turbine, and the turbine would be a much more efficient system?
Mr. ALI. That's correct. Turbine will not use any combustion. Fuel cell would serve as the combustion technology, and it will reduce the emissions to less than 2 ppm NOX, very low CO2 emissions, and no emissions from the——
Mr. REGULA. You're developing it as a package, the fuel cell and the turbine, as an integrated unit?
Mr. ALI. We are working on how to structure the balance of plant to work with either the solid oxide fuel cell or molten carbonate fuel cells.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you very much. Sounds interesting. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
WITNESS
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
MICHAEL L. MARVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Mr. REGULA. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
Mr. MARVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the subcommittee again this year.
To refresh your memory, the Business Council was created in 1992 by energy executives from the renewable energy, energy efficiency and natural gas industries concerned about the economic, environmental and national security impacts of our energy production and use. Our members include companies and industry trade associations, several of which you will hear from later this morning and this afternoon.
Now, the issues, although the issues in which our organization has focused on change slightly from year to year, two areas have always been identified as priority areas. One is climate change, and the other is energy research, development and demonstration. The request for fiscal year 1999 has further drawn a connection between those two issues. And this year, I'd like to focus my less than five minutes of remarks on climate change.
Climate change has become a major driver in the energy R&D strategies, both here domestically and internationally, both in the public sector and in the private sector. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the effect on the market short-term and long-term is irrefutable. Our Japanese and European competitors in this roughly $100 billion a year energy development market globally are redoubling their R&D and commercialization initiatives with a focus on high efficiency energy technologies, products and services.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We received a December 1997 cable from a U.S. Government official that describes the European Commission proposed $14 billion United States dollars for support of clean energy products utilizing exclusively European technologies, both at home and abroad. U.S. technologies historically have been at a very significant commercial disadvantage because of the use of tied aid to buy our European allies and colleagues and competitors and the U.S. Government policy of opposing tied aid.
One of these companies lost hundreds of millions of dollars in sales to that tied aid. Those battles pale in comparison to the battles coming in the next five to ten years.
I would argue, then, that if the science, if the threat of climate change is not a sufficient clarion call for action, the competitiveness threat to American energy projects vis-a-vis our OECD competitors should be. One of the discoveries that some Council members have experienced in recent visits to some Congressional offices has been a response heard more than once, and that is, we don't really support the Kyoto protocol, and thus we don't support the climate change technology initiative.
We've tried to highlight the idea that the two are not inextricably intertwined.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay, let me ask you, does your Council represent a broad spectrum of people in the energy field? Like turbines?
Mr. MARVIN. We include turbines, fuel cells, exactly. Both insulation——
Mr. REGULA. Clean coal technology?
Mr. MARVIN. There is not a company that directly represents clean coal, though we have electric utilities who generate a great deal of power from clean coal.
Mr. REGULA. You do have a cross section of the energy producers in our society?
Mr. MARVIN. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. Do you have people who market energy, that is, oil and/or coal, or is it just the people that use the product?
Mr. MARVIN. We have mostly developers of the products and technologies and the services. Some of our more visible members might include Honeywell, Maytag, American Standard, Enron, as well as some of the trade associations.
Mr. REGULA. In other words, companies that have to try to respond to some degree to the standards established by DOE?
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MARVIN. Exactly.
Mr. REGULA. Maytag is an example I'm familiar with.
Mr. MARVIN. We try and sometimes glibly point out that we're part of the solution, both the environmental issues. But while we are a business organization——
Mr. REGULA. Do you share information?
Mr. MARVIN. We attempt to, to the extent possible. We have been representing that segment of the energy industry and all international climate change associations.
Mr. REGULA. So your council would be supportive of programs that we do jointly with the private sector——
Mr. MARVIN. Absolutely.
Mr. REGULA [continuing]. In developing energy efficiency programs?
Mr. MARVIN. Unquestionably.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you very much. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998.
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
WITNESSES
DONALD MASON, PRESIDENT ELECT, GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL, COMMISSIONER, OHIO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
MICHAEL PAQUE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL
Mr. REGULA. Ground water Protection Council.
I assume that Mr. Nethercutt announced all the statements will be made fully a part of the record, and we'll look at them. Because we're on such a short time line, we can only give you five minutes. If any of you feel constrained to do less, we will not object. [Laughter.]
Mr. MASON. Thank you, Congressman Regula, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Donald Mason, I'm President Elect of the Ground Water Protection Council. And I'm a Commissioner of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission. In my past position, I was chief of Oil and Gas for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
That agency is responsible for the environmental safeguards related to oil and gas exploration and production, solution mining such as salt, near Ritman, the reinjection of waste through our class two injection wells, and ultimately, protection of the geologic formations which provide——
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay, now, let me ask you, does your group try to help people who do reinjection, who do have an impact on ground water, or are you a policeman to keep it from happening?
Mr. MASON. That's an interesting question. We're both. So often in the regulatory field, we're expected to help provide solid, risk-based analysis that will allow the safe injection of brine-produced waters, and likewise, at the same time, if a person does not properly do it, we do bring environmental actions against the operators.
Mr. REGULA. Are you a non-profit, or how are you financed?
Mr. MASON. The Ground Water Protection Council is basically a 501(c)(3) organization of the various States, which includes on our board, in an ex officio capacity, members from U.S. EPA. Our role is to help bring the States together so that we can work on a lot of the same programs, reduce redundancy and overlap.
Mr. REGULA. You're a clearinghouse for the States?
Mr. MASON. I think that's a very good term to use.
Mr. REGULA. And your membership is various State agencies?
Mr. MASON. The various State EPAs, in our State, also the Department of Natural Resources, all work together in order, again, to help reduce costs and provide better products and better answers for the regulated community, at the same time, serving the needs of the State.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay. What do you think we should do? Why are you here?
Mr. MASON. Basically what we were able to do is pool the desire of the States to work together, as so often happens, it's hard to always bring forward a focus on funding. So in the past, we've been very successful with your committee where, for example, in the fiscal year 1998 budget, we received three quarters of a million dollars to help advance risk-based data management systems that allows for the various States to create a data base that can be used by small business people who can make decisions.
We so often think of the Marathons and the Exxons and the Texacos as having all the information.
Mr. REGULA. I understand. Hundreds of people are on the production side, big and little.
Mr. MASON. And a big part of our goal is, if a person wants to come forward and either drill an oil well or drill a natural gas or injection well, we have to make sure we grant that permit based on sound science and information.
Mr. REGULA. I understand that. What's your budget for your organization?
Mr. MASON. I'll have to ask. I'm president elect. [Laughter.]
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PAQUE. About a million dollars a year.
Mr. REGULA. Wait a minute. We gave you $750,000. So most of it's coming from us?
Mr. MASON. No, the operational budget from dues from the States is about a million dollars. I'm not including the allocation of the U.S. DOE funds.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, in addition. And you get money, then, from the States that participate?
Mr. MASON. That's correct. Ohio pays $5,000 in dues from EPA and $5,000 from ODNR.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, well, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
OFfset Folios 1383 to 1385 Insert here Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATURAL GAS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
WITNESS
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
CHARLES H. FRITTS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATURAL GAS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION INITIATIVE
Mr. REGULA. American Gas Association. Good morning.
Mr. FRITTS. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm representing today the Natural Gas RD&D Initiative, a cross section of pipelines, producers, distributors, research organizations, and trade associations.
I want to thank you for your past support. It's been critical to us. And we appreciate it greatly.
Mr. REGULA. So you're speaking for the broad industry?
Mr. FRITTS. Right. It's a broader group. AGA hosts it, which is why I'm here, but it's a broader group.
Mr. REGULA. Right.
Mr. FRITTS. Gas technologies make sense today because they're clean, they're domestic and they're affordable. Most importantly, gas is a reliable fuel that's here today. We can use it. The potential industrial, economic, environmental contributions of gas have not been fully realized. Enhanced, targeted RD&D can help.
We support, generally support, DOE's budget request, but we seek certain increases in critical areas. In turbines, the microturbine, the small turbine, very high priority. The potential for the combined heat and power systems that were mentioned with a prior witness, this system is being cost shared by the industry right now. We have an example of a public-private partnership.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Does AGA or your members do research?
Mr. FRITTS. Our members do research, we make contributions to the Gas Research Institute. Some of them fund it——
Mr. REGULA. GRI?
Mr. FRITTS. Yes. So on the microturbines, we're seeking $8 million over the DOE budget for the small industrial scale turbines.
Mr. REGULA. That's $8 million for various members of your group, that's not in a lump, not any one place, then, I assume?
Mr. FRITTS. Right.
Mr. REGULA. It's for research in the field of natural gas?
Mr. FRITTS. Right. The good news about this group is that we look at the DOE budget. We say, where is research today, what needs additional funding. And we identify the areas we think are most critical to us, so we don't come to you and say, we want double. So we highlight those, and these are going to selected areas that are going to do that kind of research through DOE.
Mr. REGULA. The question is, does your technology have a market overseas?
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRITTS. Yes. The turbines have opportunities overseas. We see a lot of that, as well as in the fuel cell areas.
Mr. REGULA. Do the developing nations have natural gas resources, and are they utilizing them?
Mr. FRITTS. Many of them don't have it. Pakistan might, and the middle east, former Soviet Union, does have it. Frankly, their point of resistance is infrastructure, getting the gas out and using it.
Mr. REGULA. I understand. But like in China, I know when we were in Kyoto, the general knowledge was, or idea was that China would be exceeding us in CO2 in what, 15, 20 years, because they're so dependent on fossil fuels.
Mr. FRITTS. Right. It's coal, I believe. Right.
Mr. REGULA. Right. Do they have gas, or are they going to be stuck?
Mr. FRITTS. I would have to get back to you on that.
Mr. REGULA. That's why I wondered if this technology that we're developing would have a market, eventually, overseas.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRITTS. I'm sure it will. Japan's a great user of natural gas.
Mr. REGULA. Do they have it domestically?
Mr. FRITTS. They buy it and generally bring it from Indonesia.
Mr. REGULA. Oh.
Mr. FRITTS. So they're paying actually a higher price than America is for their gas.
Mr. REGULA. Interesting.
Mr. FRITTS. Tremendous cooling in Japan, lot of gas. Fuel cells, high priority, highly efficient, pollution free. Again, here's a place where we have cost shared with the Government. Our members have taken pre-order positions on fuel cells.
Mr. REGULA. Right.
Mr. FRITTS. We request that the DOE funding request be met.
On cooling, this is especially energy efficient, cost effective. Great opportunities to offset peak electric demand in the summer months, mitigating the electric transmission bottlenecks.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Also, RD&D in the GAX, the gas absorption heat exchange is another public-private partnership that's underway. So we request $2.3 million in the desiccant program. An add-on of $500,000 in the GAX, and an add-on of $500,000 in the large commercial.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Okay, well, you're about out of time, but I understand what you're interested in.
Let me say to all of you out there that it looks like our 602(b) allocation is not going to be a whole lot greater than last year. So while these increases are nice, I don't think they're going to happen. And we have to make priority judgments. That's why I'm raising questions with each of you.
And of course, it's easy for the President to put the money in. If I could put the money in and not have to worry about where it came from, I'd be fine. We have a President's budget that's $1.1 billion above last year, but this is along with the statement about how we're balancing the budget. I don't know exactly where that $1.1 billion's coming from for our committee.
So we'll do the best we can.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRITTS. We attempted to target our request, we do review the research with the broader group.
Mr. REGULA. Right. We have your statement, and we'll take a look at it. Thank you. Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FOSSIL ENERGY, CONSERVATION/USGS/OSM/BLM/FS
WITNESS
THOMAS H. ALTMEYER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
Mr. REGULA. National Mining Association.
Mr. ALTMEYER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Good morning.
Mr. ALTMEYER. After the reform of the mining law, the mining industry opposes the Administration's proposal to make the annual maintenance fee for mining claims on Federal lands permanent, and to a continuation of the moratoria on patenting. The mining industry, as you know, continues to support legislative proposals to amend the mining laws, and has consistently sought to advance economically sustainable modifications, including a royalty payment for the surface land with a reverter to the Federal Government and a holding fee in the context of comprehensive reform.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Last year, Mr. Chairman, the mining industry signed an historic agreement with the western States to identify and work toward elimination of disincentives to the clean-up of abandoned hard rock mine lands and other purposes. Work on the abandoned mine land initiative is proceeding cooperatively under the auspices of the Western Governors Association. We would suggest that any additional revenues collected from the industry for the administration of mining laws should be directly returned to the States where the abandoned mine land activity is occurring, to assist that ongoing effort.
The mining industry, as well as other natural resource industries, are facing increasing impediments to exploration and use of Federal lands. A significant yet declining amount of domestic minerals production activity is occurring on Federal lands.
Withdrawals of land from exploration by executive fiat and through moratoria as recently proposed by the Forest Service, coupled with NEPA compliance and permitting delays as long as eight years are resulting in a marked decline in domestic exploration and mine development.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. What percent of our coal comes from Federal land versus private land?
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALTMEYER. Coal is about 30 percent Federal.
Mr. REGULA. Does that include Indian lands?
Mr. ALTMEYER. No, that does not include Indian lands.
Mr. REGULA. So that's additional?
Mr. ALTMEYER. Last year, we produced a little over a billion tons of coal in the United States. About 300 million came from Federal lands, principally in the State of Wyoming, to lesser degrees in Utah, Colorado, Montana.
Mr. REGULA. You're saying that there are many impediments to that?
Mr. ALTMEYER. The impediments are occurring, principally, not in the area of coal development projects, because we're really just taking existing mines and expanding those through something called lease by application. The principal impediments are occurring for the minerals industry, for the gold, silver.
Mr. REGULA. So you represent the whole gamut of mining?
Mr. ALTMEYER. The whole gamut of mining, yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. And the development on the Federal lands is significant for all of those things, then?
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes. It's more significant for the hard rock minerals than it is for coal in terms of percentage of national production. Mr. REGULA. What role do you see our committee playing in solving this problem?
Mr. ALTMEYER. What I was going to suggest is, we have declining exploration activity, we have a declining amount of land. That portends to the future, every American consumes 46,000 pounds of minerals per year, that's how much we consume per citizen in the United States. This is across the board.
Mr. REGULA. You're talking about copper, aluminum, coal?
Mr. ALTMEYER. Sand, gravel, aggregate, coal, the whole nine yards.
Mr. REGULA. Right.
Mr. ALTMEYER. We're potentially facing a problem. We're going to increase our reliance upon imported sources of minerals, even though we have them in this country. What we would recommend is some group, an independent group, like the National Academy of Sciences, its board on earth sciences and resources, do an assessment of what are the strategic ramifications for the United States as a consequence of the acceleration and decline of——
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Would you suggest that we request that, as part of our bill?
Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir, I would request that you request that in the committee bill or in the report.
Mr. REGULA. We'll take a look at that.
Mr. ALTMEYER. Two, the two largest copper producers in the United States have closed their U.S. exploration offices. It's a combination of two things, the declining amount of land that you can actually explore on, and more importantly is the delays in the permitting process and the NEPA process. We recently completed an assessment, which we've shared with Katy McGinney and the Council on Environmental Quality, relevant Federal agencies and the Hill calling for change, or taking a look at NEPA and how do we make it work more quickly.
Representative Nethercutt was here, there was a mine recently permitted in his district, and from the date they initiated the EIS process to the date they received their permit was eight years. You can go down to Mexico, the same environmental conditions on a mine, it's one year. Canadian provinces, it's about one year. That includes public involvement.
Mr. REGULA. What you're saying is the extraction companies are going overseas?
Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. ALTMEYER. I had a number of other——
Mr. REGULA. Well, make it quick.
Mr. ALTMEYER. Okay, I will. Let me get into the Department of Energy. As you know, Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges we face in the twenty-first century is replacement and expansion of existing electric generating capacity. In terms of reductions of power output and reductions of emissions, at the point of generation, you basically get a four to one ratio in reduction of emissions, if you do it at the point of generation as opposed to the point of consumption.
DOE, through its Vision 21 project, they call it the Energyplex, is moving forward aggressively to take a lot of the technologies that were developed through the clean coal program and coal R&D and refine those so that we can move toward a goal of zero emissions from coal-fired power plants by the middle of the next century. It needs continuing support to get us there.
Mr. REGULA. Would this be part of the clean coal program?
Mr. ALTMEYER. No, this would be a program by DOE called Vision 21. And it's in the Office of Fossil Energy.
Another area that we feel important is the Industries of the Future program, which is under Energy, the EE office. We are working cooperatively, industry, government partnership, developing a road map for the future, and we would encourage you to support that Industries of the Future project also.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One additional area I wanted to bring to your attention is the Council on Historic Preservation. The Omnibus Parks Act in 1996 asked the Council to report to the Congress on options for implementation of Section 106. It appears the Council on Historic Preservation is going to go final with regulations, possibly this spring. They have not complied with the mandate in the Omnibus Parks Act.
If they go forward and do that, we would suggest that you might want to consider restricting their funding for implementation until they have complied with their statutory requirements.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, we're about out of time here.
Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. I'd like to report, also, last year when I testified, we talked about the Office of Surface Mining. Right now, in our opinion, it is moving in the right direction. The oversight program is looking at the quality of the reclamation, and they're just not counting numbers and citations. We are extremely encouraged by the direction of OSM in their programs.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you.
Mr. ALTMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
BUILDING CODES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WITNESS
JARED O. BLUM, PRESIDENT, POLYISOCYANURATE INSULATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. REGULA. Next is the Poly—I'll let you pronounce that.
Mr. BLUM. Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association. Mercifully, we call the organization PIMA.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, our next witness is PIMA. [Laughter.]
Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jared Blum, and I do serve as President of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association.
I'm here to make several points in support of the proposed funding of the Building Standards and Guidelines Program at DOE. In particular, we are strongly supportive of the activities of that program that relate to training and assistance to the State for implementing State energy codes. It's a program in the past that has been——
Mr. REGULA. I'm very familiar, they had a meeting in Canton, Ohio, a State meeting, and I was there.
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BLUM. So I don't have to say any more.
Mr. REGULA. No. But tell me how does that fit into insulation?
Mr. BLUM. Polyisocyanurate, sir, is a type of polyurethane foam. You've seen it, it's in about 60 percent of all commercial buildings, big blocks of rigid insulation, sheathing application on home and sealed with foil. It's the highest R value of a commercially available—— Mr. REGULA. It's not going to be the asbestos of the future, I hope?
Mr. BLUM. It is not the asbestos of the future, sir, it is decidedly not so.
One or two points, if I might, and I know you had someone overstay their welcome, and I'll stay shorter. Two points. One is the code program that we're talking about is State implemented programs, this is not a Federal mandate. It's States coming to DOE asking for assistance. It has been leveraged through State monies as well as private industry monies to assist States in implementing State codes.
The second point is the significant amount of both money and energy that are saved by homeowners and commercial building owners when codes are in fact implemented around the country. The 30 States that now have a model energy code have experienced significant savings, and it's estimated a 30 year savings could be roughly between half a billion and a billion dollars for consumers.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I think you're right, my daughter built a house, and I told her, get the best insulation you can buy on both the roof and the sidewall, because long-term, it pays big dividends.
Mr. BLUM. You were right on.
Mr. REGULA. Yes.
Mr. BLUM. But if I don't need to say anything more, you've got a long day, so I'll just leave my testimony with your staff.
Mr. REGULA. Well, that was a result of my meeting in Canton, so your message is getting out.
Mr. BLUM. All right, sir, thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. I assume you work with builders?
Mr. BLUM. We work with builders, contractors, roofing contractors, we have our own training programs. We work with other insulation industry groups, such as the fiberglass people, Owens-Corning is of course a part of that effort as well. And your State, frankly, has one of the more forward looking codes as well.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.
Mr. BLUM. Thank you, sir.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
WITNESS
JOHN H. D'ARMS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES
Mr. REGULA. National Humanities Alliance.
Mr. D'ARMS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm John D'Arms.
We're shifting gears, we're moving to the National Endowment for the Humanities. I've become President recently of the American Council of Learned Societies, which we'll call ACLS, a preeminent private humanities organization in the United States, established in 1919.
Before that I was for 30 years at the University of Michigan as a teacher of humanities, as a scholar, a hater of Ohio State, but Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I sent my son and daughter to Columbus. My daughter is working in a Borders book store there, selling books of music, and my son is a budding philosopher at Ohio State.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Good. Good choice.
Mr. D'ARMS. I'm testifying on behalf of the National Humanities Alliance and its membership of 85 scholarly and professional organizations. And I am very happy to have the opportunity to express support for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the President's request for $136 million in fiscal year 1999, still down from $172 million three years ago.
When we invest, Mr. Chairman, in research in the biomedical sciences, we do it out of a conviction that great breakthroughs will save or prolong life. When we invest modestly in the humanities, we do it out of a different human need, because we think they'll make a life more meaningful.
My second, my written testimony will explain the various programs that we're particularly interested in. We support Mr. Ferris, our new incoming NEH chairman——
Mr. REGULA. I've met with him.
Mr. D'ARMS [continuing]. And his plans for the regional humanities centers. But also for really deepening and restoring——
Mr. REGULA. We really talked about cattle.
Mr. D'ARMS. Cattle?
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Yes. He was a 4–H'er and so am I. They've had a charmed existence, the NEH, as opposed to NEA, as you well know.
Mr. D'ARMS. Yes, I well know that.
I think the only things I would say about the NEH programs this morning, Mr. Chairman, are two that I know an awful lot about as a scholar and as a representative of scholars. Fellowships, here I really do speak from experience, because I've held these fellowships, which have allowed me to do some research on Roman Pompeii.
Secondly, I've awarded and administered these fellowships. Thirdly, I've tried to raise money for fellowships and know how hard it is. Fourthly, I've written about it.
Mr. REGULA. Well, let me ask you. Does the public use the product?
Mr. D'ARMS. The public does use the product. I mean, I would cite just two very recent examples Bob Fagle's translation of Homer's Odyssey, which has been bought in hundreds of thousands of copies. And accompanied by a reading on tape by the actor, McEwen, so people put it in their cars and listen to it all the time. There is a work of scholarship about which the public really is interested in.
You could say that Helen Vendler's new book on Shakespeare's sonnets with a compact disk to go with it, hearing her read it, really, I mean, these are the human emotions, they're the human spirit. People are in fact, even in scholarship, paying attention.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I think support for restoring the scholarly work in the humanities, fellowships would be very important.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, just let me say this. In coming to Capitol Hill on many occasions after the election of the 104th Congress, speaking to members, I kept hearing the NEH ought to privatize. You ought to be connecting with private money.
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that there is one program in the National Endowment for the Humanities which really does this, which really endows. And that's the challenge grant program, where an institution has to provide $3 for every $1 it gets.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, I like those.
Mr. D'ARMS. Now, that, which is currently funded at $10 million, if it were doubled, if we were able to get to $20 million, we would generate $60 million.
Mr. REGULA. But if we gave you the $20 million, and kept your max, you're about the same.
Mr. D'ARMS. Well, that would require making priority judgments within the agency. I think others are better prepared to do that.
I would think that there is a real case to be made for challenge grants.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. They leverage the money and they get others involved.
Mr. D'ARMS. They do. And it calls itself, Mr. Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities. This is the only program that actually does do some endowing. If you want us to privatize, we need some time, and this is one of the programs that helps do it.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you very much.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
WITNESS
MYLES BRAND, PRESIDENT, INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Mr. REGULA. Association of American Universities.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BRAND. Mr. Chairman, I'm Myles Brand, President of Indiana University.
Mr. REGULA. You're a little kinder to our Buckeyes.
Mr. BRAND. I used to be at Ohio State, incidentally, before Indiana. [Laughter.]
I also represent, in addition to the American Association of Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, as well as the American Council on Education. I'm here to testify for NEH and in particular, for the $136 million proposed budget.
Mr. REGULA. Well, let me say that's unlikely, being perfectly candid, because we're not going to have any extra money, that I can see, over what we had last year. And I don't know if our priorities are going to be able to shift to give any one agency that we are responsible for any substantial addition. That's just the fact of life, given the allocation we receive from the budget process.
Mr. BRAND. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I also want to make a case for priorities.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, I understand that, too.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BRAND. There are competing interests, and I want to argue strongly for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Obviously, it helps preserve and advocate for our national culture. It has the goals of promoting life-long learning, strengthening our communities. It does this by making humanities available to Americans, help them understand their place in the world.
As a college president, I want to stress, as John D'Arms did before me, that research and study in the humanities is essential. It provides a clear framework for critical——
Mr. REGULA. How does NEH impact on your campus?
Mr. BRAND. NEH impacts on our campus by supporting individual scholars. I myself, I'm a philosopher by trade. I myself had two NEH fellowships which allowed me, as a young faculty member, to spend time away from having to teach during the summer to do research. That research was then directly carried into the classroom.
It also supports a number of activities in terms of critical editions. NEH has been well-known for preserving the papers of George Washington, Frederick Douglass. It recently produced the monumental television show on the Civil War, you may——
Mr. REGULA. Oh, yes, I'm very familiar with that. It gave you some great PR.
Mr. BRAND. It was a good effort. And only the NEH can do that, because only NEH has the broad scope to do it. No one State or private corporation could have possibly done it.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Do you have a council in Indiana?
Mr. BRAND. Yes, we have a council. Every State has a council. I personally served on the Council in Arizona when I was there. It was very exciting to see young and old people visit the exhibitions, hear the lectures. It was thrilling, really. That was one of my most fond memories of the NEH, working on the State councils.
I support Chairman Ferris' effort to enhance the outreach regionally. Let me just give you two more examples from my home institution, if you will. You asked critical editions. Indiana University is working on the papers of Charles Sanders Perce, the founder of pragmatism, which is clearly an American philosophy. Those papers are in great disarray. Without the help of NEH, they would be lost.
We have a leading folklore center, which preserves jazz, American Indian music, it's the best folklore center in the country. Without NEH, it would be nowhere.
Mr. REGULA. Okay, well, that's what I want to hear. I want to know what gets on the ground.
Mr. BRAND. It works for our students, works for our communities.
[The information follows:]
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Very well, thank you very much.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
WITNESS
DEANNA MARCUM, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES
Mr. REGULA. We're going to skip the next one until the member gets here. We'll go the Association of Research Libraries.
Ms. MARCUM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REGULA. Good morning.
Ms. MARCUM. Maybe I should tell you that I'm also a 4–H'er.
Mr. REGULA. That's terrific. You're off to a good start. [Laughter.]
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MARCUM. I thought that would help.
