« PrécédentContinuer »
on-and goes back 15 years and says, what is the rate of return on the investments that have been made in the basic research at universities that have led to the new developments, the new products, the new techniques, the new services? And the answer is 28_percent. That is the number that a certified economist, of which I am certainly not one, came up with.
I think that is a good number. Because that is not a bad rate of return. And so, to the extent that retrospectively one can give a number, that is the number. Prospectively, I would find it impossible to give that number. But I think history is a reasonable guide.
Senator BUMPERS. Dr. Bromley, let me say, personally, I have the utmost respect for you as a scientist and as a man of intense integrity. And certainly my questioning is not designed to badger you, it is just to raise probably rather simple questions by a layman.
Dr. BROMLEY. I understand, sir.
Senator BUMPERS. Everything has to be put in priority around here. My disagreements with your president and not personal, they are simply based on priorities. And something like 68 percent of the basic research money in this country that the United States Government spends, as you know, is coming out of the Defense Department.
Dr. BROMLEY. That is correct.
Senator BUMPERS. Sixty-one. And the Japanese spend about 2 percent on basic research on defense. And the Germans slightly more than that.
Dr. BROMLEY. If I may, sir. Of that 61 percent, it is worth emphasizing that 92 percent of that total is tied to specific weapon systems. Only 8 percent would fit under the same rubric that is used elsewhere in the government in discussing research and development.
Senator BUMPERS. I understand those arguments. But when I sit on the health and human resources subcommittee of the appropriations committee, and NIH tells me that they have thousands of very good applications for basic medical research, and I know that we could easily put $2 billion more into NIH for that purpose, and the money is simply not available.
And you see, with me, that is really a much higher priority than the SSC is.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURNS. Dr. Bromley, if Senator Bumpers is a layman, I am the serf. Because I went through this with the State of Montana when we were making applications for this supercollidor, and know very little about it. And I would imagine that the scientific community could well take a lesson or some courses in salesmanship. People like Senator Bumpers and myself, we do not buy stuff, we buy benefits.
And sometimes we have to rationalize, if I could get the fervor that you have in your community into research over into agriculture and how we feed and clothe and protect the health of our citizens, so that agriculture and the medical community could make a
living and still do it within the reach of every pocketbook in this country, why, if I could get that sort of a fever like yours has started, I am sure that we could solve a lot of our problems.
Í have just got a couple of questions. I would like some kind of an indication how you are being received from our foreign sources of capital. Are they willing to make the investment in this project? Is their interest in this questioned, or is it higher than you would find on this committee?
Dr. BROMLEY. I can report to you on three specific countries. I was involved as chairman of the U.S. side of the Indo-U.S. bilateral that President Reagan set up, and specifically was involved in negotiating the $50 million that India wishes to contribute, and that is on the line. They have committed to that.
I do not pretend that I have formal commitments at all from the other countries, but I have talked with a number of senior officials and certainly with a number of senior scientists in Japan. And my reading of those discussions is that there is very real interest on the part of the Japanese in participating in a major way in SSC.
I have also talked with senior government officials and with senior scientists in Canada. I believe that there is very real interest on their part in participating in SSC. Those are the three that I can speak to from personal knowledge at this time, sir.
It is not just cocktail party discussion; this is serious discussion. And I anticipate that we will, as a result of the trip that I mentioned that Deputy Secretary Moore and his group will be making later this summer, see very concrete indication and commitment on their part.
Senator BURNS. I have not talked to Deputy Secretary Moore about this situation. Is he confident that we can reach our goals of 30 percent financial support for this project?
Dr. BROMLEY. Thirty percent non-Federal, not 30 percent foreign. Senator BURNS. I am sorry, I did not clarify that.
Dr. BROMLEY. My understanding is that Mr. Moore is in fact reasonably confident of that. It is hard to know until he has the discussions. But every occasion on which I have talked to him about this suggests that he has very great confidence in his ability to do this.
Senator BURNS. Well, that was just some things that I was concerned about. I could ask you no technical questions or even get anything close to them. And I think what it boils down to for most of us, is how we are going to pay for this thing and the benefits derived. And it sounds like the benefits are pretty hazy out there. But I also go back to the old - like Senator Bumpers from Arkansas, and that these men served with him and – and the old saying of Senator Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money.
Dr. BROMLEY. I would not argue with that, sir.
Doctor, let me ask one thing. I believe I have got a thread that you have one opinion that may be personal that is a little bit different from the administration's. But let me ask you this question, and this will be the final question, unless Senator Johnston has something. What condition should we have on magnet production and testing before going on with construction?
Dr. BROMLEY. Sir, I have to answer that question in two parts. I am on the record before you and before other committees of this Senate in the past--and I stand by that as a personal statement. I believe that it would be important in my view, to give me the confidence that I feel that it would be important to have, to have some significant number--I do not know, pick 25 out of the hat—25 magnets that have been produced totally by an industrial supplier in their own factory; and have those magnets demonstrated to be reproducible, reliable, and industrially produced.
I still believe that that is a very important requirement. The Administration's position is different. It is that we require 10 magnets that would be industrially assembled. And the difference there, sir, is that the magnet components in this case would be fabricated in a national laboratory, Fermilab in particular, by a group with a large sprinkling of Ph.D.s.
And I have been sufficiently experienced in my pre-Washington days to know that until an industry actually begins to fabricate something in their own factory, there are strange things that can happen that cannot be foreseen in total.
So I am a little uncomfortable about proceeding to other aspects of the program, particularly given the history of the Colliding Beam Accelerator on Long Island, until such time as we have demonstrated that an industrial supplier-remember that we are going to need more than 10,000 of these magnets, sir-I would like to see enough of them produced reliably, reproducibly, and industrially to demonstrate that we in fact can make this very critical component and do it correctly.
