SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
80–812PS
2003
FUTURE DIRECTION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 25, 2002

Serial No. 107–86

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

Subcommittee on Energy
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEN CALVERT, California
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon
JIM MATHESON, Utah
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas

GABOR J. ROZSA Subcommittee Staff Director
TOM VANEK, TINA M. KAARSBERG, JOHN DARNELL Republican Professional Staff Members
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
TOM HAMMOND Staff Assistant

C O N T E N T S

July 25, 2002
    Hearing Charter

Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD–06), Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement

    Statement by Representative Lynn Woolsey (CA–06), Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement

    Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall (TX–04), Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives

    Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI–03), Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives

    Statement by Representative Judy Biggert (IL–13), Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Witnesses

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement
Written Statement

Dr. Jerome I. Friedman, Institute Professor, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure

Dr. R.E. Smalley, Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure

Ms. Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office
Oral Statement
Written Statement

Discussion
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Increasing Academic Interest in Science in the Younger Generation
Increases in Funding for DOE's Office of Science
International Education Rates for Advanced Degrees in Science
Adequacy of the United States' Science Budget
Cultural Issues Regarding Science and Math in the United States
Setting Priorities Within the Research Arena
Importance of International Cooperation
International Scientists in the U.S. Job Market
Impact of Project Size on Its Appeal to Younger Scientists
The Need for Alternatives to Oil
Regulation of Nuclear Facilities by DOE vs. External Regulation

FUTURE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2002

House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Energy,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Future Direction of the Department

of Energy's Office of Science

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2002

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose of the Hearing

    On Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 10:00 a.m., the Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on the Future Direction of the Department of Energy's Office of Science. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the current status of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science programs and facilities, including specifically the overall funding needs and future directions for Science programs and the user facilities that support these programs.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Specific questions to be addressed at the hearing include:

1. What are the most critical national research priorities and what is the role of the Office of Science in addressing them?

2. What has been the impact of two decades of essentially flat funding for the Office of Science research programs on the ability of these programs to meet the Nation's science needs?

3. Should Congress reorganize the Department of Energy along the lines of the Senate version of the energy bill (H.R. 4)?

4. How does DOE self-regulation of nuclear, environmental, safety, and health by DOE impact operation of the Office of Science laboratories and facilities? What is the impact on program funding? What is known about the costs and benefits of moving to external regulation of DOE facilities?

2. Issues

1) Over the past decade, funding for the Office of Science programs has been at or below the rate of inflation. This is in contrast to the NIH budget which has doubled over the past five years, steady increases in the NSF budget (doubled since 1988), and a 4-fold increase in the GDP since 1980. These budget realities raise serious questions as to the future of basic research in the physical sciences in the U.S. and the subsequent impact on national economic and technological competitiveness, as well as our ability to educate and train the next generation of scientists and engineers.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

2) Recent advances in Japan's computer technology call into question the adequacy of existing domestic computer capability and the role of the Office of Science in meeting expanding computer needs. The importance of computing to all areas of science and engineering is growing rapidly. Advances in climate simulation and prediction, quantum chemistry and fluid dynamics, plasma physics and fusion science, high energy and nuclear physics, and genome sequencing, among others, would not be possible without the high performance computing research and capabilities developed in the Office of Science. Since the mid-1980s, the approach in the U.S. has been to exploit our vast commercial resources in processor development and production to develop massively parallel supercomputers based on commercially available and inexpensive processors. Recently, the Earth Simulator in Japan was unveiled as the world's most powerful supercomputer. The Earth Simulator is based on a special Vector Processor design that, although better suited for certain types of calculations, is significantly more expensive. This raises the question as to whether the U.S. needs a Vector supercomputer program.

3) Continuous work on nuclear fusion holds promise for major advances to meet domestic energy needs. The potential for unlimited clean power from controlled nuclear fusion has driven research for over 40 years. Over the past decade, technological and computational advances in the U.S. resulted in the first successful burning plasma experiment at the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor(see footnote 1) at Princeton and contributed significantly to the development by the Europeans of the Joint European Torus. The next major step in fusion research is the Burning Plasma Experiment. International negotiations on an International Thermonuclear Test Reactor (ITER) are expected to occur over the next 12–24 months and the U.S. must decide whether to participate in this $5–$6 billion project soon if we are to have a significant involvement.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

4) Some question the wisdom of self-regulation of nuclear and worker safety compliance at DOE's non-Defense national laboratories and user facilities. The Office of Science operates numerous laboratories, major scientific instruments, and user facilities. The DOE currently regulates itself with regard to nuclear and worker safety and has been criticized for weaknesses in self-regulation at its facilities. External regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been proposed as a way to improve ES&H at DOE facilities and provide potential cost savings. Despite nearly a decade of consideration, including advisory group evaluations, pilot programs, stakeholder input, and specific direction from Congress, the DOE has yet to develop a comprehensive plan for transition to external regulation. In October 2001, the conference committee report on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the DOE to prepare an implementation plan for transitioning to external regulation at the ten DOE non-military science laboratories. Due by May 31, 2002, the 17-page plan released by DOE on July 1, 2002 fails to provide many of the details requested in the conference committee report and has been strongly criticized by the Energy and Water subcommittee of the House Appropriations committee.

3. Overview

    With a fiscal year 2002 budget of $3.2807 billion, DOE's Office of Science is the principal sponsor of scientific facilities in the United States and the leading federal agency in supporting the physical sciences, second in computer sciences and mathematics, and third in engineering. The Office of Science plays a significant role in funding university research, including especially graduate student support, and provides the dominant share of funding for 10 DOE non-Defense Laboratories.(see footnote 2),(see footnote 3) The Office of Science funds six major programs: (1) Advanced Scientific Computing Research; (2) Basic Energy Sciences; (3) Biological and Environmental Research; (4) Fusion Energy Sciences; (5) High Energy Physics; and (6) Nuclear Energy Physics, each of which has an advisory committee to provide independent advice regarding the complex scientific and technical issues that arise in their planning, management, and implementation.(see footnote 4) The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program supports fundamental research in mathematics, computer science, and networking, and provides high-performance computational and networking tools to researchers in environmental and atmospheric research, structural biology, genomics, and proteomics, chemical and materials sciences, and high energy, nuclear, and plasma physics.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Office of Science played a key role in initiating and supporting the Human Genome project and continues its efforts in this area with the Genomes to Life program. A major participant in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, current and future efforts include the establishment of five new Nanoscale Science Research Centers,(see footnote 5) beginning with the (proposed) construction of the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in FY 2003. The center at Oak Ridge will be co-located with the Spallation Neutron Source, a state-of-the-art neutron scattering facility scheduled for completion in June 2006.

    The High Energy and Nuclear Physics Programs continue to provide over 90 percent of the Federal support for research in these two areas. Currently the U.S. is a world leader in these fields with facilities such as Fermilab and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Participation in the international Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project, scheduled for completion in 2006, ensures a continuing leadership role for the U.S. in High Energy Physics. In the field of plasma/fusion research, the next major step forward will be the Burning Plasma Experiment, a self-sustained fusion reaction. Considering the significance of this experiment, both in terms of scientific advancement and cost, a major question is whether the US should participate in an international cooperative project called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) or to go forward independently.

4. H.R. 4

    The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have each passed versions of the comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 4, which contain provisions effecting Science research at the Department of Energy. The House version of H.R. 4 instructs the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan for the improving the facilities and infrastructure of the Office of Science and establishes an advisory panel to consider the most appropriate organization structure for the Office of Science. The House bill does not contain authorization of appropriations for outlying years.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Senate version of H.R. 4, on the other hand, includes authorization of appropriations through FY06 which would increase the Office of Science funding by 50 percent over four years. In addition, the bill renames the Director of the Office of Science as Assistant Secretary for Science, and establishes an Undersecretary for Energy and Science.

    Congresswoman Biggert (R–IL) is developing legislation to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2003 to 2006 or 2007 for the Department of Energy Office of Science. The draft bill would increase authorized funding levels for the Office of Science and establish a science advisory board for the Director of the Office of Science. The draft bill also may create new or modify existing positions within the Department so as to give science programs organizational parity with other research programs in the department, and may designate which position shall serve as the science and technology advisor to the Secretary with authority over science and other energy research programs.

5. Witnesses

    Witnesses will include:

(1) Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

(2) Dr. Jerome I. Friedman, 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics, Department of Physics, MIT

(3) Dr. Richard E. Smalley, 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

(4) Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office

    Chairman BARTLETT. We will now convene the hearing. The Subcommittee hearing will come to order.

    Today we will examine the current status of the Department of Energy Office of Science programs and facilities including specifically the overall funding needs and future directions for science programs and the user facilities that support these programs.

    As a scientist myself, I believe that it is important that we not underestimate the value of basic scientific research as a foundation of the prosperity and security of our nation. Indeed, it is not widely appreciated that much of this country's cutting edge basic research in the physical sciences has been and continues to be conducted under the offices of and in the facilities operated by DOE's Office of Science and its predecessor agencies ERDA and the AEC.

    Our witnesses will discuss the current status and future plans of the Office of Science as well as its historic role in its support of basic research and training of scientists and engineers in the physical sciences. We also hope to get an update on the proposal to turn over responsibility for nuclear and workers' safety to outside regulatory agencies. We will hear from Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. Jerome Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Department of Physics, MIT; Dr. Richard Smalley, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry; Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University; Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I will be particularly interested to hear testimony on the impact of the past decade's essentially flat funding for the Office of Science programs, which has been at or below the rate of inflation. This is in contrast to the rapid growth of the NIH budget, which has achieved a doubling in funding over the past five years, and the National Science Foundation, which our committee and the House of Representatives are working to double in the next five years. While I welcome the additional funding being made available in support of science through NIH and NSF, I am concerned that flat funding for the Office of Sciences raises serious questions as to the future of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and the impact this has on national economic and technological competitiveness. It is also—it also affects our ability to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers in these disciplines.

    Level funding has, no doubt, hampered direct support of many worthy basic research projects. Also, many of the buildings at the ten non-defense national laboratories, which are operated by the Office of Science, date back to post-World War II years. Flat funding has resulted in deferred maintenance, deteriorating infrastructure, under-utilization of sophisticated research facilities. Adequate utilization and maintenance of existing facilities is one concern that is appropriate for congressional oversight.

    However, we must look at not only how we use the facilities we currently have, but what we must do to allow our knowledge and our economy to grow. What should the country do to ensure that we have the scientific and technological infrastructure to support the research that will unlock the secrets of science and help fuel our economy for decades to come?

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett follows:]
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROSCOE G. BARTLETT

    Today we will examine the current status of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science programs and facilities, including specifically the overall funding needs and future directions for Science programs and the user facilities that support these programs.

    As a scientist myself, I believe that it is important that we not underestimate the value of basic scientific research as the foundation of the prosperity and security of our nation. Indeed, it is not widely appreciated that much of this country's cutting edge basic research in the physical sciences has been and continues to be conducted under the auspices of, and in facilities operated by DOE's Office of Science and its predecessor agencies, ERDA and the AEC.

    Our witnesses will discuss the current status and future plans of the Office of Science as well as its historic role in its support of basic research and training of scientists and engineers in the physical sciences. We also hope to get an update on the proposal to turn over responsibility for nuclear and worker safety to outside regulatory agencies.

    We will hear from:

(1) Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.

(2) Dr. Jerome I. Friedman, 1990 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Department of Physics, MIT.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
(3) Dr. Richard E. Smalley, 1996 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, Rice University.

(4) Ms. Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office.

    I will be particularly interested to hear testimony on the impact of the past decade's essentially flat funding for the Office of Science programs, which has been at or below the rate of inflation. This is in contrast to the rapid growth of the NIH budget, which has achieved a doubling in funding over the past five years, and the NSF, which our Committee and the House of Representatives are working to double in the next five years. While I welcome the additional funding being made available in support of science through NIH and NSF, I am concerned that flat funding for the Office of Science's raises serious questions as to the future of basic research in the physical sciences in the U.S. and the impact this has on national economic and technological competitiveness. It also affects our ability to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers in these disciplines.

    Level funding has, no doubt, hampered direct support of many worthy basic research projects. Also, many of the buildings at the 10 non-Defense National Laboratories, which are operated by the Office of Science, date back to the post-World War II years. Flat funding has resulted in deferred maintenance, deteriorating infrastructure and underutilization of sophisticated research facilities. Adequate utilization and maintenance of existing facilities is one concern that is appropriate for congressional oversight.

    However, we must look not only how we use the faculties we currently have but what we must do to allow our knowledge and our economy to grow. What should the country do to ensure that we have the scientific and technological infrastructure to support the research that will unlock the secrets of science and help fuel our economy for decades to come?
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman BARTLETT. I look forward to hearing today's testimony pursuing these subjects in greater detail. Before we get started, however, I would like to remind the Members of the Subcommittee and our witnesses that this hearing is being broadcast live on the Internet, so please keep that in mind during today's proceedings. I would also like to ask for unanimous consent that all Members who wish might have their opening statements entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.

    I now turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, Ms. Woolsey, for her opening remarks.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to thank our panel of very distinguished guests. We have three world class scientists with us today, and they are not only scientists, they are visionaries. And we have one of GAO's very best with Ms. Gary Jones. It is a true pleasure to be here with you today. I am looking forward to your testimony.

    As the Energy Conference Committee is working its way in another part of this building, we are here to recognize the need for not only a national energy policy but an increase in research and development in energy. And we want that to carry us into the next millennium. Most importantly, our energy production and consumption must be cleaner, safer, more efficient, and above all, sustainable. The technology to make this happen will only come from the extraordinary minds of our national research and development complex. We can retain this pool of knowledge through increased funding of programs through the Office of Science.

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Recent news that Japan has developed a supercomputer, known as the Earth Simulator, has brought to light the need for increased research and development in advanced scientific computing. It also may have demonstrated the need to look beyond the criteria of bigger and faster. The more important discoveries may lie in answering the question how do we utilize these machines in new ways to expand our knowledge of the world rather than how do we build them bigger. Fusion is the great puzzle of the physical sciences. It promises benefits for energy production, yet its viability continues to elude us. I hope we can get a little more guidance from all of you today on what we can reasonably expect and what we really should invest in this field.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see GAO here to testify in support of external regulation of the Department of Energy's civilian labs. This is an area that this Subcommittee definitely needs to hear more about. With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back, and I am looking forward to the rest of this morning.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LYNN WOOLSEY

    Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to our panel of very distinguished guests; three world-class scientists and visionaries, and one of GAO's best weapons, Gary Jones. It's a pleasure to have all of you today.