I'm Deanna Marcum. I'm President of the Council on Library and Information Resources. Today I'm pleased to represent the Association of Research Libraries, the National Humanities Alliance, as well as my own organization, a 501(c)(3) organization.
I'm here to speak in support of NEH's budget of $136 million for 1999. That budget includes $20 million for preservation, an additional $2 million over the current preservation and access budget.
I want to talk about preservation, because in 1989, NEH, since 1989, NEH has been implementing a coordinated national plan to save the intellectual content of books and other research materials in research libraries. That plan is now falling behind, because NEH funding has not been at the amount that was envisioned 10 years ago when that was introduced.
What is clear, though, is that NEH's leadership is important. No individual university could manage this preservation plan on its own, and NEH's leadership is critical.
Mr. REGULA. Do you see it as leverage money, seed money?
Ms. MARCUM. Very much so. Universities are putting much of their own money into these projects.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. So the NEH grant becomes seed money, literally.
Ms. MARCUM. That's right. And the universities then go to private foundations and raise additional money. So it's a collective effort.
Mr. REGULA. Let me ask you, do you think we ought to increase the State allocation out of their budget? It's now about 35 percent.
Ms. MARCUM. The State allocations are very important. But when we're talking about preservation of the intellectual record, we really must have a national program so that we know that wherever those materials are, someone will identify them and preserve them.
Mr. REGULA. You're comfortable with the present breakdown of about 35 percent to the States?
Ms. MARCUM. I'd like to see more in all categories.
Mr. REGULA. That's a safe answer. Okay.
Ms. MARCUM. The second point I would like to make, and this is amplified in my written testimony, at the same time this preservation microfilming program is going forward, NEH also must look at the knowledge that's being produced in digital form. We must find ways to preserve that information in digital form as well.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We want to support very strongly the additional $2 million that NEH has requested, so that it will be able to reformat some of those materials that are now in our Nation's libraries, so they can be made available easily on the world wide web to school children throughout the United States and internationally.
And we would like to applaud the cooperation between NEH and the National Science Foundation in the second round of digital library projects.
Mr. REGULA. I don't know, are you familiar with the proposed Millennium project?
Ms. MARCUM. I am, indeed.
Mr. REGULA. Do you think NEH would be a partner in that? I know it's the First Lady's initiative.
Ms. MARCUM. There's a very strong connection. I'm sure NEH would be very much interested in working with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and other groups for preservation purposes.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you very much.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MARCUM. Thank you very much. Appreciate this opportunity.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
WITNESS
JACK FARIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER, COLE AND WEBER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WASHINGTON COMMISSION FOR THE HUMANITIES
Mr. REGULA. Our next witness is the Federation of State Humanities Councils.
Mr. FARIS. Thank you for this opportunity to share. My name is Jack Faris. I am on the board of the Washington Commission for the Humanities. I work at Cole and Weber, an advertising agency in Seattle, representing clients such as Safeco and Boeing, nationally and internationally.
It also happens that my wife was a 4–H member, and she sends her regards.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. My, we're going to have to paint the room green. [Laughter.]
Mr. FARIS. I'm here to advocate on behalf of the proposed NEH funding level of $136 million, and particularly in support of the recommended $35.6 million for the State Councils.
Mr. REGULA. Why do you like the NEH program?
Mr. FARIS. That's an excellent question. I am, like my predecessors testifying this morning——
Mr. REGULA. You're coming out of the private sector?
Mr. FARIS. That's correct.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. FARIS. I think that the National Endowment for the Humanities, in particular, humanities in general, are absolutely central to the fabric of our democracy.
Mr. REGULA. If a worker at Boeing came up to you and said, I see you're on this council, and I'm paying taxes, how would you justify to him the activities of NEH?
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FARIS. I would point out to this person that it's very likely that his or her daughter or son is participating in an enriched academic program in high school or middle school that is supported by the State Councils activities in humanities. I would also point out that he or she may have had the opportunity to go to an exhibit at a museum, discover the role of the home front in World War II and have a conversation with his or her father about his participation in the war and to discover a rich part of history that might not have otherwise taken place.
So it's not difficult, especially with the breadth and scope of the amount of activity at the State level, to make a case to anybody for the importance of the humanities. I'll name a couple more.
Within the State of Washington and six other councils, there is strong support for a program called Mother Read Father Read, which is a very powerful program for helping parents learn how to read to their children and read with their children with a humanities orientation that puts as much focus on interpretation of the material and in so doing, the careful evaluative research indicates that this not only improves the academic achievement of children in reading and other areas, it actually strengthens families. I think there's a strong case that it reduces incidents of child abuse by developing richer, more connected families.
Mr. REGULA. I think, this is a week of reading, national week of something.
Mr. FARIS. I've been engaged in important initiatives in literacy for the past ten years. The Mother Read Father Read program is praised by experts as one of the very most powerful of all these reading programs that are underway across the country.
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I have just been reminded, this is Dr. Suess' birthday week. Our three kids grew up on Dr. Suess.
Mr. FARIS. We all have some Green Eggs and Ham.
Mr. REGULA. That's right.
Mr. FARIS. I also want to point out two other things. The State Councils are adopting advanced technology in order to multiply their programs and extend their efficiency. The State of Texas has a web site which is being built to house ultimately 55 different exhibits and slide shows and video presentations. Because of the network that links all of their schools together, this will be accessible by every school in the State.
Cutbacks in State funding have affected our ability to deliver these programs. My executive director wanted me to note that in fact, the State funding has been at $28 million out of $110 million. So that's right about 25 percent, rather than the 40 percent figure.
We do think, in fact, we're confident that there is strong demand for the services and programs.
Mr. REGULA. Does the State of Washington support their humanities council? That is, the State legislature, through their budget?
Mr. FARIS. We do not receive State funds.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. You're not getting State funds? Have you tried?
Mr. FARIS. We're trying this year and last year.
Mr. REGULA. Because I see the Federal funds as a leverage arrangement. And it seems the States ought to also participate.
Mr. FARIS. I do want to speak to the role of our organization in leveraging the national support. In the State of Washington——
Mr. REGULA. You do get private money, then?
Mr. FARIS. We are increasing that, I serve on the development committee of the Washington Commission. And with a lot more energy behind fund raising and entrepreneurial activities, we have been able to increase the private side of the budget from about 15 percent to 40 percent in the past couple of years. We intend fully to continue to do more and more.
But at the same time, the fact is that our programs are oversubscribed, we have unmet demand. You asked whether the public is buying the product, and the public is very interested, hungry, thirsty our products and programs. So we feel in a strong position to advocate for the $35.6 line item budget.
[The information follows:]
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you very much.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
WITNESS
JEFFREY NESIN, PRESIDENT, MEMPHIS COLLEGE OF ART
Mr. REGULA. I see Congressman Ford is here and we're pleased to welcome you. I understand you want to introduce Mr. Nesin. We're happy to have you.
Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take up much of your time.
I want to first thank you for your leadership and certainly commitment to the arts over the years, and your support. I know that President Nesin and others around the Nation, while I'm a new member of Congress, and certainly being young, I don't profess to be an expert on anything, but I do know that you have been a supporter of these issues, and I do thank you.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
President Nesin is not only my constituent, but he is the President of the Memphis College of Art. In his capacity there, and certainly at the other post-secondary institutions in which he has served, he has distinguished himself as an effective educator and articulate advocate on behalf of the arts.
Under his leadership and stewardship at the school, Mr. Chairman, the school has really thrived and gained national and regional prominence.
Mr. REGULA. Is it a public or private school? And just restricted to the arts?
Mr. NESIN. It's a college of art and design.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. FORD. I will be very brief, I see my colleague Mr. Nethercutt has just come in as well, and I thank him again for letting us come before the committee.
He has been able to help the school grow its enrollment, its undergraduate and graduate enrollments to the largest they've been in the history of the school, Mr. Chairman. In addition, he has demonstrated a keen understanding of the importance of not only arts education, but students' access to technology as they seek to grow and learn and enrich themselves.
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. What's the enrollment?
Mr. NESIN. Three hundred.
Mr. FORD. Without further ado, Mr. Chairman, I give you my constituent. I give you President Jeff Nesin.
Mr. NESIN. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you for coming, and you're welcome to stay, Mr. Ford.
Mr. NESIN. Thank you, and good morning. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the 4–H club. My father was. [Laughter.]
My father was, but I'm not.
Mr. REGULA. I guess we all started on the farm somewhere down the line, in the background.
Mr. NESIN. I'm representing the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design, a national organization.
Mr. REGULA. You're speaking for the group, or just yourself?
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NESIN. No, I'm speaking for the group nationally. We have three institutions in your State, Columbus College of Art and Design, Art Academy of Cincinnati and the Cleveland Art Institute. And I believe the President of the Cleveland Art Institute has spoken with you earlier.
Now, I would like to speak on behalf of that agency which has not led a charmed life, the National Endowment for the Arts, and urge you to fund it at the level that has been asked by the Administration of $136 million. I would say since you raised the issue of leveraging the Federal funds, leveraging State, local and private funds, that the only direct grant that the NEA has ever given to the Memphis Arts Council, it has never given anything to my college, but the only direct grant that the NEA made to the Memphis Arts Council was about 15 years ago. It was a small challenge grant.
Their annual campaign now is a multimillion dollar campaign, supported by city funds, county funds, State funds, multiple corporate donations, and many, many thousands of private donors, because the Federal Government, the Federal Government legitimized them as an organization, and legitimized their efforts by making a small grant. That is a key.
Mr. REGULA. It's a seed money/leverage program.
Mr. NESIN. That is a key Federal role in the arts nationally.
There's a second issue for me. And that is that same leverage and that same legitimization for education, for art and design in education. There's research recently that indicates that students with extended art study in their schools score 53 points higher on the verbal and 35 points higher on the math sections of the college boards of the SAT. This suggests to me, and I think broadly, that art education, serious art education, sustained art education, teaches not only art making and art understanding, but problem solving, clear thinking, self-discipline, self-criticism, and is of enormous benefit to all of our children.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think it is of particular benefit to children at risk and children who have not previously had great success in our schools, providing another language system and another means by which they can excel in their studies. These are all areas that I've spent a lot of time working in and my college has supported.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Nethercutt, do you have questions? You have had some skepticism on NEA.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here, both of you gentlemen, my colleague especially.
I just wanted to be sure that the mission of the NEA is better focused, and really that some of the rural areas of the country receive assistance through arts grants. I come from a modified rural area. We have Spokane, Washington on the east side of the State, which is 60 percent of the population of my district. But we don't get very much in the way of grants that I think could be helpful to the rural communities.
So I'd like to see NEA structured in such a way that some of the rural communities receive greater benefit, rather than lesser, and that money goes less to the big city arts efforts and more to small America.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NESIN. Frankly, I can't argue with that. And I would not. In Tennessee, the percentage of NEA money that comes to the State goes to the Tennessee Arts Commission and gets distributed very, very broadly across the State, to little community theaters and bona fide rural communities. There's no special bias.
Although the economic development piece of this kind of Federal interest in the arts would suggest that where the arts and art tourism are multi-billion dollar a year industries that pump, keep being primed on a regular basis, so I wouldn't speak against the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, but I agree with you entirely.
I am the President of the only college in my association, the State of Tennessee, or seven of the eight contiguous States. So I have a lonely position, defending art and design education, even in the biggest city in the State. I'm very proud that I have my Congressman by my side today.
There's one other thing, since I raised the issue of competitiveness.
Mr. REGULA. We're about out of time.
Mr. NESIN. I'll be real quick. I believe that national productivity and creativity have to grow together. I think that current technologies and technologies that are being developed now put a stronger demand on art and design education on creative problem solving than ever before. I believe that you would demonstrate your interest in exactly these pathways for the future, enabling students and our citizens of the future by supporting an increased appropriation for the NEA.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. NESIN. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
WITNESS
PAGE PUTNAM MILLER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMOTION OF HISTORY
Mr. REGULA. The next witness is the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History.
Mr. NETHERCUTT [assuming chair]. This is the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, Page Putnam Miller, Director. Welcome, ma'am.
Ms. MILLER. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity, Representative Nethercutt, to testify before this committee.
I represent a coalition of 50 historical and archival organizations. We're concerned about the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. We are urging this subcommittee to recommend the President's request of $136 million, which we see as a partial step toward the restoration of the level before the cuts in 1995, when NEH was at $172 million.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This will be only, would still be 20 percent short of that full restoration. So we see this as a step in the right direction.
We support NEH because of its two core missions. Those missions we see as the support of scholarship in the humanities and the support of the dissemination of that scholarship. We think about scientific research, and they require major labs and expensive equipment. But the humanities also require tools for research. And these tools are major projects, and they are supported by NEH.
One of these tools, for instance, are the documentary history volumes. These have been so important to scholars around the country, because scholars cannot always travel to all the repositories and by compiling the writings of George Washington and Jefferson and Madison and all in one document, in one place with many volumes, it's able to disseminate that scholarship.
But if you look at the budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1995, the amount for research, which is the core research that's so important to us, was $23.5 million, and the amount for education was $28 million. But with the downsizing, they had to merge these two into one division with only $21 million.
So you can see the amount that's gone to basic research has been significantly reduced.
But while we support the research side, we also support the dissemination side. And a key role in that are the State humanities councils. And just previously, we heard the representative from the Washington Council who explained so well the kinds of ways in which those councils support the dissemination. They depend on the scholarship that was produced through the core programs of the research division.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In closing, I would just like to say that we support the Chairman's initiative for the Millennium projects. We support the interest in the regional centers. Because we feel that will be a way to disseminate.
But we're concerned that the Endowment take on new projects when it's not really funding to the level we think it should the core projects. So we would only support the regional centers if there is additional funding.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. No, ma'am, thanks so much for being here today and for your testimony.
Ms. MILLER. Thank you.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I might just say for the record, I was sorry to have missed Mr. Faris and Margaret Ann Bromeyer who were here. I especially had a very good discussion with them before their testimony today. So I certainly want to weigh in again in thanking you again on the record for being here and for your insight and support of the NEH and State arts councils, especially. Glad you could be here.
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FARIS. In my testimony there were some comments on the Gettysburg Address I wanted to call to your attention. I'll give a copy to your staff.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
WITNESS
GREGORY N. BROWN, DEAN, FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH, VIRGINIA TECH
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Dr. Gregory N. Brown, Dean, Forestry and Wildlife Research, Virginia Tech.
Welcome, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'm speaking on behalf of the U.S. Geological Survey, even though I'm representing the National Association of State Universities here. As you indicated, I'm from Virginia Tech, Dean of the college there. My tie to the National Association of State Universities is that I am previous chair of their board of natural resources, and currently I am chairing a new partnership with the USGS. Hence, we have a very high level of interest in the USGS budget.
The National Association of State University mission, it was founded in 1887, is the oldest higher education association in the country, and it currently represents 190 member institutions, including 17 historically black institutions. Those institutions enroll over 3 million students.
NASULGC as such does not receive any Federal grants. The NASULGC–USGS partnership is a relatively new partnership. The USGS strategic plan emphasized partnerships as one of its core competencies. Recently we brought together many of the scientists and some of the administrators from many of the land grant universities to meet with some of the high level officials in the agency, in the USGS, to work toward a partnership.
We could give many examples of how this partnership could manifest itself. Frankly, I came prepared to give a few from Ohio. But since Congressman Regula left the room, I'll save some time. [Laughter.]
Mr. NETHERCUTT. You could give some from Washington State.
Mr. BROWN. We could track down some very quickly. [Laughter.]
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Relative to the budget request, we recommend increasing the $806.9 million. The USGS mission, as you are aware, is the primary provider of the earth and biological science information related to natural hazards. They have a responsibility for collecting and analyzing and disseminating all these data for the management of our natural resources in this Nation.
Under the USGS, there are four major divisions to which I would like to make reference. One of those is the National Geologic Mapping Program. We would like to speak against a proposed reduction of the $1.7 million in the National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program, and ask the Congress to restore the program to the full authorized level of $26 million.
One of the most fundamental programs of the USGS has been the preparation of geological maps. These have widespread use in land use planning, looking at geologic hazards and finding and evaluating fuel and non-fuel minerals in our Nation.
Another division is the Geologic Hazards, Resources and Processes. Here again we would like to speak against the proposed reduction and recommend that it be restored to the 1998 level of $235 million. Again, one of the most important activities of this division is its cooperative programs with State geological surveys. Many of these activities involve universities. And they've become very productive as effective partnerships across all the communities in the State or in the Nation.
For example, in the New Madrid, Missouri site, which is the site of the largest earthquake to ever occur in this Nation, the scientists are working together to identify seismic activity and describe the fault situations and so forth, in anticipation, or in the hope, at least, anticipation that if another one should occur, that they could detect that in advance.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. How large was that, do you remember? Relative to Alaska. I'm familiar with the Alaska quake, but I wasn't sure, you said the largest.
Mr. BROWN. Well, it supposedly was the largest earthquake we ever had in the United States. I couldn't really give you what the scale was on that.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. That's okay.
Mr. BROWN. Under the biological resources division, which is a fairly new one in USGS, we would like to commend the leadership of this committee in merging the former National Biological Service into the USGS as a biological resource division. Because that provides an opportunity for the USGS to deal with multidisciplinary programs across natural resources. Hence, they can more effectively coordinate the research directed to that end.
Relative to the biological resources division, we would like to urge an additional $2 million to fully support the cooperative research units. These units are essential for research and information to resource managers across fisheries and wildlife and so forth. We would like to sustain the extramural research partnerships with the universities. They are important to all of our universities and I think very important to the biological resources division.
Finally, under the water resources division, we would support the request for $5.5 million for the water resource research institutes. The Administration request for the institutes is a very welcome development in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The institutes use university scientists to conduct high priority State, regional and national research on water resources. And the Federal support for the institute program creates a national network among States and between their land grant universities and other research institutions.
We also would support the budget request of $71.9 million for the Federal-State cooperative program in the water resources division. And the National Water Quality Assessment program, at a level of $71.6 million. These programs are essential to extending scientific and technical expertise of the survey to State and local governments through the partnerships and cost sharing arrangements with those units.
Finally, and separate from the USGS budget, since the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations deals with the U.S. Forest Service budget, I would just like to make a brief comment about the U.S. Forest Service partnership with universities. There's authorizing language which strongly encourages greater partnership through competitive grants from the Forest Service to universities to deal with the non-industrial private forests in this Nation. That's a forest base that is going to be increasingly called upon to supply the wood demand for this Nation in the future, and relatively little education and research is directed toward that particular entity.
There's a 5 percent increase proposed for the U.S. Forest Service research and development in the fiscal year 1999 budget. That includes a $6 million increase for inventory and monitoring, a very critical action. And also a $3 million increase for climate change technology. And $2 million of that $3 million is identified for extramural research grants, which would be cooperative or competitive for universities.
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And lastly, I would like to support a new concept called the Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units. This is a new unit that would be working cooperatively with universities, including the historically Black colleges and universities. But most significantly, I think it crosses several different Federal agencies in a collaborative nature. It will involve the USGS, the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, EPA, the U.S. Forest Service and several others at this point. I think it falls into the line of collaboration across Federal agencies with which we are trying to strive and accomplish.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. And we thank you again for your support of the management of our natural resources in this Nation.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Dr. Brown, for your work and for your testimony today.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
WITNESS
BOB G. VOLK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WATER RESOURCES, DIRECTOR, WATER CENTER/ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be the National Institutes for Water Resources, Dr. Bob Volk, University of Nebraska. Welcome, Dr. Volk.
Dr. VOLK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bob Volk. I am President of the National Institutes for Water Resources, and Director of the Water Center/Environmental Programs Unit at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, Nebraska.
First of all, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and express my appreciation for the strong support the subcommittee has given the water resource research institutes program. This is a very valuable Federal-State partnership based on the premise that States, not the Federal Government, are the managers of their water resources, and that solutions to water problems are best solved at the State and local level.
State water research institutes, through applied and basic research, are ideally suited to tailor solutions to State problems. The State matches every Federal dollar with two dollars.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have reviewed the USGS budget proposed by the Administration, and we strongly support the program of the Survey's water resources division. The division is widely recognized as first class among the scientific community.
For the first time in several years, the Administration has proposed funding the institute's program at $4.553 million level for the 104(b) program and $1 million for the 104(g) program in fiscal year 1999. We believe this is a step in the right direction.
The 104(b) program supports each institute with a base grant of $20,000, with the remaining funds distributed by a regional competitive grants program. The new funds for the 104(g) program will be distributed competitively for water research that is regional, multi-state, inter-jurisdictional in nature, to complement the clean water and watershed restoration initiative.
We are encouraged, Mr. Chairman, that the Interior Department's new approach to water research includes the State institutes as active partners. The increased level of funding for activities conducted under the Water Resources Research Act is a significant, positive response to communications from the Water Science and Technology board of the National Research Council for increased support of the program by the USGS, and to increase collaboration with universities.
Yet over the many years of the institute's program, there has been a steady erosion in the ability of the institutes to maintain viable programs. Last year's funding of $4.553 million is roughly the same amount as the first year appropriation for the program when it started 30 years ago. Inflation over the past 30 years, therefore, has reduced the purchasing power of the research dollar by nearly four-fold.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Act, as reauthorized and signed into law in 1996, does authorize the 104(b) program at $9 million and the 104(g) program at $3 million.
The National Water Quality Assessment program has been a major effort in assessing the quality of the Nation's major watersheds and the institutes would work very closely with the USGS in data interpretation, economic analysis, and development of best management practices to improve water quality. The institute's program, together with the USGS, provides the basis for a unique State-Federal partnership to address the Nation's water resource needs. And we look forward to increased collaboration with the USGS.
I would also support what the previous speaker said, Dr. Brown, that we also support the USGS in the NASULGC partnership as well.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony. The institutes for water resources are grateful for your support of this very important State based program.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much, Dr. Volk. Appreciate your being here.
Dr. VOLK. Thank you.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FOSSIL ENERGY/UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
WITNESS
DAVID APPLEGATE, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness is the American Geological Institute, Dr. David Applegate, Director of Governmental Affairs. Welcome, sir.
Mr. APPLEGATE. Thank you very much.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, Mr. Nethercutt and Mr. Yates. I ask that my full statement be entered into the record.
My name is Dave Applegate, I'm the Director of Government Affairs at the American Geological Institute. We're a federation of 31 different societies in the earth sciences, representing over 100,000 geologists, hydrologists, geophysicists and other scientists. I'm pleased to be here, I'm a geologist myself, so I'm particularly pleased to be here to support fiscal year 1999 appropriations for geoscience programs in the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Although I'm going to focus my remarks on the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D program, AGI also urges the subcommittee to fund geoscience activities at the Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the Smithsonian Institution.
The central mission of the U.S. Geological Survey is to provide reliable, objective earth science data and analysis of hazards, resources and the environment from a national perspective. Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State and local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products and services.
USGS is widely recognized for providing unbiased data used by others to better manage the Nation's resources. AGI encourages the subcommittee to support the President's overall request of $807 million for the USGS, which would be an increase of nearly $48 million.
However, we also hope the subcommittee will carefully scrutinize the distribution of this increase, and particularly address the reduction for the geologic division, which included cuts for programs of geologic mapping, coastal studies, mineral resources and energy resources.
One need look no further than the evening news for the El Niño effect, the landslides and the floods in California, and your own State is no stranger to natural disasters as well, to see the powerful reminders of the need to reduce the impact of geologic hazards. But in order to be successful in these efforts, the Federal Government needs to increase its mitigation efforts, including a strong component of research into these geologic hazards.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The societal benefits and returns on this investment extend to such areas as housing, transportation, commerce, agriculture, communications and human health and safety.
As the next witness from the Association of American State Geologists will tell you, whether the issue is natural hazard mitigation, environmental remediation, land use planning or resource development, one of the fundamental data sources for these activities and for the research into them is geologic maps.
Although AGI was very pleased when last August Congress unanimously passed the National Geologic Map Reauthorization Act, we were disturbed to have the President's budget come out six months later and rather than the $6 million increase that was called for in this act, it was a $1.7 million cut, as you've heard from earlier witnesses as well.
This was the same request made by the Administration last year. This subcommittee saw fit to restore funding for this program last year, and we certainly hope that they will do it again and increase support for it in the current year. In particular, the external components that are matched one to one with State and university dollars.
I'd like to turn now and mention briefly the Department of Energy's fossil R&D programs. Continued research on fossil energy is critical to America's future. The societal benefits of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as economic and national security, job creation, capital investment and reduction of the trade deficit. The Nation will remain dependent upon petroleum as its principal transportation fuel for the foreseeable future. It's critical that domestic production not be allowed to decline prematurely.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Federal investment in fossil energy R&D is particularly important when it comes to longer range research that has broad benefits. In today's competitive markets, the private sector focuses dwindling research dollars on shorter term results in highly applied areas such as technical services. In this context, DOE's support of fossil energy research is very significant, both in magnitude and impact, compared to that done in the private sector. Without it, we risk losing our technological edge with this global commodity.
AGI asks the subcommittee to grant DOE's request for R&D programs, particularly in the Office of Oil Technology. These funds are a small fraction of DOE's total budget, but they represent an important investment in this Nation's future.
The Federal monies spent on these programs goes to support laboratories and to improve information dissemination. This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American businesses stay in business by giving them a technological edge over their foreign competitors through such programs as the Petroleum Technology Transfer Councils, the Reservoir Class Field Demonstration Program. The latter of which, in a 1996 report, the National Research Council found, was demonstrating advanced and conventional technologies that have the potential to prolong the lives of marginal oil fields.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to present AGI's views to the subcommittee. I'll be pleased to answer any questions or provide additional information for the record.
[The information follows:]
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thanks, Dr. Applegate. Your written statement will be made a part of the record. We appreciate your being here.
Mr. Yates may have a question.
Mr. YATES. I have one question. What does geology have to do with El Niño?
Mr. APPLEGATE. Well, in particular with the effects of El Niño. We see the earth sciences, in fact, the people that we're involved with stretch over all disciplines, earth science, atmospheric and oceans. But certainly the impacts of it on steep slopes, with soil erosion and landslides, the flooding, the work that the USGS does in stream gauging to measure its impacts, as well as a host of other hazards.
Mr. YATES. Thank you.
Mr. APPLEGATE. Thank you, sir.
Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. You're very welcome, Mr. Yates.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
WITNESSES
CHARLES H. GARDNER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS
CHARLES MANKING, STATE GEOLOGIST, STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be the Association of American State Geologists, Charles H. Gardner, President.
Welcome, sir.
