Senator FORD. Thank you very much, Congressman. It is normally as a courtesy we do not ask questions, but I am going to break that courtesy this morning, if I may, with you. Mr. BARTON. Yes, sir. Senator FORD. In order to get a couple of points on the record, they will not be tough questions. Mr. BARTON. Remember I am an Aggie, now. So, you pointed that out. Senator FORD. I understand, but you have not been kicked by a Kentucky mule yet. [Laughter.] I understand that in some quarters there is concern about Texas contribution to the project. Let me ask you this question, is Texas offering $1 billion plus the necessary land? Or is the value of the land part of the $1 billion? Can you clarify that for us? Mr. BARTON. I would be very happy to, Mr. Chairman. As you know, when the six states were in the competition to be selected as the site of the SSC, part of the proposal was that every state had to provide the land free of charge to the Department of Energy-every State. And every State made that promise. One state on top of that promised more-Texas promised the land plus $1 billion. Now, I would point out that when Texas was designated as the site in November 1988, the plan at that time was to begin land acquisition in April 1989. The original land acquisition plan was supposed to be completed this month. Because of a lot of very relevant reasons, land acquisition is not going to actually begin until May or June of this year. But in spite of that delay the State of Texas said, we will furnish the land free of charge, and we will also provide an additional $1 billion. You know, Texas has always honored its commitments. It will honor that commitment. Senator FORD. When will Texas enter into a written arrangement with DOE to govern this contribution? Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not technically qualified to answer that question. I am sure Dr. Decker, or Dr. Schwitters could do so. I do know they are having consultations right now. And it is my understanding that those negotiations will result in some sort of a formal agreement later this summer. Senator FORD. Are you confident that the management structure can keep the project under control? Mr. BARTON. To be honest, Mr. Chairman, in the past year-and-ahalf, I have had some concerns about that. I have spoken with Secretary Watkins, Deputy Secretary Henson Moore, Dr. Schwitters, the head of the laboratory, and Dr. Allan Bromley, the President's scientific advisor, about some of those issues. I have great confidence in the personnel that are in place. I think some of the terms of the authorization bill that is under consideration in the House should alleviate some of those problems. The Department of Energy and University Research Associates have come a long way in the last year to put in place a good management system. Senator FORD. Did I understand that you think Congressman Roe's bill will be passed by the House? Mr. BARTON. Yes, sir. Senator FORD. And that will set a cap of $5 billion? Mr. BARTON. That is correct-Federal. Mr. BARTON. Federal share, yes, sir. Senator FORD. The federal share will be $5 billion. If I felt you right and the statement of our chairman, we are very concerned about broadening out foreign participation. We would like to keep this an American project? Mr. BARTON. That is the entire subject of the international plan. It is something that needs to be fleshed out this year in the Senate and the House. There is great concern, as Senator Johnston indicated, in the American industrial community that the manufacturing technology, not necessarily will be given away, but that the American corporations will not have an opportunity to develop it or to use it. There is a provision in the House authorization bill that requires 50 percent American participation in every aspect of the project. The administration has expressed some concerns with that. But I would support that. I think that, while I do not think we can make every aspect of the project 100 percent American, I do think that there should be an American or United States participation in every aspect of the project. Senator FORD. Fine, thank you, Congress. Senator Johnston, do you have any questions? The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Joe, for a good presentation. I would just say that to me, it does not pass muster to say, American participation. On the high technology things, the things that are worth doing, that are really valuable, we have to learn to do them, and do them here, not send that out of the country. I mean, if somebody wants to give us some money, so that they can send some scientists over to look at quarks and leptons and all that-great. But do not try to come in and get the cream of the technology here by agreeing to build half the magnets or something. I mean, the way to get this thing in political trouble, I think, is to give away the good technology, and I hope we do not do that. Mr. BARTON. I have no argument with that, Senator. As you know, if we cap federal expenditures at $5 billion, and the State of Texas puts up $1 billion plus the land, that is $6 billion. We expect the latest cost estimate, the engineering estimate to come in between $7.2 billion and $7.8 billion. So that is going to be made up with foreign participation or some sort of creative private financing in this country. And as you know, in some aspects, our international allies are ahead of us. The Italians built the magnets that are now at CERN. The Japanese have some technology in terms of magnet fabrication that they consider to be the best in the world. So in some of these areas, American companies can actually benefit by joint ventures. And, you know, it is in my opinion, as long as we mandate, require at least a 50 participation by an American company, that in some ways will be the best of both worlds. The CHAIRMAN. They may have better R&D in some respects. The Italians are right up in the state of the art. But in manufacturing technology, if we do it here, then we learn the manufacturing technology. Mr. BARTON. I understand. The CHAIRMAN. I mean, it is not just the R&D. They may be ahead in the R&D. Mr. BARTON. We want the jobs, and we want the manufacturing jobs in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Well, more than that. We want the manufacturing technology. I mean, it is like the Japanese. We invented so many of those things on automobiles, invented it here, but they learned the manufacturing technology and that is why they sell more Toyotas and other automobiles than GM sells in some respects. At least, that is why they are getting more of the market, and so that is what I am interested in, is learning that technology. Thank you very much. Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator FORD. Thank you, Joe. We appreciate your coming and we will continue to work with you and look forward to it. The next witness this morning is the Honorable D. Allan Bromley, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Good morning, Mr. Bromley. I understand you have a time schedule this morning? Senator FORD. We will be delighted to try to accommodate you in any way in order to have your testimony, and you can highlight your statement, whatever, and I will try to limit my questions, give you some in writing, so if you want to proceed we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF DR. D. ALLAN BROMLEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Dr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have provided formal testimony and I will not do more than touch on that. I would like to add a few additional points in my oral presentation with your permission. Senator FORD. Your text will be included in the record as if given, Mr. Bromley, and you may proceed. Dr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am of course delighted to be here with you this morning to discuss the Department of Energy's proposed budget for research and fundamental physical sciences activities, including the Superconducting Super Collider. In my view the research that is supported by the Department of Energy is a very important component of our Nation's science and technology enterprise in that it has consistently been of very high quality with very substantial benefits to our society. In general, I would have to emphasize the very high priority that this administration places on research and development as an investment in the Nation's future. This was demonstrated, of course, in the President's budget submission to you a few months ago, and even in areas of basic research, such as the kind of research we are discussing today, I believe that investments in science and technology can pay important economic and social dividends. Just to pick an example more or less at random, we now use positron-emission tomography-PET scans-not only to observe the structure but also the realtime function of the human brain. This is a remarkable technology that allows diagnosis and clinical study of the function of the brain in this, the decade of the brain. It is important to remember that this technology derived from studies that had nothing to do with this area but were designed to understand the behavior of radioisotopes and were part of the Department of Energy program. At the same time, sir, I feel it very important to emphasize that basic research is inherently valuable above and beyond its possible utility. The expansion of knowledge that is involved-and I do not think I need to convince any of you gentlemen—is an adventure on which our society is embarked and I, for example, consider myself singularly fortunate to have been able to spend so many decades of my career on that adventure. The question that emerges simply is, what can we afford on the frontiers of human knowledge? That, gentlemen, is a decision that ultimately is yours. The President's 1991 budget affirms the key role of science and technology in our Nation's economic competitiveness, security, and quality of life, as well as the fundamental value of scientific research. It calls for $71.2 billion in Federal research and development, an increase of 7 percent. Special consideration has been given to civilian R&D, which would rise 12 percent, and to basic research, which would go up by 8. I think it is important, if I may, sir, to emphasize that in the formulation of such a budget there are certain fundamental criteria, and in coming up with this budget there were three that we applied. If I could take a moment to emphasize them. First, we believe that it is essential to provide support for those programs that address national needs and national security concerns. This includes, for example, such things as environmental cleanup, improvement of science and mathematics education, development of our presence in space, and the maintenance of the defense technology base. Second, we believe that we have a major obligation to support basic research, specifically university-based, individual investigator, small-group research, which I feel still constitutes the heart and backbone of our science and technology enterprise. This is the reason, for example, why this administration supports very firmly the doubling of the NSF budget by 1993. Third, Mr. Chairman, we have to provide, I would submit, the funding for the scientific infrastructure and facilities that will keep this country at the forefront of advancing intellectual frontiers. Large facilities are essential if American science is to remain at those research frontiers, and once the facilities such as the Superconducting Super Collider are built they will serve literally thousands of scientists and make possible scientific understanding, as we have heard before, not only of our universe but of ourselves and of the role that we play in that universe. The influence of these priorities can be seen in the Department of Energy basic research programs that we are discussing today. Funding for each of the areas that we are discussing would rise under the 1991 budget, as I shall discuss in a moment. But first, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would take a moment to emphasize that the kind of priorities I have just mentioned influence other areas of the DOE budget that we are not specifically addressing this morning, including basic research conducted in the Department's biological and environmental research programs. I have in mind two specific areas: the U.S. Global Change Research Program, where the DOE portion will increase by 33 percent; the human genome project, in which DOE shares $46 million; and, in addition, DOE funding for programs in science, mathematics and engineering education, which are slated to rise by 47 percent in this coming year. Now, funding for the Superconducting Super Collider, Mr. Chairman, as you know, falls within the budget of the General Science and Research Division, and the proposed funding for SSC in 1991 is set at $318 million, up 46 percent. SSC has been approved by two Presidents and by the Congress. There have always been two very important provisos attached to those approvals. The first is that one-third of the cost, whatever that cost might be, must be borne from non-Federal sources. The second is that moving forward with the SSC must not cut into the underlying science and technology base of the Nation. Both of these provisos continue to apply. If I might elaborate on the second, the administration has in fact requested increases for nuclear physics, high-energy physics and basic energy science programs within the DOE, and thus we are continuing to support the efforts of individual investigators while going forward with important national facilities. If I could first take up the budget of basic energy sciences, the administration has requested a 14 percent increase in funding, bringing the total to $649 million. This funding will allow U.S. synchrotron light sources and other facilities to be operated at levels that would let us reap the scientific reward of the investments that you gentlemen have helped us make in these facilities. Increased funding will also provide for continued construction of the new light sources that have been enthusiastically supported both by industrial and academic workers. This is a new era in materials science that depends on the existence and the availability of very large facilities that originally were developed in particle physics. Unfortunately, it is not possible to simultaneously provide broad increase in the basic energy sciences for individual sciences and groups this year, except in a few explicitly identified areas of special importance; high-performance computing, which we have discussed before, sir, is one of those areas. We plan to use mechanisms that I have described previously such as the Federal Coordinating Council, FCCSET, to develop programs for these priority areas and to identify other areas where future increases in research support at the Federal level will be urgently required and justified. The nuclear physics program in DOE is slated for a 14.2 percent increase. This program supports about 50 percent of the universitybased research in this discipline within the United States. Most of the increased funding will be used, Mr. Chairman, to permit additional utilization of some facilities in high-priority sub-areas, new instrumentation, particularly for university groups, and increased |