INERTIAL FUSION BUDGET I would like to carry through on the inertial confinement fusion program. That can have a fall-out for peaceful uses, the betterment of the quality of life of mankind. If we are embarking upon the desire for more knowledge in this field, I am confused because we have cut the budget down to $118.7 million. Why are we cutting the budget in this area so drastically? Mr. ROSER. Well, there are two elements to that, Mrs. Boggs. The initial figure you have before you is $118.7 million. We have asked for an amendment to this amount. The previous year's budget contained a rather large piece of money for construction of the large fusion machines, Antares being completed. We have tried to tailor the operating expenses to the facilities we will have operating. In this fiscal year we expect to begin operation on a two-beam glass laser at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory known as Novette. At Los Alamos we will bring on the Antares carbon dioxide laser for experimental work and at Sandia we will have the particle Beam Fusion Accelerator I. The operating expenses we have asked for are in line with operating those particular facilities until construction is completed on the ten-beam Nova with color conversion, and until the particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II is completed. We will look toward an increase in the funding for the operation of these larger facilities as they come on line and can be used for more sophisticated experiments. Although the funding is a little constrained this year, we believe it is adequate to operate the facilities that we have. As the larger facilities are completed, we will be requesting more funding to fully utilize the capabilities of those experimental facilities. Mrs. BOGGS. I have the figures for 1982 appropriations, $209 million. Mr. ROSER. Yes, Ma'am. Mrs. BOGGS. And what you requested in the '83 budget is $118,750,000. It says built-in increases and decreases, none. So, then, we go to program increases and decreases. Reduce the work force on the inertial program by about 14 percent. Reduce the rate of experimentation, diagnostic development and target fabrication, minus $17,362,000. Decrease in funding for previously authorized construction projects. NOVA Mr. ROSER. That is the difference between the 20-beam Nova that was initially authorized and what we are now proposing which is the 10-beam Nova with color conversion. If that experimental program is successful, and we have every reason to believe it will be, we may come back in a few years and ask that a more powerful facility be authorized. Very candidly, as I mentioned about the old Sherwood program, I think we were getting out just a little bit in front of our headlights in terms of building new facilities. I think it is time we stepped back, completed those facilities, actually utilized them to the greatest extent possible and took another reading on whether more powerful facilities, more extensive facilities are really required. NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I noticed in the amount of money requested in the defense nuclear waste management program, there is a considerable increase. Could you explain that to us, please? Mr. ROSER. Yes, ma'am. We have zeroed in on a waste form for handling the high-level waste at Savannah River, which is where we have the highest levels, the most active waste. We have selected borosilicate glass as the reference waste form which will be encapsulated in stainless steel cylinders. We want to get on with it. Included in the budget are some construction funds to start some interim storage tanks and to get on with design of a waste processing facility. We also have an increase for funding in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Project which is a part of the defense program. I meant to comment on that, I am glad you asked the question. We have now separated, as was suggested by the Congress, the defense waste program and the civilian waste program, although there is a good interchange of information. I have the responsibility for the defense program. We are trying to move out again on the basis that when we have a technology we believe is adequate and proven, we will proceed with it. That is why we have made a selection of the waste form for solidifying the high-level waste, and we hope to get on with that program rather than just keep experimenting for years. We will next attack the high-level waste program at Richland, which is where we have an awful lot of high-level waste which needs processing. Last we will look at the high-level waste problem at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. There the waste is in adequate form to stay like it is for 500 years. So, it doesn't have the immediacy. We believe the immediate problem is the Savannah River waste. We are working on that very vigorously. The Savannah River waste and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant account for principal increases in our budget in that area. Mrs. BOGGS. I see you have a slight increase in transportation research and development. Mr. ROSER. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. BOGGS. Are we making any progress in that regard? Mr. ROSER. Yes, we are. I think we are making very good progress, as a matter of fact. We believe we have designed and have ready containers that will be acceptable for transuranic waste that will be moved to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and we believe we are making good progress on transportation research and development for the safe transport of nuclear waste to that repository. RECRUITMENT OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS Mrs. BOGGS. Mr. Secretary, I was probably a little harsh in my criticism of the Sandia magazine. It may be an enchantment to young scientists. I do think it is an unnecessary expense in that regard. Of course we must interest them. However, I would like to propose a question to you. Where are we going to find the young scientist to entice if we take away the graduate fellowships, if we take away the grants to the colleges and universities? What can we do about our education and training programs that will produce for you, for the United States and its defense, and its future benefits, to bring young scientists to a point that they can contribute to your establishment? Mr. ROSER. Well, that is something that obviously is very much on our minds. We are working with Jay Keyworth, the adviser to the President, in this regard. He is attacking that problem directly. We are working with him on that. I think that there are some good programs in private industry. I attended the Westinghouse Science Foundation awards, and I saw some very bright, very promising young people who are being helped along those lines. It is a problem, Mrs. Boggs, and one that we are very cognizant of and we are working with the agencies that are designated and the people who are designated to attack that problem because it continues to be a problem in our system. We are very much concerned about it. Obviously institutions don't have