Mr. GARDNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have somebody join me.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Indeed. We'd be delighted to have them.
Mr. GARDNER. I am Charles Gardner, I'm President of the Association of American State Geologists. And I'm the state geologist in North Carolina. And I have with me Dr. Charles Manking, who is the state geologist for Oklahoma. He has been around D.C. a lot more than I have and was willing to accompany me today to help out with this testimony.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Delighted to have you both here, and your testimony, sir, will be made a part of the record, your prepared statement. We're delighted to have you summarize.
Mr. GARDNER. I appreciate that.
Our association has been around for about 90 years. And it's an interstate association of the Executive State Geologists. Our purpose is to learn from each other and also to speak with one voice concerning Federal affairs in our messages to the Congress.
A couple of speakers earlier today have already addressed the concern that I want to bring to this committee, and that is, our deep concern about the funding level that we're seeing right now for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act and the U.S. Geological Survey. That program has had unanimous support in the passage of the authorization bill from the Congress.
And the reauthorization bill last year, last year the Congress restored funding that was cut from that program, or proposed to be cut by the Administration. And the work that we've done to find out what happened this year, from all indications, the best we can figure is that the present proposed budget is kind of a vestige of what happened before. And the Administration had a particular level in front of them, and they put that forward.
Our appeal to this committee and to the Congress is to appropriate funds for the total authorized amount for that national cooperative program, which is $28 million. A set percentage in the authorization bill goes to the States as a partnership kind of program this year, it would be 24 percent.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It's an excellent leveraging kind of program for taking Federal funds and really multiplying the effect of those funds through the States' matching efforts and their local expertise in providing these geologic maps, which are really critical to the Nation. It's really the underpinning, the geologic maps are trying to depict the underpinning, the rocks and soils that make up our country, and have lots of practical applications.
I'll just touch on those applications, they're in the written testimony. The mineral and energy resources areas, mineral exploration is completely dependent upon having fundamental geologic maps as a guide to know where to look. So industry is very dependent on those maps.
In the area of water resources, the geology of the watersheds really controls the quality of the water, the natural quality of the water, for both surface and subsurface. And the understanding and management of ground water really depends on good geologic knowledge, which really is what we call geologic maps as a way of depicting that knowledge.
You've already had some discussion this morning about geologic hazards and the value of geologic maps in emergency planning mitigation and anticipating where problems might be from earthquakes or from El Nino type storms. Generally speaking, in environmental assessments, geology and earth sciences are really a holistic part of the environment and have to be considered in the environmental assessments.
Then finally, in our testimony we mention our land use planning. As our country grows and gets more crowded, the identification of geologic resources and the managing around or with those resources is more and more important. So those are the highlights that we point out in the testimony. I just want to emphasize that that is a really productive partnership program that has a lot of support from the industry environment across the Nation.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The USGS itself, in its strategic plan, talks about the importance of geologic mapping. We're a little bit mystified about the proposed reduction. We think it would be certainly wise to add that in.
Before I finish, before I run out of time, I do want to mention that I also handed in some testimony today concerning the Minerals Management Service and what's called a Continental Margins program there. I realize that there's just so much you can do in one sitting, and I only have five minutes, but I did want to get into the record the Association of American State Geologists' interest in the continuation of the Continental Margins program. We'd appreciate the committee and your staff taking a look at that.
With the increased emphasis on coastal resources, increased concerns along the shorelines about coastal erosion, the need to identify sand resources for beach nourishment, we need continued support from the Minerals Management Service. And we've had an excellent program there and good cooperation. So I want to make sure I get a plug in for that also.
Back to the mapping program at USGS, that's our main thrust this year, our main concern.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, Mr. Gardner, thanks so much for being here, both of you. And I can just tell you that we frequently see the Administration in their budget requests reducing their areas of interest and knowing that this committee and the Congress will reinstate the money and pay for those things that are valuable.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It's not unusual, but that happens in Administrations and they do it. They put the money they would save from this entity over to something else and establish their priorities. But we're going to do our best to be fair this year, obviously, and we recognize the importance of your focus. I know that we'll be doing our best.
With that, Mr. Taylor just came in, a fellow North Carolinian. I would yield to you, sir, if you have any comments or questions.
Mr. TAYLOR. No, nothing, Mr. Chairman, other than we're happy to have a fellow North Carolinian here, especially in that august position.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Representative Taylor.
Mr. TAYLOR. We support the efforts and have in the past of the revamping and so forth. We look forward to sharing in some of the things you've given us today. Thank you.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. I appreciate your being here.
I would want to ask, please, if I could ask Dr. Manking if he can think of anything that I left out that I should have said.
Mr. MANKING. Not that I can think of.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Yates?
Mr. YATES. No, thank you.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you both for being here.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FOSSIL ENERGY/CONSERVATION/EFFICIENCY
WITNESS
BERNARD LEE, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE OF GAS TECHNOLOGY
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Next witness will be the IGT, Institute of Gas Technology, Dr. Bernard Lee, President.
Welcome, Dr. Lee.
Mr. YATES. How many times is this that you've come here? [Laughter.]
I seem to remember you for the last 20 years.
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LEE. Well, you have a perfect memory. [Laughter.]
Mr. NETHERCUTT. It's my first time, Dr. Lee, so I'm delighted to welcome you.
Mr. LEE. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Yates, I know this is costing me my five minutes, but on this occasion, I do want to pay a special compliment to my Congressman. You've been a great representative for my district, we'll miss you. You're leaving a huge pair of shoes for people to fill, you know that.
Mr. YATES. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Dr. Lee.
Mr. LEE. It's a privilege on my part, you're right, this is the twentieth year I have testified in front of this committee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Yates is going to be missed by this committee, and we appreciate your kind remarks on his behalf.
Mr. YATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEE. For the record, I am Bernard Lee, President of the Institute of Gas Technology.
The agreements that were signed at Kyoto last year are indicative of the very, very strong and growing international concern for the efficient energy use and significant reductions in the global emission of air pollutants. It is in that context that I want to commend this subcommittee for its continued effort and support for DOE's program that will help both increase the use of natural gas and help reduce the emissions in our country and around the world.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As we discuss advanced natural gas technology, there is a misconception that's frequently cited. That is that natural gas is only marginally better in terms of emission reductions versus other fossil fuels. That is just simply not true, if one takes an analysis of the energy usage from the beginning source all the way to the end.
If you do that, then natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel by far. With that kind of a source to end use analysis, the R&D programs throughout DOE that increase the use of natural gas would also provide our Nation with significant environmental gains.
With that broad picture in mind, let me address three specific programs in the DOE budget that involve natural gas. First, the Industries of the Future program in the Office of Industrial Technology has done a commendable job of working with targeted industries to identify the energy and environmental needs and then find the economic solutions to these needs.
Natural gas technologies that achieve both increased energy efficiency and pollution prevention represent a successful solution in many of these programs targeted areas. IGT in the past has been particularly successful in winning competitive awards in this program to work with the Nation's glass industry.
We have successfully developed and commercialized our technology called the OEAS technology which reduces the energy consumption and NOX emissions of container glass, TV glass, flat glass furnaces. For every such glass furnace, of which there are hundreds in the U.S., for every such furnace that produces 300 tons of glass per day, where our technology can be applied, this will mean an annual savings of 13 billion BTUs of natural gas and the associated carbon dioxide that would not be generated, plus an annual reduction of 200 tons of NOX.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Currently, IGT is developing an oscillating combustor through the OIT program. This low-cost retrofit technology can be applied to a broad range of industrial applications and has shown up to 10 percent improvements in efficiency and up to 70 percent reduction in NOX emissions.
For fiscal year 1999, DOE has asked for funding increases to continue current work in most of the specific OIT industry areas, plus $19 million for a new industry-wide solicitation. IGT strongly recommends support for this very successful program and encourages emphasis on technologies that have cross-cutting applications within the whole targeted vision areas of the OIT programs.
Second, under the transportation and buildings program, in the proton exchange membrane, or PEM fuel cell subprogram, IGT is developing a new material and manufacturing process that can reduce the cost of the most expensive single element in the PEM fuel cell, namely the separator plate and related components. And the cost reduction can go from the current $190 per kilowatt down to $10 a kilowatt.
To date, our laboratory tests have run in excess of 5,000 hours under a full load and have achieved consistent excellent performance.
IGT is also developing a fuel processor specifically for PEM fuel cell applications that will produce the low carbon monoxide levels necessary for PEM operation. This could be a significant boost for bringing PEM fuel cells to the market.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. What's the power capacity of those fuel cells? How much power can they generate?
Mr. LEE. They're pretty small, they are typically a few kilowatts.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Like a household type?
Mr. LEE. Yes, household types, 5 kilowatts are typical. They're not meant for very large power plant, baseload power plant generation.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. How low do you go? Below 5?
Mr. LEE. That's it, 3 to 5 kilowatts is about the home size, yes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Okay.
Mr. LEE. Any improvements in the cost reductions that we develop in this program is available to all PEM developers, helping to bring this exciting technology closer to the market place. For fiscal year 1999, DOE has asked for an increase in these component R&D programs under the fuel cells for transportation and buildings program. IGT strongly urges your support for that request.
Finally, we urge your support for an increase above the DOE fiscal year 1999 request for the stationary fuel cell program in fossil energy. You will hear much more about this program and its strong merits in the testimony to be offered by M–C Power and the Alliance to Commercial Carbonate Technology.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify, and I'll be happy to answer questions.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Delighted to have you here, Dr. Lee.
Mr. YATES. See you, Mr. Lee.
Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I was curious, on the Kyoto conference, since that was a treaty that Congress has to ratify, when will we get that treaty, do you know? Does anybody?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. It won't come here.
Mr. LEE. It will come to the Senate.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes, but we may have some implementation legislation or something.
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LEE. The way I understand it, sir, well, you know more than I do, there is going to be a generation of consensus across the country before the treaty will be brought to the Senate for ratification.
Mr. TAYLOR. Maybe we should hold the appropriations dealing with anything that was taken up then until we have a generation of money together with the consensus. I hope we can either get a consensus or not before we start spending the money for those matters that we're taking up, or maybe they've just decided by bypass Congress on those matters.
Mr. LEE. I think any effort that improves the efficiency of energy utilization is good for our Nation. And in the process, it helps reduce the emission. Whether one takes a very drastic approach to try to scale back industrial operation in the interest of reducing emissions, that may have to wait until the country has developed these things.
Mr. TAYLOR. I would share your concern. I chaired the conservation committee many years ago in North Carolina. We did a lot of things that made a lot of sense and saved a lot of fuel. Anything we can do in that area not only lessens our dependency and prolongs out finite resources, but it makes us more efficient.
Mr. LEE. Absolutely.
Mr. TAYLOR. And all that is positive. I hope that we don't tie that to whatever some of the less stable ideas that came from that conference, I hope we can move ahead. I would share your feeling in that area.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Dr. Lee.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FOSSIL ENERGY/CONSERVATION/EFFICIENCY
WITNESS
LEE CAMARA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, M–C POWER CORPORATION
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Our next witness is M–C Power Corporation, Lee Camara, President and Chairman. Welcome.
Mr. CAMARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.
M–C Power Corporation is on a clear path for delivering a clean, highly efficient and cost competitive molten carbonate fuel cell power generator in a size and at a price that will be highly marketable both in this country and for export. I want to thank the subcommittee for your willingness during conference consideration of your fiscal year 1998 bill to the things important for the entire DOE stationary fuel program.
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
M–C Power strongly believes that there will be solid and expanding markets for the current fuel cell developers, both for stationary and transportation applications. The fuel cell technologies target diverse markets and each product's mix of power production, environmental exciting characteristics will continue to differentiate it among buyers.
The broader of range of fuel cell products will lead to a broader range of users who will be economically able to gain a fuel cells advantage.
Your continued support for our efforts in fiscal year 1999 is extremely important to our continued success and the success of our technology. M–C Power's task is to resolve the technical manufacturing, assembly and integrated power plant packaging challenges necessary to reach our goal.
At this stage in our development, however, we remain reliant on Congressional and DOE support. Congressional expressions of uncertainty about continued support and DOE assumptions of delayed funding seriously hamper out ability to raise outside capital.
Last year at this time, M–C Power was operating a 250 kilowatt fully integrated power plant at Naval Air Station Miramar in Southern California. The Miramar demonstration proved a number of significant successes, and helped clarify the remaining priorities in M–C Power's DOE program.
We have quickly identified sound, workable solutions to our remaining development issues and we have reached an agreement with DOE for a plan to achieve those remaining goals. That plan will result in several demonstrations of the fuel cell stack and integrated power plant that will produce the final prototype for what will then be our commercial product.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Because of a variety of changing market forces, we have also refined our fusion market entry target to a smaller size than originally intended at the beginning of our DOE contract, shifting to smaller units below 1 megawatt in size. We have also reoriented our cost targets life cycle cost. The average cost of power produced, rather than just capital costs, to better reflect future market demands.
We will continue to use the Miramar site to take advantage of the existing proven equipment there, and then supplement it with new components and improved fuel cell stacks. Parallel tracks of fuel cell stack and balance-of-plant improvements each contain a series of important steps that will lead us to success.
Each step in this series is scheduled and designed so that the lessons learned at each phase can be integrated into the next step, so that each iteration can help further refine our product.
This past year has also been significant for our development outside of the DOE program. With strong support from members of the Washington State Congressional delegation, we have secured funds through EPA to begin a project that will culminate several years from now in the demonstration of a 1 megawatt M–C Power unit at the Renton wastewater treatment plant in King County, Seattle, Washington. The project will use the methane gas produced by the solid waste digester tanks at the facility and generate power for internal consumption.
King County and the local electric utility, Puget Sound Energy, will both be strongly supporting this project through significant cost-sharing and will be active developers in the development of the project.
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have also continued to advance our developments in Latin America, where we went forward with discussions with energy and utility leaders in several countries, and that is beginning to provide some fruit now.
We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee and the Department of Energy to see that continued funding and commitment are available from both Federal and private sources to ensure that our progress can stay on track, and the environmental benefits of molten carbonate fuel cell power generators can be delivered to increasingly eager customers.
So thank you very much. I would be willing to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much, sir. I'm aware of your work in our State, in my State. And we appreciate your coming here today to testify. Thank you.
Mr. CAMARA. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
MOLTEN CARBONATE FUEL CELLS
WITNESS
JOHN T. NIMMONS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE TO COMMERCIALIZE CARBONATE TECHNOLOGY
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be the Alliance to Commercialize Carbonate Technology, John Nimmons. Welcome, sir.
I might just say to you, sir, and the other witnesses who are scheduled to testify between now and noon, we have a vote on, I'm happy to go vote and then come back. I'll give myself a little more time and we'll try to finish everybody who is scheduled to testify here by the noon hour, then we'll take a break for lunch and start again at 1:30. We're delighted to have you here, sir.
Mr. NIMMONS. Do you want to proceed now?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. We'll go ahead with your testimony, and if we can stay to the five minutes, that will give me time to hustle over and vote, and then we can get your testimony taken care of.
Mr. NIMMONS. My name is John Nimmons. I'm the Director of the Alliance to Commercialize Carbonate Technology, which is headquartered in Olympia, Washington.
The purpose of my testimony this morning is to urge support for DOE's fiscal year 1999 molten carbonate fuel cell program at or above the level requested by the Administration, and in any case, in an amount sufficient to support M–C Power's request for funding for the next year's program and to keep it on track.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
ACCT is a working alliance of industry and utilities. We have utilities from all over the country, from Canada, from South America and Europe now involved. We also have natural gas pipelines, producers, Northwest Pipeline has been a member and is now Williams Interstate through ACCT.
The purpose of the organization is to work closely with M–C Power to support molten carbonate fuel cell development that they're doing and get these things into the market. Many of our members are interested in other fuel cell technologies, as well. But the principal focus of that is on the molten carbonate technology that M–C Power is developing.
You have the written testimony, so I won't repeat it, but I would like to just highlight a couple of points from it. Because we know that the Congress is under considerable pressure for funding every year, and because we were here last year and had quite a colloquy with Mr. Regula, we wanted to point out again that all fuel cells are not the same, that there are a variety of fuel cells and the question comes up, and understandably, why should we be funding all these fuel cells.
The answer is that they are very different animals, that they are for different uses, different purposes. They differ in terms of size and application and so on. I would just refer you to a quote that I have in the written testimony, from Chairman Keese of the California Energy Commission. Last week, Chairman Keese spoke at the dedication of the National Fuel Cell Research Center in Irvine, California. And urged, in his speech, that there be continued funding for all the fuel cell technologies, and recognize that there is a range, they have very different uses, very different applications.
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So for the benefits of fuel cells to be available to as many sectors as possible, it's important to whatever extent it's possible to keep funding several technologies.
The second point I wanted to highlight is one that Mr. Camara just mentioned, which is that ACCT members are very pleased that last year, M–C Power took what we think are some very significant steps toward shifting their product to one that will be responsive to newly restructured electricity markets. They are now looking at a smaller size unit.
Our members are very much in favor of that. We think that's, for the kind of unit this is, it's a much better match with our members' needs and with a lot of other peoples' needs.
So we're delighted to see that, we think it's the right direction and we think it enhances their chances for success in the market.
The third point I want to make and this is also, I guess, to echo something Mr. Camara just said, is that from the point of view of our members who are also potential investors in the technology, it is critical that there be clear signals from the Federal Government, from DOE, as to the continuation of funding for these projects through the next couple of years. Last year, when it looked as though there be a down-select among the contractors, that was very unsettling to the market, to investors. Everything basically stopped for several months while people tried to figure out what was going on and who would survive and so on.
That didn't occur, but each time that uncertainty comes up, it makes it very, very difficult for the developers to raise the private capital they need so that the Federal Government can stop funding them.
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So we would, the bottom line on that is that from the industry's point of view, it's very, very important to have clear signals that this will be continued through the next couple of years until the market is reached.
The final thing I would say on that is that this is an especially critical time, not only for M–C Power but for other developers because they are now, as they approach the market, they're going out for private capital, private investment, and they need to be able to present some degree of certainty to their investors. When you couple it with the uncertainty that's been created by electricity restructuring, it's made it a very difficult matter for them, for any of the developers, to raise money until some of these uncertainties can be ironed out.
So we would very much appreciate it if the committee understands what kind of impact it has when there are doubts.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. We understand very well, frankly, we do. Speaking as one, certainly.
Thank you, Mr. Nimmons, for your testimony.
Mr. NIMMONS. Thank you very much.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. We'll do our best this year to make it all fit. Thanks for being here.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to recess the hearing, a short recess, while I go vote and then I'll come back and we'll finish up those witnesses, we have about five to go.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The hearing will be in order.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
BITUMINOUS COAL
WITNESS
FRANK DERBYSHIRE, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY CENTER FOR APPLIED ENERGY RESEARCH
Mr. NETHERCUTT. We'll reconvene here and finish up as fast as we can.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The next witness will be the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Research, Frank Derbyshire, Director. Welcome, sir.
Mr. DERBYSHIRE. Today I'm representing both the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research and the Kentucky Coal Export and Marketing Council, which is a body advisory to the Governor of Kentucky.
In testimony that I gave to this committee last year, I described an initiative we'd put forward that was intended to speed up the commercialization of advanced technologies for coal-fired power generation. What I'd like to do today is give a brief update of the initiative, the progress that we've made, and to explain our current needs. We've got needs, which is why we're here.
Just briefly, by way of background, because of the clean coal technology program, we do now have available advanced technologies based on integrated gasification combined-cycle, or IGCC, that will allow coal to be used cleanly and efficiently to provide low-cost electrical power. In spite of these being available, and the advantages well recognized, they've not been adopted, these technologies have not been adopted to any significant extent, especially using private funds. That's because the private sector, and the field of deregulation is reluctant to make any new investments that affect their competitive position, and also because there's a risk associated with any first of a kind process.
Our solution that we've proposed to advance the entry of these technologies into commercial use essentially involves gasifying coal to produce a synthesis gas that's then used to co-produce electrical power together with added value products. We feel quite strongly that co-production can be an attractive proposition for investment by an industrial consortium.
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In following this up over the last year, we've had I suppose what you describe as something of a windfall in that an independent power producer has come forward with the intention of constructing a 400 megawatt coal-fired power generation plant in Kentucky, based on IGCC technology. The name that's proposed is the Kentucky Pioneer IGCC project.
The cost, which is about $400 million, will be financed absolutely entirely by the private sector. The plant is estimated to produce electricity at a very competitive price.
On top of that, the company embraces this concept of co-production, where the intention is that a sidestream of coal synthesis gas will be used to produce fuel and chemical products by Fischer Tropsch synthesis. Having arrived at this, the timetable for the whole project, which we'd seen as about eight years from start to finish, if we were successful in different stages, has been reduced by as much as three or four years.
Just the summary of the main elements of the plan, the plant will be constructed as part of a larger scale development to establish an environmental energy complex in Kentucky. It's intended to serve as a model for similar ventures throughout the U.S. and overseas. And a particular component is, the plant will be fueled by a mixture of coal and waste materials, such as municipal solid waste. This makes a large impact upon the economics.
Particularly important features are that because of the advanced technologies, the emissions of air pollutants are close to zero. The emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, will be reduced by going to IGCC over a conventional plant by about 35 percent. But are further reduced to about 60 percent by using renewable waste materials. So there's a very large saving in CO2 emissions there.
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On top of that, the consumption of waste materials is going to provide something of a solution to other environmental problems.
We feel this project is a unique opportunity to realize the Department of Energy's goals and strategies through being able to successfully accelerate the implementation of these new technologies that will ultimately allow coal resources to be used cleanly and efficiently both for power generation, but also as a chemical feed stock.
So the current status is that there is already a design for the power production component. And there are already standalone plants that have been built to produce fuels and chemicals from synthesis gas.
However, these processes have not yet been integrated, and there are a number of questions there that should be addressed in order to realize the maximum potential. Because of this, we're asking that the DOE fossil energy budget be increased to provide the support that's needed to make a success of this really ground-breaking industrial venture, and one that can pave the way to widespread adoption of these advanced technologies.
So specifically, we're asking for a portion of this budget to be used in a three year program to support this private venture to the tune of $.5 million in the first year, $1 million in the second year, and $1.5 million in the third, where these funds will be used to look at technical aspects of the synthesis that are peculiar to an integrated plant operation, rather than standalone, to conduct an appropriate survey to identify the optimum spectrum of synthesis products, because these generate a wide range that are now appropriate for U.S. markets.
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To look at the byproduct slag or vitreous frit that's produced by the gassy fire from the mineral constituents of the materials going in, and to answer questions there relating to can they be used in non-hazardous landfills, or do they have better products for utilization in other industries.
That in summary is the position that we're at, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you for your time and your testimony. It sounds like an interesting project. We'll do the best we can with regard to funding this year for DOE.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. DERBYSHIRE. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
FOSSIL ENERGY AND CONSERVATION
WITNESSES
RICHARD A. BAJURA, DIRECTOR, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR COAL AND ENERGY
GEORGE FUMICH, PROGRAM ADVISOR
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Next witness is West Virginia University National Research Center for Coal and Energy, Richard A. Bajura, Director, and George Fumich, Program Advisor. Welcome, gentlemen.
Mr. BAJURA. Thank you, Congressman Nethercutt. Mr. Fumich and I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
Five weeks ago, the Governor of our State, Cecil Underwood, appeared before the committee. He asked your support for some technology assistance to help us address some of the problems facing the State. Particularly, we're concerned about the effect of the new regulations from EPA concerning particulate emissions and NOX control with regard to smog formation in the northeast.
Studies that we have seen and I'm sure you have seen also indicate that we're going to continue to use fossil fuels in the future, and coal will be an important part of that future. We ask your continued support for a national policy that will support increased funding for research, development and demonstration programs for coal.
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Vision 21 program that the Department of Energy has is a system of energyplexes that will produce power, transportation fuels with minimal emissions of NOX, OX and things of that sort, including carbon dioxide. Under that program, we would appreciate your continued support for issues such as the capture and sequestration of carbon, production of particulates, PM2.5, all of which are important for West Virginia as we continue to burn coal.
Some specific projects I want to comment on are as follows. Methane is released from mining as a result of the mining process and vented to the atmosphere. It's 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Using EPA's figures, we believe that a Department of Energy program to address coal mine methane emissions can remove about 2 percent of the emissions that we need to reach our 1990 levels, about 8 million tons of carbon per year.
We believe that this can be done at a zero net cost, because we will be generating electricity, compared to the current technologies of $4 a ton for trees to remove carbon. So we'd appreciate your support for $75,000 in funding to continue a program of research undertaken by five different teams in four States.
The Department's budget also includes funding for emission control of byproduct utilization. The activity here we're concerned about is using the waste products from coal combustion for applications as mine land reclamation, filling of mine voids and things of that sort. We'd appreciate continued support for that program, and I believe the funding level is $1.5 million.
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My colleagues will be appearing shortly to talk about our interests in producing transportation liquids from coal and natural gas under the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science. And I'll let them speak with you more about the technology. We'd just like to go on record for support of increase of the Administration's request to a total of $1.5 million for that program.
The Governor, when he was here, talked about industries of the future. Our energy-intensive industries would benefit from working closely with the Office of Industrial Technologies program on Industries of the Future. The Governor mentioned 110 projects that he thought we could implement over 7 energy sectors, and mentioned a request for $1.75 million for that program. We'd like to again recommend your support for that activity and say that by implementing a State-run program industries of the future, we believe this will be a model for application to other States.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I'll conclude my testimony and ask if you have any questions.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. FUMICH. Mr. Chairman, can I make a remark?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes, Mr. Fumich, please.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FUMICH. I want to support Bernie Lee's comments. I testified before Chairman Yates, he'll always be a chairman, for many years. I know he's a great loss to his district, but he's a much greater loss to his country. The country's a much greater place to live in, it's a lot safer because of his support to national programs. I just hate to see him retire.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I understand. We all do. He's been such a gentleman and contributed, in my short time of three years here on this subcommittee, he's been a great friend, and a friend to all of us, Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. FUMICH. I have a lot of mental scar tissue because of him.
[Laughter.]
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I understand. Well, you wear it well.
Thank you both for your testimony and for your kind comments.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
BILL STENZIL, COUNCIL ON ENGINEERING, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Bill Stenzil. Welcome, Mr. Stenzil.
