PANEL 1 DISCUSSION

Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much, Dr. Bernstein.

Dr. Pimentel has visited before our committee and presented his report, a very excellent report. I think that was sometime last year that he was before the committee.

One of the things that they recommended in that report was that the DOE research programs in energy-relevant areas such as chemistry-that they should be raised commensurate with those with the national laboratories-the ratio between universities versus national laboratories. Do you have any information on that at this time-as to how that ratio is operating?

Dr. BERNSTEIN. The recommendation of the report was that over the 5-year report the goal should be to try to achieve a balance of about 50 percent of the basic research in the universities and 50 percent in the national labs.

It's recognized that there is an imbalance, and over a period of 5 years this could be corrected with the recommended incremental funding.

That's not the central issue; it's really the opportunities that are out there waiting to be grasped, and I think that's the thrust of the report. The concept of this division between the universities and the national laboratories, this is a goal over the next 5 years to achieve a parity.

By the way, let me just mention that Professor Pimentel would have been here, but he's undergone some surgery and is now recuperating, and so we wish him very well.

Mr. FUQUA. I hope he's doing well. Please extend to him our wishes for a speedy recovery.

Dr. Browne, what steps are Los Alamos taking to develop a national user group facility, and how do you plan to accommodate outside users?

Dr. BROWNE. We have experience in that area, mainly based on our LAMPF experience where LAMPF has about 1,000-usermember groups today.

We would probably-we plan to do it in a similar manner-that is, to have a program advisory committee which accepts proposals on behalf of users from any organization, whether industry or from universities.

We have had some workshops to date to make people aware of the capabilities, and the timeliness of that user program really depends on our ability to show the community out there that we have the capability available to them. To date, we have not had that opportunity because of the limited experimental space that I showed in my talk.

Mr. FUQUA. Dr. Shirley, in your prepared your remarks, on page 18, you talk about the 4.3 percent budget reduction, that you'd have to lay off about 50 to 100 people, curtail the summer undergraduate student programs, and also a reduction in operating hours for your national user facilities. Then you went on further to estimate that in 1987 funds you may lose 200 full-time equivalents and over the year about 600 positions.

I'm worried that with the new facility, will you have enough operating funds to keep it operating in those outyears, and would you

reduce the number of graduate students, and so forth, that might be available to train there?

Dr. SHIRLEY. The major purpose-an important purpose of the new facilities upgrade plan put forth by DOE is to better define the missions of the national laboratories-the multiprogram national laboratories-and provide a well defined long-term stable program which these laboratories could offer.

A substantial reason for the reductions that our laboratory has endured over the last few years has been that our funds come from a variety of sources and often come without any long-term institutional commitment.

So my response to your question would be that I would expect that operating funds would accompany the national user facility that we propose to construct and that they would provide a stability that the laboratory does not presently experience.

Mr. FUQUA. How many additional graduate students have been trained at Lawrence Berkeley as a result of the establishment of the CAM facility?

to

Dr. SHIRLEY. We have approximately 60 graduate students.
Mr. FUQUA. Sixty?

Dr. SHIRLEY. Yes, presently.

Mr. FUQUA. Is that new?

Dr. SHIRLEY. That's right; that is correct. That is additional

Mr. FUQUA. To be attributed to this facility?

Dr. SHIRLEY. That is correct, yes.

Mr. FUQUA. Dr. Grunder, you mentioned the University of Virginia has been putting up $1 million a year, 17 faculty positions; I think that is correct.

Dr. GRUNDER. The State of Virginia puts up $1 million plus 17 FTE's. The State of Virginia puts in addition up nine Governor's Distinguished CEBAF professors, five professors and four scientists.

Mr. FUQUA. How many of the faculty positions have the other States that are members of CEBAF put up?

Dr. GRUNDER. The other States do not put up CEBAF-direct CEBAF-direct positions. They put up additional faculty in their physics department. Our last count was a variety of 20 professorships throughout the Southeast.