    Today's topics are as timely as they are varied. As we speak, House and Senate Conferees are meeting on H.R. 4, the ''Energy Bill.'' I am privileged to be one of the conferees on what will prove to be the most comprehensive and forward-thinking Energy Policy our nation has seen in over a decade.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Just as we have recognized the need for a national energy policy, we must also recognize the need for increased research and development in energy that will carry us to the next millennium. Most importantly, our energy production and consumption must be cleaner, safer, more efficient and above all, sustainable. The technology to make this happen will only come from the extraordinary minds of our national research and development complex. We can only retain this pool of knowledge through increased funding of programs through the Office of Science.

    Recent news that Japan has developed a supercomputer known as the Earth Simulator has brought to light the need for increased research and development in Advanced Scientific Computing. It also may have demonstrated the need to look beyond the criteria of ''bigger'' and ''faster.'' The more important discoveries may lie in answering the question, ''how do we utilize these machines in new ways to expand our knowledge of the world?,'' rather than ''how do we build them bigger?''

    Fusion is the great enigma of the physical sciences. It promises untold benefits for energy production, yet its viability continues to elude us and I hope we can get a little more guidance on what we should reasonably expect and invest in this field.

    Finally, I am happy to see GAO here to testify in support of External Regulation of the Department of Energy's civilian labs, a concept whose time has come. Actually, it is an idea whose idea came almost a decade ago. My feeling is that external regulation is overdue and time to act. Dr. Orbach, I hope you can lead the Department down a path of greater accountability, not only to its employees, but the public by embracing external regulation. Thank Mr. Chairman.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. We are now very pleased to be joined by the Ranking Member of our Full Committee. I would turn now to Mr. Hall for his opening comments and an introduction.

    Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am honored to introduce a fellow Texan, Dr. R.E. Smalley. I have had the opportunity to know of and to know Dr. Smalley for many years and admired him very much, first that he is at Rice University and I could never get in Rice much less get out of Rice. It is the university, we think, in the United States and with international acclamations. And Dr. Smalley received his BS degree in 1965 from the University of Michigan. I guess he couldn't get in SMU or Texas or Texas A&M at that time. A Ph.D. from Princeton, he is just the kind of guy I hated when I was in college, because when they grade on the curve, that was always bad news for guys like me. We are honored to have you here today.

    He pioneered what has become one of the most powerful techniques in chemical physics, supersonic beam laser, and I will have problems with this next word, spectroscopy. Is that right? Did I say it right? You know, I can say ''you all,'' but I have a little problem with words like that. And Bob, you shouldn't put that in any more of these introductions for me.

    After coming to Rice University in 1976, he rose rapidly through the academic ranks, of course, you would expect him to, being named to the Gene and Norman Hackerman Chair in Chemistry in 1982. Among his many recognitions, he is recipient of the 1991 Irving Langmuir Prize in Chemical Physics, 1992 E.O. Lawrence Award the U.S. Department of Energy, in 1994 the Europhysics Prize, in 1994 Harrison Howe Award, 1995 Madison Award—Madison Marshall Award, and in 1996, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. We are fortunate and honored to have you here today. What I like about you, most of all, is your appeal to the younger people and your efforts to make them appear to want to be a part of the solving of some of the problems we have today. And you have enticed them with the energy solution. And I think that is great, because young people have to be both challenged and certainly have to be enticed, and you have done both. We are honored to have you here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. And I am very pleased that my colleague and fellow scientist, Dr. Ehlers, has joined us. I know that he shares my concern for the lower level of funding of basic research in our country and the long effects, the future effects that that could have on our economy and on our national security. And let me turn to Dr. Ehlers for any opening remarks he would choose to make.

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief, because I would like to get on to the hearing and hear what these wise individuals have to say to us.

    But I have great concern about the Department of Energy research effort. I, frankly, believe it has been in the doldrums for a decade. And if you—and as proof of that, I can say that they are of the major research efforts of the country. They are one of only two where their net spending in real dollars has gone down in the past decade.

    If you investigate the reasons for that is that we are lacking a competent enemy, because I remember the heydays of the DOE, and it was always the competition with the Soviet Union. Who is going to build the biggest accelerator? Who is going to make the most important discoveries?

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that rationale went away. It was pleasant for physics to enjoy the advantages of the—of that heyday, but when you build your premise for increased funding on competition with an enemy and the enemy disappears, you have no cause for being, no cause for increased funding. And so I believe the DOE research effort suffers from that. Even though we enjoyed the funding when it came, that was not the proper rationale to offer.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The proper rationale, of course, is, as the Chairman has eluded to, basic energy sets the framework for economic development and the furtherance of knowledge for the next 50 years. And if we don't recognize that and if we don't expend that money, our children and our grandchildren will suffer because of our lack of foresight and our lack of willingness to invest in that area. And I believe it is very important that we, as the scientific community, and even more importantly the scientists of this country, educate the public on that rationale that we were not trying to do science just to beat the Russians or the Soviet Union. But we, in fact, are interested in furthering the knowledge of this—of the universe that we live in—in almost every aspect whether it is nuclear interactions or the behavior of the cosmos itself. And secondly, that we are doing this not just to further our knowledge but to improve the lives, health and welfare of all of the citizens of our planet. And that message has to be said loud and clear to the people of this country so they understand clearly the good rationale for increasing the funding of the Department of Energy.

    I also want to suggest that DOE has to be reorganized to reflect that attitude, to reflect a higher priority on research of the type that we are talking about. And I believe there needs to be a structural organization, as well, which reflects the importance of the research that is being done there. I am not prepared to discuss that publicly at this point, but I am developing ideas with some knowledgeable people, and we hope to present that at a later time.

    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. I would now like to recognize Ms. Biggert, who is doing something about this parity of funding for basic science research. She is developing legislation to authorize appropriations for fiscal years '03 to '07, which would double the funding for the Office of Science. Ms. Biggert.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's scheduling of this hearing today on the future of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and I am especially anxious to hear from the recently confirmed Director, Dr. Orbach, on his plans for the future of science at the Department of Energy.

    I think that certainly many are familiar with the exceptional research supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, but unfortunately, I think fewer people are familiar with the quality research and development supported by the DOE's Office of Science. And it is a critically important office. It sometimes gets lost in the morass that is the Department of Energy.

    And we have to do more. And that is why I am introducing legislation very soon to increase the authorization levels for the Office of Science. And I hope to get as many Members as possible to cosponsor my legislation as did sign the letter to the appropriators, if not more. But more importantly, I think—I hope that we can signal to the conferees on the comprehensive energy legislation that the House strongly supports the DOE's Office of Science, an office worthy of out-year funding and a higher status within the Department of Energy.

    So those are the topics that I hope to cover with the witnesses here today. And I know, Dr. Orbach, I know that you will be able to respond to a lot of my questions. As for our distinguished witnesses from Rice and MIT, I know that some of my questions may be outside the scope of your expertise, but I think we can certainly welcome the best guess based on sound science, of course, of two Nobel Prize winners. And I know that Ms. Jones will have some ideas in how to help us with this. So I look forward to the hearing and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Yes.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. This is a little bit off. Well, it is definitely off the subject, but I think we should compliment our colleague, Ms. Biggert, for what she did on the Ethics Committee and the way that was all handled yesterday. Good job, Judy.

    Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you very much.

    Chairman BARTLETT. It was something that had to be done, and it was a good job, what was done. Thank you. Thank you. Without objection, the full written testimony of all of the witnesses will be entered into the record. I would like to ask that, if you can, you summarize your testimony to five minutes or so with assurance that there will be more than ample opportunity during questions and answers to amplify on anything that you wish to expand on. Without further delay, Dr. Orbach, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. ORBACH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I first would like to thank you for your opening remarks. They are wonderful and I hope that my testimony and my colleagues will give you a feeling of support and appreciation that we have for your initiatives here in the Subcommittee. I am particularly pleased to be here today with Drs. Smalley and Friedman, both extraordinary scientists and two of the many outstanding recipients of support from the Office of Science.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Office of Science fulfills a very special role within the United States Government for the support of science. And it is complementary to the other agencies which support the scientific mission of our country. We tend to support large programs, interdisciplinary programs, programs which require large-scale machines. And what you may not know is we are also a very strong supporter of university research. And indeed, both of our colleagues here today are from universities.

    We roughly spend half of our budget on the machines and accelerators that provide opportunities for over 17,000 scientists from around the United States. The other half is split equally between universities and laboratory research personnel. So in fact, we support as many individuals outside the DOE laboratories as we do within. So we reflect, therefore, the input from the entire scientific community of this country. We are the principle-funding agency, as was eluded to in your remarks, of the physical sciences. We support over 40 percent of all of the physical science research in the United States. We are also the principle funder of research in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences. We are the largest Federal Government sponsor of materials and chemical sciences, including catalysts. We also support unique U.S. programs in basic energy sciences, computational science, climate change, fusion, geophysics, genomics, and the life sciences. It is a wonderful platter of scientific activity at the very highest level. All of our scientific programs are subject to peer review, to scrutiny, and we believe are of the highest quality.

    We are also experts in the construction and management of large scientific facilities. Since 1993, the Office of Science has completed on time, and within budget, construction of eight large-scale facilities, and we are currently building the Spallation Neutron Source on schedule and within budget. When completed, it will be the most significant machine of its kind in the world and will lead the world's research in the field of neutron scattering and spectroscopy for at least another decade.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Our review process, we call them Lehman Reviews, after the person who runs the program for us, are now considered best practice across the U.S. Government. And indeed, the individuals at CERN responsible for the Large Hadron Collider in their recent analysis of the problems, have made specific reference to the Department of Energy and the way that it builds and operates large scale scientific machines.

    In terms of the future, which you eluded to in your remarks, we have prepared for you a little booklet, which we call occasional papers, I believe you have copies of, which is not a complete listing but a beginning of analysis of where scientific opportunities, we believe, lie in the future, not necessarily next year or the following year, but five years from now or 10 years from now. And there will be additional occasional papers that will come forward in future months.

    You will see that we refer to the environment and the use of life sciences within the Office of Science. We make explicit reference to fusion and fusion power, biotechnology for energy security, a new phenomena that DOE researchers discovered called ''dark energy.'' The completely counter-intuitive result that the university is actually accelerating rather than slowing down or stationary, the beauty of nanoscale science, scientific foundations for countering terrorism, building a 21st Century work force and reasserting U.S. leadership in scientific computation. I would like to focus on the last two briefly to bring to clarity why those two we regard as terribly important.

    The world of computation has changed. The large-scale machines that we have available deal with science in a different way than the machines of the 20th Century did. We are now able to contemplate exploration of worlds never accessible before to mankind. We have used computers to solve sets of equations, physical laws too complicated to solve analytically. But now we can simulate systems to discover physical laws for which there are no known predictive equations. This approach to understanding complex systems is to be thought of in the same vein as experiment and analytic theory. In the science of the 21st Century, simulation and high-end computation are equal partners with theory and experiment. And scientific leadership, the basis for our economic, physical, and intellectual prosperity depends on our being first in each leg of this triad.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The United States must embrace the concept of a diversity of computational architectures to address a variety of applications. We need to begin with the science and scientists starting with the problems which we wish to address. We must bring to the table the computer scientists, the applied mathematicians, those who are good with algorithms together with the chipmakers and the computer architects who can produce the computer's devised for the scientific problem at hand. The result will be machines enabling us to solve scientific and social problems of great importance. We shall be able to investigate systems of great complexity and understand predictive laws for their behavior. We will free ourselves of the bounds of one-at-a-time processes and learn the rules of collective behavior on a scale previously unknown. The opportunities are immense and we can not afford to be second or third in this pursuit.

    I am a product of the Sputnik generation, and I can personally attest, as Congressman Ehlers has made reference to, to the vigor and vitality of the U.S. response. It is now incumbent upon us to repeat this dedication in this new era of ''Computnik'' to regain our scientific leadership and primacy.

    The other area that I want to make specific reference to is building a 21st Century workforce. The standard of living we now enjoy and the security of our nation rest in no small degree on the quality of science and technical education we provide our nation's students through graduate school. However, our nation is failing to produce both a scientific-literate citizen rate and the kind of workforce we shall need in this century. The United States is placed near the bottom of the 16 countries in a survey of physics and advanced mathematics tests. Only five percent of the U.S. students now earn Bachelor's Degrees in Natural Science and Engineering. And in the markups of both the House and the Senate dealing with the Office of Science, there has been explicit reference to the need to address in the way that the DOE can do best, this serious issue facing the future of our nation.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We will be developing a program, as outlined in the occasional paper, of using our national laboratories as a vehicle for bringing teachers of science in elementary, middle school, and high school into real research groups into experiencing the excitement and depth of scientific discovery. We will then follow those teachers with help in the classroom during the succeeding year and hopefully the next summer bring that—those teachers back together with their students into the national laboratories. In this way, we will complement the activities of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education doing what the Department of Energy can accomplish most effectively in the regard of improving the scientific literacy of our country.

    Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my remarks. I will be very pleased to answer any questions. And again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Orbach follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about DOE's Office of Science and some of the very exciting challenges that lie before us. But before I talk about where we are going, I want to start by talking about where we are, with maybe a few words about where we've been.

A UNIQUE ROLE IN U.S. SCIENCE

 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Office of Science fills a unique and central role in the country's scientific endeavor. While our work is complementary to that of other government research agencies, we distinguish ourselves by our emphasis on research that takes the long view, is open and interdisciplinary, requires the use of large-scale facilities, and takes risks commensurate with the high pay-offs we expect.

    DOE's Office of Science (SC) funds basic research in support of DOE missions, and is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences, providing approximately 40 percent of all federal funds in this area over the past decade. It is the steward, and by far the principal funding agency, of the Nation's research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. It also manages important programs of fundamental research in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and computational science, all of which also support the Department's other missions in environmental restoration, defense, and energy security. SC is the Federal Government's largest single funder of materials and chemical sciences, and also supports unique or critical pieces of U.S. research in climate change, geophysics, genomics, and the life sciences.

    Some within the scientific community are concerned for future government support for the physical sciences. The physical sciences are the underpinning of discoveries in many areas of research including biology, chemistry and computing, and arguably serve as an engine for ultimate economic growth and national security.

    The Office of Science manages the construction and operation some of the Nation's most advanced R&D facilities, located at national laboratories and universities. These include particle and nuclear physics accelerators, synchrotron light sources, neutron scattering facilities, supercomputers, and high-speed computer networks. Each year, these facilities are used by more than 17,000 researchers from universities, other government agencies and private industry. These facilities are essential to progress in a wide range of scientific fields. As an example, the light sources now operated by the Office of Science serve more than three times the total number of users and twenty times as many users from the life sciences as they did in 1990. Structural biologists are now producing more than seven times as many protein structures in a year using synchrotron light sources as they were in 1990.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Office of Science also funds research at the national laboratories and at 250 colleges and universities located across the country. Excluding funds used to construct or operate our facilities approximately 50 percent of our base research funding goes to support research at universities and institutes. Academic scientists and their students are funded through peer-reviewed grants, and SC's funding of university research has made it a dominant supporter of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in the physical sciences during their early careers.

