AEC AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION, FISCAL YEAR 1971 TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1970 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C. The Joint Committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room S-407, the Capitol, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the Joint Committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Holifield, Price, Young, and Hosmer; and Senator Gore. Also present: Edward J. Bauser, executive director; George F. Murphy, Jr., deputy director; James B. Graham, assistant director; John Reich, special counsel; Col. Seymour Shwiller, technical consultant: Gerald G. Fain, professional staff member; Roger L. Sperry, GAO consultant. Chairman HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order. At this time we are to hear from Dr. Paul McDaniel and others concerning the Atomic Energy Commission's fiscal year 1971 budget for physical research. The operating budget for this program is estimated at $274,430,000, a decrease of $3,750,000 from the 1970 fiscal year estimated operating costs. Some of the seven scientific areas supported under this program receive almost their complete support through the AEC budget. In the Presidential budget for fiscal year 1971, there is a request for an increase over fiscal year 1970 funding in two areas and a decrease in five. Dr. McDaniel, will you proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL W. MCDANIEL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RESEARCH, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Dr. MCDANIEL. Very fine, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here. I did bring a rather large number of people to back me up. We are prepared to answer questions directly and also to respond to questions on my statement. Chairman HOLIFIELD. All right. Dr. MCDANIEL. I would like to begin by briefly summarizing our fiscal year 1971 request for operating expenses, capital equipment obligations, and line-item construction projects. Following the summary, I propose to cover the major points in several of our budget categories. For fiscal year 1971, our operating expenses request is $274.4 million. This is a decrease of $3.8 million below the estimate for fiscal year 1970, broken down by our major program categories as follows: Our request for capital equipment funds in fiscal year 1971 is $36.6 million. The availability of sophisticated research equipment to generate, analyze and interpret large quantities of data directly determines the level of productivity which can be achieved under the planned research program. A large fraction of our capital equipment requirements is associated with providing the capability for scientists to conduct advanced research experiments utilizing particle accelerators and nuclear reactors. Our request for line-item construction projects amounts to $82.9 million. Within this total, $4 million is earmarked for accelerator improvement projects, $3.4 million is for general plant projects, and $10.5 million is required to continue construction on the Los Alamos meson physics facility (LAMPF). The balance of our request will provide $65 million for scheduled design and engineering services, procurement, and construction work on the 200-Bev National Accelerator Laboratory. I would now like to discuss our first major budget category. HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS Under this category, elementary particle physics research is conducted at energies above 1 billion electron volts. The basic constituents and forces of nature are investigated by utilizing intense beams of particles which are produced by very large and complex accelerators. Our aim is to develop an understanding of the fundamental laws which determine both the structure and the behavior of matter and energy. Operating expenses for high energy physics will decrease by $1,080,000 below the fiscal year 1970 level. Within this total, we are requesting several increases for high priority activities. The decisions reflected in the allocation of fiscal year 1971 funds within this program were taken only after extensive interaction with the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). This Panel was instituted as an adjunct to the Commission's scientific staff to assist in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and productivity of the program and to provide scientific advice and program guidance concerning projected plans and resources required to maintain a viable and productive program. Through this Panel the judgment, knowledge, and technical capability of some of the foremost experts in the field of high energy physics are factored into the Commission's decisionmaking process. The High Energy Physics Advisory Panel was initially chartered on January 1, 1967. Since then, the full Panel has convened for deliberations on 16 occasions. In addition, subpanels have met for the purpose of developing information with regard to specialized areas of the program. The High Energy Physics Advisory Panel members perform their service in the interest of a vigorous and productive national high energy physics program, and not as representatives of their respective organizations or geographical regions. It is also recognized as desirable to establish and maintain a Panel with a reasonable balance of competence in theoretical and experimental research, competence in accelerator design and use, and scientists associated with national laboratories and universities. All the reports issued by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, to date, have been forwarded to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. These are: the two status reports of August 1967 and January 1968; the 200-Bev Accelerator Report of January 1968, and the most recent report on high energy physics, dated June 1969, which makes recommendations for the future of the program. 200-BEV NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY An increase of $2,800,000 is related to the 200-Bev National Accelerator Laboratory. This amount would permit us to allocate $9,400,000 for research and development activities in support of construction, and for the preoperating R. & D. support associated with the design and experimental utilization of the facility when it is completed. Chairman HOLIFIELD. I have before me an AEC letter of June 25, 1969, which outlines the philosophy and operating procedures of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel. I have met many of the Panel members in the past years and was impressed by their knowledge and dedication. I will enter into the record the letter I mentioned and a current list of the Panel members. (The documents referred to follows:) U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Mr. EDWARD J. BAUSER, DEAR MR. BAUSER: This letter provides information concerning the recent activities of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) and the planned composition of the Panel for FY 1970. During FY 1969 the Panel has held four meetings, two of which included a review of the research programs carried out at major high energy facilities (Cambridge Electron Accelerator and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) where the meetings were held. Considerable time and effort has been devoted to preparation of the forthcoming "Report on High Energy Physics," expected to be available shortly. Work on this report included studies in depth