Images de page

There are some national reports saying that we should proceed with the full mapping of the human genome and set some national targets. Has that been done within the Department, or are we still proceeding with a rather piecemeal approach to this project?

Dr. DECKER. What the Department believes is important is to develop some new technologies that will, in fact, greatly reduce the costs of this undertaking. So we are concentrating on developing those new technologies.

We are concentrating on increasing the capability to physically map the genome, to automate sequencing techniques, and on developing the data-handling capability for this project. This project will produce large amounts of data, and we need to have it in a form that people can, in fact, make very good use of it.


Senator DeConcini had wanted to be here, but he is chairing a Patents and Copyright Subcommittee hearing. I think that may be the one on Jimmy Stewart's legislation, the movie star who was here this morning. He has a statement and some questions which he would like to place in the record.

[The statement follows:


The Administration's budget request for the Superconducting

Super Collider (SSC) for FY 89 is superb.

I commend the

Department for its initiative in the funding of basic science

overall, and feel confident the $363 million request for the ssc

next fiscal year will keep this very important scientific project

on track.

If we intend to be a competitive nation offering our

[blocks in formation]

necessary to keep the ssc on track as planned, will be difficult

at best.

But, I believe we must use that same American ingenuity

we have used to compete in the scientific arena, to develop a

plan to finance the project without draining our Federal budget.

It certainly has become a matter of priorities science needs to take its rightful place alongside our other national funding


It will not be an easy year to come up with the

additional dollars for the ssc.

However, I will work with all

members of this Committee and the Administration in an attempt to

develop a way to make the Supercollider a reality.


Superconducting Super Collider

Question: Of the $363 million requested for development of the SSC, $64 million has been allocated to continued research. If the Congress does not provide funding for construction and procurement in FY 89, will additional research funds be necessary to continue the efforts to move us toward development? If so, what would be an adequate research budget for FY 89?

Answer: I would like to first point out that both the $64 million of operating funds and the $16 million of capital funds requested are for the R&D program. The R&D planned for FY 1989 is highly important for the project whether or not construction funds are provided in FY 1989. Thus far, the R&D effort has concentrated on the superconducting dipole magnets. These magnets represent a substantial fraction of the cost of the project and a careful R&D plan has been laid out, leading to cost-effective and reliable magnets produced in industry. The plan involves many steps and these magnets are on the critical path. An important facet of the FY 1989 program is the start of substantial R&D efforts by industrial firms. R&D on other aspects of the SSC has been proceeding at a slower than desirable pace due to funding limitations. It is highly important in FY 89 to address these other areas in a more vigorous fashion so that we can proceed to the final engineering design. Of the construction request, $47 million is for detailed design of technical systems and conventional facilities. This design work is also on the critical path and should be pursued vigorously in FY 1989. Most of these design activities could be carried out under the R&D program with appropriate language from the Congress.

Question: What will happen to the U.S. chances of building this project before a foreign competitor if the construction dollars for the SSC are not appropriated in FY 89?

Answer: The large Western European laboratory near Geneva, CERN, is planning to make a decision in mid 1989 on whether to recommend to its sponsoring countries construction of the Large Hadron Collider, LHC. If approved, this facility would be built in the recently completed 17-mile circumference LEP tunnel. The LHC would be a proton-proton collider, like the SSC, but with an energy about one-third that of the SSC. While many scientists believe it could not adequately explore the mass region predicted to be of interest, it could well make discoveries which would otherwise be reserved to the SSC. If the SSC were not built, the LHC would be the premier, highest energy facility in the world for many years. The 1989 decision at CERN will be made "taking into account the evolution of the world situation." If the SSC, at that time, is on track, it seems likely that the Europeans would concentrate on developing other types of new facilities, rather than trying to compete against the ssc with a similar, but inferior facility.

Question: I have repeatedly discussed with the Department the need to develop some type of creative financing for the ssc. I know the Department has sent "teams" to several countries to discuss foreign contributions. Of the countries visited, can you give me an indication of which countries would be likely to lend financial support to the project?