    In managing its programs, SC makes extensive use of peer review and federal advisory committees to develop general directions for research investments, to identify priorities, and to determine the very best scientific proposals to support. In addition, the Office of Science utilizes six federal advisory committees to provide scientific guidance, and as an important means of communication with, and consensus-building within, the scientific community.

A HISTORY OF ACCOMPLISHMENT

    The Office of Science funded the research that led to the discovery of all but one (the electron) of the most fundamental constituents of matter, namely quarks and leptons, which in turn has led to 13 Nobel Prizes and confirmation of the Standard Model, one of the great intellectual achievements of the twentieth century. In 1974, DOE decided to connect its geographically-dispersed researchers through a network to a single computer center—a revolutionary, cost effective mechanism that provided supercomputing power to civilian researchers for the first time and established a network model which other government agencies and states adopted for their researchers. SC subsequently worked with other agencies (DARPA, NSF and NASA) to transform the large number of independent networks that existed in the 1980's into a single integrated communications network that provided the basis for today's commercial Internet. SC also installed the first supercomputer available to the civilian research community that broke the one teraflop peak performance barrier and supported the development of the first civilian scientific application to achieve over one teraflop actual performance.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Since 1993, the Office of Science has completed, on time and within budget, construction of the Advanced Photon Source, the Advanced Light Source, the Main Injector at Fermilab, the B–Factory at Stanford, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory and the National Spherical Torus Experiment, a fusion experiment, and we are currently building the Spallation Neutron Source on schedule and within budget. We credit our outstanding track record in construction to a highly effective management and review process, now commonly called a ''Lehman Review'' after the man who runs the program. We have been so successful that Lehman reviews are now considered a ''best practice'' across the U.S. Government, and we are being consulted by CERN, Europe's premier particle physics laboratory, on construction of their Large Hadron Collider, a facility to which the U.S. is contributing $531 million.

    The wide range of scientific disciplines required to support facility users at national laboratories, and the wide range of mission-driven research supported by SC, have developed an interdisciplinary capability that is extremely valuable to some of the most important scientific initiatives of the 21st century. For example, in both the Human Genome Program and the Global Climate Change Program started by the Office of Science in the 1980's to address the impact of radiation on human health and the use of energy on the environment, SC brought the rigor and techniques of the physical sciences to bear. In the Human Genome Program, this led to the sequencing technologies and software tools that made sequencing feasible by speeding the process and greatly reducing the costs. In climate change research, SC is bringing its experience in supercomputing and scientific simulation, developed in other research fields, to bear on this complex and important issue. SC's history of interdisciplinary research and facility operation also positions it to make a unique contribution to the new national initiative in nanoscience. Similarly, SC's long history of leadership in scientific computing positions it to take the lead in applying the capabilities of supercomputers to the large scientific computing problems posed by many of today's cutting edge research needs in areas ranging from astrophysics to nanoscience.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, I can point out with great pride that the Office of Science funded the work of both the distinguished scientists on the panel with me today.

    Between 1978 and 1994 the Division of Chemical Sciences supported Dr. Smalley in his experiments on carbon clusters that eventually led to his discovery of a new form of carbon, called buckminsterfullerene, or ''buckyballs,'' which contains 60 carbon atoms in the shape of a soccer ball. For this Dr. Smalley won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996. Discovery of the structure and properties of fullerenes, first determined at SC synchrotron national light sources and neutron scattering facilities, are spurring a revolution in carbon chemistry and may lead to a profusion of new materials, polymers, catalyst and drug delivery systems. Today SC is supporting research, building on Dr. Smalley's discoveries, into construction of nanotechnologies such as microscopic carbon tubes with lengthwise holes only a billionth of a meter in diameter that may have greater tensile strength than steel and conduct electricity as well as metal.

    The Office of Science is proud, also, to have supported Dr. Friedman and his colleagues in the breakthrough discoveries on the structure of matter that won them the 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics. Dr. Friedman's investigations, conducted at SC's Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California, found clear signs that there exists an inner structure in the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus. In what has become known as the ''SLAC–MIT experiment'' Dr. Friedman and others illuminated protons and neutrons with beams from a giant ''electron microscope''—the two-mile-long accelerator at SLAC—to postulate quarks as the fundamental building blocks of protons and neutrons.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As we plot our course into the future, the Office of Science has begun a dialog with the larger scientific community to identify the great opportunities that lie before us. A result of this is a series of ''occasional papers'' on topics of particular interest and importance that we have posted on our website. Currently we have developed eight papers, ranging from the importance of the search for ''dark energy,'' now believed to constitute more than 60 percent of our universe; to novel approaches to countering terrorism, to our ideas about maintaining and upgrading our scientific infrastructure. I urge you to read them all, but today I want to talk about three.

    Scientific Computing. Over the past two decades, the increase in computing power has been exponential, doubling every 18 months. As a result, the latest generation of desktop computers is more powerful than the most advanced supercomputers of the 1980's, and today's supercomputers have peak speeds thousands of times faster yet. For decades, we have used computers to solve sets of equations describing physical processes. This progress not only allows us to solve ever more complex sets of equations, but also to use simulation to solve problems for which there are no known predictive equations. In the March 2000 report to the Congress from the Office of Science, ''Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing,'' we identified major scientific questions critical to our research programs whose answers rely on high performance computing. They include:

 Predicting the function and structure of proteins from knowledge of DNA sequences,

 Predicting the effects of fatigue on materials,

 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
 Improving the efficiency and specificity of catalysts for more energy efficient industrial processes,

 Modeling control of the instabilities that lead to loss of power in fusion devices, and

 Prediction of the evolution of the earth's regional climates decades and centuries into the future.

    I believe that scientific simulation is becoming a third leg of the structure that supports scientific progress, on a par with theory and experiment. Our Scientific Discovery through Advance Computing program has led the way in making this a reality, applying the capabilities of highly parallel computers based on commercially available processors to large scientific problems. In doing this, a central problem has been creating software and algorithms that can make effective use of the full capabilities of computers not specifically designed for particular problems.

    Recently, however, a new supercomputer developed in Japan has allowed that country to claim leadership in the capability to address an important class of research problems. By designing computers that meet the specific needs of scientists—adapting the architecture of the computer to the problem rather than the reverse—they have realized effective performance on global climate change models an order of magnitude greater than we can achieve.

    This development presents our nation's our scientific computing program with a challenge today, and the Office of Science is well positioned to take on that challenge. I am confident that, in conjunction with our domestic computer industry, we can do so.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Building a 21st Century Workforce. The standard of living we now enjoy and the security of our nation rests in no small degree on the quality of science and technology education we provide our nation's students from elementary through graduate school. However, our nation is failing to produce both a scientifically literate citizenry and the kind of workforce we will need in the 21st Century. Consider the following: Test scores from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) placed the U.S. participants near the bottom of the 16 countries that administered the physics and advanced mathematics tests; engineering majors in the U.S. declined by 35 percent between 1975 and 1998; and in 1999, while U.S. colleges granted over 125,000 social science undergraduate degrees, it granted a mere 19,000 in the physical sciences. There are many reasons for America's failure in science education, but as the National Commission on Science and Mathematics teaching pointed out, teacher preparation stands out as both a major contributing factor and something for which all scientific institutions can play a role in solving. We believe the multidisciplinary, team-centered, scientific culture of our national laboratories is an ideal setting for teachers to make the connections between the science and technology principles they are asked to teach. From 1989 through 1995 we provided science and math teachers with 8-week summer fellowships at our laboratories. To quote one participant, this was ''. . .a chance to become involved in gut level science as practiced by those who devote their lives to it. It's being treated as a respected member of the scientific community.'' I would hope that we can reconstitute and expand this program in the future.

    Nanoscience. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, the study and manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular level, has enormous promise for our future. To quote the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Marburger, ''The revolution I am describing is one in which the notion that everything is made of atoms finally becomes operational.. . .We can actually see how the machinery of life functions, atom-by-atom. We can actually build atomic scale structures that interact with biological or inorganic systems and alter their functions. We can design new tiny objects ''from scratch'' that have unprecedented optical, mechanical, electrical, chemical, or biological properties that address needs of human society.''
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Office of Science has a major role in the nanoscience revolution. Progress will require large, well-equipped Centers to provide state-of-the-art nanofabrication and characterization equipment in an environment that is conducive to research having a scope, complexity, and disciplinary breadth not seen in traditional individual investigator efforts. Such Centers are now in design at five DOE laboratories—laboratories that are each home to one of our x-ray or neutron scattering sources. These Centers, defined with the help of hundreds of scientists from universities and industry who attended widely advertised Center-sponsored workshops, will be open user facilities and will transform the Nation's approach to nanoscale science.

    Building on the five Nanoscale Science Research Centers, which are DOE's signature activity in nanoscale science, we will work with other agencies to create a national program that encompasses new science, new tools, and new computing capabilities. Researchers from universities, industry, and national laboratories will work side-by-side at the Centers and will be supported in coordinated programs to address scientific challenges in a broad array of subjects including materials sciences, chemistry, polymer sciences, catalysis, and more.

    Thank you again for the chance to speak with you today. I am very excited about the mission of the Office of Science and opportunities we see for the future. I hope to work with you to ensure that the Office continues to contribute to the Nation as we have done in the past. I am now available to answer any questions you may have.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Dr. Friedman.

 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. JEROME I. FRIEDMAN, 1990 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, MIT

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear at this hearing to present my views about the Department of Energy's Office of Science. I would also like to express my appreciation for the sustained support that you and other Members of the House Science Committee have provided for the DOE and for your commitment to improving DOE's ability to serve our national interests.

    I have been engaged in physics research and education for a half a century, and I find it as exciting and rewarding as ever. What drew me to physics as a student is the same thing that draws young people to the field today: the thrill of trying to understand the deep questions of nature and discovering the unknown. And today, the opportunities for discovery have never been greater in all areas of science, from the most basic to the most applied.

    We have made good progress in our quest to understand the universe from its very largest dimensions to its infinitesimal building blocks, but many crucial and deep questions remain to be answered in all areas of science. And we are on the threshold of being able to answer many of them. We are also using the technology of the physical sciences to unravel the mysteries of the human genome and conquer disease. And we can envision a time when the fruits of nanoscience and materials science will improve our lives in countless ways. We are not limited by our ability to dream of discoveries, but only by the funding and time it will take to achieve them.

 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    DOE and its predecessors have an outstanding record of science and technology. Their programs have produced numerous discoveries of extraordinary importance, funded the work of more than 74 Nobel Laureates and supported the education of generations of scientists, engineers, and others who have brought technical expertise to all areas of our economy. The DOE has also fostered significant interdisciplinary work. A striking example of this is its essential role in initiating the Human Genome Project. But recent trends in funding will prevent the DOE from sustaining this stellar record.

    Since the end of the Second World War, physical science research has delivered immense dividends to the economy, national security, medicine, and the environment, all of which have enhanced the way we live. Computers, the Internet, fiber optics, communications, consumer electronics, defense technologies, global positioning systems, MRI machines, CAT scanners, laser surgeries, catalytic converters, and solar panels are but some examples of the applications of the physical sciences.

    Unfortunately, in the last decade, we have seen our physical science research capabilities diminish as Federal investments declined, particularly in the programs of the DOE. And according to the National Academy of Sciences, between 1993 and 1999, Federal research support in academic institutions fell significantly. The Hart-Rudman Report on national security sounded the alarm with the observation that Americans are living off the economic and security benefits of the last three generations' investments in science and education, but we are now consuming capital.

    During the last 10 years, the DOE Office of Science budget has barely kept pace with the Consumer Price Index. But the true cost of research has risen far more rapidly than the CPI largely because salaries of the science and engineering workforce have climbed faster, reflecting market conditions. At the same time, scientific equipment has become more sophisticated and more costly because we are trying to answer deeper and more complex questions. To accommodate the additional expense in a relatively stagnant budget, the DOE has had to reduce the number of research grants and cut back operations at a number of research facilities.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The consequences have rippled through the entire research enterprise. Reductions in university support in the physical sciences and engineering have prompted students to seek other career paths, causing our nation to become increasingly reliant on an uncertain flow of scientists from abroad. Reductions in the operating and construction budgets for DOE's facilities have put extraordinary strains on the R&D enterprise that reach far beyond the Department's own research programs.

    Office of Science facilities, such as X-ray light sources, accelerators, and reactors serve users from all areas of science and technology including other Federal agencies; the NIH, NASA, and NIST prominently among them. In recent years, tight budgets have prevented DOE from meeting the needs of researchers in a number of fields. Stringent budgets have also created a long queue of new construction projects and have put limitations on accelerator R&D funding that have diminished the opportunities for advancing the technology needed for the next generation of national user facilities to probe the frontiers of science. These trends have put in jeopardy America's leadership in the physical sciences.

    Mr. Chairman, the steady decline in Federal research support for the physical sciences is detrimental to our nation. As a leading organization in this activity, the DOE Office of Science must receive a major infusion of funding. I urge you and your colleagues to pass the authorizing legislation that will set the Office of Science on a trajectory to double its budget. The technology of the future depends upon it, and the workforce of the future will not be adequate for our needs without it. Increased investment in the physical sciences is essential for our nation. Let me conclude my testimony with an observation about DOE's administrative structure under discussion in the H.R. 4 conference. I am not a management expert, but I do believe that line management requires line expertise to achieve maximum efficiency and maximum effectiveness. An undersecretary properly credentialed in science or engineering would be better able to integrate DOE's basic and applied research programs, provide the vital visibility for DOE's science enterprise and allow the remaining undersecretary to concentrate on DOE's important environmental management mission.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, I—this concludes my testimony. I will do my best to answer any questions you and the other Members of the Subcommittee might have. Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Friedman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME I. FRIEDMAN

    Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear at this hearing to present my views about the Department of Energy's Office of Science. I would also like to express my appreciation for the sustained support that you and other members of the House Science Committee have provided for the DOE and for your commitment to improving DOE's ability to serve our national interests.

    I have been engaged in physics research and education for half a century, and I find it as exciting and rewarding as ever. But unlike some of my colleagues, I didn't start dreaming about science until I was about to graduate from high school. In fact, I received a scholarship to attend the Art Institute of Chicago Museum School and only at the last minute decided to seek admission to the University of Chicago to study physics. This change occurred as a result of reading a small book on relativity.