Mr. STENZIL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Bill Stenzil. I am pleased to present the views of the Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Our testimony today is directed to the Department of Energy Research and Development programs related to the use of fossil energy and energy conservation. The 125,000 member ASME is a worldwide engineering society focused on technical, educational and research issues. The testimony represents the considered judgment of the Energy Committee and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
The Energy Committee represents eight ASME divisions who address energy issues, technologies and resources. Energy R&D was the most important topic of concern for our members, according to a recent survey addressed to all ASME members. Energy Committee members recommend that an energy policy, number one, maintain competitiveness in the national and international marketplace, protect our national energy security, seek technological solutions to concerns about global climate change and the emission of criteria pollutants.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And number four, protect the environment in all phases of the energy cycle, from the extraction of fuels to the ultimate disposal of the products and byproducts of combustion.
Towards these goals, the Energy Committee supports the Administration request for increases in the fossil energy and energy conservation R&D budgets. The Energy Committee believes that an immediate priority for increased funding for research programs should be given for programs in fossil fuel technologies, programs which improve increased efficiency in industrial and transportation sectors, and programs to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Increased research funding is necessary if our Nation is to meet the challenges of global climate change outlined in the Kyoto treaty and the newly-mandated requirements from the EPA for lower emissions of pollutants. Increased funding should also be allocated to basic research which very importantly stimulates development of both innovative technologies and educational opportunities to provide the resources needed for future energy technologies.
The Energy Committee supports the responsible use of all energy resources and renewable sources for generating electricity, transportation fuels and use in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors. Our assessment of energy use projections, such as those presented in the EIA annual energy outlook for 1998, lead to the conclusion that the U.S. must continue to maintain a diverse mix of energy supplies.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Fossil energy, however, will continue to carry its predominant share of providing energy for electric power generation and transportation into the foreseeable future. Internationally, fossil fuels play a similar dominating role in electric power generation and transportation.
Because of the importance of reducing particulate emissions in the utility industry, in fiscal year 1998, Congress added $3 million to the budget to support programs to promote a better understanding of the science involved in developing cost-effective control technologies.
Advanced clean coal technologies will be needed in the future as the replacement of the present fleet of fossil-fired plants is required. These plants have low operational costs, but their age will require replacement. This will require a large capital investment needed to replace approximately 300 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity.
We recommend continued strong support for programs such as the clean coal technology and other applications which will ensure that environmental, economical, friendly technologies are ready for replacement of these plants and for new plants needed to meet increased power needs.
Although many advances have been made in the development of energy efficient technologies, such as electric powered vehicles, our transportation systems for near and mid-term will remain dependent on fossil fuels as the primary energy source. Liquid fuels will continue to dominate.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We support the goals of the Department of Energy to introduce alternative transportation fuels and technologies into the marketplace. These technologies will have the benefit of both reducing emissions and reducing our dependence on imported petroleum.
In summary, as engineers, we confidently come before you to recommend that investments in technology are essential for enabling our Nation to meet its needs for inexpensive energy that is produced and consumed in an environmentally friendly manner. Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony regarding this upcoming bill.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Stenzil. We appreciate it.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
WITNESSES
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
GERALD P. HUFFMAN, DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM FOR FOSSIL FUEL LIQUEFACTION SCIENCE IRVING WENDER, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
JOHN OWENS, AUBURN UNIVERSITY RON PUGMIRE, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness is the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science, Gerald P. Huffman, Director.
Welcome to all of you. Thanks for your patience in going over the noon hour. I'm sorry you had to wait.
Mr. HUFFMAN. No problem.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. If you want to introduce yourselves for the record.
Mr. WENDER. I'm Irving Wender, from the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I'm Gerry Huffman, Director of the Consortium, from the University of Kentucky.
Mr. OWENS. John Owens, Auburn University.
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PUGMIRE. Ron Pugmire, University of Utah.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Welcome, all of you.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, staff members, we appreciate the opportunity to testify. We're a research consortium of five universities. West Virginia is the other university, Dr. Bajura testified before you just a few minutes ago.
The focus of our research program over the past 10 years has been developing methods of converting domestic fossil energy resources into transportation fuel. And right now, we're focusing on an area called C1 chemistry. C1 chemistry refers to the reaction of simple carbon containing feedstocks, such as natural gas, carbon dioxide and synthesis gas, which has been mentioned by a couple of the previous speakers, into valuable hydrocarbon products, particularly transportation fuel and chemicals.
We believe that because of new environmental regulations that are being promulgated, C1 chemistry is going to be a major source of transportation fuels for the United States early in the next century. And at the current time, there's really no coherent basic research program on this important topic. So that's the area that we are tackling.
We've identified four critical areas that we think are going to be very important. One is the conversion of natural gas into syn gas, or synthesis gas. We would propose to do this by reacting it with carbon dioxide.
This would be a productive use of carbon dioxide. It's been in the news a lot lately, they're talking about pumping it into the ocean and other things. This would be a way of recycling it and making a valuable product.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Secondly, we would look at the conversion of synthesis gas into transportation fuel, particularly ultra-clean high efficiency or high cetane diesel fuel. This is going to be very important because of the increasing production of sport utility vehicles and light trucks in this country.
We would also be investigating the conversion of synthesis gas into hydrogen, which will be very important for the fuel cell industry and the direct conversion of syn gas into a number of value added chemicals.
This program, we feel, can have ultimately significant economic and environmental benefits to the country if widely implemented. The potential reduction in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and particulate matter and sulfur and nitrogen could be as high as 10 percent. The economics, the amounts of transportation fuels that we're talking about, easily could reach $50 billion to $60 billion.
We're requesting $1.5 million to support this program in fiscal year 1999. Our five universities will put up 50 cents for every dollar that the Department of Energy puts into the program.
I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you might have.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. What are your capital costs?
Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, the way we would propose to do it is through the methanol route. Right now, there is readily available technology to build methanol plants. Our approach to transportation fuels would be to first convert syn gas to methanol, then react the methanol with syn gas to make oxygenated diesel fuels.
This is different from the Fischer Tropsch approach, and we think ultimately, it could give better economics and hopefully a better product.
One place that this could obviously be applied would be with the Alaskan natural gas.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Gentlemen, we appreciate your being here. Thank you very much for your testimony. Your written statement will be a part of the record and we'll consider it carefully.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SCIENCES/NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS/NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
WITNESS
EDWARD H. ABLE, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The final witness for this session will be the American Association of Museums, Edward H. Able, Jr., President and CEO. Welcome, Mr. Able.
Mr. ABLE. Good morning, Mr. Nethercutt.
I feel in my place in the lineup this morning I'm between a rock and a hot place.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I hope we haven't caused you any inconvenience by extending over.
Mr. ABLE. Not at all.
I'm here representing the American museum community, and specifically the American Association of Museums. I ask that my written statement be included in the record.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Without objection, it certainly will be.
Mr. ABLE. To begin, a quote, Mr. Nethercutt. A museum can be a place to gather and debate community problems and community based solutions. It can train leaders, break down isolation, reinvigorate civic commitment. In short, it can do the kinds of things neighborhoods did before the suburbs fragmented them, the League of Women Voters did before its potential recruits became lawyers and CPAs, and the heads of locally owned businesses did before the out of town corporations bought them.
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is a quote, and I couldn't say it better myself, from the Peoria Journal Star from December 1996. For over 30 years, the Federal cultural agencies have provided invaluable financial assistance to museums of every kind and size as they strive to make public service the focal point of their missions. We urge you to fund the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, at the modest levels requested in the President's budget.
In addition, we encourage you to fund the Office of Museum Services within the Institute of Museum and Library Services at an amount significantly higher than the President's budget request.
As my time is limited, I would like to focus in my oral testimony on only two themes, the roles of museums in education and cultural tourism, and only on one agency. I could easily speak on other themes and go on for hours about the other agencies, but as time is limited, I will focus on the Office of Museum Services general operating support grants.
The last two decades have transformed museums. USA Today recently described them as the new public square. And the editorial from the Peoria Journal Star is an eloquent description of museums at their best. No doubt because museums try hard to ensure that what they do is both understandable and accessible to the broadest public.
The New York Times recently reported that museums are setting one new attendance record after another. However, our success in serving the public places tremendous demands on museums' infrastructure. The main reason the Office of Museum Services was established, that is to ease the financial burden borne by museums as a result of their increasing use by the public, has never been more relevant than today.
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
OMS general operating support grants are more important than ever. According to a recent AAM survey, 90 percent of museums believe that funds to meet basic commitments is a critical need for the coming years, with 70 percent ranking this issue first among their needs.
The Office of Museum Services has structured the general operating support program to stretch limited funds as far as possible. For example, grants span two years, cannot exceed 15 percent of a museum budget, are capped at $112,500 and must be matched. In the 1997–1998 grant round, only 202 of 1,061 applications received grants.
The budget cuts of 1995 have resulted in a cumulative loss of $20 million or an additional 245 grants over three years. This year, the Office of Museum Services was funded at $23.28 million. By contrast, the Office of Library Services within the IMLS received $146.3 million, a $10.3 million increase above fiscal year 1997.
Unfortunately, general operating support funds for museums are difficult to obtain from foundations or corporations which generally prefer to fund higher profile programs. For example, the Director of the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson, Arizona, tells me that GOS funding is a God-send.
It allows the museum to assemble public programs which are not sexy, elaborate or expensive enough to raise money for, such as the museum's family day, the three-hour event which draws over 400 people with innumerable activities, including story telling, poetry reading, an art exhibition by third grade students and a high school photography competition was not ''big enough'' for a local funder. The museum used $1,000 of its general operating support grant instead.
Page 405 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Museums are actively engaging students in educational experiences which transcend the stereotypical one-time field trip. GOS grants have enabled the Museum of Art at Washington State University in Pullman to afford better exhibits, improve exhibit presentation, offer more open hours to the public and promote the use of the museum exhibitions in local schools.
In addition, general operating support grants have funded free art workshops for school children who are given the opportunity to visit the museum and work with a professional artist.
Museums have developed extensive curricula for use in the classroom and on-line with the Internet. For example, at the Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, general operating support funds support the museum's art educator, who brings art programs and projects into the schools, and works with teachers and provides them with the tools to continue art education in the classroom.
Another example is the Health Adventure, Asheville, North Carolina, which uses GOS funds to help it reach 95,000 children a year. According to the museum's director, without the funding from the general operating support grants from IMS, approximately 12,000 disadvantaged children would not attend important health education programs.
Unless a museum is strong, it cannot fulfill its potential in education. Again, the general operating support grants from the Office of Museum Services allow museums to really realize their potential.
Page 406 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me turn for a moment to tourism. I would simply note that this is a $473 billion industry in this country. Museums and other cultural organizations are primary contributors to its success.
According to the Travel Industry Association, and I quote, cultural and historic tourism is one of the most popular sectors of travel industry. A recent survey found that 53.6 million adults say they visited a museum or historical site in the past year.
Cultural tourism means economic impact. The 1996 three month Cezanne exhibition in Philadelphia injected an estimated $86.5 million into Philadelphia's economy. The 1997 two month Faberge in America exhibition in Cleveland had an economic impact of nearly $11 million in the eight county regional area.
And while all the details are not yet in, the Picasso exhibition in the Arts Center in Atlanta is expected to have an economic impact of at least $30 million.
The American Association of Museums has taken a leadership role in this area. Last year, we conducted a series of regional leadership forums to initiate local, State, regional and national strategies for promoting cultural tourism, particularly with a point of producing greater attendance in cultural tourism and in tourism in general in this country from abroad to make us more competitive.
I have here the report called Partners in Tourism: Culture and Commerce, based on the findings of that forum. I'd like to submit it for the record.
Page 407 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Without objection, it will be made part of the record. Thank you.
Mr. ABLE. I would simply add parenthetically, Mr. Nethercutt, that one of the reasons we feel that Federal and State and local governments are so interested, should be so interested in this, is that out of that $483 billion industry, it generates over $67 billion in Federal, State and local taxes.
I would also point out that the Office of Museum Services, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts, in collaboration with the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, provided the seed money for the national production of these forums, and helped disseminate the report that you're now reviewing.
In closing, we'd like to underscore that OMS, the Office of Museum Services, is of enormous consequence to the museum field. Beyond general operating support, other programs provide much-needed funding for conservation and professional development. The Office of Museum Services also supports a program that helps individual museums reach their potential through the museum assessment program, an activity which is produced by the American Association of Museums.
This year, the Office of Museum Services will inaugurate a leadership program for joint programs between museums and libraries.
For all these reasons, we urge you to fund the Office of Museum Services as generously as possible. We appreciate the opportunity to testify and would be glad to answer any questions.
Page 408 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Able. I correct my statement, this won't be part of the record, but it will certainly be part of the file. We appreciate your being here today and presenting this.
Mr. ABLE. My pleasure.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thanks for your testimony.
The hearing will stand adjourned until 1:30 today. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL COALITION FOR ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION
WITNESS
DAVID WRIGHT, VICE PRESIDENT SOUTHERN OHIO COAL
Page 409 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WAMP [assuming chair]. Let's go ahead and begin this afternoon's hearing.
Hopefully, the National Coalition for Abandoned Reclamation is prepared. Are they here?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.
Mr. WAMP. Good. Thank you. We will get a little bit of a head start so we can hopefully stay on time. I know my friend L.H. Burnett from East Tennessee will be glad you're here and is very supportive of your efforts.
Please go ahead and identify yourself. You're Mr. Wright?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I am.
Mr. WAMP. Thank you.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the comments presented on behalf of the National Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation are directed towards Title IV of the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. In particular, the comments address the need for continuing and funding the Abandoned Mine Land Program administered by the Department of Interior and the Rural Abandoned Mine Program administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Page 410 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to thank the Committee Chairman, Ralph Regula, and members of the appropriations subcommittee for providing this opportunity to speak on behalf of the National Coalition for Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation. My name is David V. Wright, and I am currently Vice Chairman of the Coalition. I have worked in the Ohio coal industry for over 26 years, and I am currently President of the Ohio Mineland Partnership, the organization representing citizens of Ohio and those impacted by past mining problems.
The National Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation proposes that Congress fund 100 percent of the reclamation fees collected on coal in 1998 for the Abandoned Mine Land and Rural Abandoned Mine Land programs. This will provide $25 million for the Rural Abandoned Mine Land program, and an additional $50 million for the Abandoned Mine Land program. This will not negatively impact the goal of zero balanced budget by only spending the fees collected.
The National Coalition and Ohio Mineland Partnership are nonprofit organizations made up of individuals representing a variety of interests with a single solitary objective—to improve the quality of our environment through the restoration of abandoned mine lands. We stand ready to work hand-in-hand with Congress and the Administration to achieve our goal by the year 2004, the year the tax on coal and SMCRA are scheduled to expire. During the past 20 years, many accomplishments have been made towards correcting the scars on the land created by past mining practices. But the fact remains that we still have in excess of 6,000 miles of streams directly polluted by acid mine drainage and only about 50 percent of the identified abandoned mine lands have been reclaimed.
We propose to you, members of the committee, Congress, and the Administration, that we start now by fully using the funds collected by the tax on coal for the purpose for which the funds were collected. It is time to appropriate the funds for both the Abandoned Mine Land and Rural Abandoned Mine Program.
Page 411 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The local citizens can, and will, work together with both programs to get the job done. The Office of Surface Mining and Natural Resources Conservation Service have demonstrated that a partnership can be developed at all levels to ensure that no duplication of efforts occur. In fact, by working together we have proven that we can be more efficient and effective than working separately.
Two good examples. Oklahoma State AML entered into an agreement with NRCS and the local conservation district to reclaim four hazardous mine sites in Rogers County. Three of the sites are RAMP projects and one is an AML site. Both agencies are working together to share technical and financial resources. And the Ohio AML has entered into numerous agreements with NRCS to partner in appropriate reclamation projects. Most recently, the two Ohio agencies are entering into a General Memorandum of Understanding which will include the Ohio Mineland Partnership, outlining the cooperative relationship of the agencies and the desire to avoid duplication efforts. This type of cooperation is, and can be, repeated across the country.
Congress needs to appropriate in fiscal year 1999 the funds collected in 1998. It is estimated that this will result in additional money for reclamation in the amount of $50 million for AML and $25 million for RAMP. As a private citizen, I will make a contract with you. If Congress will agree to fully fund these programs as we have outlined, I will personally return to this committee and provide a fair and unbiased report on the success of your actions.
With this commitment, we can eliminate the negative social, environmental, safety, and health hazards impacting communities and, to a lesser degree, all society.
Page 412 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If you have any questions, I would be glad to try to answer them.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Wright, personally, I am certainly very aware and sensitive to these concerns. What is the total amount then that has been collected in these funds that has not been put back into the reclamation of these mines?
Mr. WRIGHT. I believe the fund right now is approximately $1.2 billion.
Mr. WAMP. And for the record, when was the last time the Congress appropriated monies?
Mr. WRIGHT. There has been monies appropriated. This past year, for instance, we had about $144 million appropriated. But with full funding, we would be looking at somewhere around $220 million.
Mr. WAMP. I know in East Tennessee we have Corps of Engineer studies now underway identifying acid mine runoff and real severe environmental problems. I've physically witnessed the North Chickamauga Creek stream, for instance, where the fish are gone and, in large part, it is because these mines go unidentified and uncared for. So it's a real problem.
Page 413 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I appreciate your bringing your concerns and your request to the committee today. We will certainly take it under consideration. Thank you for coming, Mr. Wright.
Mr. WRIGHT. I appreciate it.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
WITNESS
DANIEL S. TURNER, PRESIDENT-ELECT, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
Mr. WAMP. American Society of Civil Engineers. I think Dr. Daniel Turner is next and is here to talk about the U.S. Geological Survey.
Mr. Turner, welcome to the committee. And thanks for being early.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, sir. Gentlemen, subcommittee members, I am Daniel S. Turner, the President-elect of the American Society of Civil Engineers. On behalf of the 125,000 members of the Society, thank you for allowing us to express this support for the U.S. Geological Survey and for its basic water data collection and assessment activities. We're pleased to participate.
Page 414 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would point out that the basic water data that is collected by the USGS is the vital foundation that engineers use for all sorts of calculations affecting our Nation. Principally, it is involved in flood prediction and flood control studies; it is used for engineering of the infrastructure that not only controls floods, but that provides drinking water and does all sorts of things. Without accurate data and good engineering, we would not be able to get our citizens out of harm's way to the extent that we're now able to. We would not be able to in the future more accurately predict floods. We would not be able to more efficiently utilize our waters.
My main point is that we strongly support the USGS appropriation that's contained in your fiscal year 1999 bill, and we're expressing that.
Money can be leveraged to help units of government at all levels of the United States. That's unusual. It is already used by States, by cities, by county governments, by regional planning commissions, by watershed councils, and by civil engineers. The data are very useful and we have a good program. We wish to see it extended as an assistance method to the United States citizens.
ASCE, in particular, supports the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis program that is included in this bill. That is a 3 percent increase that moves that particular category to $25.8 million. I would point out that money is being used to collect and assess water data involving our national parks and, in particular, selected watershed that are targeted and that need this.
Page 415 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The second major point I would like to address is that the overall cost of this data is not great and, in particular, the increases in the coming fiscal year are not great, but that the impact of that data is far-reaching. Civil engineers use that data to study the quality of water, to identify water supplies, flood control, to size bridges and culverts, we even use it when we must discharge treated wastewater because we must know the quality and the amount of water in the receiving stream. Engineers that do not have complete and impartial data simply cannot reach optimum designs.
I would point out that the Federal cost of this data is not great compared to the results of designs that are not optimum. If you were to try to balance, on one hand, the amount of money it takes to collect this data and, on the other hand, the usefulness, the improvements in designs that we can make, there's an overwhelming positive balance to that. Simply put, we must have perpetual and accurate data if we are to have optimum designs. That's necessary.
We are particularly concerned about extreme events. I would point out the recent floods in California. Without a continuous record of rainfall as opposed to runoff, we cannot assess the consequences of those floods and we can't predict for the public the eventual magnitude of the damage. The data is essential.
I would also point out the El Nino effect where we have extreme and rare events and rapid changes in climate and rainfall. Unless we have continuous data on the amount of rainfall and the results, we can't assess what the effects are. We can talk about it, but we can't assess it.
The third point, very quickly, involves the National Weather Service. They depend upon the data from streamflow gauging stations in order to forecast stages of river and total flows when floods occur. There are other users, other agencies in the Federal Government besides State and local agencies.
Page 416 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'll close very simply. ASCE endorses and believes in the U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Collection and Assessment program. We think three points have to be made. The data are essential, and the value of that data increases with the length of time it is collected and with the continuity of the record. We have very good records and we don't want to jeopardize that by not fully funding the program.
Secondly, this is logically the responsibility of the Federal Government. Local Governments and State Governments cannot collect data on interstate water systems, and that is where our major flooding and water use problem might lie.
The third thing is that it is very cost-effective at the current time. The money is leveraged to a great extent. The effort is coordinated; there are no gaps, there are no overlaps, and we're doing an effective job.
I would like to close by saying that in my civilian job I am the head of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Alabama. State institutions do not have large budgets, but our professors have devoted a large portion of hours to installing a gauging station that we use in cooperative fashion with the USGS. Our students take data, they learn to assess water quality, they learn to measure rainfall. Our research professors over time are gauging the effects of nonpoint solution on the development of a watershed. We're delighted with the results. We've only begun. We would hate to see the program jeopardized and a major productive thrust disappear.
Thank you for your time. I will be glad to answer questions.
Page 417 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Turner, I detected no accent from you, so I wondered about the Alabama connection. [Laughter.]
Both of my parents were born in Culman, Alabama.
Just for my knowledge, this is just my second year on this subcommittee, does ASCE come annually, is this an annual pilgrimage for you to support USGS?
Mr. TURNER. That's an excellent question, sir. We strongly endorse this program and we're glad to come whenever we can reinforce its value.
Mr. WAMP. I didn't know if the recent extreme weather and the extreme events and conditions, as you said, had anything to do with your appearance this year, because it is extraordinary. I certainly would concur with your evaluation of the importance of the U.S. Geological Survey to all of these different agencies. And I also agree that the national security of our country was the first Constitutional responsibility, but right behind it were these activities. So as one committee member here, I very much agree with you and I appreciate the Civil Engineers coming in support of what I believe is one of our best examples of the Federal Government meeting its responsibility to the people.
Page 418 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I don't have any further questions, but I appreciate your testimony and I'm sure it is going to be taken to heart by both the members and the staff of the Interior subcommittee. Thank you for coming.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, sir, very much.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
INTEGRATED BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS (IBACOS)
WITNESS
MICHAEL DICKENS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Michael Dickens, the CEO of IBACOS. Welcome. We look forward to your testimony in support of energy efficiency and fossil energy programs at the Department of Energy.
Mr. Dickens.
Mr. DICKENS. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here. And thank the committee and Chairman Regula for allowing me to appear today. I am the CEO of IBACOS, which stands for Integrated Building and Construction Solutions. It is an alliance that I set up in 1991 working inside General Electric and we brought in Carrier Corporation, US Gypsum, Owens-Corning, and several of the large product and materials manufacturers with a common vision of helping the building industry create efficient, quality, affordable homes and really play an integration role working with builders and developers.
Page 419 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have worked closely with the Department of Energy since 1992 helping to create what is now called Building America. There are actually four such consortiums like ours working with over 70 members from industry; builders, developers, manufacturers, big design houses. The common vision, again, is to bring technology all the way through to the marketplace and create a better home for America with energy efficiency, indoor air quality, durability, thermal distribution, materials waste, and the whole energy aspect of the materials that go into a house, passive and active solar technologies, and then a way to bring them through to the builder from research, development, and then into full demonstration.
I don't know how much you know about the building industry, but there are about 100,000 and close to 1 million trades contractors. It is incredibly complex and fragmented like no industry we've seen in America. So the ability to truly try and raise the quality and performance of a home is a role that no one takes on. And DOE I think has done an excellent job in actively taking that on and working with industry.
We work with DOE in a cost-shared way. Every dollar of DOE's is matched by more than one dollar from industry. And we have been working heavily the last few years with builders, saving up to 50 percent of the energy use in the home which transfers into much more affordability for the buyers. Obviously, much environmental responsiveness for the Nation at no extra cost to the builder. That, again, is one of the issues; anyone can design a better home but when it truly doesn't cost the builder any more, that's the goal of the alliances.
The next step within the Building America program is to take it up now from prototypical homes in 10, 20, and 100 homes here and there into full communities of hundreds of homes with the goal over the next four years with all of the builder-developers to impact up to 100,000 homes, saving $50 million of energy costs per year from the people within the homes, and to truly demonstrate the wins and transfer that then to all of the other builders in the industry.
Page 420 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In closing, coming from industry, whether it be a GE, or a Carrier, or a large builder of 10,000–15,000 homes a year, they cannot play the integrating catalyst role of doing what I've just described. DOE has played an excellent role in that. We are excited that they are looking to reorganize and tighten their focus around the residential end, to actually close to double the budget request for fiscal year 1999. I think they can truly further help this fragmented industry do something special that ultimately helps the American housing stock.
So those are my comments. I think it has been an excellent three or four year program, but I think it has an excellent three or four years more to come. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Dickens, given your accent and your name, I thought you might start by saying ''These are the best of times and the worst of times.'' [Laughter.]
In Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the area I serve, the Department of Energy does an extraordinary job with these programs. Actually, our two key staff people came just months ago and physically saw in anticipation of this appropriations cycle the programs that are underway there. We've had several hearings in my time on this subcommittee with regard to this.
I just have one question directed at the $50 million you said in savings potentially. We also have had hearings that have exposed that the lion's share of the loss of energy efficiency is among our poorest people because of the quality of construction for stick frame housing units. I did grow up in the construction industry and know an awful lot about it. I do think it is an area where the Government has to play a role.
Page 421 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I just want you to address the regressive structure of that, since it does come down on our fixed income folks and people in our Government housing projects for the most part who are most in need of lower energy bills, and why it is important for our Government to fund these programs.
Mr. DICKENS. You're absolutely right. Every home in America is actually a sieve. The amount of energy costs that are going through the window, through every nook and cranny in the house is tremendous. It is fairly easy to save 50 percent of that energy cost.
It does get more critical in the lower priced homes, the proportion of the rent very often going into heating and cooling bills. Our view in this industry, the more you can truly demonstrate through systems integration what can be possible within all homes though, we advocate the mid-size builder building 500 homes and up, very often those homes are $50,000 and $100,000 each, they are not the large grand homes, the benefits are in the high volume. And the manufactured housing industry is another targeted opportunity to improve because that's an ideal product that helps the buyers you are talking about. Typically, that has been a very poorly engineered product.
