Science Subcommittee Reviews DOE Energy Research Budget for FY 1997
Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a half-day hearing to receive testimony from Dr. Martha Krebs and eight national laboratory/facility directors. Testimony centered on the importance of stable funding, and the serious impacts that future budget reductions will have on physics research.
One of subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-CA) first questions centered on what he called “sharp drops” in high energy physics and nuclear physics research budgets in the administration’s projections for FYs 1998, 1999, and 2000. Krebs replied that these cuts (see FYI #71) were not developed in consultation with DOE, had been “applied in a mechanical way,” and “do not represent policy.” She added that these future budgets would be revisited after FY 1997 appropriations are settled. Rohrabacher responded that these were “phony numbers” that were “irrelevant.” Krebs, citing more favorable funding profiles for NIH and NSF, recommended that the Office of Energy Research budget be given the same preferential treatment, a sentiment later echoed by the directors.
Rep. David Minge (D-MN) asked Krebs about the proposed Large Hadron Collider (LHC). While admitting that it was not as powerful a machine as the SSC, she stated that the U.S. should still participate since this was the energy frontier. In the very long term - 15+ years - it will be, she said, “very important for this country to have its own capability at the frontier.” In response to further questions, Krebs said that it is necessary to understand that the “money is gone” from termination of the SSC. “When you fight among yourselves, the money does not go to science,” she said.
Rohrabacher asked Krebs “how can we justify” spending money on the LHC since other high energy physics facilities have or are being upgraded. She repeated her earlier response, adding that she anticipates DOE will contribute $450 million to the effort, saying “I don’t think we have the money to go above that.” Rohrabacher was skeptical, saying that if the request does not go up in the outyears “it will be further proof of the existence of God.”
The eight directors generally expressed appreciation for the recent infusion of operating funding, and had deep concerns about possible cuts to their future budgets. Among their comments were that facilities “are operating on the edge” and further reductions would force “draconian choices.” They called on Congress to provide stable funding, one director saying that pending budget cuts are harmful to employee morale. His laboratory has 4,500 employees, and if 50 positions are to cut, they all worry it will be their job, he said.
Rohrabacher ended the hearing by repeating his party’s support for basic research, while looking with disfavor on “corporate subsidies.” He added, “we’ve got to do our very best with what we’ve got.”
The subcommittee will mark-up “the Department of Energy’s Civilian Research and Development Act of 1996,” on May 15.