    What drew me to physics then is the same thing that draws young people to the field today: the thrill of trying to understand the deep questions of nature and discovering the unknown. And today, the opportunities for discovery have never been greater in all areas of science, from the most basic to the most applied. We have made good progress in our quest to understand the universe from its very largest dimensions to its infinitesimal building blocks. But many crucial and deep questions remain to be answered in all areas of science, and we are on the threshold of being able to answer many of them. We are also using the technologies of the physical sciences to unravel the mysteries of the human genome and conquer disease. And we can envision an age where the fruits of nanoscience and materials science will improve our lives in countless ways. We are not limited by our inability to dream of discoveries, but only by the funding and time it will take to achieve them.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    During many years of my career, I have been fortunate that the Federal Government has invested heavily in the physical sciences. Those investments were made mainly through the Department of Energy and its predecessors, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration. They enabled me to carry out my research in high-energy physics at various DOE laboratories, to train several generations of outstanding scientists and to participate in discoveries that were recognized with the Nobel Prize.

    The DOE and its predecessors have an outstanding record in science and technology. Their programs have produced numerous discoveries of extraordinary importance, funded the work of more than 75 Nobel Laureates and supported the education of generations of scientists, engineers and others who have brought technical expertise to all areas of our economy. The DOE also has fostered significant interdisciplinary work. A striking example of this is its essential role in initiating the Human Genome Project. And this year, the Office of Management and Budget gave the Office of Science its highest rating. But recent trends in funding will prevent the DOE from sustaining this stellar record.

    Since the end of the Second World War, physical science research has delivered immense dividends to the economy, national security, medicine and the environment, all of which have enhanced the way we live. Computers, the Internet, fiber-optics, communications, consumer electronics, defense technologies, global positioning systems, MRI machines, CAT scanners, laser surgery, catalytic converters and solar panels are but some examples of the applications of the physical sciences.

    Unfortunately, in the last decade, we have seen our physical science research capabilities diminish as federal investments declined, particularly in the programs of the DOE. According to the National Academy of Sciences, between 1993 and 1999, federal research support in academic institutions fell significantly: by 14 percent in mathematics, 7 percent in physics, 2 percent in chemistry and 12 percent in electrical engineering. The Hart-Rudman Report on national security sounded the alarm with the observation: ''Americans are living off the economic and security benefits of the last three generations' investments in science and education, but we are now consuming capital.''
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    During the last ten years, the DOE Office of Science budget has barely kept pace with the Consumer Price Index. But the true cost of research has risen far more rapidly than the CPI, largely because salaries of the science and engineering workforce have climbed faster, reflecting market conditions. At the same time, scientific equipment has become more sophisticated and more costly because we are trying to answer deeper and more complex questions. To accommodate the additional expenses in a relatively stagnant budget, the DOE has had to reduce the number of research grants and cut back operations at a number of research facilities.

    The consequences have rippled through the entire research enterprise. Reductions in university support in the physical sciences and engineering have prompted students to seek other career paths, causing our nation to become increasingly reliant on an uncertain flow of scientists from abroad. Reductions in the operating and construction budgets for DOE facilities have put extraordinary strains on the R&D enterprise that reach far beyond the Department's own research programs.

    Office of Science facilities, such as X-ray light sources, accelerators and reactors, serve users from all areas of science and technology, including other federal agencies—NIH, NASA and NIST prominently among them. These facilities play a vital role in high-energy and nuclear physics, biomedicine and materials science, to name a few. In recent years, tight budgets have prevented DOE from meeting the needs of researchers in these and other fields. Stringent budgets have also created a long queue of new construction projects, and have put limitations on accelerator R&D funding that have diminished the opportunities for advancing the technology needed for the next generation of national user facilities to probe the frontiers of science. These trends have put in jeopardy America's leadership in the physical sciences.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Chairman, the steady decline in federal research support for the physical sciences is detrimental to our nation. As the leading organization in this activity, the DOE Office of Science must receive a major infusion of funding. I urge you and your colleagues to pass the authorizing legislation that will set the Office of Science on a trajectory to double its budget. The technology of the future depends on it, and the workforce of the future will not be adequate for our needs without it. An increased investment in the physical sciences is essential for our nation.

    Let me concludes my testimony with an observation about the DOE's administrative structure under discussion in the H.R. 4 conference. I am not a management expert, but I do believe that line management requires line expertise to achieve maximum efficiency and maximum effectiveness. An under secretary, properly credentialed in science or engineering, would be better able to integrate DOE's basic and applied research programs, provide the vital visibility for DOE's science enterprise and allow the remaining undersecretary to concentrate on DOE's important environmental management mission.

    Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee might have. Thank you.

80812a.eps

80812b.eps

80812c.eps
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

80812d.eps

80812e.eps

80812f.eps

80812g.eps

80812h.eps

80812i.eps

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Dr. Smalley.

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD E. SMALLEY, 1996 NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY, DIRECTOR, CARBON NANOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, RICE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. SMALLEY. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Woolsey, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to give my thoughts on the future directions of the DOE Office of Science.

    I will get right to the point. Energy is the single most important problem facing humanity today. We must find an alternative to oil. We need to somehow provide clean, abundant, low-cost energy throughout the world to the six billion people that live on the planet today and the ten-plus billion that are expected by the middle of this century. As cheaper, cleaner, more universally available this new energy technology is, the better we will be able to avoid the human suffering and the major upheavals of war and terrorism.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Even though the problem of energy has vast political, economic, and social aspects that have been at the root of most wars and much of the political strife for the last century, it is only a technical problem. There will be a technical solution; we just need to find it. I believe this should be the principle mission of the DOE Office of Science, to nurture and cultivate the science base out of which this new energy technology will come. And I believe it is time to get very serious about this mission. Give them the resources they need and help them make it happen.

    New energy technology must not involve the burning of carbon. When all costs are figured in, fossil energy is too expensive now and can only become more expensive in the future as resources are depleted and billions of people in developing countries begin to live modern lifestyles. The consequences of burning all of this carbon and discharging vast amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now becoming clear. We must find another way. It can only be nuclear.

    With our current understanding of physics, only nuclear fission or fusion can produce energy in the vast amounts that we need. Fission is our only developed alternative to fossil fuels right now as the world's primary energy source, but it has well known problems, and these problems are fundamental. It unavoidably creates radioactive waste that must be sequestered for thousands of years and creates risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Fusion, practical controlled thermonuclear reactors are still many, many decades away, and even then, we will have problems of radioactive waste due to the neutron bombardment of the confinement vessels. If the answer has to be nuclear, it would best be that we would be far, far away from the reactors.

 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Nature has already given us one such reactor and provided the necessary distance and shielding. It is our sun. There is plenty of energy from this natural fusion reactor to provide all our energy needs for centuries to come. We just don't know how to harvest it, store it, to transport it, and to use it in the amounts we need.

    I believe the DOE Office of Science can find answers to how to do this. The technology that will do what we need does not yet exist. It will come from discoveries in basic science and particularly from nanotechnology. The biggest breakthrough will come in some, perhaps, small lab in some surprising way, perhaps made by some brilliant, young black woman who is currently not even out of high school. It will come from a garden of science, cultivated by DOE's Office of Science.

    Currently, the Office of Science plays a critical and unique role in the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative. In addition to funding research in the university community, the Office of Science is also establishing Nanoscale Science Research Centers. These are user centers, just like the synchrotron sources and the neutron scattering facilities operated by the Office of Science. The nanotech centers will provided unique scientific and engineering capabilities that are not available in any of the parallel programs sponsored by other government agencies. For example, the NSF sponsors research programs in nanotechnologies, one of which I actually head, at universities. But such programs are modest in size and will not be comparable to the largest scale facilities—the larger-scale facilities in Europe or Japan.

    Incidentally, Japan's budget for nanotechnology this year is $650 million, exceeding the U.S. expenditure of $604 million. The Japanese government plans to ramp up funding in nanotechnology research to a level of $2 billion by the year 2005. Korea and China are also investing heavily, as is Western Europe. Funding for nanotechnology research in the U.S. is currently less than one third the funding worldwide. This is not a good sign.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The current budget request for the Office of Science contains a modest and reasonable increase to sustain its critical mission this year, this next year. I support it, and I realize that in the current financial times it is probably the most that one can hope for. But I believe it is far too little and far disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem. We need to find that new energy technology, and we need to do it quickly.

    I believe the U.S. should launch a one billion per year program within the Office of Science to find this answer and plan to ramp up to over $10 billion in five years. The new energy program must be big enough to inspire and capture the imagination of our nation's youth. Get them to choose a career in science because of their idealism and their sense of mission. And the program must be bold enough to actually make it happen, to make the scientific breakthroughs that are necessary actually occur.

    If we do this, it will help the image of the U.S. in the minds of the world's population. It will give us energy security and will help to diffuse political stress and reduce the threat of terrorism both here and throughout the world.

    With your help, we can make clean, abundant, low-cost energy by this nation's best guess—best gift to humankind. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Smalley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R.E. SMALLEY

 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to give my thoughts on future directions for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science. I will get right to the point.

    There is no more important single issue than energy.

    We need to somehow provide abundant, non-polluting energy cheaply throughout the world to the 6 billion people that live on the planet now, and the 10-plus billion people expected by the middle of this century. The cheaper, cleaner, and more universally available this energy technology is, the better we will be able to avoid human suffering, and the major upheavals of war and terrorism that will otherwise certainly occur.

    The principal mission of the Office of Science is to nurture and cultivate the science base out of which this new energy technology will come.

    This new technology must not involve burning carbon. When all costs are figured in, fossil energy is too expensive now, it will certainly become even more expensive in the future as supplies are depleted, and we have too much CO in the atmosphere already.

    With our current understanding of physics the only alternative for the amount of energy we need is nuclear, either fission or fusion. Fission is currently our only real alternative to carbon combustion, but it has well-known problems that are fundamental. It unavoidably creates radioactive wastes that must be sequestered for thousands of years, and creates the potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons. Controlled thermonuclear fusion reactors are still many decades away, and have fundamental problems in that neutrons are produced that create radioactive isotopes as they are stopped in the walls of the confining vessel. And even if all of these problems were solved, we do not know how to convert this energy efficiently into a fuel that can replace petroleum-based fuels like gasoline.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If the answer has to be nuclear, it would best to be far, far away from the reactor. Nature has already given us one such reactor, and provided the necessary distance and shielding. It is our sun. There is plenty of energy from this reactor to provide all our energy needs for any foreseeable future. We just don't know how to harvest it, store it, transport it, and use it in the amounts we need.

    I believe that we can find the answers to how to do this. I believe they will be found, somehow, somewhere, in nanotechnology.

    DOE is the only agency of the U.S. Government that can respond to this challenge. Energy is, after all, DOE's principal mission.

    Within DOE, the Office of Science, particularly its Basic Energy Sciences Program (BES), is the only organization that can have a major impact early on. The technology that will do what we need does not yet exist. It will come from discoveries in basic science, and particularly from nanotechnology. The biggest breakthrough will come in some perhaps small lab, in some surprising way, perhaps made by a young black woman who is currently not even out of grade school. It will come from the garden of science, cultivated by DOE's Office of Science.

    Currently the Office of Science plays a unique and critical role in the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative. In addition to funding substantial individual investigator research in the university community, the Office of Science is also establishing Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs), as recommended by the NSTC Interagency Working Group on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (IWGN). These Nanotech-centers are user centers just like the synchrotron light sources and neutron scattering facilities operated by the Office of Science. The Nanotech centers will provide unique scientific and engineering capabilities not available in any of the parallel programs sponsored by other government agencies. For example, the National Science Foundation sponsors research programs in nanoscience at universities, but such programs will be limited in scope and size and will not be comparable to the large-scale facilities in Europe or Japan.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Incidentally, Japan's budget for nanotechnology this year is $650 million, exceeding the U.S. expenditure of $604 million. The Japanese government plans to ramp up funding of nanotechnology research to a level of $2 billion per year by 2005. Korea and China are also investing heavily, as is western Europe. Funding for nanotechnology research in the U.S. is currently less than g of the funding worldwide. This is not a good sign.

    The current budget request for the Office of Science contains a modest and reasonable increase to sustain its critical mission this next year. I support it, and realize than in the current financial times it is probably the most that one can hope for. But I believe it is far too little, and far disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem. We need to find that new energy technology, and do it quickly.

    I believe the U.S. should launch a 1B$/yr program within the Office of Science to find this answer, and plan to ramp this up to over $10B in 5 years. The new energy program must be big enough to inspire and capture the imagination of our nation's youth, get them to choose a career in science because of their idealism, and their sense of mission. And the program must be bold enough to actually make the necessary scientific breakthroughs happen.

    If we do this, it will help the image of the U.S. in the minds of the world's population. It will give us energy security, and will help to diffuse political stress and reduce the threat of terrorism both here and throughout the world.

    With your help we can make clean, abundant, low cost energy be this nation's best gift to humankind.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

BIOGRAPHY FOR R.E. SMALLEY

    Professor Smalley received his B.S. degree in 1965 from the University of Michigan and Ph.D. from Princeton in 1973, with an intervening four-year period in industry as a research chemist with Shell. During an unusually productive postdoctoral period with Lennard Wharton and Donald Levy at the University of Chicago, he pioneered what has become one of the most powerful techniques in chemical physics; supersonic beam laser spectroscopy. After coming to Rice University in 1976 he rose rapidly through the academic ranks, being named to the Gene and Norman Hackerman Chair in Chemistry in 1982. He was one of the founders of the Rice Quantum Institute in 1979, and served as the Chairman of this interdisciplinary Institute from 1986 to 1996. Since January 1990 he has also been a Professor in the Department of Physics, and was appointed Director of the new Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice in 1996. In 1990 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and in 1991 to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the recipient of the 1991 Irving Langmuir Prize in Chemical Physics, the 1992 International Prize for New Materials (which he shares with his colleagues R.F. Curl and H.W. Kroto), the 1992 E.O. Lawrence Award of the U.S. Department of Energy, the 1992 Robert A. Welch Award in Chemistry, the 1993 William H. Nichols Medal of the American Chemical Society, the 1993 John Scott Award of the City of Philadelphia, the 1994 Europhysics Prize, the 1994 Harrison Howe Award, the 1995 Madison Marshall Award, the 1996 Franklin Medal, and the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His research at Rice has made pioneering advances in the development of new experimental techniques (super-cold pulsed beams; ultrasensitive laser detection technique; laser-driven source of free radicals, triplets, metals, and both metal and semiconductor cluster beams) and has applied these techniques to a broad range of vital questions in chemical physics. He is widely known for the discovery and characterization of C (Buckminsterfullerene), a soccerball-shaped molecule which, together with other fullerenes such as C, now constitutes the third elemental form of carbon (after graphite and diamond). His group has also been the first to generate fullerenes with metals trapped on the inside. His current research is focused on the production of continuous carbon fibers which are essentially giant single-fullerene molecules. Just a few nanometers in width, but many centimeters in length, these fullerene fibers are expected to be the strongest fibers ever made, 100 times stronger than steel.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

80812j.eps

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much for your testimony. Ms. Jones.