Mr. FUQUA. Twenty, and what's that anticipated to increase to? Dr. GRUNDER. To something like 35.

Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Boucher.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to join you in welcoming the witnesses this morning, and I'll say I was particularly pleased to hear the testimony of Dr. Grunder since the facility that he represents is to be located in the State of Virginia.

I understand that the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility is the highest priority of the nuclear physics community, and in view of that fact I was quite pleased to see the administration's recommendations both for continued research for that facility and for initial construction moneys.

I think that Dr. Grunder has done an outstanding job this morning in telling us how the facility will operate and bringing us up to

date on the progress that's been made by SURA and by the CEBAF organization in bringing that project forward during the last year.

I think it would be also very instructive for us to hear some of the benefits that completion and operation of the facility would confer on our university communities, and, Dr. Grunder, I wonder if you'd take just a minute to provide a list of some of those benefits that we could expect to derive?

Dr. GRUNDER. I'd be very pleased, Mr. Boucher.

The primary benefit, of course, goes to the faculty, the graduate student, and the post-doc of the universities of the entire Nation because-in nuclear physics, because they will have a research tool where they do-where their hours of labor are rewarded with frontier research.

In addition to that, on the undergraduate level, a facility like CEBAF will give opportunities for students to visit and to form their careers, to get a picture of what it is. In that sense, CEBAF is not unique. There are other laboratories throughout the Nation who have the same possibilities.

Thirdly-and, I might add, we have done some steps in that direction-we meet with high school students. On May 19 and 20, we will meet with 200 high school students out of the eastern part of Virginia to show them in what way modern research is conducted.

Mr. BOUCHER. Let me ask about the progress that you're making now in filling the professorships-the fellowships that are being awarded by the State of Virginia. I understand there are 10 of those. Have you had success in filling those positions and assigning those professorships to the various universities throughout the State?

Dr. GRUNDER. I'm happy to report that we have. We are going very carefully and circumspectly about these professorships. We have one appointment, Dr. Leeman at the University of Virginia, and we have three offers which are in the final negotiation, including a leader for the scientific program.

Mr. BOUCHER. Very good.

I understand that a lot of the technology that you will be employing for CEBAF is currently in use, but you're also breaking some new ground and utilizing new technology at the same time. One of the central features of the facility apparently will be the use of a superconducting cavity for accelerating the electron beam. I understand from your testimony that Cornell University has developed this superconducting cavity, and I wonder what progress you've made in transferring that technology to industry so that they can manufacture the approximately 400 cavities that you'll need.

Dr. GRUNDER. As you have correctly stated, it's Cornell University which deserves the credit for having done-I mean Stanford University started with it some 20 years ago; Cornell University has done an outstanding job.

The Newman Laboratory has made manpower available to actually visit industry and to help-in addition to our requests for fabrication, they have visited there, were present in the tests, and have helped industry to refine their methodology and to have a full understanding of how the superconducting RF cavities are to be fabricated. We are extremely pleased with the result.

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, we have initial construction moneys in the budget for fiscal year 1987. That's the administration's recommendation. Are you confident that industry will be able to fabricate and supply to you these superconducting cavities in time for their installation in the facility, assuming the construction schedule that's set forth in the administration's budget?

Dr. GRUNDER. No question. I'm confident we will be able to do that.

Mr. BOUCHER. Let me ask one final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and that is this: We have heard from laboratories over and over again that one of the inhibiting factors in continuous use of laboratories is just the very high cost of electricity. What arrangements is CEBAF making for providing a more energy-efficient facility so that you can lower electric bills?

Dr. GRUNDER. The utilization of an accelerator is, of course, of prime consideration, and so in optimizing the design we had a keen eye on employing superconducting technology wherever applicable, such as magnets in the experimental area, such as the cavities in the accelerator proper.

