Question 4:

Answer:

In order to get a picture of the commitments being made that
will claim resources in the future, please provide the
Subcommittee with a year-by-year estimate breaking down the
total construction, capital equipment, and operating costs that
must be covered by appropriations between FY 1991 and FY 1999
for DOE's "Fortifying Foundations" budget category (SSC, High
Energy and Nuclear Physics, Basic Energy Sciences, and
Biological and Environmental Research), including the costs of
the SSC, the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, the 1-2 GeV Synchrotron, the 6-
7 GeV Synchrotron, and any proposed neutron source for solid
state physics.

We would be pleased to provide the outyear projections associated with the FY 1991 budget request before Congress. These projections are traditionally prepared by the Administration for a five year period only. Therefore, outyear projections beyond those developed for the FY 1991 Congressional budget are not available at this time. It should be noted that these estimates are updated annually as part of the President's annual budget submission to the Congress.

(The information follows:)

Question 5:

Answer:

Under the President's proposed FY 1991 budget, how many full days of operation are planned for each of DOE's major existing facilities? Provide a facility-by-facility breakdown.

I will be pleased to provide that information for the record. (The information follows:)

Question:

Answer:

How do you answer the criticism that DOE is continually seeking to build new facilities, but then fails to recommend sufficient funds to fully utilize these facilities once they become operational?

The optimum HEP program requires establishing a balance between
three major program components: 1) Operation of existing
accelerator facilities, 2) support for research utilizing these
facilities, and 3) provision for the new facilities and/or
facility upgrades needed to maintain the capabilities of the US
HEP program in its world forefront position. A substantial
unbalance in these factors can have serious consequences.
Oversupport of facility operations at the expense of research
support can lead to wasted beam time if the funding to install
and operate experiments is depleted. Undersupport of facility
operations leads to excessive and costly delays in completing
experiments. Adequate but balanced funding needs to be provided
for facility upgrades and the provision of new facilities.
Otherwise, the technical capabilities of the facilities will not
keep up with the ever escalating needs of the science.
Inadequate provision for future capabilities will lead, in a few
years, to second class facilities and stagnation.

Question:

Doesn't intensive use of existing facilities have a positive impact on the development of the next generation of U.S. scientists and engineers? How does this consideration enter into your decisionmaking in funding operations at existing facilities.

Answer:

Development of the next generation of scientists and engineers
is certainly one of the very important factors which must be
considered in determining the balance described above and
provision of opportunities for current research is essential for
that development. Indeed, the health of the HEP research
community in the period between now and when the SSC begins to
produce physics is a major concern and we believe it is
essential to maintain a healthy and productive HEP research

program in this interim so that the US will be well positioned
to take maximum scientific advantage of the nation's investment
in the SSC.