STATEMENT OF MS. GARY JONES, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    Ms. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am pleased to be here this morning to testify on the status of DOE's plan for external regulation of nuclear and worker safety at its science laboratories. Unlike other governmental, educational, and private sector research and development facilities in the United States, DOE's science labs are not regulated or licensed by external regulators, such as NRC or OSHA. Instead, DOE and its predecessor agencies have been granted legislative authority to self-regulate nuclear and worker safety at all of its facilities, including the science laboratories.

    My testimony today will cover the current positions of DOE, NRC, and OSHA on external regulation, the potential cost and benefits for eliminating DOE self-regulation, and our preliminary assessment of DOE's implementation plan. Our statement is based on our June 2002 report for the House Committee on Appropriations and an initial review of DOE's July implementation plan.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    DOE has yet to accept the shift to external regulation of nuclear and worker safety at its facilities. DOE's position remains essentially unchanged since the 1999 hearing before this Subcommittee when the Department decided not to move forward on external regulation until cost uncertainties and implementation issues were resolved.

    In contrast to DOE's position, both NRC and OSHA continue their prior willingness to take on new responsibilities if they are given adequate resources to do so. In addition, the laboratory contractors that we spoke with, representing most of DOE's science work, were unanimous in their support for external regulation if the Department reduces its current level of safety oversight once NRC and OSHA assume these responsibilities.

    Past regulatory simulations and ongoing work by DOE and its potential regulators indicate that the external regulation of the science laboratories would not require prohibitively expensive facility upgrades to be licensable. For example, NRC concluded from its simulations that few, if any, changes to DOE facilities are needed to meet NRC's licensing requirements. NRC stated that it would be flexible in applying its standards to DOE's unique facilities without compromising safety. OSHA concluded from its simulations that DOE deficiencies are similar to levels found in the private sector, in part, because DOE has already adopted OSHA-like standards at its facilities. Further, much of the expected costs would likely involve bringing facilities into compliance with DOE's own safety standards and would therefore need to be spent whether or not DOE shifts to external regulation.

    The benefits of external regulation have been widely reported, but are less tangible. They include eliminating DOE's inherent conflict of interest in regulating itself, achieving consistency with current domestic and international safety management practices, gaining credibility and public trust and achieving long-term safety gains. Further, DOE's major science laboratory contractors told us that they could reduce their environment, safety, and health staff by up to 30 percent if DOE relinquishes its oversight to external regulators.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    On average, we found that DOE generally dedicates about 30 percent of its site office staff to this type of oversight. Moving away from self-regulation will provide the Department and its contractors with opportunities to free up staff resources and focus them on science mission priorities.

    DOE's July 2002 implementation plan does not reflect a commitment to external regulation or provide a clear path to achieving it. Rather, it calls for more detailed studies and a cost benefit analysis before DOE makes a final decision on accepting external regulation. The conference report that directed DOE to prepare the plan did not seek this type of determination. It directed DOE to address all details necessary to implement external regulation. However, DOE's plan provides little information specifically requested, including reductions in funding and staffing at the Department as a result of external regulation. Rather, it describes the issues that DOE believes must be addressed in order to consider external regulation at the 10 science laboratories, most of which have been known for some time.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, shifting to external regulation eliminates DOE's inherent conflict of interest and should allow DOE and its contractors to redirect safety and health resources to science mission priorities. The issue is not should DOE shift to external regulation of its science labs but how. Any further DOE analysis should detail the steps and timetable necessary to fully implement external regulation. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. GARY L. JONES
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

    We are pleased to be here today to testify on the status of the Department of Energy's (DOE) plan for external regulation of nuclear and worker safety at its facilities. Unlike other governmental, educational and private sector research and development facilities in the United States, DOE's science laboratories are not regulated or licensed by external regulators, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), to help ensure safe operations. Instead, DOE and its predecessor agencies(see footnote 6) have, since 1946, been granted legislative authority to self-regulate nuclear and worker safety at all of its facilities, including the science laboratories. The merits of using external agencies to oversee safety in DOE facilities have been studied by the department and the Congress for nearly a decade. In 1999, we testified before this Subcommittee that DOE's changing positions and its inability to reach consensus with its likely regulators had left an uncertain future for the external regulation of the department's facilities. In this context, the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed DOE to prepare an implementation plan for shifting regulatory responsibilities for nuclear and worker safety at its 10 science laboratories to NRC and OSHA.(see footnote 7) DOE submitted its plan in July 2002.(see footnote 8)

    Our testimony today will cover (1) current stakeholder positions on external regulation, (2) the potential costs and benefits of eliminating DOE self-regulation, and (3) our preliminary assessment of DOE's implementation plan. Our statement is based on our June 2002 report for the House Committee on Appropriations,(see footnote 9) and an initial review of DOE's July implementation plan.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In summary, Mr. Chairman, DOE has yet to accept the shift to external regulation of nuclear and worker safety at its facilities. DOE's position remains essentially unchanged since the 1999 congressional hearing when the department decided not to move forward on external regulation until cost uncertainties and implementation issues were resolved. In contrast to DOE's position, both NRC and OSHA continue their prior willingness to take on new responsibilities if they are given adequate resources to do so. In addition, the laboratory contractors that we spoke with—representing most of DOE's science work—were unanimous in their support for external regulation as long as the department reduces its current level of safety oversight once NRC and OSHA assume these responsibilities.

    Past regulatory simulations and ongoing work by DOE and its potential regulators indicate that the external regulation of the science laboratories would not require prohibitively expensive facility upgrades to be licensable. Further, much of the expected ''costs'' would likely involve bringing facilities into compliance with DOE's own safety standards. The likely benefits of external regulation have been widely reported but are less tangible. They include eliminating DOE's inherent conflict of interest in regulating itself, subsequent gains in public trust, and longer term safety gains. In addition, laboratory contractors told us that shifting away from DOE safety regulation could help them improve operational efficiency by reducing their environment, safety and health (ES&H) staffs.

    DOE's response to the conference report directive is not a detailed implementation plan. Rather it is a restatement of its previously stated call for further cost and benefit analyses before making a final decision on accepting external regulation. The conference report directive did not seek this determination. The DOE response also does not provide other information specifically requested in the directive, including reductions in funding and staffing at the department as a result of external regulation, and changes in statutory language necessary to transition to external regulation. Rather it describes the issues that DOE believes must be addressed in order to consider external regulation at the 10 science laboratories. In our opinion, DOE has sufficient information and has had ample time to move forward with the external regulation of its science laboratories. Since growing evidence suggests that NRC and OSHA have the capability to oversee DOE's science laboratories more effectively and at less cost than DOE's internal staff, moving away from self-regulation could potentially provide the department and its contractors with opportunities to free up staff resources for more science mission work. This would only be true if budgets were held constant; an assumption that isn't certain.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Background

    DOE initially recognized the need for external safety regulation in 1993, when Secretary Hazel O'Leary announced that the department would seek external regulation for worker safety. In 1994, legislation was proposed and hearings held on externally regulating nuclear safety at DOE facilities. Although no legislation was enacted, DOE responded by creating advisory groups to help formulate its policies and implement plans to eliminate self-regulation of nuclear and worker safety in all of its facilities. To achieve this goal, in 1996, DOE endorsed recommendations to phase out its self-regulation practices over a 10-year period. In late 1997, however, DOE took a more cautious approach when Secretary Federico Peña embarked on a 2-year pilot program to simulate regulation by NRC and OSHA at selected facilities.(see footnote 10) Among other themes, these simulations were developed to test regulatory approaches and determine the cost of moving to external regulation. Despite NRC and OSHA conclusions from these pilots that externally regulating DOE's science laboratories was achievable, Secretary Bill Richardson decided not to pursue external regulation, citing cost and other regulatory uncertainties. In this context, we reported in 1998 (and again in congressional testimony in 1999 and 2000) that DOE did not have a clear strategy on external regulation.(see footnote 11) In a subsequent overview report on DOE, we recommended eliminating self-regulation, among other necessary actions, to help improve the accountability of the department.(see footnote 12)

Stakeholder Positions Have Remained Unchanged Since 1999

    The positions of DOE and its potential regulators—NRC and OSHA—are essentially unchanged since the 1999 congressional hearing on the results of simulated inspections at several DOE facilities.(see footnote 13) As we reported in June, 2002, DOE officials told us that (1) the department's current position on external regulation is ''neutral'' because the Secretary has insufficient information on which to make a decision, (2) another study is needed to develop data on the costs of moving to and operating under external regulation, and (3) only after this additional study is completed will a decision be made whether to accept external regulation, followed by more time to prepare an implementation plan.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    On the other hand, NRC and OSHA reported to DOE that they are prepared to begin regulating the department's 10 science laboratories now, given adequate resources to do so. The two safety regulators are familiar with most of the facilities they would regulate and are already regulating parts of DOE where the Congress has given them specific authority. The laboratory contractors that we spoke with—representing most of DOE's science work—were unanimous in their support for external regulation as long as DOE reduces it current level of nuclear and worker safety oversight once NRC and OSHA assume these responsibilities.

Moving to External Regulation Would Likely Be Cost Effective

    Data from past regulatory simulations, and ongoing work by DOE, NRC and OSHA, show that shifting to the external regulation of science laboratories would not be prohibitively expensive and has many benefits. The cost of upgrading DOE facilities to meet regulator standards is not certain, but may not be significant for a variety of reasons: (1) NRC concluded from its simulations that few, if any, changes to DOE facilities are needed to meet NRC's licensing requirements; (2) NRC stated that it would be flexible in applying its standards to DOE's unique facilities without compromising safety; and (3) OSHA concluded from its simulations that DOE deficiencies are similar to levels found in the private-sector (DOE has already adopted OSHA-like standards at its facilities). In addition, we believe that much of the cost to upgrade DOE's facilities would likely be for bringing those facilities into compliance with its own requirements. NRC's and OSHA's estimates of personnel costs to regulate the 10 science laboratories are potentially less than DOE's expenditures to regulate itself.

    Likewise, the potential benefits of external regulation have been widely reported. A 1996 DOE task force concluded that externally regulating DOE facilities would improve safety, eliminate the inherent conflict of interest from self-regulation, achieve consistency with current domestic and international safety management practices, and gain credibility and public trust.(see footnote 14)
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Potential cost-saving benefits were also noted. For example, the task force found that seven large contractors regulated by NRC and OSHA employed substantially fewer staff dedicated to ES&H oversight than were found at DOE facilities. More recently, DOE's major science laboratory contractors told us that they could reduce their ES&H staff by up to 30 percent if DOE relinquished its oversight to external regulators. DOE's largest science contractor, Battelle Memorial Institute,(see footnote 15) reported that it spends one-half to one-third less (as a percent of total costs) on ES&H in its externally regulated private sector laboratories.(see footnote 16) DOE found similar results in a recent study comparing the management of its Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with two other federal agencies that use externally regulated contractors to manage their laboratories—the National Atmospheric and Space Administration's (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Center for Atmospheric Research.(see footnote 17) Contractors operating these laboratories had a smaller ratio of ES&H staff to total workers than does DOE's Berkeley laboratory contractor. In addition, with the presence of external regulators, NASA and NSF were able to rely on far fewer staff to oversee ES&H responsibilities at their laboratories. For example, while there was only 1 ES&H person out of 23 NASA site office personnel at its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, there were 5 dedicated ES&H personnel out of 15 at DOE's Berkeley site office.(see footnote 18) On average, we found that DOE dedicated about 30 percent of its site office staff to ES&H oversight, not including technical staff at the operations offices and several offices at headquarters.

    We found additional support for the benefits of external regulation by looking at comparable government-owned, contractor-operated science laboratories in foreign countries. Government and laboratory officials from Belgium, France, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom told us that external regulation is valuable and necessary to ensure safety and public credibility. None of these countries allow their government agencies to self-regulate nuclear and worker safety in civilian research facilities. Two countries, France and the United Kingdom, also use external regulators to oversee parts of their nuclear defense research and development establishment. The United Kingdom, after transferring its two nuclear defense research facilities to private sector contractors, shifted much of the oversight of the facilities to external safety regulators within a 2-year period. British officials told us that the shift to external regulation not only increased safety and improved public credibility but also allowed workers greater freedom to voice their safety concerns.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

DOE's ''Implementation Plan'' Is Not Focused on Implementing External Regulation

    DOE's implementation plan does not reflect a commitment to external regulation or provide a clear path to achieving it. The plan does not present steps to implement external regulation, but instead calls for more detailed studies and a cost-benefit analysis before the department decides on external regulation.

    The conference report directed DOE to prepare an implementation plan to externally regulate nuclear and worker safety at the department's 10 science laboratories. To prepare this plan, the conference report stated that the department should assume that NRC would take over regulatory responsibilities for nuclear safety and OSHA would take over regulatory responsibilities for worker safety at these facilities. In addition, DOE should assume that external regulation would become effective beginning in fiscal year 2004. The plan was to address all details necessary to implement external regulation, including

 estimates of additional resources NRC and OSHA would need,

 estimates of corresponding reductions in funding and staffing at the department,

 specific facilities or classes of facilities for which external regulation cannot be implemented in a timely manner,

 necessary changes to existing management and operating contracts, and

 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
 changes in statutory language necessary to effect the transition to external regulation.

    Contrary to the conference report directive, DOE's implementation plan merely restates its intention to reassess the merits of external regulation. The costs and benefits of external regulation have already been studied with favorable results, although the precise costs to comply with regulator standards at the 10 laboratories will not be known until the facilities are licensed and inspected. DOE's plan notes that all 10 science laboratories can transition to OSHA regulation within 2 years. Eight of these labs report that they can transition to NRC regulation within 2 years; the remaining 2 will take up to 4 years to transition to NRC regulation. However, rather than using this information to move forward, DOE intends to develop detailed cost and benefit information on two laboratories and then prepare a go/no go decision for external regulation. Assuming that the benefits outweigh the costs, the plan calls for proceeding in August 2003 to conduct a detailed analysis at the eight remaining laboratories and determine on a lab-by-lab basis if external regulation is cost beneficial. So, rather than presenting a path forward to implementation, DOE's strategy is more study before making a decision on external regulation.

