The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much for your consideration. How crucial is power supply to the overall success of the SDI Program? Colonel HESS. Sir, that is an excellent first question. It is the essence of my opening remarks, and so I will just give those. We are acutely aware of the importance of developing the technology base for advanced electrical power systems, particularly for those systems that must be packaged and operated in a space environment. The availability of electrical power, conditioned electrical power must not be a constraint as our research scientists consider options for the various surveillance and weapons systems being examined for future ballistic defense capabilities. Accordingly, General Abrahamson has put high priority in advancing that technology base in both the baseload power area and the multimegawatt power area, as well as power conditioning. The CHAIRMAN. To phrase the question a slightly different way, could the lack of a power supply system or the proper power range, size, or weight, be a program stopper for the SDI Program? Colonel HESs. Yes, sir. It would clearly not permit us to pursue certain options. The CHAIRMAN. Such as? Colonel HESS. Electrically driven, directed energy weapons and certain types of surveillance platforms, and those surveillance platforms in particular are the eyes of the system that are critical to the successful functioning of any ballistic defense capability. The CHAIRMAN. Let me approach the next question by telling you my concern, and then asking you the question. DOE's civilian reactor budget for fiscal year 1987 has been severely impacted by the military program and this committee would not want to see the civilian research program counted out by the various military demands that are being placed on DOE's budget. Rather, we would like to see the military programs supplementing the DOE's civilian research efforts. With that as a background of my concerns, how much money are you prepared to contribute to the effort? Colonel HESS. Sir, I believe in all areas of our program, the baseload power area of which the SP-100 is the main element, the multimegawatt power area and in the pulse power area, we are carrying our load. As a matter of fact, in the SP-100 area, our contribution in fiscal year 1987 is planned to be $50 million, which I believe is slightly above that which will be contributed by the Department of Energy. In the multimegawatt area across the board, both nuclear and non-nuclear in 1987, we have requested $52 million, of which a great deal of it will go to the Department of Energy on a reimbursable basis. So, I believe, as Mr. Vaughan indicated, that indeed the programs that we are pursuing are a cost-shared basis and in some cases, particularly the SP-100, we are more than carrying our burden in the early portion of the program. The CHAIRMAN. Let me take that as an example. I do not mean to be argumentative at all; I am seeking answers. I do not think the Department of Energy would be doing SP-100 at all if it were not for you. If that is true, why should there be 50-50 cost-sharing? Why should you not be paying it all? Colonel Hess. Sir, the responsibility for, by law, for pursuit of the core elements of the technology, that is, the reactor technology is the responsibility of the Department of Energy. To discharge those responsibilities, they feel in the prioritization of their programs, that they must be involved in terms of participation with funding so that they can have a meaningful say on the execution of the program. The CHAIRMAN. You mean, if you provide all the bucks, they lose control? Colonel HESS. Sir, there is a feeling on their part that they want to be able to participate both technically and with financial resources so that they have a great deal of control in the program. We appreciate and absolutely need the support of the Department of Energy on the SDIO Program and understand that it is within our responsibility to prioritize their investment. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. I am not certain that I would understand why, if the law requires that they do the core development, that if it is done for you, why they should pay the bill. I can understand their desire to maintain control; that is what the law says. And I can understand that you do not want to circumvent either the law or to duplicate what they do by replicating everything that they do, but I am not really certain that I understand yet why that mandates that they put up 50 percent of the money, or close to it. Colonel HESS. When they make a budget request to the Congress, they establish the priorities and we defer to their judgment on how they request their budgets. The CHAIRMAN. Did they do that or did OMB do that? Colonel HESS. No, sir. DOE was very instrumental in wanting to participate, continuing to participate in the SP-100 and the Multimegawatt Program. The CHAIRMAN. Participate financially? Colonel HESS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It was their request they put up their money? Colonel HESS. Yes, sir. Not the OMB. The CHAIRMAN. DOE has proposed in its fiscal year 1987 budget request the idea of assessing users fees on various outside agencies that use DOE facilities to conduct research. Would DOD be willing to pay its proportional share for use of those facilities? Colonel HESs. Sir; I would have to have-as a general statement, I think it would be better for the Department to answer that one for the record, but as I am sure that in the current funding arrangement for SP-100 and the multimegawatt, part of the DOE request is for the use of those facilities and it is part of the cost-sharing arrangement. The 50-50 cost split, it would be hard in the final analysis to say what portion of the DOD money was being paid for facilities, or rental fees or things of that nature. On a 100-percent reimbursible basis, I am sure that would be included-if that were to be the pay we would follow, I am sure that would be part of the cost of doing business. But as you have pointed out, that is not the current arrangement. The CHAIRMAN. It is not, and again, it is not because I do not want it to be done; I do want it to be done. I support your programs and your activities, both in this committee and in the Appropriations Committee. But I am concerned about the diversion of DOE moneys away from the civilian programs, where there is such a budgetary stringency, just as I mentioned to the previous witnesses and I think you were present at the time that exchange took place. I think we are dangerously underfunding some other activities that are also essential. I will not even say they are more or less essential than what you are doing, because I think they are both essential. We will submit some further questions for the record, and other Members of the committee will have some also. They will have until close of business tomorrow to submit those questions. We would appreciate your prompt response. Colonel HESS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And I cannot conclude the hearing without thanking you for your patience and bearing with us this morning, and also the abbreviated nature of your appearance. It is certainly not because the members of this committee have less interest, it is just that at this hour they have conflicts. We thank you very much for your attendance. The meeting will stand in adjournment. [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] On April 29, 1986, Ben C. Rusche, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, appeared before the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development to discuss the FY 1987 budget authorization for civilian radioactive waste management. Following that hearing, you submitted written questions for our response to supplement the record. Enclosed are the answers to those questions, which also have been sent directly to the Committee staff. If you have any questions, please have your staff call Mike to assist. Sincerely, 18 Calaho Robert G. Rabben Assistant General Counsel for Legislation Enclosure (523) |