by six sub-panels of HEPAP appointed to consider major areas of high energy physics. This report will be transmitted to the Joint Committee as soon as it becomes available. The Chairman of HEPAP since it was established in 1967, Professor Victor F. Weisskopf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and six other members are being reappointed and six new members are being appointed for FY 1970. A list of the membership indicating institution and specialization is enclosed. In arriving at this composition of the Panel, consideration has been given to the desirability of rotating membership among active scientists who have earned the respect of their colleagues; and also to maintaining balance in geographical location and areas of specialization. Each member is requested to serve on HEPAP in the interest of the national program in high energy physics research and not as a representative of his institution or geographical region. We believe these appointments will continue to bring together a highly respected and viable group of competent and responsible leaders of the scientific community who will provide valuable advice and guidance relating to this important program. Brief biographies of the six new members are enclosed. We will be pleased to furnish any additional information desired. Enclosures. R. E. HOLLINGSWORTH, General Manager. JCAE staff note: Enclosures not included; latest membership list provided.) MEMBERSHIP LIST, HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS ADVISORY PANEL Professor Victor F. Weisskopf (Chairman of Panel), Head, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Dr. Rodney L. Cool, Associate Director, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973. Professor Leon M. Lederman, Director, Nevis Laboratories, Columbia University, Post Office Box 137, Irvington, New York 10533. Dr. Edward J. Lofgren, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720. Dr. George E. Pake, Provost, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri 63166. Professor W. K. H. Panofsky, Director, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University. Post Office Box 4349, Stanford, California 94305. Professor Aihud Pevsner, Department of Physics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218. Dr. Andrew M. Sessler, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94270. Dr. Gerald F. Tape, President, Associated Universities, Inc., 1717 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Professor Kent M. Terwilliger, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104. Professor William J. Willis, Sloane Physics Laboratory, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520. Chairman HOLIFIELD. I will have inserted in the record at the appropriate place the June 1969 report on high-energy physics. This excellent report seems to have only one major drawback. No one in the Bureau of the Budget seems to have read it or believed it if they did read it. (See app. 2, p. 706.) I will also insert in the record at this point an exchange of correspondence with Dr. DuBridge, the President's scientific adviser, concerning the importance of proceeding with the 200 Bev accelerator. (The correspondence referred to follows:) Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, December 2, 1969. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During a recent visit of Monsieur Francois Ortoli, French Minister of Industry and Science, we learned that the French have now decided to join with other European nations in financing the construction of a 300 billion electron volt accelerator for studies in high energy physics. In view of the fact that the European countries face difficult financial problems, this decision clearly re-enforces their conviction that high energy physics is a field of utmost importance to the future of science and technology. It is doubly important that the U.S. maintain its leadership in this field by proceeding without delay with the AEC's Batavia accelerator. This can be in operation several years before the European machine can be built and with proper support the U.S. machine can equal or even exceed the 300 BEV goal set by the Europeans. I do hope that your Committee will give full support to the Administration's program for moving ahead in this important area. Sincerely, LEE A. DUBRIDGE, Science Adviser. Hon. LEE A. DUBRIDGE, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Science Adviser to the President, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR DR. DUBRIDGE: Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1969, about the National Accelerator Laboratory at Batavia, Illinois. As you know, the Joint Committee in its report on authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission for Fiscal Year 1970 strongly recommended authorization of $217 million in appropriations to bring the National Accelerator Laboratory to its full authorization of $250 million. Additionally, the Committee went on record as recommending appropriation of the full $96 million in construction funds requested in the President's April 15, 1969 FY 1970 budget. While the Congress did approve the entire authorization request, it approved appropriations of only $70 million in FY 1970 for the project. The Joint Committee has not yet received definite information on what the $26 million reduction for Fiscal Year 1970 means in terms of delay in first beam time (originally projected for July 1972) or which contracts for items of equipment and construction might be deferred or reduced in scope. We have learned informally, however, that if approximately $112 million is appropriated for laboratory construction in Fiscal Year 1971, there should be no noticeable delay in first beam time, and possible cost increases in certain items could be absorbed. I and other Members of the Joint Committee would hope that due consideration is given during the Executive budget review process to presenting the Congress with an appropriate request for funds for the National Accelerator Laboratory, that is, a funding request that would, if approved, keep construction within the projected time scale and within the total estimated costs. Thank you again for writing to me. Sincerely yours, CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman. HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS-FUNDING PROJECTIONS Chairman HOLIFIELD. I also have a question, Dr. McDaniel. We have compared the 5-year funding projections provided the committee by AEC last year with those provided this year. This year's projections are significantly lower for most high energy physics facilities. For example, for the period from fiscal year 1970 to 1974, cumulative spending is estimated to decrease 67 percent at CEA; 39 percent at SLAC; 16 percent at ZGS; 9 percent at AGS, and 4 percent for the Bevatron. The 200 Bev shows about a 2-percent increase. Now, to what do you attribute these significant changes in philosophy in the short period of 1 year? Dr. MCDANIEL. I think it is a more active realization on our part of the realties of the fiscal stringencies now confronting the Government. Chairman HOLIFIELD. In other words, it is the budget pressure that is causing you to reduce these estimates? Dr. MCDANIEL. It is the budget pressure which has caused me to revise them in making projections for the future. As you recall, a year ago we were quite a bit more optimistic about the future for the 1970 and 1971 budgets. I think those of us who |