mate effects. So the drivers must be understood clearly, more clearly.

Secondly, the portfolio must be robust to uncertainty. In the near term, let's say a decade or so, it's very clear that fossil energy will continue to provide most of the most of our energy for-across all sectors. As we evolve later in the decade, the combination of cleaner fossil, of alternatives, and possibly, of course, a nuclear future must all be weighed and developed.

My emphasis will be on making sure we have the tools available to provide the right policy mix.

The CHAIRMAN. One other question, Mr. Moniz, relative to our increased dependence on imported oil. During the Arab oil embargo we were, what, 36 or 37 percent in 1973. In 1990 we are about 52 percent. And most of that is from the Persian Gulf. We fought a war down there not so long ago. We set up a strategic petroleum reserve in 1973 or thereabouts because we were concerned about our increased dependence on imported oil and wanted a 90-day supply.

The fact that we have increased our dependence from 36, 37 to 52 and the Department of Energy's own forecast suggests we will be up to 70 percent early in the next century or thereabouts suggests that the national energy security interest is wedded very closely to foreign oil sources, and obviously that affects the balance of payments.

But then we find the administration sold 28 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1996 to basically contribute to the balancing of the budget. It seems like there is no collaboration between, on the one hand, a potential increased dependence and developing a SPRO to ensure that we have something to fall back on and then the lack of consistency in maintaining the SPRO. In your opinion, do we have any type of energy policy relative to our increased dependence on imported oil, or is it just one-what are you going to do about it?

Dr. MONIZ. Well, certainly the Secretary has, I think, strongly committed to developing a new and comprehensive energy strategy reflecting many issues, including, of course, energy security, the issues that you have raised. Certainly, if I may say that I think my focus is certainly on providing-again will be on pushing this portfolio concept to make sure we have the options to limit our vulnerabilities, as you say.

They take many forms. It takes the form of new technologies for increased exploration, all the way to using the new supercomputer technology to model the sources of oil and gas. It will involve more heavy usage of natural gas in the near time, near term, the advancement of more efficient technologies to limit our needs for fossil fuels, as well as developing again that robust set of options of renewable technologies as options as we go forward for both environmental and national security reasons.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am somewhat heartened. You are the first witness that I can recall from the administration that ever suggested expansion of exploration. So we will see if we can achieve it. On the other hand, realization dictates that this country's dependence on its transportation system is fueled by oil and

the alternatives in the near future are relatively limited. Would you agree?

Dr. MONIZ. Yes, although, of course, research such as the PNGV would hope to limit those needs in a decade or 15 years down the road.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to move over to Mr. Reicher now. As you may know, we have in Alaska and other remote areas consumers who pay an inordinate amount for electricity, in some cases exceeding 45 cents per kilowatt hour. That is not of much interest to most folks, but if you are paying it, it is. This is diesel-generated

power.

In my view, some of these areas present an opportunity to demonstrate whether alternative technologies really work, including wind, fuel cells, coal bed methane or some of the other hybrid technologies. And my question is, would you agree with the observation that the new energy technologies, including renewables, ought to be able to compete with 45-cent diesel-generated power?

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. I think the opportunities in these remote villages in your State and in some other States is quite extraordinary to move these sorts of technologies. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we do it, then?

Mr. REICHER. We are working toward that end. I met a couple of weeks ago with a scientist from the Institute of Northern Engineering, and we are jointly working on a plan to move some of those technologies into some of the remote villages you've referred to, and I talked to some of your staff about this as well.

So I'm actually quite excited about the possibilities and commit to move that program along.

The CHAIRMAN. So you are going to run with the program, I take it, as far as you can?

Mr. REICHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gee, in 1973 we produced 9.5 million barrels per day of crude oil; today the United States produces 6.5 million barrels, a 30 percent decline since 1973. The United States now produces only about the same amount of crude oil that we did durthe Eisenhower administration.

ing

wonder to what degree you are satisfied that we have done everything within our means to bring on new oil and gas reserves here in the United States.

Mr. GEE. Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity yet to look more expansively into the premise of your question, but from my prior evaluation of where we're at I think that some of the measures that would be feasible in terms of trying to identify how much the volume of domestic production would serve to meeting our national needs would include not only certainly enhancement of recovery techniques and the research and development that accompanies that towards enhanced recovery of fossil fuels that would enhance recovery of the existing production, but also certainly looking to find ways to utilize energy more wisely and efficiently, utilizing other technologies for energy consumption other than domestically-produced petroleum, along with a host of all of the other variables and alternatives we have on the supply side to meeting our long-term needs and demands for our economy.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Telson, it appears from a 1996 GAO report— I assume you are familiar with it-that the Department of Energy has cavalierly dismissed efforts to seek repayment of grant funds illegally spent by the State of Nevada. This is with respect to the nuclear waste disposal effort out there.