    The plan responds in part to other information in the conference report directive. For example, the plan addressed the first requirement by providing information developed by NRC and OSHA on costs and their additional staffing needs. In contrast, however, DOE's plan did not provide statutory language that would be required for transitioning to external regulation. Rather, it listed the issues where changes to the statutory language are needed, and gave September, 2002 as the date to begin this work, with no completion date provided.

    In our view, DOE has sufficient information and has had ample time to move forward on external regulation. Support for this decision comes from years of DOE-NRC interactions in many departmental areas, as well as simulations conducted by NRC and OSHA in the 1990s, and more recent laboratory reviews by the department's task force.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

*****

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, shifting to external regulation eliminates DOE's inherent conflict of interest and should allow DOE and its contractors to redirect ES&H resources to other science mission priorities. In our view, the issue is not ''should'' DOE shift to external regulation of its science laboratories, but ''how.'' Any further DOE analysis should detail the steps and timetable necessary to fully implement external regulation as required in the conference report.

    Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee or Subcommittee may have at this time.

Contacts and Acknowledgements

    For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact (Ms.) Gary Jones at (202) 512–3464. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Gary R. Boss, Charles T. Egan, Tom Laetz, and Michael S. Sagalow.

Discussion

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Before turning to my colleagues for their questions, I would just like to note that two of our witnesses, Dr. Orbach and Dr. Smalley, directly mentioned the need to attract more students to basic science. Certainly, we need something the equivalent of Sputnik and the decade we spent putting a man on the moon that captures the imagination of our people and inspires our young people to go in science, math, and engineering pursuits.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But beyond that, we need a fundamental change in our culture. Society tends to get what it rewards. And so long as the academic achievers in our schools are known as geeks and nerds and are avoided by the pretty girls, so long as football teams are summoned to the White House for acclamation rather than academic achievers, we are going to have a tough sell trying to get our young people to go into science, math, and engineering. I am not sure what we can do to change this culture. We need more money. We need something that captures the imagination of our people and inspires our young people. Beyond that, we need a fundamental change in our culture. I think that we are at risk economically, and we are at risk from a national security viewpoint if we do not attract more students to our science, math, and engineering pursuits. All you need to do is go to one of our graduate schools to see the mix of students who are there. You recognize the challenge that our country faces.

    Let me turn now to Ms. Woolsey for her questions and comments.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are a good straight man for me, because you said it. You said geeks and nerds are ignored by the pretty girls. Well, guess what, it is the pretty girls that have to get interested in science, math, and technology along with the geeks and the nerds in order to have 50 percent of our population involved in these activities.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Excuse me. There are a lot of very bright, pretty girls, but——

    Ms. WOOLSEY. I know that. My point is——
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman BARTLETT [continuing]. Until we recognize——

    Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. How do we get them interested.

    Chairman BARTLETT [continuing]. Them for their brightness rather than their prettiness or as well as their prettiness, they are not going to go into these pursuits.

Increasing Academic Interest in Science in the Younger Generation

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, if the Chairman of this committee says what you just said, which was like none of the—they would only be dating the people smart enough to be geeks or nerds. Okay.

    How are we going to get young people interested in science and math? I mean, it isn't that they are not interested in technology, because we have just gone through this big technology glut where people—they went in that direction, telecom and computers and all, because there was a lot of money to be made. Maybe we are leveling the playing field right now with the fact that you can go off in a direction and you might end up with nothing, whereas if you stay in science and research, you would end up with a good career and it is not all of these ups and downs. Anyway, how are we going to do this and at the same time get young women involved, too, girls early before college? Mr. Orbach.

    Dr. ORBACH. Perhaps I can comment as a nerd and a geek from my own career. I was inspired, and I will be interested to hear my colleagues' own histories as well. I was inspired to go into science because of a teacher in middle school. That teacher brought a world, similar to the quote on the back of the hearing room, that I had never experienced or understood before. And it was with that inspiration that I began my own commitment to becoming a scientist. And you said it beautifully. The rewards of going into science are remarkable and wonderful. And I don't have—there is no magic bullet. I don't have a magic cure for this. It is indeed a cultural issue for our country and a very serious one. It is unfortunately spreading to other countries, in Western Europe, for example. We are not alone in this regard. I would hope that we could re-instill respect for teachers in schools, give them the tools and the excitement that they can convey to their students. And that is the direction that we have chosen to focus on as the greatest leverage for the resources that we can bring to bear. And I think each of you has stated it beautifully in terms of the cost of not doing it.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Friedman, what are you doing in your environment to encourage girls and——

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. Well, let me say the following.

    Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. Young people in science?

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. In my own case, when I was in high school, I wasn't on a trajectory to go into science. I was an art student. And in about my junior year, I read a small book on relativity and was so fascinated by it that I said this is something I really want to understand, and I went to the university and became a physicist.

    And so I really do think that we have to challenge young people's minds with great ideas. We have to bring great puzzles to them. This has to start very early. You know, in the—in primary school, when science is taught, it should be inquiry based, so students start acting. I mean, young people are basically scientists. They are curious about everything. We have to exploit that. We have to ask them how they think nature works around them. And this is very important.

    So it is an educational problem at the very early stages of the educational system. It is also a middle school problem to continue that. It is a support problem, because when the government doesn't support science and engineering, it is seen as something not valued. And we—even at MIT, we—even though there is a shortage of people going into science, we do have to turn down graduate students because we don't have funds to support them. So it is at all levels that one has to work to get more young people into science.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. And Dr. Smalley, do you have to be a genius like Dr. Friedman and yourself to get interested in science?

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. No. I don't count myself in the genius category.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, well, I do.

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. And I can tell you that when I was young, I found it extraordinarily difficult to master the course work necessary to become a scientist. It was a long process. And I believe that the only motivation that really will appeal to large numbers of people, girls and boys, is mission. Children are very idealistic.

    When I went into science—decided to go into science, it was in 1959. My high school, public high school in Kansas City, there was an assembly where two scientists from the Southwest Research Institute came and talked to assembly about going into science and engineering. I thought an engineer was somebody on trains. It is true. Engineers are on trains, but that is how much knowledge I had about it.

    At that time, going into science and engineering was one of the most romantic thing, probably the most romantic thing you could do as a child. There was people going into space. There were people going into space. There was the danger of Russia. We were in the middle of the Cold War. It was the patriotic thing to do. But it was also something the whole country was behind. You know that there had been never any investment in science and engineering of the magnitude that happened at that time. It was the thing to do. And many of the vast engineers and scientists that we are still running with in this country were inspired to go into the field at that time.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think we need to find another mission. You don't have to look very far. In fact, we have it right here in the problem of energy. And it couples very well to the general feeling that we need to solve these problems of pollution and environment. We need to solve the problems of the imbalance of the have's and the have-not's throughout the world. We need to somehow address this question of how do we handle two, almost three times the number of people on the planet that were living at the time of the space race. Most of these people do not live in countries that mattered in those days.

    We are also living in a time of terrorism, of major concerns about how we are going to make this planet a sustainable political entity. There is no more important problem than finding a way out of this need for energy. Right now, we are just hooked on oil. We have no option to it. I believe that is the sort of motivation that will get stronger and stronger as the years go on. Ten years from now the argument will be even stronger than it is right now. It is a problem primarily for the generation that is now in high school. Their productive life will happen right during the time when we have to find an alternative.

    So I think that is the sort of motivation that will work. There are others. There are motivations of curing disease. There are motivations of solving the language barrier. But energy is pretty much at the top of the list. In fact, the first five or so items of the human challenge below that top item on the list like access to food and water, you can almost say, ''Look at number one. With energy we can solve those problems. Without, we can't.''

    So I believe that will inspire the children and get them in. I think that going after K through 12 education, which I agree is a terrible problem in the United States, and as part of the NSF funded center we have at Rice, we have looked at this. And in Houston, we have 230,000 students in the public school system. And the problem there is mostly the quality of the teachers that they are exposed to. In Texas, we are going to be requiring students to actually pass a test on—that will cover science. And it is currently estimated that on the order of 30 to 50 percent of the students will not be able to pass this test. And the teachers that have to teach them, themselves, do not understand the science that well.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I can't think of anything more brutal than being in a class and trying to learn science from someone who, themselves, did not understand it. It is a huge problem. But if we wait to solve this problem to get people in science and engineering, we are still going to have a problem 20 years from now.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Ms. Jones, do you have a response to this? Would you like to——

    Ms. JONES. I would just like to add a few things. I think that Mr. Bartlett started off with the issue of culture, and I think that certainly is the underlying issue that we are dealing with. And to deal with a culture change, it is a long process, but it is going to take leadership. It is going to take, I think, the kind of directed mission that Dr. Smalley was talking about, and it is going to take dollars.

    I think, you know, starting at K through 12 is one of the places to start. And if we are assuring that all of our Federal science programs have that kind of adjunct reach out to our young people, that might be one way to start.

    And I can certainly appreciate what Dr. Smalley was saying about teachers. My undergraduate degree is in elementary education. And I can remember standing in front of a sixth grade class trying to teach a science lesson. I had no idea what I was talking about. I was not trained well. That was 25 years ago, but I would imagine the training is not much better today.

 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Let me turn now to Ms. Biggert.

    Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. First of all, let me join this discussion a little bit, because I think I was the one in one of the previous committees that used the term ''science geek.'' And I did want to correct something, because I think of it with great respect that I think all the people that are really into the science field have our admiration for those of us that are not. I happen to——

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Would you yield a minute? I want to——

    Ms. BIGGERT. Yes.

    Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. Tell a story on her. She refers to herself as a ''wannabe science geek.''

    Ms. BIGGERT. And so—and I have to tell you that when I went to school, and that was so long ago, but I can remember being in a class for solid geometry or going in the first day and my teacher said to me, ''Now why, as you, as a girl, do you want to be in this class?'' And I think that was the attitude as, you know, ''You should be off being a cheerleader or something.'' And that was at one of our, I would say, premier high schools at New Treir in Illinois. And still there was that stereotype. And I think that that has changed dramatically. But I agree that we need better—you know, we need to increase our funding for schools and the quality of teachers. And I work very hard on that.

 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One thing I would like to—Dr. Orbach was in Illinois on Monday with the President and with the Director of the Department of Energy and the Director of Homeland Security. And I think this is very important meeting with the scientists there. I had the opportunity to be there. And I think just raising the consciousness of what is going on in our community as far as young people seeing this and knowing how important it is.

    I also think that we have a role to play. And I go into so many schools in K through 12 and I always, always mention how important it is for young people to get involved in the sciences and particularly women. I say, you know, ''This is a field that is really open to you that was not when I had the opportunity.'' My husband and I are both lawyers, but we ended up with this engineer who used to blow things up in the driveway and everything and has gone on really to be in the sciences. And I—you know, we are very proud of him that he has done that. We don't have any lawyers in the family, but that is all right. It is a dying field, maybe.

Increases in Funding for DOE's Office of Science

    But I would like to ask Dr. Orbach about the increase as far as the funding for the Office of Science. And certainly we have worked, I think, very hard in this committee, and a lot of the Members of Congress have signed on to a letter, which has been to ask for doubling, at some point, the authorization for science. But the NSF authorization has—is doubling, and it seems that NIH and the Office of Science really is falling behind. And the more that that happens, I think, you know, the less—so I do have this legislation, which will increase the funding through the year 6000—2006, I should say. 6000, that would be a long time. I won't be here. And to really either—there are two options to ramp up the funding to $5.3 billion or the 15 percent increase of $5.7 by FY '06. And that still won't quite reach what the NSF has increased.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But with that, are there a lot of projects that you would be able—what would you be able to do with this increase from FY '02, which we have—appropriation is $3.2 billion?

    Dr. ORBACH. First I want to thank you especially for your support of the Office of Science and the President's budget. This committee has been remarkable in its help and direction, and I am very pleased that I can interact with you. I have learned a lot, and I look forward to working with the Committee.

    In the occasional papers, which I have given you, there are eight examples of where we think the future lies. And by the way, one of them is education for the country and for the world in the area of science. There will be further examples of that.

    I think you heard, from Professor Friedman, directly some of the needs that exist in our universities and at our national laboratories. We have opportunities before us that I think are unparalleled. And they challenge the imagination, what Dr. Smalley was talking about, namely big ideas are out there. And if we can pursue them, I think some of the problems we have been discussing may be self-correcting, because the implications are so staggering.

    I will be giving a presentation to the AAAS in February. And the title of the talk that we have come up with, for me, is exciting. It is called Genesis: Science and the Beginning of Time. We are now able to ask scientific questions about what happened and why. Is there a beginning of time? SLAC, Stanford—at Stanford has just issued an analysis of its data, which shows that a violation is probable for what we have always accepted as time reversal, which means that time can actually start. There could be an arrow of time or a beginning. This is not a science fiction concept. It falls directly from a set of experiments.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I believe that our country, I think all mankind, is fascinated with issues and ideas of that magnitude. They are almost religious in terms of their impact. And if we are allowed to pursue, and there is a program that will—in fact, there are 11 challenges, which Professor Michael Turner's Committee for the National Academy has laid out, which deal essentially with the origin of us. If we are allowed to follow those, I think the intellectual and scientific excitement and the payoff will be substantial. So we would be absolutely thrilled to be able to explore these new worlds.

    Ms. BIGGERT. Well, maybe I am not thinking big enough. Dr. Friedman has suggested increasing the budget to ten billion, so we will have to take that into account as we proceed here.

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. Well, let me just actually comment on Dr. Orbach's remarks. I agree with him totally. First of all, we have wonderful facilities in operation right now that are not able to function at capacity because of a shortage of funds. And that is not a very good thing. And these facilities are doing world-class research, research which basically dominates their respective fields.

    At the same time, if you want the—while you are carrying out world-class research, you have to plan to the future. And as Dr. Orbach said, there are big projects that people are dreaming about and planning and doing R&D on. And these are extremely important projects. And I—and this actually goes back to the issue of attracting young people to science. When the government invests in projects which are—which actually contain such big ideas and ask such basic and crucial questions, it gets the attention of everybody in society, and particularly young people. And that is how you have to draw people into science, also missions, as Dr. Smalley spoke about, but also big projects, big envisionary projects. The DOE has a number of these on the planning board right now. And I think such an increase in funding would be immensely valuable in actually pushing this agenda forward.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. BIGGERT. My time has long expired, but I would like to come back later and talk just a little bit more about creating an under—or an assistant secretary for the office, so I will come back to that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Lampson.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wonderful discussion. This is exactly where I wanted to go this morning and probably most of what I wanted to say has already been said.

