This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 71: June 6, 2003

Basic Energy Sciences Panel Hears from Ray Orbach

At a recent meeting, the Director of DOE's Office of Science, Ray
Orbach, announced that the final 20-year strategic plan for his
Office will contain 29 of the 53 facilities projects recommended by
the office's advisory committees.  At the May 28 meeting of the
Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC), Orbach also shared
his thoughts on the importance of getting authorizing legislation
for his office passed, and on the quality of DOE science.

The 20-year facilities plan is undergoing internal DOE review and
should be released soon, Orbach reported.  The plan is based on the
authorization levels given in the House and Senate energy bills now
working their way through Congress.  Orbach explained that he first
estimated the increases needed to support and operate the base
Office of Science programs over the 20-year period.  Then he
included as many of the facility recommendations as he could fit,
using a prioritized list that he developed with the help of his
office's Associate Directors, based on the quality of science,  the
impact to the field, and other factors.  "Out of the 53 projects
[with a total cost of $50 million or more]...we ended up with 29
that could fit underneath the envelope," he said.  While he could
not yet reveal the contents of the plan, Orbach told the committee
it is "an exciting list," based on responsible budgeting, that will
be "a blueprint for maintaining the primacy of U.S. research" in the
future.  He added that he had taken into account the committee's
concerns that university research not be harmed by funding for the
facilities projects.

Earlier this year, based on the funding levels recommended in Rep.
Judy Biggert's (R-IL) 2002 energy authorization bill (H.R. 5270),
Orbach had indicated that he might be able to fit all the
recommended projects into the plan (see FYI #29).  However, funding
levels for the Office of Science in the current House and Senate
energy bills are lower than the levels in Biggert's bill, giving
Orbach less money to work with.  The House has now passed a
four-year authorization bill, H.R. 6, while the Senate is still
debating its five-year bill, S. 14.  Orbach reported that he used
the funding levels authorized in H.R. 6 for fiscal years 2004-2007,
and the level authorized in S. 14 for FY 2008.  He then estimated
funding levels for the remainder of the 20-year period using
President Bush's estimate that funding for federal programs would
generally grow by four percent annually.  "That's how we did the
exercise," he said; "that's what capped the number of projects we
could include."

It is "terribly important" that an energy bill authorizing funding
levels for the Office of Science is passed by Congress and signed by
the President, Orbach stated.  He thought that not having an
authorization for 15 years "has hurt" his office; while the
President's FY 2004 request reflected "very strong" budgets for some
other R&D agencies (above the FY 2003 request), Orbach said his
office "didn't have an authorization, and I think we got left out as
a consequence of that."  He hoped the current authorization process
would be completed in early summer, in time to have a "significant"
impact on DOE's planning for its FY 2005 budget request, but some
reports indicate that debate on S. 14 may continue into September.
Orbach did not comment on the provision in the Senate bill to create
an Under Secretary for Energy and Science position, and to redefine
his position as an Assistant Secretary for Science.

Authorization levels are intended to give guidance to the
appropriators, who decide the actual budget for a department or
agency.  "If the appropriated level is significantly lower" than the
authorized level, Orbach said, "some projects will fall off the
list."  The purpose of prioritizing the list, he noted, was to "deal
with the realities of the appropriations process."

Orbach also commented on the importance of explaining to the
Administration and Congress the difference between a mission agency,
like DOE, and a general science agency, like NSF.  While research
supported by the Office of Science focuses on areas of relevance to
DOE's mission, he noted, there is no difference in the peer review
process and the quality of the science.  Many policymakers are
"confused," he said, and do not appreciate that Office of Science
research "is indistinguishable from the very best science supported
by the federal government....  It is the very best science supported
by the federal government."

Also at the BESAC meeting, Mildred Dresselhaus of MIT, who also
chairs the AIP Governing Board, reported on a recent workshop
addressing the basic research needed to support a hydrogen economy.
As chair of the committee that will produce a report from the
workshop, Dresselhaus remarked that there were some "very promising"
ideas, and she was more optimistic after the workshop that "some of
the potential showstoppers may have solutions."  However, she said
that solving the problems of hydrogen production, storage,
distribution and use "won't be solved by legislating a timetable,"
and will need long-term support across several Administrations.
Progress will require the cooperation of different offices within
DOE, and also the involvement of scientists from other countries,
she noted, because "the U.S. is not a leader" in hydrogen research.
Her committee plans to outline some prioritized research directions
to give guidance to program managers.

The committee received an update on construction of the Spallation
Neutron Source from Thom Mason of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  He
reported that, with three years to go, the project was "on track" to
be completed in a safe manner, on time (with completion expected in
June 2006), and within the approved budget (total project cost: $1.4
billion).  Due to technical improvements, he added, the project will
deliver higher beam power, better instruments, and more lab and
office space than originally planned.  Although the SNS was subject
to a rescission in the FY 2003 appropriations bill, full funding was
restored in a supplemental bill, and Mason anticipated continued
full funding in the coming years.

###############
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org  www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - END OF FILE -
==========

@Message posted automagically by IMTHINGS POST 1.30
---