Mr. WAMP. Kind of hard to understand that yesterday Bill Gates testified on that end of the Capitol on such high tech issues of his technology in competition with other technologies. If we have those capabilities, we certainly have the technology in place. We just need to get it to the marketplace to make our homes more efficient. So, you're doing good work.
Page 422 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DICKENS. Thank you.
Mr. WAMP. But it is an uphill struggle. Certainly, with increased funding requests, we're going to have a difficult time balancing all of these. But I think you will come upon a certain sensitivity at this subcommittee for these programs. So thank you for coming in support of them, Mr. Dickens.
Mr. DICKENS. Thank you very much.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
WITNESS
PETER B. LEDERMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & SCIENCES, NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. WAMP. Dr. Peter Lederman, Director of the Center for Environmental Engineering and Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, coming in support of fossil R&D and conservation R&D.
Mr. LEDERMAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Peter Lederman and I'm the Director of the Center for Environmental Engineering and Science at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I am appearing on behalf of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Page 423 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers is a nonprofit professional association of 58,000 members that provide leadership in advancing the chemical engineering profession. We are proud of our contributions to the creation of low-cost, efficient, and clean technologies that fuel industry, energize our economy, and provide for our way of life. We believe that the Federal Government must maintain a strong and effective investment in energy R&D to further U.S. economic competitiveness, job growth, environmental protection, and the quality of life.
Mr. Chairman, we support the administration's fiscal year 1999 request of $383 million for DOE's fossil energy R&D program. We recognize that is a small increase, but we think that's important. Fossil fuels are in many ways the lifeblood of our economy. Low-priced fuel fosters job quality, economic growth, and exports. And in that light, it is an important area for the Government.
Congress should provide strong funding for that program given the widespread benefits that technological advances in fossil fuels can contribute to our economy and environment. Any meaningful Government strategy that addresses global climate change must include support for many elements of DOE's fossil energy program, which creates knowledge and innovative processes to minimize carbon dioxide and other types of emissions from fossil fuels.
Within that fossil fuel R&D program, we believe that coal R&D should receive priority. We recommend that Congress provide the $130 million requested for coal R&D. That is a significant increase but an important one. In addition to providing for national security, economic, and environmental benefits that new coal technologies can produce, they offer significant export potential as well.
Page 424 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We support the increased funds for coal R&D to develop innovative, higher-efficiency power generating technologies that can lower our costs and further reduce environmental emissions, such an important thing. DOE engineering research on cleaner combustion technologies and advanced coal-fired power plant concepts can significantly reduce emissions, which is always in our interest. Breakthrough research on carbon sequestration deserves support, that's a new area, because it offers significant potential to reduce greenhouse gases, and that, of course, is a global climate problem.
DOE coal-based fuel R&D should also be enhanced. Coal offers significant advantages in producing chemicals and liquid fuels which are competitive to petroleum. That is high-risk research, it has been done but not economically. We think in the future that is going to be where the U.S. has to go in order to have independence from foreign fuel sources. Its potential payoff is in the distant future so private investment isn't going to work in that particular area. We need to get to that.
While Federal support for coal has drawn opposition because of its carbon intensity, we recognize that DOE-supported R&D has made coal significantly cleaner, and continued advances are important in reducing its environmental impact.
Mr. Chairman, we also support strong funding for DOE's energy conservation R&D program in fiscal year 1999. Considering the growing demand for energy, the increasing attention to the environmental impact of energy production and use, and the potential to increase productivity in many industry sectors, the need for DOE-supported energy conservation is important and evident.
Page 425 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We think the program that is in the Office of Industrial Technologies is the sector that needs support. It has requested $167 million for its R&D directed research, and we think that is appropriate. That office has the Industries of the Future program that always gets high marks. It is an industry supported program, it is an industry cooperative program. It provides roadmaps for increasing energy efficiency in energy-intensive industries, such as the chemical industry, the pulp and paper industry, and the steel industry. Since this is driven by industry and it is such a collaborative effort, we think it will enable industry to take advantage of this in technology transfer and quicker deployment of energy efficient technologies, again, an important thing in our greenhouse.
In conclusion, we feel, Mr. Chairman, that meeting our growing energy needs while improving the environment and sustaining economic growth requires long-term commitment to fossil fuel energy and energy conservation. Thus, we think while energy efficiency R&D is important, it must be balanced by a long-term national energy strategy of increased efficiency as well as fossil fuel R&D.
Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer questions.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Thank you, Dr. Lederman. I would love to talk to you for thirty minutes about this, but I've got to try to keep us on schedule. I do have one quick editorial comment. Not only do we need this research in cleaner coal technologies and more advancement on fossil in general, but, editorially, I think we need to revisit the advanced light-water reactor and have a nuclear capability for power production in order to fight greenhouse gases as well.
Page 426 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I also have a question. I heard last week from a very educated person that in a city like Bangkok, for instance, that the number one emitter of CO2 emissions is actually not fossil power plants or any of the usual suspects, but is two-cycle motor scooter engines. Is that true?
Mr. LEDERMAN. That's true in Bangkok. It is not true in the United States, Mr. Chairman. We do have two-cycle in mowers and even they are going out of style. But in Bangkok, you have a lot of two-cycle engines. If you've been in Bangkok, it is a miserable place to walk in.
Mr. WAMP. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lederman.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
INTERSTATE OIL AND GAS COMPACT COMMISSION
WITNESS
CHRISTINE HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. WAMP. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Ms. Christine Hansen, the Executive Director, is here. Welcome. We look forward to your testimony on oil and gas research and development.
Page 427 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Christine.
Ms. HANSEN. Thank you, Congressman Wamp. I do represent the governors of 29 oil and gas producing States. We're one of the oldest compacts in the country and the largest, having 29 State members. I represent the governors and some day I'm going to calculate how many citizens they represent just to make the numbers as impressive as these other organizations were big.
We have for many years supported not just the oil and gas budget submitted by DOE, but a larger budget. I've given you some detailed comments about that and I will just highlight a couple points.
Research has pushed the domestic production to really vastly increased efficiency levels. It has helped push the price of gas and oil in this country down. Research has dollar-for-dollar more than paid for itself. Yet, Federal support for applied energy research has fallen 81 percent since 1978. It is the fuel that we rely on as a country, it is the fuel we rely on to get around in this country, and there is a lot of it left.
Any assumptions about this being a dying industry are simply wrong. There's a lot of oil left under our soil. Oklahoma, for instance, where I live, has two-thirds of the known oil resource yet to produce. It is the hardest two-thirds to produce and that is why research is just so essential. It is not the Exxons and the Texacos that are producing those last barrels of oil from these older wells; it is independents, mom and pop operations, sort of the family farmer of the petroleum industry and they do not have research budgets.
Page 428 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The governors feel strongly that adequate Federal research spending is in the national interest so that we don't abandon these resources prematurely.
There are very few ways besides raising taxes that the Federal Government has to increase revenue. Spending on oil and gas research is one of those ways. It absolutely more than pays for itself many times over.
The governors, of course, support renewables. It is certainly in their political best interests to do so. But when you compare the budgets of the petroleum resources and the renewables, there is just such a huge difference based on what the country actually uses.
I have a briefing paper of the governors' position on oil and gas research and the governors' oil and gas policy. We have a study paper. We commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to do an assessment of research spending by industry and by governments, and I will leave with you.
I have another short issue that I want to raise because Congressman Istook suggested that I take this opportunity to call it to the attention of the subcommittee. We have been working with the Bureau of Land Management for three years to try and get the responsibilities for inspection and enforcement of wells on Federal lands taken over by the States and have had such difficulty in doing this. It was a recommendation of Vice President Gore in Reinventing Government three years ago.
We did an analysis that shows it costs the States $72 to do the same function, we feel strongly we do it better, that BLM spends $891 on. I've talked to some of the subcommittee members' staffs about this. I think Congressman Istook might be talking to you in the future. Thank you.
Page 429 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. As a member of the full committee, I'm sure we'll hear from him. I want you to know that two of my Washington housemates, Dr. Tom Coburn and Steve Largent from your Oklahoma delegation, keep me informed on our oil and gas supplies in this country.
We appreciate you summarizing your testimony. Everything that you have submitted will be taken into full consideration. We thank you for your testimony today, Ms. Hansen.
Ms. HANSEN. Thank you, sir.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STATE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS
WITNESS
WILLIAM BEACHY, PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Page 430 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WAMP. Bill Beachy, for the National Association for State Community Services, to talk about weatherization assistance programs.
Mr. Beachy, welcome.
Mr. BEACHY. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon before this committee. I am here to testify in support of the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State energy program, both funded through the Department of Energy's Office of State and Community Programs. I am here on behalf of the National Association for State Community Services Programs whose members are the State directors of the Weatherization Assistance Program and also the Community Services Block Grant. I speak with over 21 years of experience, 7 of those years are at the local level in actually operating a program, and 14 years are at the State level in managing the Weatherization Assistance Program. I currently do that in the State of Virginia.
I was pleased to hear your comments earlier about the problems with energy inefficiency in residential settings. I would suggest, as you suggested I think, that that's even more of a problem when it comes to the low-income population. We're talking about 14 percent of their income being used for this purpose. And this program has the capability of reducing that expense and that cost by as much as one-third. And that, by the way, is evidenced by a more recent evaluation that was done by Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee.
That same evaluation showed that the benefit-cost ratio for the program is something in the neighborhood of 2.4. In our State alone, I can give you all the reasons why the program should continue to be funded and even at higher levels, not the least of which includes that in my State alone we're able to leverage something in the neighborhood of $2 for every $1 of DOE funds that are spent for the program.
Page 431 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would also suggest to you that with recent events with welfare reform and with the electric utility restructuring, in the case of welfare reform, while we do have a concern about its impact on the low-income families, on the positive side there are States out there that are both training and employing former welfare recipients in the weatherization program and other energy assistance programs. Electric utility restructuring, that, too, is a concern for us. The history of utility support for energy conservation programs, that along with just the fact that the high level of energy costs and a typical low-income household and whether the cost with restructuring would be passed on to residential consumers, particularly low-income folks.
The capacity of the program was cut approximately 47 percent several years ago. The capacity nationally has dropped from roughly 138,000 households to something in the neighborhood of 63,000 households.
I guess I would close my comments today by saying that I recognize that the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State energy programs are both very small fish in a very large pond, which is precisely the reason why we've made it our mission in weatherization to do more than we should be expected to do with those limited funds. It is a cliche, but weatherization is a program which needs to have a face to put on it. In my case, that face came about 21 years ago with an elderly widow who had been burned out of her home, was literally living in a chicken coop when she came to our attention. The community came together, provided her with a mobile home; unfortunately, the mobile home didn't have all the necessities, to include a source of heat. And 21 years later and 94,000 households, that vision is still burned in my memory.
Harley-Davidson has a saying, ''If I have to explain, you won't understand.'' If you've not been to the home of a low-income weatherization recipient to see the work, to feel the difference, and to hear the testimony and the appreciation by that household, it's something that would be difficult to explain or understand.
Page 432 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, I hope you have been, or will be, afforded the opportunity to visit a low-income weatherization site. I know Congressman Moran's energy staff assistant, Ms. King, has been to one in our State. My impression was that she was both surprised and a little educated in the process. So, if you've not been afforded that opportunity, I certainly hope you will be. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Great testimony, Mr. Beachy. With regard to the Harley-Davidson, it was my wife that wouldn't understand. [Laughter.]
Mr. WAMP. Thanks for your testimony.
Mr. BEACHY. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
WITNESS
Page 433 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
DAVID O. WEBB, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
Mr. WAMP. David Webb, senior vice president for Policy and Regulatory Affairs for the Gas Research Institute, talking about fossil energy and conservation. Welcome, Mr. Webb.
Mr. WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gas Research Institute appreciates the opportunity to testify today before the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee to present GRI's views and recommendations on fiscal year 1999 funding for the Department of Energy's gas-related research programs in energy efficiency and fossil energy.
GRI supports the administration's request of approximately $220 million in these gas-specific programs. We also have a specific recommendation to strengthen the natural gas supply research program by restoring funding for the environmental restoration project to the fiscal year 1998 level of $3.3 million.
GRI is the R&D management organization of the natural gas industry. With over 320 member companies, we jointly plan and cofunded with the Department of Energy and their Fossil Energy and Conservation programs approximately $20 million per year. Therefore, congressional action on the DOE budget does impact our joint programs.
In looking at the role of the Federal Government in energy R&D policy, we think the Federal Government's role is critical because industry, as it competes in an ever-increasing competitive world market, cannot fund research at the level required because many of the benefits are societal benefits that cannot be captured. Therefore, in times of declining budgets, Government funds should be used primarily for investments that are expected to yield broad public benefits. We think that translates into two policy positions.
Page 434 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The first would be that the government must continue to have the primary role and responsibility for funding and managing fundamental long-term basic research in energy because these benefits cannot be captured by the private sector. Therefore, the Federal role and involvement is critical.
On the other hand, both Government and industry have a joint responsibility for funding, planning, and managing what I would call applied energy R&D. These partnerships of private industry and Federal-sponsored R&D programs can accomplish several goals. One, the research will be aimed at the top priorities of industry; therefore, industry will be willing to provide cofunding. Second, industry uses rigorous cost-benefit analysis to prioritize the R&D, so we will be sure that the research will be getting the most bang for the buck. Once again, if industry participates in the cofunding and the management, then the path to commercialization is much closer because industry has a vested interest being sure the research is commercialized. And finally, duplicative costly research is eliminated.
Congress in the past has recognized, and we would encourage you to continue to recognize, the role of both Government and industry in cofunding applied energy R&D. To illustrate, the gas industry has proposed to DOE that the Federal Government cofund a comprehensive gas industry-Government R&D program of $100 million per year for four years. In that proposal, GRI proposes that $74 million of the $100 million program be managed by GRI as a joint cofunded 50–50 program with Federal funds of $37 million annually and gas industry funds of $37 million annually. Included in this recommendation are cofunded programs in critical technologies such as high efficiency industrial and boiler equipment, advanced high efficiency gas turbines, natural gas cooling technology to replace peak period electricity use, very high efficient fuel cells, turbines, additional gas supply research, and other technologies to improve the efficiency of energy use.
Page 435 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
While most of this programs will be in the fiscal year 2000 budget, GRI and DOE are in the process now of discussing it. And if some of the funds are available in fiscal year 1999, the gas industry is prepared to put up $37 million of cofunding to get this joint program underway.
I would like to discuss one other real important thing to me. Last year Congress extended the research and experimental tax credit for one year. The tax credit, therefore, will be a topic of consideration again this year. The tax credit as currently structured provides a disincentive for collaborative research. We would encourage Congress to take a look at that this year and to remove the disincentive for collaborative research and to provide an actual incentive for collaborative research because you get more bang for the buck the more companies you have jointly funding important research.
We would propose two things. One, that the tax credit recognize 100 percent of the funding to 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) not-for-profit organizations to qualify as a tax credit. Secondly, to provide a nonincremental 20 percent tax credit for companies' contributions to collaborative research. While not in this subcommittee's jurisdiction, GRI encourages Members to support legislation to correct the current disincentives for collaborative research under the current R&E tax credit.
In summary, GRI encourages the subcommittee to support the administration's request for gas-related research of approximately $220 million of which $207 million is in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. GRI is committed to continue to work with DOE and Congress to help us accomplish our mutual goals of Government and industry in energy policy. Thank you very much.
Page 436 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Thank you very much. Very good testimony, well submitted on behalf of the Gas Research Institute. We're going to have difficulty with the amount of money that is handed down from above on these programs. But you certainly have articulated your position very well. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Webb.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
WITNESS
HON. JACK C. CALDWELL, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. WAMP. Jack Caldwell, Secretary of the State of Louisiana. Mr. Secretary, we're honored by your presence and look forward to your testimony.
We are now joined by the distinguished Chairman of this subcommittee. I don't know if I'm getting the ax here or not. [Laughter.]
Page 437 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Wamp, I first want to thank you for the promotion to Secretary of State. I'm the Secretary of Natural Resources. I'm Jack Caldwell, the Secretary of Natural Resources for the State of Louisiana. It falls within the jurisdiction of my department to administer Louisiana's oil and gas reserves including the reserves that we're fortunate enough to have underlying the Gulf of Mexico.
As you know, Louisiana has always supported Federal operations in offshore Louisiana. We have always cooperated fully with the Federal Government. And as a result of those efforts and the efforts of the Federal Government, its lessees, the current revenues to the Federal Government are now running $3 billion a year solely from the Louisiana offshore. That amount is expected to increase in coming years.
In general, the Federal Government has responded very well to our support. I'm pleased to report that today the relations between the State of Louisiana and the Mineral Management Service have never been better. That is something that both Louisiana and the Mineral Management Service can be very proud.
However, in the one instance before the committee today, back in 1985, the Mineral Management Service intentionally and deliberately allowed its lessees to drain reserves from a reservoir largely underlying Louisiana waters. This is the only time it was ever done. In every other instance before and since, the State and the Federal Government have properly unitized the reservoirs that lie both sides of the State boundary line, which is the modern way to handle oil and gas production. We have abandoned the old days of pirating oil and gas under the rule of capture where it was every man for himself, and we used to have oil wells stacked 1,000 per square miles in the old days. But in this one instance, the Mineral Management Service permitted the drainage, and it was done on the theory that Congress intended for the 8g funds to compensate the State for such drainage past, present, and future. That was the theory on which they allowed the drainage.
Page 438 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Since that time, Congress has rejected this notion and has passed a bill authorizing that Louisiana be reimbursed for the reserves that were drawn from under its water bodies.
Mr. REGULA [resuming chair]. That includes the lessees on your property though, too.
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir. The total amount including interest is about $31 million. Of that amount, Louisiana is entitled to 44 percent which is the royalties payable under the State leases; that is Louisiana's share of the excessive drainage by the Federal lessees. So, we're not asking for taxpayer funds. This is basically a restitutionary claim that has been authorized by Congress. The problem is that up to now we simply have not been paid. We need an authorization for payment to be made by way of restitution.
Mr. Chairman, I might also mention that it is within my jurisdiction, and my honor incidentally, to administer Louisiana's Coastal Restoration Program. Our coast is presently bearing the brunt of offshore operations in terms of adverse impact on our coastline. This is due to pipeline landings, wave-wash, heavy road use, all of the offshore waste comes ashore in Louisiana and we have never been compensated for this.
Mr. REGULA. Don't you get some of the lease money from the Federal wells?
Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. 8g funds are now down to about $15 million a year which is supposed to cover a whole lot of things and not specifically directed to offshore impact.
Page 439 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I'm sorry to interrupt you. But in terms of wells, are there more Federal wells or more State wells on these offshore waters?
Mr. CALDWELL. Well, the State wells are all fairly close in. That was from the early days when they drilled a lot of shallow oil wells. As you go into deeper water, the number of wells get less. And Louisiana has a boundary of only three miles and then the Federal acreage begins and goes out two hundred miles. So you have a vastly larger number of wells in the deep water on the Federal land. But we have hundreds of little bitty wells along in the bays but those are old wells and don't really count.
Mr. REGULA. They are still producing?
Mr. CALDWELL. Some of them are. The State began offshore production in 1947.
Mr. REGULA. When did the Federal leases start?
Mr. CALDWELL. It began in the late 1950s. After the boundary line began to be fixed and was settled up, we went deeper and deeper offshore.
But my point of the impacts on the coast is that Louisiana is presently spending $25 million a year out of its own oil and gas reserves to preserve the coast which is disappearing at a rate of 25 square miles a year. This claim, if it is recognized, would go into calculating and paying part of our coastal restoration fund and would help us overcome the adverse impact of the offshore operations which we submit is an additional ground for honoring this claim because it would be well spent on the Louisiana coast.
Page 440 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. But you would only get 44 percent of it. The balance of it would go to——
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, 44 percent of the $31 million, yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. Yes. The balance would go to the people that had a well out there.
Mr. CALDWELL. To the lessees, yes, sir. That was the terms of the lease, of course. They are entitled to it under our lease contract. We're entitled to 44 percent and they are entitled to 56 percent. That is to compensate them for their capital and risk and so forth.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your consideration.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Well, I'm aware of the problem.
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir. And you are also a noted conservationist and I know you share my concern for the Louisiana coast. Thank you, sir.
Page 441 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES
WITNESS
MARGARET S. NEWMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND CHAIR, NORTH CAROLINA ARTS COUNCIL
Mr. REGULA. Next, National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Margaret Newman. Welcome.
Ms. NEWMAN. Good afternoon, Congressman Regula. It is my pleasure to be here with you today. I am very sorry that Congressman Wamp just stepped out because he made a comment on familiar accents earlier and he might find this accent just a little bit familiar. I come from a neighboring State of his.
Mr. REGULA. I knew it wasn't Southern Ohio. [Laughter.]
Ms. NEWMAN. I'm here, Congressman Regula, on behalf of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify in support of the National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 1999.
Page 442 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
My name is Tog Newman, Margaret is my formal name. I chair the North Carolina Arts Council and I'm here today representing the collective voice of all the State arts agencies in the country. I consider that a privilege and an awesome responsibility.
I want to begin by saying thank you for your very earnest appreciation and support in recognizing what value the Federal arts funding can do for the arts. I want you to pass on our appreciation to the other members of the committee for their support in the past. I have to add, Mr. Chairman, that many of us in the State arts agency movement took notes on the model state-of-the-arts, Ohio, when we met in Cleveland this past fall. It is a richly endowed State and it was exciting to take notes on what you have done in your State.
Mr. REGULA. They've been generous, the legislature, with our State funds.
Ms. NEWMAN. Indeed they have. We've come here this year in support of the administration's budget request of $136 million for the National Endowment. We believe that Federal arts funding has already taken by far more than its share of cuts in contributing to the balanced budget with a 40 percent reduction in fiscal year 1996 and a smaller cut last year.
As you would expect, we categorically oppose any further spending cuts and any measures to phase out this really important agency. And we urge the committee's consideration of this modest increase.
Page 443 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Wamp is back.
Ms. NEWMAN. Mr. Wamp, I'm glad you're back. I wanted you to hear a familiar accent.
Mr. WAMP. That's no accent. [Laughter.]
Ms. NEWMAN. I just commented to Chairman Regula that we from the State arts agencies took notes when we met in Ohio last fall. I would like to add, since Congressman Wamp is back, we took notes from the rich State of Tennessee when we met in Memphis the year before last. Both States taught us a great deal.
Mr. REGULA. Are you happy with the increased share for the States that we've provided?
Ms. NEWMAN. Yes, we are. We're very happy with that. Thank you.
Because we have found that there has been widespread support for the arts in recent years, despite what is seen as the cultural wars, there has been widespread support from the State legislatures. We're on the top of about a five-year increase. The States have experienced a lot of support from their local legislatures. We think that is a good barometer of how the communities and people are feeling out there as to public support for the arts. Both the legislatures and the governors alike have brought about a lot of bipartisan commitment to public support for the arts.
Page 444 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, on the other hand, let me point out that this is not consistently true. Although many States have received an increase from their own State legislature, depending on their own particular economic situation, some States have remained even, some have even had a decrease. So this is yet another reason why the support from the National Endowment is critical, to keep the flow even, the flow steady.
The most critical three things that the National Assembly of Arts Agencies advocates for through National Endowment partnerships are: (1) to provide access, to bring the arts truly to every person in the country; (2) to provide better education opportunity, to use the arts as the education tool that it is to improve our quality of education for people of all ages; and (3) to contribute to economic and community development.
There are a lot of different ways that the NEA partnership with the States achieves these three things.
Mr. REGULA. Did you notice the changes that we put in last year's bill?
Ms. NEWMAN. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. They fit with what you have said.
Ms. NEWMAN. They fit very much with what we're saying. They help us to achieve our priorities.
Page 445 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Wamp, do you have any questions?
Mr. WAMP. No questions.
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much. We're on a very tight time schedule here.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
OPERA AMERICA
WITNESS
RICARDO C. MORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARTS IN EDUCATION FOR ALLIED ARTS OF GREATER CHATTANOOGA
Mr. REGULA. Next, Opera America. Mr. Ricardo Morris.
Mr. MORRIS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wamp. It is an honor to have the opportunity to testify in support of the National Endowment of the Arts on behalf of OPERA America and American Arts Alliance. My name is Ricardo Morris, and I live in your district, Mr. Wamp, in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I am an arts lover and supporter with all my heart and mind. In fact, without the arts, I would not be the person you see here before you today.
Page 446 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to tell you a bit about my life. I was born and raised in Chattanooga and graduated from Howard High School, which is located next to Poss Homes which is a housing project. I attended Tennessee State University where I majored in speech communication and theater. I received some scholarships, some grants, and lots and lots of loans in order to go to the Yale School of Drama where I graduated with a master's degree in arts administration.
That's the short version of my story. To fill it out, let me tell you about growing up poor and black in Chattanooga. Let me paint a picture for you of how the arts helped me dream and move beyond my challenging circumstances. And let me assure you that the arts, with the support of the National Endowment, can continue to help kids realize their own hopes and dreams.
I grew up on the south side of Chattanooga, mostly in Alton Park where the projects are. My family moved around quite a bit. My mother worked on Lookout Mountain as a maid. My father, who only finished the tenth grade, was a foundry worker. Some of the kids in my neighborhood grew up to be famous, like Samuel Jackson and football star Reggie White, you might remember. But you can be sure that most of the kids did not or were not as fortunate.
Outside of what was going on in my own school, there wasn't a whole lot I knew about. If you've been to Chattanooga, as Mr. Wamp could probably attest, you would know that the south side is cut off from the rest of the city, geographically and, more importantly, psychologically. It's very hard to cross those boundaries.
It was through the arts that I discovered a whole new world, a world that did not limit me by my circumstances. My first exposure to the arts came from television: The Sound of Music, Danny Kaye, Gene Kelly, and, of course, public television. My family didn't understand why I was so interested in the arts. I can assure you that it was a struggle trying to watch The Nutcracker with three brothers and one television. [Laughter.]
Page 447 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Later on in high school, I play in the band. My band teacher was Mr. David Sharp, who encouraged me very much to go to college. In fact, he took a very personal interest in me and, because of genuine interest, I did finish college.
After college, and eight years of teaching in high school, I applied and was accepted at Yale School of Drama. Being a student at Yale School of Drama was a once in a lifetime experience. While at Yale, I saw my first opera, La Boheme. I was immediately hooked on opera and enthusiastically attend Chattanooga opera today.