    Last week in our Space Subcommittee hearing, the Administrator of NASA told us about the need to attract young people into NASA. And we talked about hiring at NASA where we have quit hiring into it a long time ago and didn't—don't seem to have a wealth of knowledge or a wealth of young people to call on to attract them into that activity. We hear the same kind of thing today.

    But we also heard comments like ''mission,'' ''investment,'' ''goals,'' things that are going to attract people, grab their imagination and pull them into these areas to do their work. It seems to me that we have been spending a great deal of time and effort in preparing people for jobs and not giving them an opportunity to dream their dreams. And I am not sure I know the specific questions to ask, but I know that we know what the problem is. Now how do we change the world and change the culture that Mr. Chairman spoke of shortly ago and pull them in? It seems to me that it is going to come down.

 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
International Education Rates for Advanced Degrees in Science

    We have got to look at some questions and find out where the answers that have come for other countries. And one particular thing that stuck out in my mind, and I think that Dr. Orbach made the comment of more—well, other countries are losing the amount of degrees in scientists—scientific areas as well as the United States. But it seems that they have exceeded us in a number of graduate degrees, particularly in physics, as is shown by one of the charts that has been given to us up here.

    It also appears that that may be coming somewhat in relation to where we have placed our dollars in this government. If we place an emphasis in an area other than in science and research, people will follow where that goes. I wonder about the—what—why that is happening as far as the number of people who are getting degrees in other countries. Are we losing the talent? Do we not have the capabilities to keep up with other nations? Or is it just commitment? And that brings me, when I am thinking of that, back around to your comment that you made a second ago about having an adequate—or you made a comment, I think, to our colleague about her support for the budget. Do we have an adequate budget right now for what we need to accomplish in these areas?

    Dr. ORBACH. Well, the mission of the Department of Energy Office of Science can be met through the President's budget that I think is under consideration right now. We were talking about the future and the opportunities that lay there. I think one of the points, which was brought up by this committee, namely the nature of our graduate student body, which is in science and engineering, roughly half foreign nationals.

 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There is something that I would like to add to your comments, because those countries are now beginning to lure those individuals back. They are not foolish. We have lived off of foreign nationals in many of our programs for the last decade. But now those countries are starting to reclaim their own citizens. And so the problem that we have outlined is actually going to be exacerbated by the competition that you have eluded to from around the world. So I think of this as really a crisis. And if you read the language in our occasional paper, we regard it in the most serious terms.

Adequacy of the United States' Science Budget

    Mr. LAMPSON. Well, I ask my question again, do we have an adequate budget for science in this country?

    Dr. ORBACH. I think you have heard from my colleagues that the budget is a real issue for this country, and I think that we have an opportunity in the future to deal with that issue.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Critical in my estimation now that we begin to address these things. We saw, and I hate to keep harking back to NASA's budget, but I talk about it more often than most anything else. And we know that we probably put in about eight times—eight to ten times less money now than we did during the Apollo period, that—those 60's when we all spoke of our education. I was a physical science teacher in a high school during 1969, and I saw the kids' eyes light up when we—when they dreamed of being Neil Armstrong, being—walking in his footsteps or the other people who were on Earth helping that happen. And we have got to return to that. And we are missing our boat by not setting the goals necessary to achieve them. Yes, sir.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. I—let me just say flat out, the budget is not adequate. I have seen the statistics that only 10 percent of the peer reviewed proposals in the Office of Science are funded. Now you ask the question what good ideas, what great ideas are not being tested or tried out? What good science is not being done? Ten percent is really too low a number.

    When you add—when you look at the number of Ph.D.'s that we—it has dropped—the number of Ph.D.s between 1994 and 2000 has dropped by 22 percent. Right now, we are—more than half of our incoming graduate students are foreign. And of course, what happens there is some of them stay, to our advantage, but many of them go back home, because there are more—some opportunities are developing in other countries now, which compete with ours. So I think we are really at a situation—in a situation where our budget is far from adequate and if we want to rectify it, we have to have a strong infusion of money, because—and again, if you try to attract young people, what does the government value? Where does it want to put its dollars? What is important?

    If you under-fund science projects, word gets around. Students know exactly what the career options are. They have a network in which they find out immediately what project has been dropped, what thing is not being done. And it really does effect what they decide to do for their careers. When they are—when a certain projects have been dropped, I have seen graduate students at MIT go into other areas. So this is very important. And I must say that I really do believe the budget is inadequate.

    Mr. LAMPSON. I am out of time. I totally agree with you. I look forward to us challenging our colleagues and Congress to support what you are doing. And it is going to take the kind of investment in our country that we made in the 60's to attract kids back into the programs that are going to accomplish the dreams that you are working on right now. Thank you for being here.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. I would just like to note that the amount of dollars that we are talking about to solve these problems are pretty much a nit in the grand scale of things. Out of $2 trillion, which is our budget this year, we are talking about a nit. But if we don't do this, it may become an enormously important thing in the future. Let me turn now to my colleague, Dr. Ehlers.

Cultural Issues Regarding Science and Math in the United States

    Dr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you for your marvelous testimony. I really don't have any questions on it, because I am virtually in total agreement with everything you have said. But I am going to turn it around and I am going to give some testimony to you.

    First of all, I apologize for running out on you. I had to take a call from the Secretary of Energy to talk about precisely some of these issues we are talking about here. But let me raise some issues that I think we have to address together and you have to take a much greater lead than—and I don't mean you individually. I mean this—you—the United States scientific community. Number one, the public does not understand science, and in particular, they do not understand energy. If they did understand energy, we would have far less of a problem; we would deal with the issues that Dr. Smalley talked about. And if you ask the reason for that, much of it goes back to education. It is cultural to a large extent, particularly as it relates to women and minorities. We somehow have developed the idea in this culture that science is for men, particularly slightly daffy men. We have to change that cultural perception.

 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But also the—in the United States, it is socially acceptable to be ignorant of science and its consequences. And I find that totally unsatisfactory. I have been with groups of intellectuals who publicly profess their ignorance in science and say, ''Oh, I can never get that. All that—those numbers and letters and math,'' and so forth. And yet if I were in this same group and say, ''Oh, I have never understood literature. I couldn't get all of those letters and words and things,'' I would be considered a total ignoramus. And yet they publicly profess their ignorance of science, and that is socially acceptable in this country. We, as scientists, have to protest that. And we have to say that is unacceptable. I think, as an example, I believe just as a Shakespearean scholar has a right to expect that I know something about Shakespeare, not as much as he or she does, but I know something about Shakespeare and his importance and the nature of the literature, I have just as much right to expect they understand the basic ideas of the laws of thermodynamics, just to give an example. And if the American people understood those laws of thermodynamics, Dr. Bartlett and I would not have to work so hard here on the energy policy.

    But also in science education, I have literally worked my heart out for four years trying to improve science education and the funding for teacher retraining. This year, for example, I have personally met with every member of the Labor HHS Appropriation Subcommittee in the House who would give me time, and most of them have. I have given them a power point presentation and discussed it all and so forth. Is there a core of scientists behind me contacting those people saying, ''Hey, Ehlers is right. Hey, we must increase funding for science education. Hey, we must retrain teachers so they can teach scientists of the future.'' No, they are not there.

    I have been lobbying the scientific association since I got here, and they have responded. The associations are doing much better. But I have also spoken, I would estimate, to at least 10,000, probably 15,000 scientists, through large public speeches, encouraging them to get involved. I still don't see it happening. And I think the societies are going to have to promote it and to organize it.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Setting Priorities Within the Research Arena

    Another area that—and scientists simply have to explain what they do, and they have to lobby for their efforts. They are not going to get free rides any more in the budget situations we face. Another area that I think the Congress needs more help on is in setting priorities within the research arena, particularly in the Department of Energy. I guess I would break that down into what I would call the lower cost research, which involves physics experiments but also medical applications, which as Dr. Friedman has pointed out, there are many, many medical uses that—or instruments that have been developed by physicists, particularly MRI and CAT scanners and things of that sort.

    But also research in energy efficiency, we have an Office of Energy Efficiency in DOE. I don't think they are charged with as much research responsibility as they should have. We have the national labs. Some of them have taken on energy efficiency research and other energy research, but it has been a side effort. I think given the importance of the issues, we have to re-prioritize within our, what I call the low cost research area, and pay much greater attention to the energy needs of this country, particularly in the future.

Importance of International Cooperation

    Also in what I call the high cost area, there has to be some—a gigantic effort, I believe, on the part of this country and its scientists, its physical scientists to deal and to develop international cooperation and support. I am convinced we will not have appropriate large-scale energy related research in this country without international cooperation. The ITER is an example. It is going to falter unless we get good international cooperation across the board. The rare isotope accelerator, that is lower cost. It may or may not succeed without international cooperation. But the electron positron collider clearly has to be an international operation. I anticipate in the future we will have an SSE eventually. That has to be an international project. And I don't mean just one country taking the lead and paying 80 percent and the others join. It is truly going to have to be international with full participation financially as well as scientifically, and that is a goal that I believe the scientific community should be working on.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I have exceeded my time limits, but I wanted to leave you with that chart for the scientists to become more political, to relate better to the public, and to assist us in studying these priorities and developing the international—My time has exceeded. Thank you very much for your generosity, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much for your observations. Mr. Rohrabacher.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I feel very honored to be on this committee, because I don't know anything about science. I hate all of those numbers and figures and all of that stuff. And I—but I do know one thing; I do know how to call on people who do know the answers, just like I am not a lawyer, and I know how to call on lawyers when I need lawyers.

    And hopefully we can call on scientists to help us solve some of the problems that seem intractable in our society. Let me note that scientists played a significant role, not a—not just a significant role, a leading role in directing their totalitarian societies out of the darkness of tyranny of Communism and into the light of more Democratic societies during these last 20 years. Take a look in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, you will find it was their scientists who led the way to more humane world, and I recognize that and a decent treatment of their fellow human beings and more peaceful potential even outside the realm of science. And so I certainly respect the fundamentals that go with science in terms of the human reality.

    We have talked a lot about how do we attract young people into science. I am sorry some of our colleagues have left, especially our Democratic colleagues near the—need to hear this. You attract more young people in the field of science by paying them more money, paying them more money. That is all. You know, we have a society which, you know—in which lawyers live in castles and scientists live in condos, you are going to have more lawyers. I mean, young people with a lot of brains are going to see, ''I want to have a family and live in a castle rather than live in this condo over here.'' So we have to organize our society so that scientists make more money.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

International Scientists in the U.S. Job Market

    One of the ways we can do that is not to flood our society with people from overseas who are going to go back overseas in order to bring down the wages of scientists and people in the sciences. We keep hearing in this committee and other committees about 245I. You know what 245I is. 245I is a formula for making sure that scientists and people in engineering don't make any more money. You are going to flood the market with people from Pakistan and India, which I have nothing against people from Pakistan and India, but I prefer making sure that we have young people from Pomona or Los Angeles or Boston getting those jobs and being trained for those jobs and being given a higher pay because they are doing those jobs than flooding the market in from India for people who would work for 25, $30,000 a year when we should be paying our own people 80 to $90,000 a year for it.

    Also, you take a look at our scholarship program. I mean, who—I mean, kids overseas are getting these scholarships. Our own young people can't get scholarships. So I don't think it is as much as spending a lot more money, you know, pulling the old Federal truck up and start shoveling the dollars out the back, which is usually the easy way to solve any problem in this city. But let us restructure things so that we can go to some of the basics and create a new dynamic. Let us make sure that the young people getting the Ph.D.'s at our universities and colleges in sciences are not just a bunch of foreigners by making sure that our own young people have the scholarships available to take those slots. Right now, it costs them a lot of money to become scientists where we are filling the slots with people from overseas. And the 245I, as I say, really undercuts, totally undercuts the long-term attraction into science.

 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Impact of Project Size on Its Appeal to Younger Scientists

    Dr. Friedman, I would disagree with you about today's generation of young people. I think that today's generation of young people aren't looking for huge projects. I think they are looking for freedom to try to follow their dreams. And if they can find it in big projects, that is great. But quite often, big projects, especially government projects, are just huge bureaucratic behemoths where they have—and run by ''old people'' who have set—are set in their ways. And many of—as you know, many of the great discoveries we have had in science come from mavericks who are telling the guys who run the programs, ''This isn't the way to do it. I am going to go do something on my own.'' I mean, history is filled with people like that.

    And I would hope that we, instead of trying to have—again, shovel more money into big projects, that we try to find a way of opening up opportunity for young people to take advantage of the computerization. You know, 25, 30 years ago or even 50 years ago, the scientists had to be part of a large organization in order to have the computer capacity to try to explore some of these areas. Well now, computer capacity is available to so—you know, it is so widespread that we should try—instead, try to find ways of granting or having grants that are going out to large numbers of smaller operations rather than trying to try to fund big projects.

    And please, everyone, feel free to comment. I just spouted off.

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. May I comment on that?

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. Well, first of all, let me say, great science is done in big projects, small projects, middle-sized projects. Now the—why does one do big projects? It is not to build bigger toys, but because certain questions are so difficult to answer without having, for example, very high energy physics. You know, it—the smaller the object you look at, the more energy you need. If you want to look at the most basic building blocks, understand them, you need an immense amount of energy. Now of course, that requires a big project. However, the big project is so complex and has so many different facets that there are many areas in which individuals in small groups can exercise individuality, freedom, creativity, individual creativity, inventiveness so that it is not as though it is a model that is walking in one direction. That is not the way these big projects work. So I want to assure you that such big projects do not stifle the creativity of young people. And in fact, some of the greatest creative aspects of our scientific ventures are developed in these big projects by individual people working in these big projects.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. One thing I would just note about where time began, I—as time has a start. Now I will have to admit that, you know, that has got to—would be kind of an interesting thing to know, philosophically, where time started. And you know, it might be better to find a way for us to be able to know what time we can get to these hearings so I can get here on time. That might be even more beneficial. But can you tell me what things like—how that—things like that really help us?

    Dr. ORBACH. Well, I think that there is—thank you for your question, and by the way, I do want to comment on the very beginning where you talked about the role of scientists in freeing the population of really enslaved populations. There is an international scientific network, and I personally was a part of that. And I was very proud of what the scientists contributed. So thank you very much for making reference to that.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In terms of what good is it, that is a hard question to answer. You have—Professor Friedman's presentation listed a number of—quite a large number of things that have come from the machines that we have used to address these problems. And CAT scanning, MRI, actually, that is more in my area and Dr. Smalley's area than condensed matter physics, but all of these things contribute in very unusual ways. Your camera, which has a CCD, a Charge Couple Device, may have two million pixels. You may read that. That is just a number of little spots that can absorb light. That came out of high-energy physics and the necessity, as Professor Friedman said, to be able to observe these incredibly complex processes to take place.

