Question 28e: Additional research funding required to support the optimal level of utilization of the facility. Answer: The additional research needed to support the physical maximum of utilization at SSRL is an additional staff member plus research support at a level of $250K for a total in FY 1989 of $2,350K. Mr. BRUCE. We are happy to have with us this afternoon, Dr. Robert Sproull, who is Chairman of the Basic Energy Research Advisory Committee. Dr. Sproull, we are happy to have you with us, and look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. SPROULL, CHAIRMAN, BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BESAC], U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Dr. SPROULL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have a copy of the testimony in front of you. If it's all right with you, I will not read it directly but simply go through it paragraph by paragraph. Mr. BRUCE. Oh, please do. Could you just read it to us word by word. [Laughter.] No, that would be very much appreciated, Dr. Sproull. Dr. SPROULL. This committee, as you undoubtedly remember, is in a sense a child of your Committee or your Subcommittee. It has been functioning now for just one year, and it's hard to produce a running commentary on a program as complicated and diverse as the Basic Energy Sciences Program in the Department of Energy. On the other hand, all of the members of the Committee have had long experience with first the AEC and then its successor, the Department of Energy. So, we didn't exactly start from a standing start. The report that I'm sure you also have-I will not read it either-is our first report of December, 1987. It contains the backup for all the remarks that I will say today. Also, Dr. David Moncton, one of the Committee members is in the audience and he can serve as a truth squad if I diverge from what I am authorized to say. Before getting into three points that I wish to make here, and just three points, I would also point out that the Director of Energy Research tasked us with a task to comment on the high-temperature superconductors with special reference to magnets for the superconducting supercollider, using that as a touchstone or benchmark as to when this new superconducting technology might become ready to apply. Dr. Albert Narath, the Vice Chairman of our Committee, led a study and produced a very interesting report, which goes far beyond the necessity of the task in that it outlines the steps that are necessary to be taken to apply these new discoveries in superconductivity to practical programs including magnets for particle physics but including lots of other things as well. And so, I commend that report to your attention too. The first of the three points that I want to make is that the program is basically sound. We did not find anything in it to be ashamed of or in any way wasting the peoples' money. We found a number of places where it is very thin, but it does not have any gross lack of coverage of the areas of Basic Energy Sciences that are important to the Department of Energy and to the Federal Government. As part of that we also looked into the balance between continuity of programs and new starts and, in fact, one of the appendices in our report discusses this at length. This also seems to be appropriate. The average lifetime of a program is about 10 years, sometimes a little less. That seems to us to be an appropriate balance between giving a program long enough to accomplish things and, nevertheless, freeing up money to use for new starts for younger people and learn new ideas. If there were more money, of course, you would like to do both. But you have to have a balance between these two. The second point I wish to make is that there are really three missions for Basic Energy Sciences. They are overlapping and closely related, but they are three distinct missions. The first is the obvious one, underpinning the Department of Energy's own mission. We submit that sooner or later the Department will be blamed for the next energy crisis, and at that time, the complaint will be made that not enough basic energy research was done. The second mission is that Basic Energy Science shares in many areas, such as materials or chemistry, the basic underpinning of Federal research programs and applied research programs. Basic Energy Sciences does its part along with other agencies, such things as ONR and NSF of underpinning the total Federal program. Now, the situation the last year is rather different and confused but up until at least this last year, DOD and NSF funding had outrun the Department of Energy basic research program. Therefore, this share became more and more difficult for the Basic Energy Sciences group to provide. The third mission is that BES has created and nourished a unique research user facilities. You commented earlier on how the new budget submission changes and how these are presented. These facilities have been one of the great success stories of the post-World War II period, and your Committee and the Congress ought to take good pride in the fact that these facilities have produced so much good research, so many good people, and have been used as a model around the world for how to do it. In addition, they are now being especially interestingly applied to providing an arena for industry and university-Government cooperation. It is a marvelous ground where graduate students, postdoctoral and faculty and industrial researchers can all mix in a healthy atmosphere. That's the kind of technology transfer that really makes a great deal of sense and costs very little. My final point is derived from a comparison of the first two and of the three-part responsibilities with the appropriation history. The usual situation-and it will come as no surprise to you-the responsibilities have expanded faster than the support, especially comparing it with NSF and DOD. The problem here is like the problem of the deficit. If too little basic research is done in our generation, it will amount to an intergenerational transfer where our children and our grandchildren will suffer because their industry and Government programs will not live on the basic research base that should have been built up. It would be a sad mistake if basic research suffers in the near term because it has no particular date at which you can be sure to exploit it, in this deficit crisis. Those are the three points that I wish to make. The report of our deliberations and findings for the first year is far more extensive than this, but I think that these hit the highlights of what we conclude after one year of activity. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. [The prepared statement of Dr. Sproull and the two BESAC reports follow:] SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TESTIMONY BY ROBERT L. SPROULL CHAIRMAN, BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE I am appearing before you today on behalf of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) of the Department of Energy. As you know, calendar year 1987 was the first year that this committee functioned. All of us had been familiar with some parts of the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program, but until serving on this committee we had not tried to assess the adequacy and balance of the BES program. For this reason and because of the size and complexity of this necessarily diverse program, we speak with a voice that is not as strong as it will be in later years. Our report of December 1987 has been made available to you, and so I shall not repeat or even attempt to summarize it here. I should be happy to address any questions you may have about it. Today I should like to make only three points: 1. The Basic Energy Sciences program is basically sound. It consists of high quality research that is relevant to the mission of the Department of Energy. There are no apparent areas that are completely uncovered, but the coverage is very thin in places because of budget limitations. Throughout the program there are promising ideas and approaches that |