Although my Yale education opened up a whole world of opportunity, I held in my heart the dream of returning back to Chattanooga and getting more inner-city students excited about the arts as I was. Across the street from the Yale School of Drama is the Dwight-Edgewood neighborhood. It is a predominantly black, low-income area. Many of the children in that neighborhood face some of the same problems that I did growing up.
The Yale Repertory Theater, a working laboratory for the Yale School of Drama, designed a program called the Dwight-Edgewood Project. I was asked and immediately accepted to manage the program. The Dwight-Edgewood program is unique in that it allows kids to create their own plays and have those plays produced at the drama school.
I'm lucky now to be able to continue my interest in kids and working with kids. I was just appointed as the Arts in Education Director for Chattanooga. One of the things I hope to do is to make sure that all the kids know that arts is something that can help them change their lives.
Page 448 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try to answer them.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. WAMP. That's just a great story. Thank you for coming and giving that real example of how arts can impact you. I know the area, the lifestyle, the story so well. I'm sorry that our paths haven't crossed, but I'm glad they did today.
Mr. MORRIS. Thank you.
Mr. REGULA. Is the Greater Chattanooga Allied Arts a nonprofit city-wide agency?
Mr. MORRIS. It is and it raises money for all the cultural organizations in the city.
Mr. REGULA. And you depend a lot on private contributions then?
Mr. MORRIS. We do get some, yes.
Page 449 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I might ask you, do you get some public money, too?
Mr. MORRIS. Yes. We get funding from a lot of different sources and the NEA is one of those that we're counting on as one of those sources.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, let me just add that last year during the hearings, we all had difficulties with different constituencies in the debate here, I reported that the Allied Arts of Chattanooga had experienced a reduction in its funding even though many were professing that arts funding would increase from the private sector as it potentially decreased from the public sector. But we've experienced in the State of Tennessee and particularly Chattanooga, which is one of the most philanthropic communities in the country, we've experienced reductions across the board.
Unlike public television, where we saw the private sector come to the rescue as Government funding was reduced, arts funding, to the contrary, actually experienced a reduction from the business community during corporate downsizing and budget-cutting and it was very onerous to our agencies, to which I have personally not only contributed, but have worked to raise money for Allied Arts in the past. So I know it firsthand. It continues to be a struggle.
Mr. REGULA. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. MORRIS. Thank you.
Page 450 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
COUNCIL ON CHEMICAL RESEARCH
WITNESS
RANDOLPH J. GUSCHL, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
Mr. REGULA. Council for Chemical Research, Mr. Randolph Guschl.
Mr. GUSCHL. I'm going to have a slightly different topic. [Laughter.]
My name is Randy Guschl. I am the current Chair of the Government Relations Committee for the Council on Chemical Research. I am also the Director of Corporate Technology Transfer for the DuPont Company. I appear before you today to urge Congress to fund the Department of Energy's Office of Industrial Technologies at the request level of $166.6 million for fiscal year 1999. This amount represents a significant increase of $30.4 million over fiscal year 1998, including a $19 million appropriation for reducing greenhouse gases, and is a reflection of the value of the OIT's Industries of the Future program.
Mr. REGULA. Do you believe that global warming is real?
Page 451 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GUSCHL. Personally, yes. I think it is something that needs more study to see what the rates are and what is really happening. But I think a lot of work is still being done on that. We do believe that the carbon dioxide levels are unquestionably going up and there are impacts there. And whether that is singularly or in combination what is causing global warming is what is still open for study.
Our CCR membership includes most of the major companies, universities, and Government laboratories that do conduct research in the chemical sciences and engineering areas. And it is this relationship with the three components of our enterprise that is so effective and we think these programs support.
Technology roadmapping and implementation efforts by Government entities, like the Office of Industrial Technologies, provide opportunities for the highly skilled scientists and engineers residing in our Nation's universities and industrial-based research parks to learn and use their expertise to work on these processes. Long-term research has got to be done in order to enable these technologies to be available for our future industries.
We as an organization, CCR, are particularly interested in energy R&D because the chemical industry and its related industries are major users of energy in the United States today. Our chemical industry we feel is a cornerstone of our economy.
Mr. REGULA. You represent the broad sweep of the chemical industry?
Mr. GUSCHL. Yes, and the emphasis on the research part of the chemical industry.
Page 452 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The chemical industry represents 10 percent of the whole U.S. manufacturing, more than one million Americans are employed in it, and we are the top U.S. exporter in terms of commerce with $69.5 billion in exports in 1997. So we feel we're a significant part of the economy and significant users of energy.
Mr. REGULA. Do you think the progress of development in the developing countries will give you more difficulty in the future in selling our products overseas?
Mr. GUSCHL. If I can speak for my company, which is a global company, we think that working together with this development is a very important factor, that these issues are global issues and we need to be handling them in a combination with national policies and global policies. Global companies are definitely addressing these issues.
Mr. REGULA. That's one of the problems in the global warming issue, and that is the developing nations do not want to participate. I was in Kyoto and we met with some of them and it is very clear they don't want any part of it.
Mr. GUSCHL. In fact, we think the development of new platforms of technology which lead to the reduction of the gasses and are better energy efficient are going to go around the world if there are more competitive technologies. The problem is it takes a long time to change the basic technologies. Even companies like my own are focusing on short-term programs. And who is going to sponsor energy research when energy is as cheap as it is right now? That's exactly why this program is so important and why we're all here talking about it.
Page 453 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
WITNESS
KERRY SUBLETTE, SARKEYS PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF TULSA; DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED PUBLIC/PRIVATE ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSORTIUM (IPEC)
Mr. REGULA. Next, the University of Tulsa.
Mr. SUBLETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kerry Sublette. I am here wearing two hats, representing both the University of Tulsa and the Integrated Public/Private Energy & Environmental Consortium, which is made up of University of Tulsa, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and University of Arkansas.
I would like to begin by strongly endorsing the budget request of the fossil energy for critical R&D research in oil and gas programs. I would like to also endorse Christine Hansen's earlier comments from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
Page 454 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I'm here today primarily to report on two exciting initiatives in the State of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, damage from past oil production can be found historically throughout oil and gas-producing States including my home State of Oklahoma. As an example, perhaps one of the most persistent problems is contamination resulting from spills or produced water. The sites of these spills are today seen as scars on the land, devoid of vegetation and highly eroded.
In many cases, the parties responsible for these brine spills can no longer be identified. In fact, we have aerial photos of Northeast Oklahoma from 1937 that show brine scars that are here and with us today. But these brine scars not only represent a loss of land, but they also represent a continuing source of pollution of valuable surface waters and ground water.
Many of these brine scars are located on or adjacent to tribal lands and near public and private drinking water sources. These drinking water sources are jeopardized by runoff and drainage from these brine scars. The only way to prevent pollution from these scars is to remediate them. However, local tribal authorities rarely have the environmental know-how to remediate these problems, although the remediation of crude oil spills and brine spills is not high technology. It does not require a lot of expensive instrumentation or highly trained environmental professionals to do it.
Members of tribal organizations with high school educations can be easily trained to perform these remediations and to train others. The major equipment that's required is just earth-moving equipment, and most of these tribes have this kind of equipment already that they use for municipal programs and road maintenance. The tribal personnel simply need to be trained and, once trained, they can train others.
Page 455 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The University of Tulsa is seeking approximately $500,000 in Federal participation in fiscal year 1999 to provide this much needed training in remediation and spill response to the tribal organizations.
Mr. REGULA. How much should the University provide?
Mr. SUBLETTE. The University of Tulsa? The University of Tulsa is right now working as much as we can with tribal organizations in the State of Oklahoma with faculty donating their time to help train right now the Osage Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Osage tribal council, and the Seminole Nation. We would like some assistance to greatly expand this program throughout the State of Oklahoma and to be able to train Native American trainers so that we can reach more people than we can gather in a classroom or at a site to provide training. We would train these people to train others and in that way we can extend our reach throughout the State of Oklahoma.
As I said, the ultimate goal is to train these Native Americans in this know-how so they can train others.
On a related topic, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a report on the Integrated Public/Private Energy & Environmental Consortium. In fiscal year 1998, after a three year campaign and strong support from the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and the Oklahoma delegation, Congress did provide $1.5 million in dedicated funding for IPEC to develop cost-effective real solutions to environmental problems in the domestic energy industry which consists primarily of small independent companies, the mom and pop operations that Christine Hansen was referring to earlier.
Page 456 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The funding was provided in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for the EPA. And as envisioned, we have also obtained significant State level matching funds, $375,000 from the State of Oklahoma for this program.
IPEC officers have met with the agency and we're currently working to satisfy all internal EPA requirements for funding as a research center. Although it will be some months before our grant is finalized with EPA, we are in the process now of soliciting and evaluating proposals so as soon as the grant is finalized we will be in a position to fund those proposals.
One of the important elements of this solicitation and evaluation process is the formation of an Industrial Advisory Board which consists primarily of members of the independent sector of the domestic industry. We have formed our board, they have already reviewed 36 proposals and, out of those 36 proposals, have judged only 5 to be relevant to our mission. So you can see that they are taking their job very, very seriously.
I know of no other academic research center which involves any industry so deeply in its research evaluation process. We have created I think a true public/private partnership. For example, of the five projects our Industrial Advisory Board has approved for funding thus far, they amount to a request of Federal dollars of $490,000; however, they bring to the table over $500,000 in matching funds directly from the industry.
Because of IPEC's close ties to the independent sector, we have also developed a strong working relationship with the National Petroleum Technology Office of the Office of Fossil Energy, which is why I appear here today to give you this progress report. But I would also like to stress that IPEC continues to have broad applicability across the Department of Energy. For example, IPEC is in its second year of a major three year effort to support risk-based regulatory decisions at hydrocarbon contaminated sites.
Page 457 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I'm sorry, but we're out of time. Thank you.
Mr. SUBLETTE. Okay. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY
WITNESS
HOWARD GELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. REGULA. Next, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Mr. GELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Howard Geller, the Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. It's a pleasure to appear before you again.
I'm here today in support of DOE's funding request for energy efficiency programs. DOE has requested a substantial increase in these programs for fiscal year 1999. But I first want to point out that with this increase, the programs would simply return to the funding level they were at in fiscal year 1995 adjusted for inflation.
Page 458 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
DOE has a proven record of helping turn engineering concepts into viable energy efficiency technologies. I'm sure you're aware of the many successes that have come from the DOE program and due to the shortage of time here I won't go into the details.
The reasons for increasing these programs today I think are well-stated by the research PCAST report, the Advisory Committee to the President on Science and Technology. They stated, ''R&D investments in energy efficiency are the most cost-effective way to simultaneously reduce the risks of climate change, oil import interruption, and local air pollution, and to improve the productivity of the economy.'' The programs can be justified solely on their economic benefits, the environmental benefits are icing on the cake.
Let me use the remainder of my time to go over some of the areas we think are of highest priority for increases should there be funds available for increases this coming year.
The first area is the codes and standards program. This is the equipment efficiency standards as well as the building codes work that DOE supports. These programs provide enormous benefits for consumers and for the Nation. The appliance standards that were issued in 1997 are expected to save consumers over $10 billion over the next 20 years or so. DOE is working on additional rulemakings that could save in excess of $30 billion.
There is a new process in place that private sector is supporting. Things seem to be going relatively well. There is increased openness, more consultation with industry. But this process does require additional funding. There are additional steps, meetings, evaluations and so forth. DOE is falling behind schedule. They do need additional resources to keep from falling further behind schedule.
Page 459 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. You have only a minute left.
Mr. GELLER. Okay. The second area I want to highlight is the lighting program. DOE has a fairly modest R&D program, under $3 million per year. The lighting industry is very interested in expanding its collaborative efforts in partnership with DOE and its contractors. We urge that serious consideration be given to the increase of about $1.7 million that has been proposed there. A lot of benefit can come from it. Companies like GE Lighting in Cleveland are very supportive of the program these days.
Another area I want to highlight is the Industries of the Future program, particularly the crosscutting work that's done, the advanced turbine system, the ceramics and advanced materials program. There actually isn't an increase proposed here but we would strongly recommend that you consider providing an increase in this area in order to keep the ATS program on schedule, to fund the Combined Heat and Power Challenge program that's proposed, and also the very beneficial work in ceramics, advanced materials. A lot of new products are coming out of that program and even more could come out with a funding increase next year.
Mr. REGULA. I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you.
Mr. GELLER. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 460 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
DANCE/USA
WITNESSES
BRETT D. BONDA, COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTOR OF THE RICHMOND BALLET
SALLY MILLER, SCHOOL TEACHER, WILLIAM FOX MODEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Mr. REGULA. Dance USA is next.
Mr. BONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Brett Bonda and I am here to testify in support of the National Endowment for the Arts on behalf of Dance/USA and the American Arts Alliance. I am the community relations director at the Richmond Ballet in Richmond, Virginia. I organize Minds in Motion, an educational outreach program for fourth grade children that teaches the values of discipline and self-worth through movement. Here with me today is Sally Miller, a fourth grade teacher at William Fox Model Elementary School in Richmond, Virginia and a Minds in Motion academic advisory.
Richmond Ballet received NEA grants in past years which helped support our educational programs. The $50,000 matching grant we received this year to establish a cash reserve has helped the ballet maintain and improve all of its programs.
Page 461 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Is your ballet an amateur or professional program?
Mr. BONDA. Professional. It is the fourteenth year of the company.
Mr. REGULA. So you pay your people?
Mr. BONDA. Yes, we do. We have a company of 16 paid professional dancers.
Mr. REGULA. One of the things we changed in the 1998 budget is the condition it be paid to be eligible for a grant is gone. So we think the objective of NEA should be to help amateurs, if you will, as well as paid.
Mr. BONDA. It has also helped us in the past for educational programs.
Mr. REGULA. Well, sure.
Mr. BONDA. That's one of the things that I'm in charge of is this new Minds in Motion program. I would like to tell you a little bit about that if that's all right.
Mr. REGULA. If you can make it pretty brief, go ahead.
Page 462 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BONDA. Okay. After 10 years of dancing professionally with the company, I became the ballet's first community relations director in 1995. In order to deepen the impact of dance in Richmond, we created an educational program called Minds in Motion that not only teaches dance, but self-respect, confidence, discipline, and cooperation as well.
Now in its third year, Minds in Motion is flourishing at six Richmond area elementary schools. Fourth graders take one Minds in Motion class each week during the academic year. As their coordination and movement skills improve, so does their confidence, attentiveness, and enthusiasm.
Richmond Ballet understands the need to forge relationships in the community and works closely in partnership with such teachers as Sally Miller.
Mr. REGULA. You've got about two minutes, are you going to share some with your teacher?
Mr. BONDA. I would be glad to.
Mr. REGULA. You are in a public school?
Ms. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. Okay. And you get benefit from this program I take it?
Page 463 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MILLER. Definitely. Great benefit. As a fourth grade teacher at William Fox Model Elementary School in Richmond, Virginia, I've been an academic advisor to Minds in Motion since its inception. I've seen some of my students truly transformed by their experiences in the program.
During Minds in Motion, my students were focused, excited, and full of determination to reach the goals set for the hour. They are taught much more than just movement. Dance is used as a framework to teach students to look at academics in new ways. Since skills taught are demonstrated immediately, instant assessment, encouragement, and assistance are possible. Even those not excelling develop into more confident individuals when they are provided with immediate evaluations of their progress.
One of my students last year had Attention Deficit Disorder and had trouble communicating, making friends, keeping up academically with other children. But despite his limitations, he excelled in Minds in Motion. While he could not always grasp concepts verbally, he found a way to understand concepts through physical movement. He took the skills he learned in Minds in Motion—discipline, repetition, and problem-solving—and applied them to math and science. His academics, self-confidence, and social skills have improved dramatically and he has made several friends. Each student learns in his own unique way. I had never expected that dance would be the key to this child's success in school.
Teaching is more of a challenge today than ever before, with computers, video games, cable channels demanding children's attention. Conventional means of teaching, such as lectures, are not adequate anymore to stimulate children's minds. Schools need more interactive programs like Minds in Motion. It is the only way to reach some students. How privileged I feel to be part of this outstanding program.
Page 464 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As you consider funding for the NEA, please remember the impact NEA-supported programs like Richmond Ballet's Minds in Motion have on our children. Federal support is a critical component to the funding structures of not-for-profit arts organizations like Richmond Ballet and cannot be replaced by the private sector. I urge you to appropriate the full $136 million requested for this worthy agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. I assume you send out some of your professional people to work with the schools. Is that correct?
Mr. BONDA. Yes. I teach as well and have some other professional dancers that have been trained to teach the program.
Mr. REGULA. And you got a grant for specifically going into the schools?
Mr. BONDA. No. The program is rather new. We received the cash reserve to support all of our programs, one of which is Minds in Motion. This is only the third year of the program.
Page 465 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Was some of this NEA money?
Mr. BONDA. It went into the cash reserve, not directly to the Minds in Motion program.
Mr. REGULA. No, no. I know it went into the cash reserve but the cash reserve in turn financed this.
Mr. BONDA. Supports all of our programs including Minds in Motion.
Mr. REGULA. So, in effect, the Federal money is indirectly getting to your schools; am I correct?
Ms. MILLER. Indirect.
Mr. BONDA. It goes to the Richmond Ballet to support the program at her school, yes.
Mr. REGULA. Without it, you wouldn't do it.
Mr. BONDA. Well, we would have a difficult time, yes.
Ms. MILLER. And a lot of children are benefiting.
Page 466 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Do you get private money, too?
Mr. BONDA. We get some, yes.
Mr. REGULA. Do you get any State money?
Mr. BONDA. We get some also, yes.
Mr. REGULA. And how about the city or community?
Mr. BONDA. Not much in the city, some community support.
Ms. MILLER. PTA.
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. BONDA. Thank you.
Ms. MILLER. Thank you.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
Page 467 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS
WITNESS
CHESTER B. SMITH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NASEO DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI ENERGY OFFICE
Mr. REGULA. National Association of State Energy Officials. How are you?
Mr. SMITH. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Chester Smith, Director of the Mississippi Energy Office and Chairman of the National Association of State Energy Officials, NASEO, as we call it. NASEO is comprised of energy officials from 53 of the 56 State and territory energy offices. Today I am here to testify on behalf of NASEO in support of funding for the energy conservation programs of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Specifically, I am testifying in support of funding at a level at least equal to the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for State Grant programs, which include the State Energy Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
Mr. REGULA. How much money does the State put in these programs?
Mr. SMITH. Sir, that varies from State to State. But in our State of Mississippi we match our State energy program 1-to-1 and then there is leverage from other programs that become available.
Page 468 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Do you get at least one State dollar for each Federal——
Mr. SMITH. One dollar for each in my State. I can't speak to other States. Our executive director would compile that information for you.
Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. But it is a very good leverage.
There is also something which we support this year called the Competitive Energy Partnerships which allows DOE to make their funding available to more grassroots local organizations for energy programs. Additionally, we support the President's request for the building sector to implement the building codes provisions of EPAC. We also support the proposed budget for the Energy and Information Administration.
Mr. REGULA. Do you have a building code in your State?
Mr. SMITH. Not yet.
Mr. REGULA. Do any counties have building codes?
Mr. SMITH. Not in my State, no. But there are many of our States that have building codes.
Page 469 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Wouldn't it help in getting energy efficiency if you had some kind of building code at least for new construction?
Mr. SMITH. What we have done, sir, in our State and other States that don't have codes is use the Home Energy Rating program which is a more market oriented approach to induce the lenders, builders, and other participants in the housing market to build up to code, and we've had some success in that regard. Back in January of this year some of my colleagues from Ohio, New York and California testified to your subcommittee on what they think would be some of the priorities for this year's budget, and we appreciate the opportunity to have spoken before your committee. We look forward to any opportunity in the future to speak on these matters.
I know you've heard before the impact our programs have made nationwide. With such a small amount of money I think we have been very effective in leveraging some programs that have provided tremendous benefits to all energy sectors.
In Ohio, for example, AMPCO Metal Manufacturing System, the State of Ohio's energy program there, helped them to develop an electric induction heating process, which increased their energy efficiency by 98 percent and reduced all the pollution and maintenance costs that they had.
In Arizona we have a program that offers a unique partnership combining energy and water conservation with social service information. Senior citizens who volunteer are trained by the program administrator to install energy conservation measures, and this has resulted in some utility bills by seniors having saved up to $120 to $240 a year. Since this program started in 1985 over 20,000 homes have been serviced.
Page 470 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have many examples of this, but, in conclusion, I would like to remind the subcommittee of the successes that we deliver to the taxpayers in spite of the relatively small Federal investment. Our success is based upon our ability to meet directly with the needs of the taxpayers, which include homeowners, small business, farmers and manufacturers. The Administration has asked for $37 million for this program for 1999, and we feel it's a very small price to pay for such great success.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. You provide professional help to builders that might come to your agency?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.
Mr. REGULA. You give them suggestions on their buildings' energy efficiency?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. In fact, in Louisiana we have a program that not only provide that service to builders, but also we bring it into the vocational and technical schools for the trades, for plumbers and for electricians so that they can have a guide on how to install and make buildings more efficient.
Page 471 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Well, that makes sense. Thank you very much.
Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, sir.
Mr. REGULA. The Association of Performing Arts presenters.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
ASSOCIATION OF THE PERFORMING ARTS PRESENTERS
WITNESS
DONALD BYRD, ARTISTIC DIRECTOR & CHOREOGRAPHER OF DONALD BYRD/THE GROUP
Mr. BYRD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity testify in support of the National Endowment of the Arts, and on behalf of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters and the American Arts Alliance.
My name is Donald Byrd, and I am the Artistic Director, Choreographer and Founder of a contemporary dance company in New York called Donald Byrd/The Group.
Page 472 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. That's in New York City?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, in New York City.
Today I am here to share with you a little bit about my life as an artist and about the NEA's contribution to my company's continued success in bringing my work into communities throughout the country.
You know, I've been thinking after sitting here listening to other people—and you have the written testimony here and you can read that whenever you want to—but I would like to kind of tell you on a more personal level what the NEA has meant to me and what the arts have meant to me.
When I was listening to Mr. Morris, I was kind of reminded of when I was a child. I went to one of those young people's orchestra concerts, and I was sitting there—first of all, being in the theater and watching these people. I mean, I grew up in Jacksonville, Florida, in the segregated south, and this was the first time I had been in a building, or in a room, where there were white, as well as black children. I'm sitting there and I'm watching all these people with these strange things—I didn't know what they were—and they're sawing away on them and all this incredible sound is coming out of these instruments. What it did for me is kind of opened up this incredibly wide experience for me. I thought, oh, my God, everything is possible. The world is not the world that I grew up in—it's a much larger reality than that.
Page 473 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That was kind of the beginning, you might say, of my love affair with the arts. It took me another 20 years before I became a practitioner, but what it did was—it was not about the arts, per se, but it was about viewing the world in a much wider way than it had been for me before.
One of the things I wanted to talk about, which is in the written testimony, is about a project that I've done called the Harlem Nutcracker, which is a jazz version of the Tchaikovsky Ballet, The Nutcracker, and it received its initial funding from the NEA. It was conceived in 1989, and it has toured, since it had its premiere in 1996, to about eight cities and next year it will be another eight cities. What we've done——
Mr. REGULA. Are these professionals?
Mr. BYRD. The company is a professional company, but what it does is that in each one of the communities where it performs it takes children from that community, as well as a local gospel choir and they are integrated into the performance in each community.
Also, when the work was being created, one of the things that I did was create dialogue because—By Clara in the production, which in most Nutcrackers it's an eight-year old child, but in this case was an elderly grandmother. So one of the things I wanted to do was to have conversations with people who had actually lived, who had long lives, so that the piece was not about a child that was looking forward, but about a person looking back at their life and assessing what role they had played in their communities and their families. So we had a bunch of community sessions at some senior citizen centers and at local churches around the country—mostly in Brooklyn; New York; Harlem; Austin, Texas; Houston, Texas and places like that.
Page 474 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What the piece did was give an opportunity to really have the community have input into what the professional dance company was doing. One of the things that I would like to talk about a little bit——
Mr. REGULA. About one minute.
Mr. BYRD [continuing]. Okay, was this idea that some of the concerns that have come up over the years about the National Endowment and about it not being responsive to the communities outside of New York City, and so what I wanted to do was to say that, yes, artists have certain concerns but they also are members of a community and are responsible citizens and want to play a role in terms of the health and well-being of their communities. So the Harlem Nutcracker, I think, has been extremely successful at doing that—engaging communities, engaging young people—and that work would not have been possible without the NEA.
Mr. REGULA. You do what's positive, and, as you know, we've had some negative things that we have to deal with in this whole question of funding.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, well, I think—personally, I think that some of the negatives that have come up about the NEA are legitimate questions that need to be on the table, that we need to talk about those things, but I don't think you should throw the whole thing out.
Mr. REGULA. Hopefully, with the guidelines we put in last year that won't happen again. We need to get off these negative feelings that seem to be out there.
Page 475 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. The Interstate Mining Compact Commission.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION
WITNESS
GREGORY E. CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mr. CONRAD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Greg Conrad and I'm the Executive Director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I'm here today representing 14 co-producing States that operate regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act, and I would like to briefly address the fiscal year 1999 budget proposal for the Office of Surface Mining. That budget contains two critical funding programs for State program implementation—one is the Title 5 grants for permitting inspection and enforcement at active mining sites, as well as Title 4 grants for the remediation of abandoned mine lands.
Page 476 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Even though the primacy States have been tasked with the responsibility for these two programs, the cost of running the programs have increased for finding that the Federal funding for both of them has plateaued over the past several years—and we've talked about that each year that we've appeared before you—and on the Title 5 side that's beginning to catch up with the States' ability to operate the effective programs that they've had in the past. As you know, there is a 50 percent match where the States have to put forth a 50 percent match to the Federal funding that's put forward.
With some of those their ability to meet that matching amount of money becomes constrained due to State budgets, and, in particular, those States where permit fees are used to provide the money for that State becomes the ability to generate the necessary funds to operate the same level of programs is becoming increasingly difficult. This year, for instance, the States estimated the need for about $56 million for those grants and OSM has proposed $50 million, so we've got a $6 million shortfall.
We are requesting today that we begin to bump those grants back up to what those States are requesting in order for them to be able to operate the effective programs that they've had throughout the past, particularly in these areas of permitting and enforcement. Without grant levels being at that point, the effectiveness of those programs is jeopardized. That will become increasingly more so as we're looking at enhancements to things like OSM's applicant violator system, which is under the process of revision and renewal, and looking at new areas like acid drainage control, remining and some new initiatives like electronic permitting.