Answer: I would like to preface my remarks by noting that we have only had preliminary discussions with foreign countries and no firm commitments were either sought or received. The reception was positive in all countries we visited and I believe we will very likely get some level of participation from all those countries. While many of the contributions are likely to be for detector fabrication, there is a strong possibility of significant construction contributions to the project from several countries. I believe it is premature and possibly counterproductive to identify specific contributions from specific countries at this early stage of discussion. In any case, we expect the contributions to be primarily "in-kind," i.e., accelerator and detector components, rather than cash.

Question: From these discussions, can the Department make any type of guess as to how much money can be expected from foreign sources?

Answer: I believe that we have a good chance of getting at leasi 20 percent from foreign sources and perhaps as high as 40 percent in the most favorable circumstances.

Question: Wouldn't it be easier for the Department to "sell" this project to Appropriations Committee if it developed a funding package which included specific estimates to be contributed form various sources, i.e., 50 percent from foreign sources, the remainder from private sources in this country and general revenues, or something of this nature?

Answer: I realize that the Congressional Committees would feel more comfortable if we could present a plan identifying specific foreign contributions. However, we are in the early stages of discussions and all of the foreign countries have made it clear that they are not prepared to enter into definitive negotiations and make commitments until there is a U.S. commitment to the project. For purposes of out-year funding projections, an estimate of $1.8 billion was made for non-Federal contributions to the SSC project costs. As shown in the SSC Construction Project Data Sheet, submitted as part of the President's FY 1989 budget request, these contributions were assumed to start in FY 1991.

Question: Has the Department considered any alternative financing proposals for the SSC short of funding the entire project from general revenues? If so, can you give me some examples of what has been under discussion? If not, please explain why not.

Answer: No, we have not considered in detail alternative financial proposals other ihan our efforts to secure international participation. It had been our plan to seek state and local

contributions, including creative financing schemes, as part of the site selection process but the Domenici amendment has prohibited us from doing that. Some alternate financing has been suggested by industry, but the cost effectiveness of such arrangements has yet to be studied. For example, industry might sell us liquid helium and liquid nitrogen as needed, rather than our constructing the large refrigeration facilities as part of the project.

Question: In FY 88, $25 million was appropriated to continue preparation activities relative to selection of a site for the SSC. I understand that earlier estimates of need for environmental analysis, testing and review were lower than now envisioned. Does the Department have a shortfall of funds to complete the environmental work necessary to select a site for the SSC later this year? If so, what is the shortfall and how do you expect to complete your activities?

Answer: Yes, there is a shortfall. The Administration's FY 1988 budget request proposed $25 million for operating expenses and $10 million for construction for the SSC. Congress appropriated $25 million of operating expenses for two purposes: research and development and site selection costs. DOE had underestimated site selection costs. Upon availability of more definite information and a careful analysis it has been determined there is a need for a total of $33 million in FY 1988, including $8 million for site selection cost and $25 million for research and development. If held to a total of $25 million, research and development would receive $20 million and site selection would get only $5 million. Therefore, there would be a shortfall for site selection activities in FY 1988 of $3 million and in order to stay on the research and development schedule an additional $5 million is required for research and development. In February, we requested an additional $8 million for necessary research and development and site selection activities during FY 1988.

Virtually all of the $3 million for site selection would be directed to the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The additional $5 million required for research and development is necessary to continue the momentum principally on development of superconducting magnets which are a critical technical aspect of the programil and a major element of the total cost.

If the reprogramming request is not approved, we would still identify a preferred site in November, but would need to defer completion of the Environmental Impact Statement and the identification of the final site until late 1989. Research and development would be severely curtailed to $20 million instead of the $25 million required to continue.

Solar Buildings

Question: As you know, I have been very interested in completion of the open cycle solar cooling project at Arizona State University. I understand the FY 88 need for this project is about $214,000. Has this amount been funded by DOE this year? If not, why not?

« PrécédentContinuer »