quest for this program was $612 million of which more than 84% was to be allotted for the Basic Energy Sciences programs. The request for FY 1989 was $26 million over the FY 1988 appropriated levels, excluding construction initiatives which were funded within the Basic Research User Facilities program. This figure represented approximate 5% increase and the Committee was concerned as to whether or not this increase would be adequate to meet the tasks before the nation in Basic Energy Sciences research. In particular, Chairman Lloyd was concerned that the request did not include funding for the Subcommittee's X-Ray Lithography initiative which was instituted in FY 1988. Also, funding for the Advanced Photon Source, a major new user facility to be build at the Argonne National Laboratory was also greatly under-funded within the President's budget request given that this facility is a new start with an estimated cost of over $400 million.

The Committee's recommendation for the Basic Energy Sciences programs provided for an increase of $47,900,000 over the FY 1989 DOE budget request of $375,662,000. The programmatic increases were to be allocated among the Material Sciences, Chemical Sciences, Applied Mathematical Sciences, Engineering Research, and Geosciences Research program elements of the Basic Energy Sciences program. In addition, the Committee recommended an increase of $37,100,000 over the DOE's FY 1989 request of $140,483,000 for the Basic Research User Facilities element of the Basic Energy Sciences program.

(2) University Research Support.-The Committee again expressed its view that it is essential to provide a strong university thrust in nuclear engineering research. The Committee recommended $10 million to be provided for Nuclear Engineering Research and Education. In addition, the Committee recommended $1 million for a pilot program of summer science camps at universities to be administered by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities organization in order to enhance student interest in the sciences and technology curricula at the universities.

3.4(cc)-General Sciences Program

The General Sciences program within the Department of Energy is divided into two parts; (1) High-Energy Physics and (2) Nuclear Physics programs. The Subcommittee held hearings on the overall General Sciences programs on March 30, 1988. The Subcommittee received testimony from nine witnesses representing the Department of Energy, the High-Energy Physics Advisory panel, the Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee, the major accelerator laboratories, and the national laboratories. The Subcommittee reviewed the Department's request for $830 million to cover both programmatic and facility operations within the High Energy and Nuclear Physics programs. Also included within the General Science programs is the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project for which the Department requested $363 million in FY 1989. In opening the hearing, Chairman Lloyd expressed concern that the Department's budget request did not include funding for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) to be constructed at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. In addition, the request for the Continuous Electron

Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) in Newport News, Virginia, was significantly under-funded again the Administration's FY 1989 budget proposal. This was an issue which was raised in the first session of the 100th Congress. The Subcommittee was also concerned that funding for facilities presently in operation such as Tevatron and the Stanford Linear Collider must not be jeopardized by the need to increase funding for the Superconducting Super Collider.

Including the Department's request for the SSC, the total budget request for FY 1989 for the General Sciences programs amounted to $1,197,116,000. The Committee's recommendation reduced this request to a figure of $1,026,816,000 through reductions in the SSC program. The Committee recommended $147,700,000 for the Superconducting Super Collider in FY 1989, a figure which was $215.3 million below the Department's request. The Subcommittee's recommendation expressed the concern of Congress that construction for the SSC not commence until the next Administration has a chance to review the overall program.

3.4(dd)-Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)

On March 22, 1988, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing to review the SSC site selection process, the status of the SSC Magnet Development program, and the funding requirements to support both of these activities for the remainder of FY 1988 and FY 1989. The Committee received testimony from Members of Congress, the Department of Energy, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the SSC Central Design Group, and representatives from industry. In outlining the reasons for the full Committee hearing, Chairman Roe stated that the Committee wanted to establish a record that would clearly delineate the processes and methods used in selecting the seven states that made the "Best Qualified List" in the National Academy's recommendation to the Department of Energy. Mr. Roe also noted that the prospects for international cost-hearing for the Superconducting Super Collider is of great interest to the Members of Congress. The Committee was concerned that the Department's public statements forecasting very high levels of foreign cost-sharing may have been overly optimistic.

The Committee expressed its view on the SSC in H.R. 4505, the Department of Energy Civilian Energy Research and Development Programs Authorization Act for FY 1989. In the report accompanying H.R. 4505, the Committee directed the Depaprtment of Energy to initiate competitive procedures to select a contractor for the Superconducting Super Collider and for the Secretary of Energy to define the responsibilities of the contractor to include overall management and direction of the day-to-day activities associated with the project. In addition, the Committee directed the Secretary of Energy to initiate competitiveness procedures to involve industry in several aspect of the program including, but not limited to, magnet development and manufacturing, technical systems development and manufacturing, and architect/engineer and construction manager activities. The Committee also outlined, in separate sections of the bill (H.R. 4505) other instructions to the Secretary

regarding eligible contract recipients, foreign manufacture of components and systems, requirements on consulting with the Committee regarding foreign participation in the SSC project, conflict of interest provisions that prohibit the Secretary from entering into a contract to manage the operation of the SSC project with any person who has been in a prior position to influence the management or direction of the SSC project. The Committee also instructed the Department to enter into an agreement with the National Research Council to establish a Superconducting Super Collider Independent Cost Review Group.