All of these things require additional resources in order for the programs to meet the challenges that are ahead of them.
Page 477 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Another area that we want to continue to encourage funding for, and an area that has been very valuable to us, is the technical assistance and training that OSM has provided to the States. That is a critical aspect of the States staying ahead of technology developments and that type of thing, so we are encouraging that that amount of money that has been budgeted remain intact. It's a very valuable asset to the States.
I'm going to leave the discussion for Title 4 funding for abandoned lands to Mr. Giovannitti, who follows me. He will address that from the States' perspective. I second the comments that he will make. We would like to see that increased, as well.
At our recent meeting last week the Commission adopted two resolutions regarding funding for Title 5 and Title 4 programs. If it would be permissible, I would like to provide those two resolutions for the record.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
Without objection.
Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 478 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.
We'll suspend for a minute.
[Recess.]
Mr. REGULA. Let's see, the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs—you're next.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION
WITNESS
ERNEST F. GIOVANNITTI, DIRECTOR
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Ernie Giovannitti, and I'm here representing the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs.
My association members are deeply concerned that the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget for OSM continues to reduce the amount of reclamation that can be accomplished by State and tribe reclamation programs. The annual appropriation from the Abandoned Mine Land Trust Fund for State grants has been flat-lined since about 1986. The chart I have here compares the annual income with the annual appropriations. As you can see, the annual appropriation has been less than the annual income since about 1986, and the balance in the fund is over $1.2 billion. The unappropriated balance continues to grow by more than $110 million every year.
Page 479 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. That looks like the Social Security Trust Fund. [Laughter.]
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. Well, good. I'm getting to the age where I might need it.
There are three items in the proposed budget that are of specific concern to our Association. First, is the overall funding levels for the ML programs. The States and tribes are able to undertake more reclamation projects than are currently funded, but the appropriation limits how much we can spend. If the Congressional goal set forth is to be achieved, a major revamping of the funding needs to be considered.
Right now the States have $150 million in projects above and beyond the 1998 appropriations that could be bid within a year if the funds were available. The Association has developed a concept plan to revamp the AML Trust Fund, and a copy of that management plan is included with my testimony. I would like to be able to include that in the record, if you would.
Mr. REGULA. Yes, without objection. We would be interested.
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. The second area of concern is the Appalachian Clean Streams initiative. In the late 1980s acid mine drainage was a priority three for abandoned mine reclamation. At that time the States recognized that AMD was a problem, and we appealed to Congress to provide more priority for acid mine drainage. Congress changed the law by establishing the 10 percent set aside program, which had two benefits—it not only gave the priority that was needed for acid mine drainage, but it put the money in the hands of the States where we could establish priorities and make the decisions, and manage the funds in accordance to the States' needs.
Page 480 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The proposed budget calls for an increase in the Clean Stream initiative of about $7 million. The result is that there's going to be less money available for non-ASIS projects.
Now, the real issue here in these budgeting decisions is balancing the expenditures among these competing priorities, and can best do the work considering that a decision to fund one project means that we don't fund another one. An example of this decision making is whether we reclaim a water-filled pit where we had a fatality or whether we support an area that is subject to subsidence and homes are threatened, or whether we supply water to a community that has lost its water because of mining, or whether we do an acid-mine drainage abatement project. The Association feels that the balancing of these decisions is best left to the States who know the problems.
Mr. REGULA. You're saying send the money back in block grants?
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. I'm saying that we need to work with OSM in developing a better way of dealing with the Clean Streams initiative and——
Mr. REGULA. Basically, you're saying let the States do it.
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. I'm saying let the States make the balancing decisions because they're best capable of doing that.
Mr. REGULA. That's what it means—establish the priorities.
Page 481 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. Yes.
We recommend while we're working these things out with OSM to fund the ACSI at the 1998 expenditure level because it is a good program.
Mr. REGULA. You're going to have to——
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. The final issue—pardon me?
Mr. REGULA. One minute.
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. Okay.
The final issue has to do with the minimum program State funding. Congress, back in the late or early 1990s, decided that the minimum program States should be funded at the $2 million level, and there's no reason to believe that the problems in the minimum program States are any less important than those in the other States, and we would like to recommend that the minimum program States be funded at the $2 million level.
There are a couple of attachments to my testimony——
Mr. REGULA. This will all be in the record.
Mr. GIOVANNITTI. Okay, thank you.
Page 482 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. I realize it's a problem because I live in an area where it's been mined, and there's a lot of unreclaimed land. A lot of it was before the law, maybe some of you, and my guests here have the same problem in their counties. There's not enough money to do it, and so you have to make priority judgments based on what's having the greatest negative impact on the topography.
Thank you.
Solar Turbines, Mr. Carroll.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
SOLAR TURBINES
WITNESS
Page 483 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PETER A. CARROLL, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SOLAR TURBINES
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Peter Carroll, Solar Turbines and Industrial Turbine Company, and I appreciate the chance to come before you today and request that my written testimony be made a part of the record.
Mr. REGULA. Without objection.
Mr. CARROLL. I also would like to thank you for giving Howard Geller an extra minute or two to make that additional pitch for the turbine program because we need all support——
Mr. REGULA. That comes off of your time. [Laughter.]
Mr. CARROLL. I never learn but I commend you.
I wanted to talk a little bit about that and give you a very quick update on the ceramics program, and then talk a little bit about climate change and the budget process. I just completed my State and Federal income tax, and I added up what I paid the Government and it gets more than 50 percent of my money. My boss says that that means I only work a half a day for him, and that may be right. So I think we need to spend money on energy programs—that's an appropriate thing—but I think we need to be more thoughtful about it.
Mr. REGULA. Well, we're trying—believe me. That's one of the challenges that I have. I don't think our allocation will be much larger than last year, and if we did everything everybody asked in the last three days, we would have to triple the budget.
Page 484 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CARROLL. And I'd be broke.
Mr. REGULA. You'd be broke—that's right. We would get 75 percent of what you make, and you don't want that I don't think.
Okay, but these are important programs.
Mr. CARROLL. Let me give you a quick update:
This is a turbine nozzle for the hut section of a turbine. If you look at that, it's very complex. It's made out of very expensive materials, and this is a ceramic replacement. This is an elegant piece of engineering, and this has happened because through DOE leadership we took all of the ceramic companies that operate in the United States, pooled their resources and out of this came the best technology possible.
Mr. REGULA. And it's cheaper than that.
Mr. CARROLL. Oh, yes, and in performance it's better.
Mr. REGULA. What's that material? Is that metallic?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, this is a——
Mr. REGULA. It's an alloy?
Page 485 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CARROLL. That's correct.
Mr. REGULA. It's ceramic?
Mr. CARROLL. That's correct, it's ceramic.
Mr. REGULA. And that will withstand the heat?
Mr. CARROLL. Better.
Mr. REGULA. Better?
Mr. CARROLL. Better; oh, yes, much better, and we get increased performance because this engine requires cooling air to pass through all those passages, and that cooling air comes off the compressor and two-thirds of the energy of the turbine goes to running that compressor.
Mr. REGULA. There's a company in my district that makes the blades for the jet engines. I've visited them, and I can understand what you're saying. I don't know if they've gone to ceramics yet or not.
Mr. CARROLL. I think everybody is working that way, and we're encouraging them to do that, and Oak Ridge is playing a great role in this, by the way.
Page 486 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, when you look at this, we've got test engines running at ARCO facility in California. We will be putting ceramics——
Mr. REGULA. Isn't the key to making the turbine more efficient the higher heat you can operate under, the more efficient the turbine is?
Mr. CARROLL. That's correct, the higher the temperature theoretically—there are other factors, but that's kind of the key.
Mr. REGULA. But, in essence, I said. In other words, if you can develop the material to withstand an extra 500 degrees, let's say, you're going to get a more efficient turbine?
Mr. CARROLL. That is correct.
Mr. REGULA. And the——
Mr. CARROLL. And turbines are the cleanest way to make energy today.
Mr. REGULA. You'll have less emissions, I assume——
Mr. CARROLL. That's correct.
Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Because the greater the heat the more you burn.
Page 487 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CARROLL. The ceramics combuster that we have operating at the ARCO facility—and it's in my written testimony—is 40 percent lower in emissions than the best available technology today, and it's all because of that material.
Mr. REGULA. Now, is this commercial?
Mr. CARROLL. No, but it's going into that——
Mr. REGULA. You're still doing the experimental work.
Mr. CARROLL. Now is this going to get into the market place? That's your question, and let me answer that—maybe yes and maybe no, and that's part of what I would like to talk about today. I believe not only do we need to invest in technology, but the Government needs to spend more time looking at the regulatory and administration and procedure process to make sure that those rules and regulations that provide for the permitting of this kind of technology keep up with the technology and make——
Mr. REGULA. What about any objection from the Government if that works?
Mr. CARROLL. Well, there is, and I would like to give you some examples.
Today, if you want to put in——
Page 488 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. We don't have a lot of time.
Mr. CARROLL. I'll be very quick.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. CARROLL. To put in a gas turbine today if everything went perfectly on a small gas turbine, you'll spend $119,000 on just the permitting process. I have a list here of 49 co-generation projects—you talked about combining heat power—and with these 49 projects the companies wanted to install, but because of regulatory impediments these projects did not go forward.
Mr. REGULA. What regulatory impediments? Is it on the EPA?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, it's EPA and——
Mr. REGULA. They're more efficient.
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, but it's also that we live in a world that has old rules for new technologies.
If those 49 projects would have gone forward, we would be saving 355,000 tons of carbon a year just from those 49 projects. So my appeal to you, sir, is, yes, fund technology but also go to DOE and the EPA and ask them to help more on changing the rules and the regulations so that these technologies can get into the market place without costing the taxpayers money.
Page 489 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Well, perhaps we should put language in our bill, and you ought to testify over in VA HUD where they fund EPA.
Mr. CARROLL. I will do that. I've talked to Congresswoman Morella about this, and I have a more complete resuscitation on this subject.
Mr. REGULA. Congressman Jerry Lewis would be the Chairman over there, but I understand what you're saying. You're simply saying that the Government is an impediment to a more efficient piece of equipment.
Mr. CARROLL. And my wife is a CPA, sir, and she complains about that tax bill every year. [Laughter.]
Mr. REGULA. Well, stick around because what we're going to do here won't help it any.
Mr. CARROLL. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 490 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. We're talking about your electric bill. These folks are from my District and they're here on agriculture issues, but anybody in agriculture knows what energy means—tractor fuel, milk and machines, you name it. Basically, your turbines would be designed to lower the kilowatt cost of electricity, among other things, wouldn't it?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. If you use gas turbines and combined that with the heat resources required for agricultural processing of all kinds, textile processing, wood and pulp processing, we could take 40 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. Now, that's setting an example for the rest of the world, and that's done without taxing people. The concern for global warming is not whether global warming is real or not, at least in my view. The concern is what is it going to cost us?
Mr. REGULA. Yes, oh, absolutely—big numbers from what people say.
Since they're here I think somebody testified yesterday that the day would come when you could have a fuel cell driven turbine that would be inexpensive enough that you could put it on a farm, for example, and produce your own electricity at a lower cost than you buy off of the line.
Is that feasible?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, you could do that with today's technology. If the EPA would get out of the way and if FERC in the Utility Restructuring Bill, in the Rule 888, would say four things instead of two. The two things it now says is ''protect the rate payer and protect the stockholder.'' It should also say ''find more efficient ways and cleaner ways to produce energy.''
Page 491 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We could provide gas turbines from 10 kilowatts for a farm up to whatever the size doing co-generation and provide cheaper electricity, and heat and air conditioning than they could buy today, and it would be cleaner.
Mr. REGULA. I understand in California even if you do that, they make you pay a fee to help pay for stranded costs of plants that are of no value whatsoever to the rate payer.
Mr. CARROLL. I don't like to be critical of the utility industry because I don't want my lights turned off, but the utility industry is the only business that you can be in where you could wall paper the CEO's office and get a profit on it. We need to change that. [Laughter.]
Mr. REGULA. That's true. Thank you, that's interesting. Maybe you can go home and put in some turbines.
Okay, ARCTECH, Mr. Walia, President, Coal Technology.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH
Page 492 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
WITNESS
DAMAN S. WALIA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ARCTECH, INC.
Mr. WALIA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. This my first time so I may be a little bit nervous, but I'm here to talk about DOE's fiscal year 1999 quote in the research budget.
As I was trying to prepare, I looked at the historical record of the COLA and the budget, and my company is involved in creating innovative solutions and implementing the solutions to productive users of coal and I would like to share——
Mr. REGULA. You deal with productive uses. That deals with the emissions problems?
Mr. WALIA. Yes, a number of these problems.
Mr. REGULA. The clean coal type of technology?
Mr. WALIA. What I will share with you is mind-boggling, and I hope you will consider those.
As I looked at that, I found that the Federal Government has invested since World War II upwards of $20 billion in coal R&D, but the fundamentals in the coal industry have not changed. We're still here today with very high unemployment in the coal industry; we still have high—much more capacity of the coal, and there are high numbers of coal mines that are being shut down. We're continuing to face more and more problems with coal from all different directions.
Page 493 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I believe that—in fact, if you look at the whole coal industry, it's annual revenues of the total coal industry's annual revenues in the U.S. is $25 billion, less than Microsoft, less than Exxon, and there's something wrong with what we are doing with our coal R&D.
Now we are faced with dealing with this global climate control. You have a fossil energy budget in front of you that, again, lists a 21st Century challenge, but these are all the same old programs, the same old teams of——
Mr. REGULA. I just read this article. The innovative MI gas and technology is based on applying natural micro-organisms adapted to convert coal into clean fuel under anaerobic conditions.
Mr. WALIA. Right.
Mr. REGULA. Tell me in about one minute how that works.
Mr. WALIA. What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, for the last 10 years we have developed an approach to take coal and use the natural microbes. We took these organisms from the termites and we tricked them into living off coal, and isolated the organisms out of those. We take this and produce clean fuel, clean gas——
Mr. REGULA. Do the organisms clean up the sulphur?
Mr. WALIA. What they do is convert the coal carbon into gas and the residue coal is converted into humic acid, and the humic acid is then—we have shown. I've come here after 10 years, after going and promoting and showing its applications——
Page 494 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. How do you get the microbes?
Mr. WALIA. These microbes come from the termites, and these termites were obtained from——
Mr. REGULA. You put them in a pile of coal?
Mr. WALIA. No, we isolated the organisms out of the termites, and if you see the bottom picture it shows what these organisms look like. As you know, the termites are Mother Nature's full conversion plant. It takes alternate materials and converts them into methane gas, but the most eclectic part of the coal is that the residue coal, which is not converted into gas, is converted into humic acid, and this humic acid is the most valuable commodity we have for our human needs on this planet earth for agriculture applications, for environmental applications where we have converted this into a polymer, which can be used for——
Mr. REGULA. How close are you to a commercial application?
Mr. WALIA. We are commercial. Currently, we are taking coal and we are producing the humic material. We are not operating a full integrated system, and half of the golf courses locally use this product for creating vegetation. We are shipping this product all over the world into gulf countries too. Here's an example here in the Virginia agriculture fields where we are showing the applications for increasing the productivity in the soybean——
Page 495 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. You are getting some Department of Defense money, is that right?
Mr. WALIA. Yes, we are also showing its applications for recycling munitions into a fertilizer, and we are conducting this demonstration project at——
Mr. REGULA. You use the same technique on munitions?
Mr. WALIA. Right, and recently we have been selected by the Army to show the applications of this humic material for the safe destruction of chemical agents.
The point I'm making is there's a whole new way of looking at the——
Mr. REGULA. You need to turn these loose in Iraq. [Laughter.]
Mr. WALIA. But the two things this technology approach will do is that—see, with our current approach of taking coal—we mine it, we burn it——
Mr. REGULA. I understand.
Mr. WALIA [continuing]. $25 billion, but with this approach we have the potential to turn the coal industry into a one trillion dollar industry.
Page 496 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Would the cost be per BTU or per kilowatt for a power company using this technology be less or more?
Mr. WALIA. It would be a lot less because we could produce the fuel almost at a 50 cents per million BTU, so they can produce their electric power cheaper. The most value would be derived from the humic acid.
Here is the impact on the global—you know, there has been several discussions about this global climate control. See, currently, we take a ton of coal, we burn it and we put out two tons of CO2 for every two megawatts of power. Now we keep talking about this energy efficiency—I'm all for it. We will make more power but we still will put out two tons of CO2. In effect, we will have to reduce the usage of the coal, but with this approach we will make enough gas which will then only put out half a ton of carbon into CO2 and many will go into the humic acid.
Mr. REGULA. This is fascinating, but, unfortunately, we're out of time. Where do we play into this?
Mr. WALIA. What I believe is—what I've offered here is I think your committees are at the crossroads to decide whether we should continue with the same old coal R&D programs. I think—I'll give you my perspectives.
We've been still fighting Hitler. We're still trying to do what Hitler did in World War II——
Page 497 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Converting coal to gasoline.
Mr. WALIA [continuing]. And they will not work as long as Arabs have a way to produce oil for about 50 cents to $2 per million BTU.
Mr. REGULA. I understand.
Mr. WALIA. We need a new strategy, we need a new approach and we need a redefinition of this funding so that the Department can start developing a holistic technology approach, not just to energy production but at the same time——
Mr. REGULA. I assume you presented your information to the DOE?
Mr. WALIA. I have presented a business plan to Pat Godley, and I've shown that by making a modest investment we can not only deal with this global climate control, but we can change this whole industry and we can show leadership to the developing countries so that they will deal with this global climate control——
Mr. REGULA. I will read this with interest. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 498 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay, Americans for the Arts.
One thing about this Committee is we have an eclectic group of topics to work with. We've gone from microbes to the arts. [Laughter.]
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS
WITNESS
KEN FERGESON, CEO, OKLAHOMA'S NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE
Mr. FERGESON. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I'm Ken Fergeson from Altos, Oklahoma, a country banker, and I also serve on the Board of the American Banker's Association and the Americans for the Arts.
Mr. REGULA. There are still country bankers? You haven't been taken over by the big ones?
Mr. FERGESON. But 40 times earnings and I might.
Mr. REGULA. Bankers are doing well, but now the credit unions are going to take over. [Laughter.]
Page 499 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
How big is your bank?
Mr. FERGESON. In my hometown we're about $70 million, and we have an affiliate bank that's about $80 million. So we're really just a country bank.
Mr. REGULA. In today's world that is definitely a country bank.
Mr. FERGESON. I live 150 miles from town so I'm way out there. Oklahoma City is the closest city and we're 150 miles southwest.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. FERGESON. I'm here today to talk in support of the NEA. I'm not an artist, but I'm an audience, and, of course, I've benefitted from seed monies from the NEA throughout my lifetime in terms of performances, and plays and books and every thing else. But I want to talk about something that the NEA funded that is not really nationally known, and that's Survivors' Weekend. I'm also Chairman of the Oklahoma Arts Institute and we do some youth camps and things, and the Presbyterian Church came to us and wanted to do something for the survivors and for the families of the survivors of the bombing of the Myrtle Building in Oklahoma City. The NEA was able to fund that quickly, and I think that came out of Jane Alexander as Chairman, and so we had a survivors' weekend. We had no counseling—we just said come and do art—and we did Cherokee basket weaving, mask making, memory boxes——
Mr. REGULA. These are people whose families were impacted by the bombing?
Page 500 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FERGESON. They were either survivors or families of survivors—or families of victims, I'm sorry.
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Mr. FERGESON. So there were about 120 of them, and we bused them down to Court's Mountain, which is close to Altos, Oklahoma to a State lodge, and we did all those things. These were truly not artists either. They were amateurs or they were just families, and they came down—the two that I remember when I went out on a Sunday morning when it was concluding, and they had memory boxes. One person made a memory box of contents of her daughter's purse; another person did a memory box of things that she picked up on the trail that weekend, but the one I remember was the lady who had a memory box of just little pieces of paper and the one I picked out said $100. It said, ''I lost my husband for $100. He could have retired six month earlier but he wanted to work those six months to get $100 increase in his retirement,'' but during that time he lost his life.
Mr. REGULA. He was killed in the bombing?
Mr. FERGESON. He lost his life.
The other guy I remember is Emmitt. Emmitt is as tall as I am, had hands this big and fingers that big around, and he was weaving these intricate little Cherokee baskets. I said, ''Emmitt, you're going to do this when you get back home?'' He said, ''No, they would call me a sissy,'' and so he didn't do that anymore.
Page 501 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The other thing that I like about arts being from rural Oklahoma is the economic development. Of course, every dollar that you guys put into the NEA is matched $10 by State and local governments, and every dollar that they put in is matched by $10 out in the field for non-profits. I wish my bank had that kind of return because I might not be here today.
Oklahoma has more people working in non-profit arts than Wal-Mart employers in Oklahoma, over 16,000 people. OK Mozart—a lot of people heard of it in Bartlesville, Oklahoma—started with some seed money from the NEA and now draws thousands of people that spend thousands of dollars in Bartlesville. It truly is a success story, but the one I like the best is our Lieutenant Governor every year invites titans of industries in Oklahoma to go turkey hunting just to show them hospitality, and the environment, and all these gorgeous pictures.
While they were in Woodward, Oklahoma, 180 miles from town, a little town of 12,000, the Chairman of the Mutual of Omaha didn't have anything to do so he went into town and went to a community theater—a little theater that they had that was almost demolished and the town put it together, put on a play and he thought if a town this far out could do that well, then he could open a service company there and today the Mutual of Omaha employs 180 people in Woodward, Oklahoma.
The creative work force—I also serve on the Board of the Americans for the Arts Policy Board along with soft drink people and software people, and mass communications, and, of course, bankers. But the one thing we all share is a lack of talented creative individuals that we need to hire. In fact, I think yesterday I read where the software people are asking for an increase of 40,000 immigrants to come in that they can hire because they don't have the talented people here. I think that's a crime and a shame that we have to do that. I think the arts can help us create those creative people that we can hire.
Page 502 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In fact, my bank has added arts experience and arts training on our job applications, which indicates a creative problem-solving working with the——
Mr. REGULA. It's part of the qualifications?
Mr. FERGESON. Yes, it's part of qualifications. Now, I don't want them too creative in the money part. [Laughter.]
The other thing I wanted to talk about——
Mr. REGULA. You have about a minute left.
Mr. FERGESON [continuing]. The best $100 I've ever had is when I bought a life-size charcoal painting of a high school basketball player, Michael Richards, at a local arts show. Michael was a star basketball player, but every year after basketball season he would tend to drop out of high school. Well, he enrolled in our class thinking that would be an easy grade, and he got hooked and he realized that he couldn't make art if he didn't keep his grades up.
Today, Michael is in the Army and as soon as he gets out he's using his G.I. Bill to go back to college—arts saved him.
I think it's a wonderful time. Yesterday I just heard about Marty—I can't think of her last name but she runs a little bitsy school close to Muskogee, Oklahoma. She used the arts to take an at risk school that was almost written off, turned around and increased her test scores 33 percent—only using the arts.
Page 503 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and let me encourage you to fully fund the arts.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
You said that this place is 180 miles from town. Town is what?
Mr. FERGESON. Oklahoma City.
Mr. REGULA. So that's the base and it's so many miles from Oklahoma City?
Mr. FERGESON. And there's not much in between. [Laughter.]
Mr. REGULA. You'll like the new director. He came from the country music field.
Mr. FERGESON. Yes, that's true. I think square dancing and country singing will go good in Oklahoma.
Thank you very much.
Page 504 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
The Gas Turbine Association, United Technologies.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
GAS TURBINE ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
WILLIAM DAY, ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN, GAS TURBINE ASSOCIATION, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
Mr. DAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
My name is Bill Day. I work for Pratt & Whitney, but I'm here in my capacity as Chairman of the Board of the Gas Turbine Association, which is a——
Mr. REGULA. You've heard all the testimony about gas turbines.
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Page 505 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. I assume you'll agree with all of it.
Mr. DAY. Yes, basically. We're here to promote the gas turbine industry in general. We represent the manufacturers of gas turbines and the suppliers of goods and services of those——
Mr. REGULA. Would that include air craft engines?
Mr. DAY. No, we're specifically staying away from that. There is another trade association called the Aerospace Industry Association that deals with that.
Mr. REGULA. Oh, you're Pratt & Whitney. Do you make gas turbines for stationary applications?
Mr. DAY. Yes, we do.
So that's the capacity in which I'm here—not representing Pratt but representing the industry as the Gas Turbine Association. We have provided—I see you have the written testimony, which I would like be made part of the record.
Mr. REGULA. I think all the testimony has been that this is an efficient and clean way to produce power.
Mr. DAY. That's right. Basically, you have the attributes of being clean and efficient, but also low-cost, which some of the more exotic ones can't claim and also able to be deployed quickly. The infrastructure is in place for manufacturing gas turbines in large numbers.
Page 506 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Do you see the day when maybe farmers or homeowners will just have a little power plant and make their own electricity?
Mr. DAY. Probably not all of them; it probably wouldn't make sense for everyone, particularly in rural areas.
Mr. REGULA. No, in the city it wouldn't work.
Mr. DAY. In fact, one of the things I will be talking about is microturbines, which go down to very small capacities. Peter Carroll mentioned a little bit about this. Again, you can buy it today, some small gas turbines, but in the micro field, which is really a new direction for DOE, we would like to see more work being done there. And, yes, in many places I think it will make sense for small gas turbines of that small size——
Mr. REGULA. They would be hooked onto a generator?
Mr. DAY. Yes, a turbine generator.
Mr. REGULA. It would be hooked onto your power grid?
Mr. DAY. For example, right now there's one about the size and shape of a beer keg that puts out 25 kilowatts of power and 100 gallons an hour of hot water, and that's the kind of—that's really too much for an individual homeowner, but for a small business it might make sense.
Page 507 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Twenty-five kilowatts in what period of time?
Mr. DAY. That's just the power level.
Mr. REGULA. That's the power level. That would provide the power for what?
Mr. DAY. I would assume a small business, not too much for a home.
Mr. REGULA. For a small business or a farm?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. REGULA. It's that close, and especially as we talk about de-regulating electricity.
Mr. DAY. That's true.
Mr. REGULA. That's probably done and puts a lot of impetus——
Mr. DAY. I'll be covering that in the next few minutes.
