Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I would like to welcome Secretary Abraham.
The American public is faced with a host of energy related problems. We have seen significant increases in the price of gasoline and other forms of energy. Our reliance on imported oil is growing steadily. The reliability of electricity is reduced. The crisis in California is alarming and other parts of the country may be similarly exposed.
The Fiscal Year 2002 budget request for the Department of Energy is a blueprint for the Administration's plans and reflects its thinking and positions. I understand that several reviews of the Department's activities are being conducted, including the Vice President's National Energy Policy Development Task Force. The conclusions of these reviews may lead to different priorities and different funding decisions.
Be that as it may, the President's budget request proposes severe cuts in a number of areas. Renewable energy has been severely affected. The Fiscal Year 2002 request for renewable energy is $237 million - - a cut of 36 percent. I understand the Department plans to restore some of these cuts in the near future. However, the restoration will occur at the expense of other worthwhile programs, including the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Under this budget, the hydrogen, hydropower, and electric energy systems and storage programs would receive level funding in FY 2002. These programs need increased funding rather than level funding. Other programs such as geothermal, solar, and wind programs would sustain reductions of about 50 percent from current funding levels.
We need to increase our investments in these programs rather than reduce at this time. These cutbacks will push back availability of renewable energy resources by years. In addition, from a budget and management perspective, slashing research programs by 40 to 50 percent will require terminating numerous multi-year contracts between the Department and its private sector partners, with all of the attendant transactional and termination costs, before the public has received any benefits from the R&D. Restarting these programs in the future will entail additional expense.
The Department of Energy's buildings program and industry energy efficiency R&D program have been slashed by 40 to 50 percent. According to DOE efficiency R&D programs have returned more than $100 billion to the U.S. economy from a federal investment of less than $13 billion since 1978. A GAO study has validated this figure. Cutbacks such as those proposed will prevent the nation from realizing the efficiencies and cost savings that new technologies bring.
Another area of concern to me is that of science funding. I have been a strong supporter of the DOE Office of Science. This office has the responsibility for research and development in physical sciences (high energy physics, material sciences, and plasma physics), biological sciences (genome effort), earth and environmental sciences (global climate change), and advanced scientific computing. It is the nation's primary sponsor of physical sciences and is critical to advancing our nation's scientific capabilities and leadership.
Despite the importance of these research areas to our energy and technology future, the Office's budget in Fiscal Year 2001, when adjusted for inflation, is at its 1990 level. The budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 is $3.16 billion. It represents a negligible increase of one-tenth of one percent over Fiscal Year 2001. The erosion due to inflation will result in net reductions in the amount of funds available for scientific research.
The nation's capabilities in science and technology would not have been realized without the investments made in the past. The country needs increased investment in basic research if we are to maintain our science and technology base. The flat budget in the Administration's proposal raises may not help us sustain our capabilities.
During the debate on the Budget Resolution, the Senate voted to increase the budget level for the general science category by $1.4 billion. This amount would allow an increase in the budget for the Office of Science by about 14 percent. An increase at this level will be appropriate.
We need to continue to support development of renewable energy resources. They must be an important part of our energy strategy. We must continue to support the science program which is so vital to our economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
