House and Senate Appropriations Hearings on Energy Research Request

Is there a relationship between flood control projects and physics research supported by the Department of Energy? Yes -- as shown at two important hearings last week.

The Senate and House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees met last week to receive testimony from Martha Krebs, Director of DOE’s Office of Energy Research. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), a self-described “strong supporter” of science, got right to the point at the start of his hearing. He said the administration’s request is $1.3 billion below the current level of services for water projects. Domenici said he must find a way to secure this money, adding that while he expects some help from the full committee, he “will have to reduce some programs below their current level.” “Do you understand the dilemma we are in on the water projects?” he asked Krebs, to which she said “yes.”

Under congressional budgeting procedures, Congress lumps the funding for most functions of the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers in the Energy and Water (E&W) Development appropriations bill. Although augmenting funding from outside the E&W subcommittee is possible, it would come at the expense of another subcommittee. In an election year when El Nino storms are battering large portions of the United States, it is wrongheaded to think that Congress would approve reductions in flood control and other Army Corps of Engineers projects (the Administration claims unspent prior year funding would make up some of the difference.) The result, as Domenici said, is that his subcommittee members will shift money from other accounts within their jurisdiction to make up the shortfall.

Krebs outlined her office’s priorities as the Spallation Neutron Source, climate change initiative, laboratory equipment upgrades, the next generation Internet, and science education programs. Domenici asked, or made brief statements about, fusion, funding scenarios for energy efficiency, Brookhaven’s High Flux Beam Reactor, nuclear energy, and human genome research. Other committee members asked only one or two questions on issues such as nuclear waste, hydrogen, and coal. There was no oral testimony or questions about the Large Hadron Collider.

Before concluding the 50-minute hearing, Domenici told Krebs, “The President whacked water, which may end up whacking energy.” The House will not stand for these cuts, he warned her.

The next day, Krebs appeared before the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. Chairman Joseph McDade (R-PA) made no opening statement. In response to Krebs’ testimony on the Spallation Neutron Source, McDade asked the facility’s total cost. What should he say, he asked Krebs, to a colleague who might tell him it was “a wrong time to get involved in a new start”? He asked her to describe in three sentences “what is the national interest in doing this?” McDade wanted to know how much of the tobacco settlement money would be necessary for funding the spallation neutron source. Krebs said “additional revenue will have to be identified” if the settlement money is not forthcoming. McDade had no other questions regarding physics programs.

Vic Fazio (D-CA), the Ranking Democratic Member, started his round of questions by reminding Krebs of the funding shortfall for the Army Corps of Engineers, later saying “I hope you understand what we face.” He wondered aloud about the extent to which investing in the Spallation Neutron Source would be “crowding out” the money available for other facilities. Krebs replied that future funding above the base budget was provided. Fazio repeated his concern, and said that it was the “major question this committee is struggling with.”

Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) had a string of questions for Krebs on fusion funding. He wanted specifics on many questions he would be submitting on topics such as the number of proposals DOE received on alternatives, facility running times, and ITER.

In describing her portion of the bill, Krebs commented at one of the hearings that “this is good news for science if we can make it happen.” Making it happen this year is going to depend not just on science, but on matters as divergent as flood control and a tobacco settlement.