Important Appropriations Hearing for DOE Office of Science

House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ron Packard (R-CA) began his March 11 hearing by telling Martha Krebs and two senior DOE officials about their written testimony that he “hadn’t read such technical information since dental school.” While beginning this hearing on a light-hearted note, Packard, who just became subcommittee chairman, ended it with a far more serious tone about priority-setting, the national laboratories, and lobbying efforts by the Department.

“Each year we get results” Martha Krebs told Packard and his colleagues about the Office of Science’s programs. Saying that her office is the primary supporter of physical science in this country, she described three major features of the FY 2000 budget request: the Spallation Neutron Source (“we have moved quickly to get this project on path”), scientific simulation, and education. These are difficult times, Krebs said, explaining that the “decisions are defensible but not comfortable.” “This is a good budget. It will enable exciting science,” she concluded.

Packard told the DOE officials that “we are expecting a very tight budget this year” that will comply with the budget caps. This will mean significant reductions in the subcommittee’s money, and he cautioned that a better job would have to be done in “developing our priorities...what areas are crucial.” Packard wants a list of all requested budget increases over 5%. Krebs replied that “we have some fairly significant increases” that would fund very worthwhile science. (Note: the Office of Science over-all request is up 5.1%. Of the major physics-related Science budgets, only the Basic Energy Sciences requested increase of 11.1% is over 5%, with most of this increase attributable to the neutron source. This does not include any individual item within these budget categories.)

Subcommittee members had many questions for Krebs. Ranking Minority Member Peter Visclosky (D-IN) asked exacting questions about Argonne’s environmental-safety-health management. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) told Krebs he was “very enthusiastic” about fusion power. Chet Edwards (D-TX) asked, “where are we on our commitment to basic research?,” Krebs replying that historically the budget has steadily increased, although it includes building some big machines. Edwards also asked about the number of women in science. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), a strong advocate of fusion research, asked many questions about TRTR’s decommissioning. Krebs told the subcommittee that “there certainly is good [fusion] research that could be funded with additional money,” later adding that she hopes to maintain future fusion budgets at the current level after ITER’s close-out. She also assured Frelinghuysen that the neutron source management will be tightened to bring the spending rate up to schedule. James E. Clyburn (D-SC) told the witnesses to “be very, very careful with those indirect costs,” as media reports about excesses are very worrisome to his colleagues.

Michael Forbes (R-NY) represents the district containing Brookhaven National Laboratory. He said he was “1,000%" behind the lab’s research, and then went on to ask about an almost one- year delay in a restart decision for the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR). Forbes worked with then Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) in pushing for the HFBR’s closure, and said he continues to oppose a restart. Krebs told Forbes that “there is still a fairly strong feeling among the [scientific] community” supporting HFBR, “waiting for it to come back.” Forbes wanted to know how realistic it was to resume operations at 60 megawatts, saying that local residents do not favor this. Krebs replied that there were “no technical issues with restarting to 60 megawatts.” Forbes also wanted to know if RHIC is still on schedule for August, Krebs saying yes, although adding “I trip over the word fully.” Forbes asked if Brookhaven was having difficulty accommodating users of the Synchrotron Light Source because of money problems. Krebs replied that DOE agreed to around two-thirds of a committee’s funding recommendation, adding that the National Institutes of Health would be providing money for biological research.

Packard made several fairly hard-hitting points in bringing the hearing to an end. He returned to the topic of priority-setting, saying a 45% requested increase for renewable energy research “is of concern.” “Our priorities are in the wrong place,” he said, when comparing the $45 million photovoltaic request to the $19 million nuclear energy request. “That is of great concern to me,” Packard said of what he predicts could be a turning away from nuclear and hydro power to fossil fuels. At the same time, he feels that attitudes are changing towards nuclear energy, and now thinks that a new nuclear power plant could be built in his lifetime. He is upset about regulators “trap[ping] people into disobedience, " and wants the department to “follow the rules and get the work done.” Regarding science, he asked “how do we determine the science programs that our labs do?” saying “I am a little concerned about our labs” doing projects “that perpetuate themselves...[that] “may not be the best science or projects to be done.” Finally, in a firm voice, Packard told the DOE officials that lobbying efforts by the department must stop. If DOE wants to lobby, he said, it should request money to hire outside professionals, and then let Congress decide if they should fund this activity. And with that, he concluded the hearing.