memories, people have memories. We don't make progress through machines, we make progress through people. So, we must be concerned and are concerned that a supply of young, bright people is out there and that we can attract them into our laboratories so we have a constant renewing of the knowledge. It is interesting to note at Los Alamos-I spent many years at Los Alamos-that we recently have had a number of people retire who have been in the program for a number of years. We do not have a weapons designer at Los Alamos anymore who ever witnessed a live nuclear test, when we were testing above ground. So you can see we haven't anybody who had witnessed a test before about 1962. So, it is something we are aware of and something we worry about and something we work on. But it is something that we must be concerned about. Mrs. BOGGS. Mr. Secretary, I would hope that you would carry your concern to OMB. Mr. ROSER. We will, indeed. Mrs. BOGGS. We have to go all the way back to the youngest children. The National Science Foundation in the last few years began a program that continued to drop back one level each year. They have finally gotten to the point where they were training junior high school teachers in science, and cooperating with public television to educate young people ages 8 to 13 to the knowledge and excitement of science, to channel that excitement with trained teachers in junior high school. All of these programs have been cut drastically, if not immediately. I don't know not only where we are going to find the scientists to go on with the programs or the persons to be able to intelligently use the weapons, or peaceful areas of the scientific knowledge, but also I don't understand how we are going to have a populace that is literate enough in science to make any social or economic, moral or political decision. Mr. ROSER. Well, I share your concern, Mrs. Boggs. I am not sure crisis is upon us as much as you might feel, but it certainly is a legitimate concern, not only for hard science, but also for the social sciences. I certainly agree. 92-331 0-82--7 Mrs. BOGGS. Particularly the behavioral sciences. Mr. ROSER. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. BOGGS. I know that you have been very active in the field, that you have been able to communicate very excellently. I would hope you would communicate your interest and concern to the people who are cutting back these very excellent programs. Mrs. BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BEVILL. Yes. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burgener. Mr. BURGENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DEFENSE PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE Mr. Secretary, my first question is probably philosophical or maybe even rhetorical. It seems to me that you and your folks do a very professional job with something that could be a very dreary business. I am wondering if you have to occasionally or even constantly remind youself that your mission is peace, which I believe it to be. Do your people stay? Do you have a lot of turnover? How many people do you have and what do they think about what you are doing, in your opinion? Mr. ROSER. Well, of the government people involved, there are relatively few in number, about 2,500. Mr. BURGENER. 2,500, about? Mr. ROSER. Right. Mr. BURGENER. That is the permanent party, so to speak? Mr. ROSER. This is right. We have 30-40,000 contractor people in the field. I think the people in this program, Mr. Burgener, are dedicated to it. They have to be. They are dedicated to it because they believe that it is the only real credible force for peace that we have until some breakthrough is realized toward disarmament. I am in the program because I believe in it. I am as excited about it today as I was when I came into it almost 40 years ago. I think that enthusiasm, excitement and dedication is shared by my working colleagues and most of the people who are in the program. who are in the program. It can be a dreary business in that you aren't very popular but you have to believe, I think, as all of us do, that we pray more fervently that a nuclear weapon will never have to be used again in anger. On the other hand, until such time as a better substitute is found for restraining other people from using nuclear weapons, we had better stay out in front in this business and do the very best job that we can because I think it is the only deterrent that we have at the present time. NUCLEAR DETERRENT Mr. BURGENER. Thank you. The chairman asked some rather pointed questions about the size, the vastness, indeed, the cost of this arsenal. I guess the alternative to that would be a handful. Is it your thinking-and I guess the answer is obvious that if we had a handful the chances of using them would be a lot greater? Mr. ROSER. I would tend to say that is correct, Mr. Burgener. As I said, I think a nuclear deterrent must be credible. I think we have to believe that when we manufacture a nuclear warhead that it may some day have to be used, and it may have to be used for a specific purpose. We certainly hope that it will never have to be used, but I think as we manufacture and equip our systems with nuclear warheads, we do it on the basis that if we have that warhead or that group of warheads or that weapons system in that spot at this particular time, it will make the other guy think twice or maybe three times, and change his mind about attacking. I literally believe that it is the only deterrent and is the support for peace. I would like to see a less expensive and perhaps a less cataclysmic one available to us. I haven't seen it in my lifetime, and I think we are going to be hard put to see it in the lifetimes of my children or even my grandchildren unless we change pretty substantially. CLASSIFICATION PROBLEMS Mr. BURGENER. That leads me to the potential adversary, of course the Soviet Union, and what they know about us. We have an open society. They have a closed one. We have all the benefits of an open society and the risks that it also brings to us. My hunch is therefore that they must know a lot more about us than we know about them. I hope I am wrong. Mr. ROSER. I doubt that you are, sir. I think you are probably right. Mr. BURGENER. Now I guess we really want them to know something. If they didn't know anything about us, it wouldn't be a credible deterrent, would it? Mr. ROSER. That is a very profound observation, and it is absolutely true. I think they must know enough about what we are doing to believe that it is credible. Mr. BURGENER. Short of the details. Mr. ROSER. We don't want them to know the details. They should not know the details. But I think they have to really believe that what we are doing is really credible. Mr. BURGENER. I have no worry that they know that, do you? Mr. BURGENER. They know of the Library of Congress, Freedom of Information Act and all the blabblermouths. Mr. ROSER. I appreciate Mr. Myers' comment in that regard. It is hell if you do and hell if you don't. Mr. BURGENER. [Deleted.] Mr. ROSER. [Deleted.] Mr. BURGENER. [Deleted.] Mr. ROSER. [Deleted.] |