Democrats Show Support for DOE’s Office of Science, Raise Concerns about Majority’s Draft Bill
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing to provide Members with a general overview of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science and to discuss the Majority’s draft legislation which would reauthorize the Office for FY 2014 and FY2015, the “Enabling Innovation for Science, Technology, and Energy in America Act of 2013” (EINSTEIN ACT). Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs at DOE’s Office of Science; Dr. Horst Simon, Deputy Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; and Dr. John Hemminger, Chairman of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee at DOE.
DOE’s Office of Science is the lead federal agency in supporting early-stage energy research and the nation’s largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. It does this through direct support of researchers, by way of grants, and through the development, construction, and operation of unique, world-class user facilities and national laboratories. The Office is comprised of six interdisciplinary program offices: Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, and Nuclear Physics. It also supports education initiatives through its Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program.
Witnesses and Members on both sides of the aisle lauded the Office of Science. Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee, Eric Swalwell (D-CA), said, “It is impossible to overstate its importance to our energy future and to our innovation enterprise.”
Witnesses and Democratic Members expressed a number of concerns about the Majority’s draft legislation including the low funding levels, the fact that it is only a short-term 2 year authorization, and that it downgrades the importance of climate science and environmental research at DOE.
Mr. Swalwell said, “Unfortunately, the funding levels in the draft legislation that the Majority is asking us to consider are simply inadequate to allow the Office of Science to continue to support the great research and facilities that it does. At first glance, one might think that the Majority’s bill actually increases funding for the Office, but a closer look reveals that they are actually cutting funding – the rate of inflation for research is about 3 percent, but the bill only provides year-to-year increases of 1 to 1.7 percent, in effect cutting the Office’s budget. I hope that we can work around this, increase the budget, and give the Office of Science the funding that it deserves. We hear a lot of talk about America being the greatest country in the world, and it certainly is, but if we want to maintain our leadership in technology and innovation - and the jobs that come with it - we can’t afford to continue to cut our research budgets without any consideration of the impacts such cuts will have on our nation’s competitiveness.”
Dr. Simon described how funding issues could impact where the best and brightest researchers seek work. He said, “I look at what the research facilities are, what our infrastructure is, what our educational institutions are, the opportunities we have to work with industry, America is still very clearly number one. However, what I’m concerned about is the trend; a very recent example is if we have issues such as sequestration, which means that we have to look at future staffing, if we look at the partial shutdown where uncertainty goes through the system, what we are signaling to the next generation of scientists is that the future of science in this country is no longer as it was. We are sending a strong signal saying yes, there is great infrastructure here, yes there is opportunity here to work with the top minds in the field but we cannot guarantee you that 30 years from now that would be the same because if we are in a path of continued reduction of funding and continued uncertainty of the longevity of some of the research projects, somebody who has at stake a 30 year career would have to, very carefully, look where he or she will go.”
Mr. Swalwell also asked witnesses if a short-term, two-year reauthorization that cuts the Office’s budget would provide the certainty and stability that the research community needs.
Dr. Hemminger responded, “It’s widely recognized that programs run by the Office of Science are addressing long-term questions and long-term issues. These are not science questions that one can expect answers to in very short periods of time and I think that the only way that a short-term reauthorization works is with the expectation that the U.S. government isn’t going to go out of business and fall off a cliff. I think it certainly would be advantageous to have a longer reauthorization bill and I think this is particularly a problem or an issue with respect to the large science facilities. In my written testimony I pointed out the issue of the international competition with respect to our global leadership for x-ray light sources and other facilities. These are really major long term projects that require stability in terms of funding and authorization and I would encourage the Committee to support that.”
Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), brought up that the Majority’s draft legislation is directed to “…prioritize fundamental research on biological systems and genomics science…” over the rest of the portfolio and his concern that this is a way to implicitly say, “Take money away from climate and environmental research.” He said, “Climate and environmental research are so important to my district, and in Southern California in general, where there are seven or eight congressional districts the size of several states that suffer from air quality issues. Our understanding of the how the environment interacts with climate is very important to us.”
“The climate and environmental part of biological and environmental research is extremely important. We do not want to disadvantage [this research] in the way that the language in the Majority bill has been interpreted,” said Dr. Dehmer.
While expressing her concerns about the Majority’s draft bill, Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said of the legislation, “I believe there is common ground in our support for many of the Office’s programs. I recently circulated a discussion draft of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2013, which includes several provisions similar to ones in the Majority’s draft. My discussion draft also includes authorization for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) and a number of important legislative changes that would accelerate technology transfer and improve the management of our national laboratories. With these two drafts in mind, I look forward to working with the Majority and the science and technology community to seek out that common ground, and to see if the concerns that we’ve raised can be reconciled.”
Next Article Previous Article