I do not believe that this would in any sense hold up the program. And I further believe, and have testified before you, that the $318 million that the Department of Energy has requested for fiscal year 1991 indeed would permit just this demonstration if in fact this funding were directed predominantly to that target.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Bromley, that number is a dozen, 20, 25?
Dr. BROMLEY. Some number that gives statistical-25 I picked out of the hat.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, why do not you give us a number, because that may end up in some legislation somewhere, so pick the right number? (Laughter.]
Senator FORD. Pick the right number. Dr. BROMLEY. Twenty-five would make me reasonably happy. The CHAIRMAN. Well, what is the phase one number? That was 10, was it not?
Dr. BROMLEY. It was 10. And that was 10 industrially assembled, not industrially produced. That is the difference.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, how many are there in phase two?
Dr. BROMLEY. I frankly do not know, sir. Someone I am sure here does, though. Dr. Decker.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, there is someone in the back.
Dr. BROMLEY. No. If we could produce 25 and do it reproducibly and reliably, I think we would be in excellent shape.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. There is some question about whether there should be dual sourcing or sole sourcing on this. Do you have an opinion on that?
Dr. BROMLEY. I would not wish to—I do not have sufficient background or expertise to really comment usefully on that. I think that we have people here who will be speaking to you later who are much better qualified than I.
The CHAIRMAN. But you would use the figure of 25?
Senator FORD. Thank you, Doctor. I am afraid we kept you a little longer than I had intended. But as you can understand, you are the spokesman and answered the questions. And we will be looking at you, I imagine, several times before this year is over.
Dr. BROMLEY. I welcome the opportunity to come back, sir.
Senator FORD. We look forward to it. Thank you very, very much.
Next panel witness will be Dr. Decker, Acting Director, Office of Energy and Research, Department of Energy; and Dr. Roy Schwitters, Director, SSC Laboratory, Dallas, Texas. Good to see both of you back, and you understand the conditions of the hearing, and you may highlight it. And, Dr. Decker, you may go first.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES F. DECKER, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY RESEARCH, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Dr. DECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a written statement that I have submitted for the record. And I would like to briefly summarize it for you.
Senator FORD. It will be included in the record. Can you summarize that?
Dr. DECKER. I will do my best.
It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Energy's fiscal year 1991 budget request for the programs in the Office of Energy Research. These programs include: High Energy Physics, the Superconducting Super Collider, Nuclear Physics, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Magnetic Fuslor Energy, University and Science Education and the supporting programs. The total fiscal year 1991 budget request for these programs is $2.6 billion.
This request reflects the administration's strong belief in the key role played by science in our Nation's future, technological and economic well being. Dr. Bromley has already addressed this point. I would like to take the next few minutes to highlight some key aspects of the High Energy Physics research program for fiscal year 1991 and our progress on the Superconducting Super Collider.
The goal of high energy physics is to determine fundamental constituents of matter and the forces that hold them together. These are some of the most fundamental questions we can ask about what makes our universe work in all of its vast complexity.
At present, we have an incomplete model that we call the Standard Model that describes many of the observed phenomenon. During the past year, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and Fermilab have measured certain key features of the so-called Standard Model. The measurements made at Stanford and Fermilab on the Z particle have confirmed a prediction in the Standard Model by setting limits on a number of different species of particles to be expected. The search at Fermilab for the ellusive top quark predicted by the Standard Model continues and a lower limit on its mass was established.
The higher energies required to continue this search are only available at Fermilab and nowhere else in the world at this time. The fiscal year 1991 budget request provides for full operation of our high energy physics facilities at Fermilab, at Stanford and at Brookhaven to fully exploit our investment in those facilities.
There are a number of important fundamental questions about the standard model that cannot be answered using present facilities here or abroad. For example, what is the origin of the mass of particles? Are there smaller more fundamental particles than quarks and leptons? Is there yet some undiscovered force? To reach the energies necessary to answer these and other questions, we need a more powerful tool than any available today. We need to build the Superconducting Super Collider.
In January 1989, we began creating the SSC Laboratory from a true green field start. One of the first tasks of this new laboratory has been a complete base line conceptual design for the Texas site. You may recall that the original conceptual design completed in 1986 was developed by a national design team located at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
The preliminary base-line design completed in January of this year contains two major technical design changes based on new information since the original 1986 design was completed. The injector, which sends protons into the main 54-mile ring, had to be enlarged to inject the protons at 2 instead of 1 trillion electron volts. And the magnet aperture had to be increased from 4 to 5 centimeters. But Dr. Bromley has already discussed the technical reasons for making those changes, so I will not repeat that. However, these technical
design changes have led to significant increases in the estimated cost of the project.
There are some additional cost increases due to such things as updated estimates of such items as labor mix and rates. These increases have now raised the project cost to about $8 billion compared to the previous estimate of $5.9 billion. Because of the potential cost increases, I asked the SSC Laboratory to consider descoping the project.
The only form of descoping that could save substantial amounts of money is a reduction in size and, therefore, the energy of the accelerator. Because reduction in energy would impact the physics goals, I asked our High Energy Physics Advisory Panel to consider the physics research potential of the SSC as a function of the energy. To examine this issue a blue ribbon subpanel was formed. It was chaired by Dr. Sidney Drell, who you will hear in the next panel.
That panel included five nobel laureates. And as Dr. Bromley indicated in his testimony, the panel fully endorsed the proposed 20 TeV design and indicated to us that there was too much of a risk of losing important physics by reducing the energy. The panel also en