3.4(ee)-Magnetic Fusion Energy

The Subcommittee held hearings on the Magnetic Fusion Energy program and budget on March 30, 1988. Subsequently, the Subcommittee and then the Committee marked up the DOE authorization bill. The Committee acted to increase the Magnetic Fusion budget request to strengthen the program with the overall objective of achieving a burning plasma at the earliest reasonable date. In particular, $8 million was added to confinement systems operations and $12 million for construction for the Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT). The Committee also added $5 million for Advanced Development and Technology to advance the development of enabling technologies, especially electron cyclotron radio frequency heating.

The 1989 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill did not contain additional funding for the Compact Ignition Tokamak or the Advanced Development and Technology. In fact, the Appropriations' level for CIT was reduced by $4 million with no funding for construction provided in 1989.

3.4(ff)-Other R&D Programs

On March 29, 1988, FY 1989 the Subcommittee continued the DOE authorization hearing for programs not discussed in previous hearings. Testimony was received from the DOE, private industry, and academia. The topics included Nuclear Physics, X-Ray Lithography, Science Education needs, the need for a National University program in multi-phase flow and Petroleum and Conservation R&D activities.

A panel of witnesses discussed the status of the Committee's XRay Lithography initiative. Witnesses urged the establishment of a comprehensive program plan relying on industry and government collaboration. The plan should include designation of a lead agency, schedules and a full funding profile. Witnesses also discussed the critical need to focus on the scientific education of U.S. students. Recent comparisons of scientific achievement of U.S. high school students with their foreign contemporaries showed U.S. students ranking lower. Reasons for decline included less federal funding available for academic research including funds to purchase and refurbish laboratory equipment. Additionally, fellowship programs and university summer science camps should be encouraged to stimulate interest in science.

3.4(gg-The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation
Commercialization and Development Act (H.R. 4226)

Background

The Department of Energy Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation R&D program funding has severely declined since its 1982 peak. While funding for other Civilian Energy programs has also declined, support for Renewables and Conservation is at a relatively low level, allowing only a small base program in most of the activities.

Legislative History

H.R. 4226 was introduced on March 22, 1988, and jointly referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development (ERD) and the Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Power. The ERD held a hearing on June 30, 1988, and received testimony from the following witnesses: Dr. Harold Hubbard, Director, Solar Energy Research Institute; Dr. Peter Blair, Energy and Minerals Program, Office of Technology Assessment; Mr. Scott Sklar, Executive Director, Solar Energy Industries Association; Dr. T. W. F. Russell, Director, Institute of Energy Conversion, University of Delaware; Mr. Marc Ledbetter, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; and Mr. Geoff Grandall, National Association of Rgulatory Commissioners.

The Subcommittee reported H.R. 4226 as amended on September 22, 1988.

3.4(hh)-State of the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry

On May 13, 1988, the Subcommittee held a field hearing on the state of the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry. The hearing was held in Marshall, Texas. The hearing was precipitated by the Subcommittee's concerns over declining oil and gas R&D budgets and the effect of oil and gas prices, particularly as they impact independent producers.

Recent changes in the income tax law that eliminated incentives for oil and gas drilling and production coupled with low oil prices have severely impacted the independent producers ability to compete with large companies. Recommendations to return some income tax incentives, institute an oil import fee and to limit crude oil imports were discussed as ways to assist struggling independents.

Economic dislocations caused by oil price declines were discussed in terms of the effect on small companies. Instead of waiting for prices to increase, witnesses recommended that we must develop new technologies to find new reserves and for increasing production from existing fields. Increased funding for R&D was called for principally bacuse, while large companies do fund R&D, their research results are not necessarily beneficial to small companies.

3.4(ii)—High Temperature Superconductivity and Technology Transfer

On June 23, 1988, the Energy Research and Development Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the status of federally sponsored programs in high temperature superconductivity applications, its impact on technology transfer activities of the Department of Energy's National Laboratories, and the degree to which the programs had benefited the private sector. Representatives from the Departments of Energy and Defense, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as individuals from private industry testified on this day.

There was a general consensus that the federally sponsored high temperature superconductivity applications programs were well coordinated and supporting R&D across a range of appropriate technologies, and that a substantial amount of this activity would be of value to the private sector. However, two major problems were identified in this hearing:

(1) The DOE approach to technology transfer at the National Laboratories still posed major barriers to completing cooperative agreements with U.S. companies to transfer technologies developed in the laboratories, and

(2) The funding for R&D in this area needed to be more reliable. A procurement freeze, instituted by the Department of Defense because of cost overruns in major activities, was having a major and potentially severe impact on the ability of many companies to participate in the program.

Subsequent to the hearing, the freeze was lifted, at least with regard to R&D procurements. A contributing factor to the lifting of the freeze was the strong response of Congress, including several Members of the Committee, expressing concern on the possible negative impact on the ability of U.S. industry to compete in the high termperature superconductivity arena.

The effectiveness of the technology transfer activities of the DOE National Laboratories was assessed by the Subcommittee in a hearing on July 27, 1988.

3.4(jj)—Establishing a Uranium Enrichment Corporation

On October 6, 1988, a hearing was held to look into the feasibility of establishing a separate uranium enrichment corporation_to conduct the uranium enrichment business now operated in the Department of Energy. Testimony was received from the Department of Energy, private interest groups, and industry.

Three bills, H.R. 4489, H.R. 4934, and 4975 all "The Uranium Revitalization and Enrichment Act of 1988," have been introduced to create an enrichment corporation and testimony focused on the pending legislation and the costs and benefits of various approaches as well as the problems that may be encountered if various provisions are enacted into law.