I believe we conservatively cut off at least half of the power bill in outyears, and I might go as high as 60 percent, of the entire facility. On the accelerator proper, we cut off two-thirds-I mean we reduced it to one-third. So we understandably are very proud of that.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much for your answers, and congratulations on your success.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Boucher.

Mr. Packard.

Mr. PACKARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, wish to express my appreciation for the panel being with us today. I'm particularly pleased to see Dr. Shirley and Dr. Bernstein from my own State; later on, Dr. Burton Richter will be testifying, all of whom I've had the opportunity of working with in the science community of California.

Dr. Bernstein, in the Pimentel report you indicated that $165 million was desirable. That's on a 5-year program, $165 million per year for 5 years, or is that the total for that year?

Dr. BERNSTEIN. No. That's the total increment spread out over a 5-year growth period; about $33 million per year.

Mr. PACKARD. OK. If that's not achievable, because we're now funding even with a 9-percent-plus increase this year-which I think is rather remarkable, that we have at least a budget proposal that does involve an increase in this area—that still only comes out to about $104 million for the 5-year period.

If the budget does not accommodate those kinds of increases in the next 4 years, what would that do to the chemistry research area?

Dr. BERNSTEIN. I think it would be a lost opportunity for the DOE and for the country. We have these techniques available.

For example, we've heard just from my colleague, Shirley, we will be having a new synchrotron source. We have the Brookhaven source. We have instrumentation now, very high potential utility in terms of the basic research chemists want to be doing and

should be doing. These new facilities have created opportunities for the small investigator, the university professor with five or six students and a couple of postdoctorals. We now have the ability to amplify our research efforts enormously with the new instrumentation which is coming on line, and I think it would be a pity to allow the field to waste away when these new opportunities exist. The Pimentel report outlines specific needs for the incremental funding. They produce a table actually, which we don't necessarily subscribe to in every detail, but the table shows that the areas, the so-called priority areas, are ripe to be pushed, and those opportunities would be lost if we couldn't come up with incremental funding. By the way, I should mention, as I have in the written testimony, I happen not to be a DOE contractor. All of my research funding comes from the National Science Foundation. I'm here as a citizen; I'm not pleading for my-for DOE support. I believe DOE has a great opportunity now, and I subscribe to the conclusions of the Pimentel committee.

Mr. PACKARD. Does the Pimentel report the potential of the private sector-industry-picking up some of this shortfall if, in fact, there is a shortfall from the $165 million?

Dr. BERNSTEIN. Yes, and several members-several of the authors were important people in industry. As you know from my written testimony, industry is putting more money into university support. The support is now about $40 million a year going into basic research in university chemistry, in chemical science departments.

But in terms of really accomplishing the basic research needs of the country, industry doesn't have the ability to do the funding.

We've spoken-in connection with the ERAB panel-the chemistry panel for ERAB, we've interviewed and had hearings from industrial leaders in the chemical and engineering communities, and they point out that they do their targeted basic research for their immediate needs, but they must, from the viewpoint of the stockholders-they can't attack the broad issue of the health of the discipline, and I think this is where Federal funding is important.

From the point of view of DOE, I think there's more to it than just the health of the discipline. We're talking about the mission of the DOE, and I think chemistry is central to that mission. I think it's been underfunded.

Mr. PACKARD. As we've gotten deeper into the budgeting process with DOE and other aspects in the science community, we have found more and more of a transition toward reductions in budget commitment toward those projects where there is some direct benefits to the industry, and we are seeing more and more emphasis on even increasing our budget categories in the basic science areas where industry does not get that much involved, and so I think your point is well taken, and I think it's being reflected in our budget efforts.

We're seeing more commitment and even raises in those areas of basic research, and we had 65, 75, 80 percent reductions in a hearing I was involved in yesterday here because we were looking at projects that did have potential remunerative benefits to industry.

May I ask one question-short question-very similar, to Dr. Shirley, and that is, also with your CAM program, to what extent