    So we use the same language you do. And the pay off is there. I was addressing the intellectual aspect of it, because I think that humankind has a hunger to understand where it came from. And what is so astonishing is that we are now living in a century where these questions are being addressed scientifically and precisely. We are now able to ask questions about what happened, let us see if I have got my numbers right, a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. That means something started. It actually had to start. I mean, you are talking about such a short time scale. We are able to do an experiment, as Professor Friedman described, using a big machine but to ask a very precise question. And the results are astonishing. They are not anything like what we had expected.

    There are fundamental questions that affect us all and I think excite people. So it is both big and small. But the issues are both intellectual and practical.

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. One further comment, in terms of the inventiveness that comes out of big projects, one of the things, which perhaps surprises many people, is that the World Wide Web came from high energy physics. It came about because scientists in various countries had to communicate data and how to analyze this data, and they developed a method by which they could communicate via computers. And this now has become the World Wide Web, which is actually changing our entire civilization in so many different ways. So here is something which came out of a big project, because it served a certain need, but this, the application, was far wider than the need it initially served. And it has tremendous benefits to society as we all know. I mean, it has really changed the educational system. I can find out information about anything in a very short time without leaving my office. Now that is a remarkable change. People do business this way, as you well know. So it is really changing all aspects, every side. This wouldn't have occurred, most likely, in the way it did without these big projects.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

The Need for Alternatives to Oil

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Dr. Smalley, I can't let this hearing end without expressing my surprise and appreciation that a Texan would talk about the need for alternative to oil. I would just like to note that I am very pleased that you have made this point. I hope that you are joined by many other scientists who will point out to our people some of the simple facts like we have only two percent of the known reserves of oil in this world. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. The world has only about a thousand giga-barrels of known reserves of oil. Some pretty simple math tells you that will last about 40 years at current use rates. That is with no other country industrializing, with us using no additional oil in the future, and that is not forever. And you know, quite apart from the fact that the cost of oil is far more than you pay at the pump, and by the way, as long as oil is cheaper than water, we are not going to have much of a focus on energy in this country.

    But you are exactly right. If we don't focus on energy, because oil is not forever, and when we import 56 percent of our oil and are so dependent of foreign oil that if the Arab oil—the Arab heart of OPEC would deny us their oil, our economy would collapse, essentially, overnight. We desperately need to pursue alternatives to oil.

    How do we get there? How do we get the attention of the American people? You know, everybody in the world pays the same thing for oil, 20-couple dollars a barrel or so now. So if you are in Europe, it is more than $5—about $4 or $5 a gallon, more than a dollar a liter for oil there. And in this country, as I mentioned, it is cheaper to buy oil at the pump than it is water in the grocery store. What has to happen before we, as a country, focus on this problem of energy, because if we don't, we are going to come to grief?
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. SMALLEY. Well, that is a question beyond my expertise. I don't know what it will take to get this out in the front of the—of our populous. I suspect it will be some event similar to the oil crisis in the early 70's that will bring it up again, but I personally guarantee you that will happen at some point.

    But my main point here today is we need an alternative. And in this Federal Government of ours, with all of the money we spend on research, there is only one agency that could possibly respond with what that alternative would be, and that is the Department of Energy. And I believe that if the Department of Energy would embrace that as its principle mission, would find that it is so inspiring to young scientists, and I suspect inspiring to the public at large, they would find that this is actually a formula to revitalize the Department and a formula through which it would be very rational to double, triple, or vastly expand the monies that our country puts in to solve this most critical issue. Thank you.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Those bells mean that we have a vote coming on, but that is in 15 minutes, and it doesn't take us 15 minutes to get there, so we have a few more minutes for this hearing. This program of energy is one that most Americans know little about. There were no rolling blackouts in California this summer and there were none last summer. And that is because Californians voluntarily decreased electricity consumption by 11 percent. So conservation does work in spite of the fact that many people say that conservation and efficiency—by the way, were it not for our vastly increased efficiency since the Arab Oil Embargo, we would have a big, big energy problem today. We have—we use 25 percent of the world's energy, and that is an awful lot. But we produce 30 percent of the world's goods and services, so we are very efficient at using energy. It doesn't mean that we ought to use more energy because we are more efficient at using it, because there are limited amounts of fossil fuels in the world, and we pay a pretty high price for using them.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    You know, I think that this could be that mission that captures the imagination of the American people and inspires our young people. Somehow we have to articulate that. And we may need a crisis. We have drove about four million oil wells in the world. A million of them have been drilled in this country. We are very efficient at pumping oil. As a matter of fact, we are pumping oil about five times faster from our two percent than the rest of the world is pumping oil from their reserves. So our measly two percent is going to run out pretty quickly, which is why I am opposed to drilling in ANWR and opposed to drilling under Lake Michigan and off the Florida coast, not because of any environmental concerns, but when you have only two percent of the known reserves in the world, I don't know why you want to rush to find and pump that. If we could find and pump that tomorrow, what will we do the day after tomorrow? And by the day after tomorrow, we will not have this alternative source of energy.

    Dr. Smalley, thank you very much for your contribution to this hearing. And I take every public opportunity I can to make an appeal that we educate the American people so that they understand. We are not very good at preventing crises in this country. We respond quite well to a crisis. And I hope that the crisis that brings us to an appropriate response for energy is not one that is too painful, Dr. Smalley. And I don't know when that will occur or how it will occur, but I agree with you. I think that it has to occur before it gets our attention.

    I understand that our Ranking Member has an additional question she would like to get in for the record. Oh, you don't. Okay. You were going to submit it for the record, then? Okay. They will submit that for the record. Let me turn to Dr. Ehlers. We have a few minutes before the bell. The 10-minute bell will go off. We have about five minutes after that. You do have a question?
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I do, but I thought——

    Chairman BARTLETT. Okay. Go ahead.

    Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. Everybody wanted to draw back.

    Chairman BARTLETT. No, no. We——

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay.

    Chairman BARTLETT. If you got to the floor, you would only have to wait.

Regulation of Nuclear Facilities by DOE vs. External Regulation

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, yeah. Okay. Mr. Orbach, it seems like there is a consensus that the Department should get to the business—out of the business of regulating your own nuclear facilities and worker safety, so—at least in the civilian labs. So the question is, are you committed to external reviews and regulation, and if not, when—what is the process? How are you getting there?

    Dr. ORBACH. Well, we are actively pursuing the instructions of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations. We have put together a group within my headquarters, and we have very high level representatives from the NRC and from OSHA who will be working with us.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We are most concerned with the safety and health of our workers. It remains to be seen, in our view, if it is less expensive or more expensive. What we are looking for is what is best management in terms of that fundamental issue. The GAO report was very helpful, and I am pleased that they have provided that guidance. I know that Congress has been involved and interested. We are awaiting the consequences of the congressional process to see precisely what Congress would like us to address, but in the meantime, we have already started.

    We will be presenting to the Secretary in time to meet the timelines that have been laid out in the Subcommittee's report a pluses and minuses. What are the advantages of external regulation? What are the disadvantages, including management, cost, and all of the issues that are involved?

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Well, you are not just—and Ms. Jones, I would like you to comment on this, also. But you are not just looking at cost; you are also looking at what is effective, right?

    Dr. ORBACH. Absolutely.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay.

    Dr. ORBACH. And management issues.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you.

 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. JONES. Well, I appreciate Dr. Orbach's comments and the fact that they have a team pulled together to look at these things. Our position has been, since 1999 when we testified before this committee before that with the simulations, the blue ribbon panels, the other kinds of internal discussions that have been had within DOE, the evidence is there, particularly for the science laboratories to move forward. And we were somewhat disappointed with the implementation plan that was issued by DOE in July, because what it basically says is, ''We need to do more study before we will even embrace the idea of moving forward with external regulations. We need to do a cost benefit analysis on each and every facility,'' and we felt that the information was there for them to be able to move forward.

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Would you like to respond, Mr. Orbach?

    Dr. ORBACH. We concur that there is information there, but there are other questions, which we feel are also present that we need to respond to. This is not just an exercise that is intellectual. We are choosing two or four labs, depending on the congressional direction we get, and we are doing an experiment to see what would be involved on a short timeline. This is not meant to be an abstract study that goes on forever. We will meet the May 30 deadline next

    —May 31 deadline next year.

    The issues are complex. They have to do with agreement states with state OSHA and Federal OSHA. It has to—we also have to strike a balance. Do we want new responsibilities, for example, for the NRC, which has a legal mandate that is limited as opposed to what needs to be regulated? The GAO report was very helpful by looking across—not only across our country, but across the world at external regulations. And we want to see how that would apply in practice to the laboratories that are in the Office of Science. So we are committed to pursuing this and providing the Secretary of Energy with a sheet indicating the benefits and the costs associated with external regulation and then hope that he would respond.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you very much.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. Several of our Members wanted to get in a quick question or comment before—we have about five or six minutes before we have to run for the vote. Let me turn now to Dr. Ehlers.

    Dr. EHLERS. Thank you. Very briefly, I just wanted to see if any of you have questions or comments about my—that I had dropped a few moments ago and any suggestions. I would also want to express my appreciation for Dr. Bartlett's comments to Dr. Smalley. I agree totally with him on that. And I appreciate your courage in saying that from Texas. I—even though I normally encourage all scientists to think about running for public office, it may not be suitable for you to run from Texas with that platform. Any comments?

    Dr. SMALLEY. Let me just say, it has been true for quite a while that Texas is not a net exporter of energy. It is actually a net importer of energy within the state. And the—coming from Houston, I can tell you that the economy of Houston is not primarily an oil-based economy, and it hasn't been for several decades. So I actually might be able to succeed in running for office, but I probably have better things to do.

    Dr. EHLERS. Oh. So do I.

    Dr. FRIEDMAN. I would like to say I agree with your comments totally, and I see them as marching orders for our community. And we have to do these things that you are suggesting. And I—and the idea that these large projects are to be based upon international collaborations is something that is well understood by the community. And at this point, there are attempts of solidifying scientists from all over the world to develop common projects. So I think this is a very important part of your admonition. But I agree totally with your very wise comments.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. ORBACH. I should say that on the international cooperative scene, we have a number of new initiatives as you listed them. We do not have a problem with bringing the scientists together on an international basis. What we have problems with is bringing the governments together on an international basis. And that is still to be worked out. There is not a single example I can quote you where the governments have gotten together and agreed to fund something which the scientists have put forward internationally. And so we need to address that as a country.

    Dr. EHLERS. And part of that, again, is science education for the members of the administration, but also something that I worked on very hard and it is begun now in a limited way, and that is to once again return scientific expertise to the Department of State. It was essentially zero when I arrived here. We have a good start on a program there, and that needs a lot of nurturing and care from the scientific community as well.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Mr. Lampson, we have a minute and 48 seconds before the 3-minute bell.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Just thanks for your candor. When you can, help us get the ideas of what we can do with big picture legislation to help move this, because it is going to be driven from the public and the public—we will follow what the public demands us to do.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Fine.

 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Time is——

    Ms. BIGGERT. I have some questions, but I would like to be able to submit those for a written response, because it is too long at this point.

    Chairman BARTLETT. Well, I am sure several of our Members will have questions. With your consent, we would like to have your agreement that you will submit answers to those questions for the record.

    Well, I want to thank you all very much for coming here. Thank you for your testimony and the good exchange. And our Subcommittee stands in adjournment.

    [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]











(Footnote 1 return)
The TFTR has now been decontaminated and decommissioned.


(Footnote 2 return)
(1) Ames Laboratory at Ames, IA; (2) Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) at Argonne, IL; (3) Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) at Upton, NY; (4) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) at Batavia, IL; (5) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) at Berkeley, CA; (6) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) at Oak Ridge, TN; (7) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) at Richland, WA; (8) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) at Princeton, NJ; (9) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) at Stanford, CA; and (10) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) at Newport News, VA.


(Footnote 3 return)
In addition, funding is provided for programs at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) at Idaho Falls, ID, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at Golden, CO, and the three DOE weapons laboratories-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) at Livermore, CA; Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) at Los Alamos, NM; and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) at Albuquerque, NM and at Livermore, CA. Two DOE Operations Offices-Chicago and Oak Ridge-report to the Office and the Office also manages DOE's Technical Information Management Program.


(Footnote 4 return)
(1) Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC); (2) Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC); (3) Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC); (4) Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC); (5) High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP); and (6) joint DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC).


(Footnote 5 return)
Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies jointly at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory; Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory; Center for Nanoscale Materials at Argonne National Laboratory.


(Footnote 6 return)
DOE's predecessor agencies are the Atomic Energy Commission and Energy Research and Development Administration.


(Footnote 7 return)
H.R. Rep. No. 107–258, Oct. 30, 2001, at 109–110.


(Footnote 8 return)
Department of Energy, Implementation Plan For External Regulation of Non-Defense Science Laboratories, (July 1, 2002).


(Footnote 9 return)
U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Energy: Observations on Using External Agencies to Regulate Nuclear and Worker Safety in DOE's Science Laboratories, GAO–02–868R (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2002)


(Footnote 10 return)
These facilities included all or part of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. OSHA participated in the California and Tennessee sites and had previously conducted a pilot program at DOE's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.


(Footnote 11 return)
See: U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Energy: Clear Strategy on External Regulation Needed for Worker and Nuclear Facility Safety, GAO/RCED–98–163 (Washington D.C.: May 21, 1998), U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Energy: Uncertain Future for External Regulation of Worker and Nuclear Facility Safety, GAO/T–RCED–99–269 (Washington D.C.: July 22, 1999).


(Footnote 12 return)
U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Energy: Fundamental Reassessment Needed to Address Major Mission, Structure, and Accountability Problems, GAO–02–51 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 2001).


(Footnote 13 return)
External Regulation of DOE Facilities: Pilot Project Results, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Serial No. 106–29, July 22, 1999.


(Footnote 14 return)
Report of Department of Energy Working Group on External Regulation, DOE/US–0001, December 1996, p.1–1.


(Footnote 15 return)
Battelle Memorial Institute is DOE's management and operating contractor for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and manages Brookhaven National Laboratory (in partnership with the State University of New York at Stonybrook), and for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (in partnership with the University of Tennessee).


(Footnote 16 return)
Battelle has also concluded that the aggregate hazards associated with the R&D activities at these institutions cannot account for these cost differences.


(Footnote 17 return)
DOE Best Practices Pilot Study, Berkeley Lab, LBNL/PUB–865, February 2002.


(Footnote 18 return)
We were not able to disaggregate department staff overseeing environmental issues from those involved in safety and health.