Page 508 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Okay, well——
Mr. DAY. Without further adieu, we've advocating five key actions in the fiscal year 1999. We advocate funding the ATS program for $85 million, which is $9 million more than the current Administration request; we advocate funding the development of flexible mid-size gas turbines for an immediate loan and quick response to loan demand at $10 million; the microturbine that I mentioned before at $8 million; and continuing the planning effort for gas turbine fuel cell combinations and launching a planning effort for development of combustion technology for non-standard fuels.
Mr. REGULA. Do you have any problems with these programs if we require at least a 50 percent match from the private sector?
Mr. DAY. Well, that's, of course, happening right now.
Mr. REGULA. I know it is.
Mr. DAY. We would expect the same type of cost sharing——
Mr. REGULA. So that's not a problem?
Mr. DAY. That's right—the same as the ATS requirements. We recognize that. That's a very appropriate requirement.
Page 509 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Very well.
Mr. DAY. But to the point about the way the industry is changing this chart that's attached to the script that I'm using—the power generation industry is changing from a regulatory monopoly that's vertically integrated here, consisting mostly of large central station plants to one of horizontal integration where a different range of gas turbine power plants, or power plants in general, are bidding on a short-term basis for power contracts. That has already happened in the U.K.; it's the model of what's likely to happen here, and the transmission system has open access.
So what's needed—and this need has come out in recent years after the ATS program started, in fact—is a whole portfolio of gas turbines that can meet the needs across the range and be able to respond quickly to the demands in power.
Mr. REGULA. So the whole field of delivering electricity is going to change enormously. There will be one set of companies doing the generating, and another set of companies transmitting.
Mr. DAY. Right, horizontal integration instead of vertical.
Mr. REGULA. And some development of personal power plants that will free you from use of the high line.
Okay, thank you. This information will be interesting.
Page 510 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. REGULA. Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
AMERICANS TO SAVE THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES
WITNESS
JUDITH ANN BUTLER, AMERICANS UNITED TO SAVE THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES
Ms. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, nice to see you again.
I represent Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities, which is a bipartisan organization made up of about 110 businesses from across the country who publicly support Federal funding for the NEA.
Mr. REGULA. Are these——
Ms. BUTLER. Our group is mostly large, big companies——
Page 511 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. Sports companies?
Ms. BUTLER. Boeing, AMOCO, Sun America, companies of that built primarily and it's quite a coup I think for these CEOs to come out and say that arts funding is right up there in a priority list for them with tax, trade and global policy that they have to worry about, but they have put this on their priority list because they see that it's good for their companies.
Mr. REGULA. That's interesting that you would get this from people who are supposedly tough on the use of a dollar.
Ms. BUTLER. Absolutely, absolutely, but because of the great benefits that they see to the arts—some of them outlined by one of our previous witnesses. What it does for arts education and humanities education as well to the job skills of the employees—flexible thinking, creative thinking, team work capacities, as well as analytical abilities and writing abilities too when you get into some of the humanity skills that get developed. Those are the skills that we need to compete, so they recognize that.
They also recognize when it comes to recruitment of top personnel. It's nice to have a vibrant, cultural community where you can talk about quality of life issues.
Mr. REGULA. We'll let Mr. Wamp have the last three minutes. I've got to go and meet the Chairman of the Full Committee, along with my colleagues, to see how much money we're going to have, but I don't think it will be much more than last year.
Page 512 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BUTLER. Well, we wish you well and that you're very persuasive. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Mr. WAMP [assuming chair]. Please continue.
Ms. BUTLER. Mr. Wamp, I'm with Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities. It's a group of about 110 large companies and the CEOs of those companies who support Federal funding for NEA and NEH. It's a fairly non-typical group that would come before you, and that's exactly why they've come together—to make sure that you understood that it was a wide range of our community and country that support that arts and humanities for the job skills that it helps to generate and the people that they're able to hire for recruitment capabilities of top personnel that they can recruit to their home headquarter areas, and partly because they think that it's really good for the economy as a whole. It helps with downtown revitalization. If you're building exhibit halls and facilities that will house performing arts, it helps because of those constructions and it helps the tax base overall. A number of cities are getting into sort of the business of partnering with companies to help with their downtown areas and providing some tax incentives to do so, which is helping not only the arts organizations, artists themselves and the local tourism economy as well.
Having said that, you can't expect that the private sector is going to take up the entire bulk of cultural funding. They use the endowments as a source of information and research of support of the seal of approval, if you will, and because NEA and NEH require matching funds, it's a good way to help leverage the funds, which encourages more of the corporations to give.
Page 513 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, unfortunately, as you are well aware with downsizing, as you mentioned earlier, and mergers that are happening, there are fewer corporate foundations that are available, and their numbers and availability of dollars is dropping. So we really need the NEA and the NEH to be around to help encourage newer growth companies to come forward and have the confidence to help fund some of these programs that help so many of our people across the country.
I just wanted to add sort of the business point of view to this debate and make sure that you were well aware that we were very, very committed. I'm sure that a number of them will be coming through your offices to make sure that that argument is not lost.
Mr. WAMP. Certainly, grassroots support needs to be built around these programs, which hasn't existed in the last few years, and, as I said to some people earlier today, the folk festivals in our part of the world, in the southeast, for instance, are not identified in people's minds as arts funding or arts needs, and only the bad examples of the past are brought to mind. So, certainly, grassroots support is going to be built and to see organizations like yours come together around this need certainly will help the effort of the arts and humanities.
So thank you for your testimony today, and best wishes to you.
Ms. BUTLER. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Page 514 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Dr. Maxine Savitz, AlliedSignal Ceramic Components, R&D for Ceramics.
Dr. Savitz.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR CERAMICS
WITNESS
MAXINE SAVITZ, GENERAL MANAGER, ALLIEDSIGNAL CERAMIC COMPONENTS
Ms. SAVITZ. Congressman Wamp, I'm pleased to be here to give you an update of some of the recent successes we've had as a result of collaborative efforts between industry, the Department of Industry and the National Laboratories, particularly Oak Ridge—that's in your home area.
Mr. WAMP. I got here just in time, didn't I, ma'am?
Ms. SAVITZ. Yes, we're very active in the ceramics technology area, and one of the areas we want to see continued support under the budget.
Page 515 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the things that has come up in some of those meetings was about the commercialization. Some of these parts are actually commercialized and I have a few parts here to show you that are actually flying in airplanes:
This is a field runner that is on linear jets, falcon citations that have solved a reliability problem. The metal would eat up the seal and it would last only 700 hours; they were warranted for 2,000 hours, so over 1,800 engines have been replaced with four seals each and 500,000 hours of flight time. The entire fleet of 7,000 will be retrofitted over the next three years. The materials developed have spun off from things developed under the Government's programs.
These are three parts that are part of pumps that are on hydraulic pumps that are on the Boeing 777 and 737x and also on all air buses that allow for easy starts, and there have been over 5,000 of those parts put into service in the last four years. It has enabled the cost of this new technology to come down, and also to get experience with good quality. None of them have been returned, none of them have failed in service, and it gets credibility with the users and designers.
We're continually making progress under the DOE program in the efficiency area, and our Phoenix division has been working on an APU that is on the 757 and 767 and have been making some ceramic nozzles that have just gone under FAA certification. This is a more complex part that has been in thick parts and will be entering endurance testing. Also, looking at various blades—you can see this little part here is a blade and you can make 28 of them, but if you can make it as one integral wheel, you've very much simplified it. The way we would make this in production is using gel casting, which is a technology we've licensed from Oak Ridge, and, in fact, the co-inventor of Oak Ridge is spending a two-year assignment with us at AlliedSignal to really help to transfer the technology and scale it up. It's been an excellent example of good cooperation, and, in fact, we have a program with Boeing/Rockedyne under DOD Air Force to further take the gel casting technology for other applications.
Page 516 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Then on the advance turbine program, solar is running these blades in Arco field testing now. They will undergo 2,000 hours of field testing, and you want to be able to evaluate what are the mechanical properties of these before and after, and Oak Ridge developed this little tinsel bar test as a way to cut it right out of the material and test it at the beginning and at the end to show that the properties hold up so you can, again, have confidence that these are going to last for 30,000 hours. And, as a result of that, and a result of Oak Ridge testing, the Allison Engine Company went and selected us to make the nozzles for their part, and these will be delivered to them next month for actual running in their machines.
So there's been a very good collaboration, and what we really would like to see is the ceramic technology program funding continued. It was in the 1998 budget as part of the transportation program for $3 million, but as a result of a decision not to continue turbines in the partnership for the new generation of vehicles, there is no funding for ceramic technology in the 1999 budget, even though it was also being used by the industrial program. So there's sort of a glitch in the funding there.
In addition, the ceramic technology will support the new microturbine initiative, the small power plants, that you are getting that are 50 kilowatts to 500 kilowatts that would be used for small business hospitals. Ceramics will make them much more efficient and help on the emissions level also.
Again, I want to thank you and the Committee for your support.
[The information follows:]
Page 517 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Excellent testimony. Obviously, this is a huge challenge since last year the request was for $3 million; the Committee funded the $3 million. This year the request is for zero and you're requesting $5 million, and so it will take quite a bit of magic to try to arrive at a successful conclusion here, but we certainly appreciate your position and we'll take it into consideration.
Thank you for your testimony today.
Ms. SAVITZ. Thank you. I'm afraid I'll take my ceramic parts I brought to show you. [Laughter.]
Mr. WAMP. Thank you.
Dr. Bernie Baker, Energy Research Corporation, Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program.
Dr. Baker, welcome.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
Page 518 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
ENERGY FUEL CELL PROGRAM
WITNESS
BERNIE BAKER, ENERGY RESEARCH CORPORATION
Mr. BAKER. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
The Energy Research Corporation is a U.S. owned corporation operating as a small business and publicly traded.
Last year we successfully completed the largest fuel cell plant ever built and operated in the United States, and the largest advanced fuel cell power plant in the world. This 2,000 kilowatt plant operated in Santa Clara, California, and the project was 60 percent funded by the private sector and 40 percent funded by DOE. There were many participants in the project, including a number of municipal utilities.
The project was very successful. We demonstrated the highest efficiency ever operated for any type of fossil fuel device, and we demonstrated minimum emissions of SOx, NOx and CO2 ever demonstrated anywhere in the world.
By comparison, similar projects in Japan are scheduled for 1999. It's being 100 percent funded by their Government and the cost of that project will be 13 times the cost of the project to our Government.
Page 519 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In earlier projects we demonstrated the ability to operate our fuel cells on coal gas. We're the only company in the world that has ever operated fuel cells on gasified coal. We did that in both Louisiana and in Germany.
We now need to demonstrate a pre-commercial fuel cell power plant for building on the success of our Santa Clara plant. The direct fuel cell directly contributes to the goals of the U.S. DOE's energy strategy by substantially improving generation efficiency while reducing carbon dioxide and acid rain emissions, and offering a much anticipated new option for the restructured U.S. utility markets.
Lastly, non-traditional interests are building upon the DOE fuel cell work that this Committee has enabled. This includes Marine fuel cell power plants for the military and farm scale generation systems.
Since 1995 ERC has been operating on a cooperative agreement with the Department of Energy. The original agreement called for DOE to fund 55 percent of the project and the private sector 45 percent. To date ERC has funded 57 percent of the project and DOE only 43 percent of the project. I appeal to the Committee to provide the DOE funds needed to complete this very successful project and help us keep the American leadership in this important energy technology area.
The required DOE funding for 1999 is $25.5 million to get this project back on schedule. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Page 520 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Thank you for your time.
Next is the Associated General Contractors of America, Matt Garland is providing the testimony.
Mr. Garland, thank you for coming today, sir.
You're here for Abandoned Mine Reclamation.
Mr. GARLAND. That's correct.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION
WITNESS
MATT GARLAND, VICE PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA
Page 521 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GARLAND. My name is Matt Garland, and I'm Vice President of a small company in Gillette, Wyoming. I'm co-owner with my brother. I'm also President of the Wyoming Contractors Association and a member of the National Association of General Contractors.
In the past 13 or so years I've been very involved myself in actually doing reclamation sites with AML funds that were provided to the State of Wyoming. These included some coal, uranium and mines. It gave us a real sense of accomplishing something because the first ones that were tackled in the State was the number one priority sites that posed a real threat to the safety and health of the surrounding community.
Being from Campbell County, right now it's the large coal producing area in the nation, so I've had a first-hand view of how reclamation is going on now compared to how it was prior to 1977. I have to salute the Congress for having the foresight to not only funding the AML programs to fix the old problems, but to establish new laws so that the reclaimed land is actually better today than what it was prior to mining. We at the Association salute them.
In Wyoming we have a unique problem. We are suffering right now from lack of economic development. We would like to see the AML program funded to its full extent not only to maintain the fund to clean up the sites, but also to provide employment.
Usually, the areas where the reclamation goes on is in areas that are remote so that the unemployment rates are high there, and the AML money does help promote jobs. We figured for every one million dollars in AML money spent 59 jobs are created.
The AGC of America supports the increased funding for the AML program to the full well environmental impact of mining. The AML is a trust fund and it's also an interest-bearing account. We kind of feel out there in Wyoming there's a little difference in trust funds. Wyoming itself has some trust funds that we all as taxpayers pay into. The only difference between that and the funds that we see here in Washington with the trust fund is that Wyoming actually has money in their trust funds, so we kind of support that the trust funds should come off the budget—just as a side note.
Page 522 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On the average, $260 million is collected annually from the mining industry for the trust fund. For fiscal year 1998 only $140 million was allocated to the State and tribal grants. For 1999 $143 million of the $260 million is all that is appropriated. This program works to protect the public health and environment and creates job opportunities. This is not like the Super Fund Program. The money is actually spent on cleaning up acidified streams instead of paying for lawyers, and it's spent for reclaiming waste sites and it's not chasing innocent parties.
Without abandoned mine land programs, dangerous conditions would go unaddressed. This program reclaims clogged streams, dangerous piles, hazardous equipment and facilities, through these efforts the ones that have already been done have led to very new development of new technologies that has been very successful in the new ways that mines are reclaimed.
Twenty-three States and three Native American tribes currently participate in this program. Last year AML worked with and performed in seven States represented by members of this subcommittee. This program is needed and everyone seems to agree on that. Companies are taxed to finance this program; the Federal Government is collecting $260 million per year to carry out the program, and it only spends $140 million. So it is our contention that what we would like to see is the spending limit set to around $200 million, which would not break the trust fund but just send more money back that would do economic good for all of the States involved, and, basically, that's all I would like to say at this point.
[The information follows:]
Page 523 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Excellent testimony. We face great challenges here, but I'll tell you that the logic and common sense is certainly on your side. So thank you for bringing this before us today, Mr. Garland.
American Iron and Steel Institute, Lawrence Kavanagh on the DOE budget.
Good afternoon, Lawrence, thanks for coming.
Mr. KAVANAGH. My pleasure.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
LAWRENCE W. KAVANAGH, AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE
Mr. KAVANAGH. I am representing the American Iron and Steel Institute, which is an organization that represents steel in North America. I would like to make two points today—one concerning collaborative R&D with the Department of Energy, and one concerning the partnership for a new generation of vehicles, the steel industry's response to it.
Page 524 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our history with the Department of Energy is with the Office of Industrial Technology, and that's recounted in detail in the testimony, and I won't repeat it. There's also been a lot of OIT related testimony here today, so let me just say that the steel industry has cooperated through the OIT steel team for a long time with a lot of success. We have just launched a new R&D program based on our technology road map, which is focusing on all aspects of the industry. In particular, in 1998 we're focusing on the environment and on steel's properties.
The environmental projects are particularly important because we expect that they will underpin the steel industry's voluntary programs to reduce green house gases.
I guess in the interest of brevity I would just summarize by saying that we really support your continued endorsement of the OIT steel budget at the level submitted by the President.
My second point would be related to the partnership of the new generation of vehicles. Yesterday, the steel industry announced the ultra light steel auto body, which is a steel body structure which is 25 percent lighter than any made today while being safer, stronger and just as affordable. It's made with manufacturing practices available today, and new steels that are also available today. For example, half of the vehicle is made from steel that is less than a millimeter thick, which is about the thickness of your pencil point, and all of it is made with steel less than two millimeters thick—two pencil points. It's a stronger, lighter, safer vehicle, and it was unveiled today.
I raise this point because the ultra light steel auto body is our industry's response to PNGV. We feel by demonstrating a practical light-weight steel vehicle that's 100 percent recyclable and has such a dramatic weight reduction, which will yield significant fuel savings, that makes it very practical and it makes it very green. The reason this is brought up because a lot of the PNGV activities are funded through DOE, and there are particular light-weight programs in this year's budget related to trucks. We also have many truck programs that we've done that I won't go into, but people don't tend to think of steel as a light weight material. We have physical evidence that it is. We've undertaken this $22 million program. The body is going to be here in Washington in two weeks at the Forrestal Building, and our request in this regard is that any report language dealing with PNGV-related funds recognize steel's viability as the platform of the car of the future, or at least not specifically excluded.
Page 525 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With those remarks, I would like to conclude, and I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. I think that speaks for itself, and we appreciate your weighing in on behalf of your industry as we prepare the report language and the relative appropriations for DOE for the upcoming year, and I know that we are making progress on our alternative transportation vehicles and the funding there.
So thank you for your testimony, sir.
Mr. KAVANAGH. I would like to give you this summary report of that ultra light program for the record please.
Mr. WAMP. Well, consider it submitted.
Thank you, Mr. Kavanagh.
Anna Aurilio, with U.S. PIRG, Public Interest Research Group—nice to see you—DOE's 1999 budget request, and your input, ma'am?
Page 526 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998.
PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
WITNESS
ANNA AURILIO, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
Ms. AURILIO. My name is Anna Aurilio. I'm the staff scientist with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. As you know, we're a non-profit, non-partisan environmental and consumer advocacy group active across the country, and I believe you've met with our southeast organizer on several occasions.
Mr. WAMP. I grew up with him.
Ms. AURILIO. Pardon?
Mr. WAMP. I grew up with him.
Ms. AURILIO. You grew up with him?
Mr. WAMP. I've known him my whole life just about, go ahead.
Page 527 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. AURILIO. He said to say hi.
As you know, we're part of the Green Scissors Campaign and the Stop Corporate Welfare Coalition, so we have ideas for this Committee to not only save money but also save the environment. Our report that we released called the Green Scissors 1998 Report targets 71 programs that we think are bad for the environment and also waste taxpayers' dollars. If these were cut or reformed, we could save nearly $50 billion.
The programs that I want to highlight today are fossil energy and timber, and I'll stick with mostly the energy programs since that's the focus of today's testimony.
PIRG has worked for years to shift away from polluting sources of energy towards energy efficiency and renewable energy. We don't think that we should continue to subsidize the coal and the oil industry. We believe, especially given the current concern about global climate change, that these are the two industries that are primarily responsible for global climate change. They are mature industries and have received billions of dollars of taxpayers' subsidies over the years. We feel like our money would be best spent funding energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. These can lead us to a truly clean and affordable energy future.
If I could just pick out the reasons why we object to a couple of the programs:
First, is clean coal. I've often been asked as an environmentalist why don't I like clean coal. We call it an oxymoronic program. It's not clean and it doesn't work. It's been mismanaged. Some of the projects that have been picked by this program actually haven't worked as well as technologies on the market. Moreover, the coal industry already has an incentive to clean up their admissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This is the whole notion of tradeable pollution permits, so if people can develop technologies and clean up their emissions, that's fine. They can sell that and they have a market incentive to do so. We don't need a $2.3 billion program.
Page 528 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We were very pleased to see that Congress rescinded $100 million from this program last year. We feel if you really take a look at the projects and look at the ones that are floundering, that aren't going forward, there's up to $500 million more dollars of additional savings, and we would urge this subcommittee to take a long look at that.
In terms of coal research and development, I heard a previous witness testify about the fact that since World War II—that were basically looking at World War II technology when it comes to creating liquid fuel out of coal. This is an outgrowth of the failed syn fuels program. We don't think there's any merit to this. We could save lots of money, and if we're worried about dependence on foreign oil, well, let's save money at the gas pump. Americans could save nearly $600 a year per family if we increased fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. The auto industry is already telling us that they can increase efficiency. Well, let's do it—we don't need to create petroleum out of oil to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The petroleum programs—why are we subsidizing Chevron, Texaco and ARCO? They don't need our money, and we don't need to be subsidizing environmental destruction.
Then, finally, if I can just touch on the U.S. Forest Service because I know this subcommittee also handles that. For the past two years we've come within one vote in the House of really taking a bite out of the outrageous Timber Road building subsidy. We would like to see that program eliminated. The CEO of Louisiana Pacific makes millions of dollars every years, and we don't need to be building roads for him or anybody else. Less than five percent of our ancient forest remain; most of those are on national forest lands and it's time to start thinking about protecting the public's interest when it comes to public forest management, not a hand full of special interests.
Page 529 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That concludes my testimony.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Great, thanks, Anna. Very well presented and very clear. We thank you for your input here today; yes, ma'am.
Mary Margaret Overbey, American Anthropological Association. She is the Director of Government Relations. She's been sitting patiently in the rear.
Good afternoon.
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
MARY MARGARET OVERBEY, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Page 530 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. OVERBEY. Good afternoon.
I'm Peggy Overbey, and I'm an anthropologist at the American Anthropological Association, and the testimony that I'm presenting today is on behalf of the—we call it the original AAA because we were founded in 1902—the Society for American Archeology and the Society for Historical Archeology.
We are here to request $136 million for NEH in fiscal year 1999, and we believe that that is a good investment. There have been pretty extensive cuts to NEH that have affected research there, and, in particular, we know for anthropology and archeology since fiscal year 1995 research has been cut 81 percent in funding and 68 percent in the number of projects funded.
We think if we get some additional funds to NEH that will put us back on the road to getting more knowledge, but not just—this would be new knowledge to also help reshape old knowledge because we think that's useful and also it will add to supporting Dr. William Farris' initiative on rediscovering America. That program is, again, creating regional cultural centers. We think that's a good idea because it will get more Americans involved in learning more about their culture and also participating in it too.
So I just would like to take a few minutes to talk about three NEH funded projects and scholars, and the first one I would like to talk about is Jamestown, right down here in Virginia. NEH funding allowed Dr. Belkowso to discover the original fort of Jamestown, which was thought to be lost underwater, and he actually discovered the fort and they've been excavating the fort since I think 1996. This is really a fascinating find. The fort area that they've been excavating, all of the finds they have, are between the 1607 to 1609 period. Probably the most impressive find I think was the burial of an original settler who had come over and was killed shortly after arriving at Jamestown, and they found the burial with a lead bullet in the back of his knee.
Page 531 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One thing I brought for you—it's from the Jamestown rediscovery project, and I brought one also for Congressman Regula and also Congressman Yates—a brochure that describes what's going on there. And I also brought two—these are reproductions of a silver English sixpence that they found at Jamestown and there are a number of those. That's one of the few reproductions. They found over 2,000 objects to date—400,000 people per year have been visiting the site. It's very popular for the public. They set up a web site last year, and it has had over 100,000 hits. School children are interested in it, teachers, the public and it's really a nice site. You can take a virtual tour of Jamestown.
They've produced a 47-minute documentary that's going to appear on the History Channel in the spring, and on March 10th National Geographic is hosting an exhibit of 274 of the items from Jamestown at Explorer's Hall.
The important thing about the NEH funding here is that it has really attracted a lot of other funding, private foundation funding, and also other government-State funding to this project so that this can really be carried out. This year the Virginia Assembly has a $200 million request for funding proposed for Jamestown, and now in Jamestown they're working with the National Park Service in the State of Virginia to develop that land for the public, for the public to see it and also for the year 2007, which will be the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown.
The other project I would like to mention is one by Dr. George Cowgill where he's been doing research down in Mexico in collaboration with Mexican scholars. He has been working in Teotihuacan, which is one of the earliest civilizations in MesoAmerica. It's not an Aztec site; it's a city that supported 100,000 people 1,000 years prior to the Aztec. What he has found there is the first sign of human sacrifice in Teotihuacan, which was never thought to be war-like. There have been human sacrifices in Tenochtitlan, which is an Aztec site and in some other sites, but this is the first time they found anything of this kind in Teotihuacan.
Page 532 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is important because they want to find out who the victims were in this case, and what is the meaning of these sacrifices for Teotihuacan in that culture.
So Teotihuacan is important for other archaeologists and anthropologists studying the near East and other areas where first civilization arose. It gives us more of an understanding of the rise and fall of civilizations and how human sacrifices may be related to that too.
In addition, Dr. Cowgill has set up also a virtual web site on Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan so that people can learn more about ancient life or pre-historic life in Mexico and MesoAmerica. This web site is going to be interactive. It's for scholars, but also for the public too and it's already received a number of awards, so we're very excited about that.
Then the final case I would like to mention is one to just show how a small amount of NEH funding can really help round out a sense of knowledge about a culture and how that can translate into better public policy. Dr. Melvin Goldstein up at Case Western Reserve has been working in Tibet and Tibetan areas for over 30 years, and with NEH funding he has been looking at the history of Tibet, particularly up to 1959 when the Chinese overtook Tibet and the Dalai Lama left Tibet. And he has also put together an American Tibetan dictionary, and a lexicon of Tibet Government terms. He has also looked at the health with NIH funding and Tibetan culture with NSF funding, and he has had National Geographic and other foundation funding too.
He is really an expert on Tibet now with over 30 years of all of this research, and he is using his expertise to advise the State Department on China-Tibet relations. He served on the Tibet Fact Finding Team in 1991 with the National Committee on China-United States Relations, and now he's a current member of that Committee.
Page 533 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I mention him too because he not only publishes books and journals and academic sources, but he publishes in public policy journals too. He just had an article in Foreign Affairs in the January–February edition called The Dalai Lama's Dilemma where he basically pulls all this information together in terms of an understanding of how the history and economic and public policy pressures there in Tibet and the relations between China and Tibet are unfolding and really what are the options of the Dalai Lama, and what is the role for the U.S. to play in this and helping to negotiate some kind of agreement between these two governments.
So I just mention these three projects to show you the kind of work that is being funded by the NEH and to encourage you and the Committee to provide them that $136 million this year.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WAMP. Fascinating testimony, and we appreciate your time on behalf of the AAA. I think you did an excellent job. Of course, this year the request is $26 million more than we were able to fund last year, so they're stressed there but I'm sure we'll do our very best to squeeze every penny out of it that we can as we evaluate our 1999 priorities.
Thank you for your time, Mary Margaret.
Page 534 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We will stand adjourned until 10:00 tomorrow morning.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."