Do you consider this course of action to be prudent and responsible management of appropriated money?

Senator, I believe you have voted.

Senator CRAIG. I have.

The CHAIRMAN. And I have not, so I am going to do the obvious. Senator CRAIG. I do not have any questions immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have got a few questions that the staff would like proposed, and since the witnesses are under oath we have to have a Senator here. So if you could just spend a few minutes taking over the chair. I have posed a question and I am going to run and vote.

I think we are about through. What I would ask you to do with the unanswered questions is to submit them to the candidates for the record and they can respond.

Senator CRAIG. Okay.

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize. I look forward to working with you all and wish you a good day.

Senator CRAIG [presiding]. Before you respond to the Chairman's question, let me hold you at bay for just a moment.

[Pause.]

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much.

Mr. Telson, would you proceed in response to that question the chairman asked on the 1996 GAO audit?

Mr. TELSON. Yes, sir, Senator Craig. I unfortunately am not aware of the circumstances of that report and the specifics of it, so I'd appreciate an opportunity to get back to you on that, if that's okay.

[The information requested was not received at the time the hearing went to press].

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much.

There will be, I am sure, several questions asked of some of you that you will be allowed to respond to in writing and in detail so that we can have them for the record. That will be extremely important.

Ms. Sullivan, Senator Grams had asked you a question in relation to, I believe it was, Envirocare.

There are a series of questions that need to be responded to in sequence in relation to that and your association with it, so we are going to ask you to submit those in writing for the record.

Ms. SULLIVAN. I'd be happy to do that.

Senator CRAIG. It is my understanding that Senator Burns may be coming back with the intent of asking questions, so I will put the committee in recess for 20 minutes and during that time if he returns we will reconvene. So if you would stand at ease, the committee will be in recess.

[Recess.]

Senator CRAIG. Thank you all very much for your patience. Senator Domenici will be with us in a few moments and I understand

he has some questions. I also have a few that I want to ask, and then I think we will be concluded.

Dr. Moniz, let me ask a couple of questions of you as it relates to our national laboratory in Idaho, the INEEL. As I understand it, one of your principal responsibilities at DOE will be to focus on the Department's research and development roles and missions. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory is the only national lab whose missions have been traditionally focused on engineering and applied research.

Do you see a role for engineering and applied research as well as basic research at laboratories within the DOE system?

Dr. MONIZ. Senator Craig, yes, most certainly I do in fact. INEEL, through its history and also its sort of contractor relationship, is certainly expert in systems engineering, and I think there are many problems, environmental problems in particular, which I think will require that kind of expertise.

My intention, if confirmed, is to work on the one side on the management reform of the laboratories, but more relevant to your question I would say is that I also plan to try to advance much more forcefully the idea of using roadmaps to develop science and technology strategies around core problems, and I think there all the laboratories and INEEL, certainly with its complementary expertise, will certainly play a role.

Senator CRAIG. How do you see the lab system functioning to ensure that basic research can be taken through the appropriate applied engineering and deployment phases of development?

Dr. MONIZ. Once again, Senator Craig, I think the roadmap approach is very important for helping inform the basic research programs about in some sense the ultimate goals and the ultimate missions of the Department.

One example of where that, of course, is being done in some sense is in the defense programs in the stockpile stewardship management program, which is certainly entering that path.

Senator CRAIG. The Department of Energy now has only 2 operating reactors of any size given over to research purposes, the HIFR flux isotope reactor at Oak Ridge, which is focused primarily on isotope production, and the Advanced Test Reactor at the INEEL.

Where does the Advanced Test Reactor fit into the research and development portfolio that you would shape for DOE?

Dr. MONIZ. Senator Craig, I'm afraid I really don't know exactly how that will go. I would certainly say that the provision of neutrons from both reactors and spallation sources is a critical issue for the science enterprise. We clearly have some difficulties right now in that arena-the Brookhaven reactor issues-and hopefully going forward to, in the longer term, to a very high power spallation source.

I think we really must have a plan looking at the next 10 years in terms of how we have neutrons for both basic and applied research, and I would be happy to discuss your specific question once I'm able to evaluate the program.

Senator CRAIG. DOE has plans to drain the sodium from Idaho's EBR-2 reactor next year. This is an irreversible decommissioning

action. EBR-2 will never be able to operate again if that action is taken.

I received a letter from Secretary Peña this week, and I want to quote from his letter. "Given growing concerns over global climate change and other environmental issues, the United States must maintain the option to both operate many of its current nuclear powerplants and build new plants based on the design that emerges from our advanced light water reactor program. In addition, the Nation should consider the need to develop more advanced nuclear power technologies for future generations."

While I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, I am very much involved now with the Senate and the Senate leadership as it relates to the global warming issue. We are taking a look at the needs of China over the next several decades, their quantum demand for energy and their burning of soft brown coal. They are going to have to go nuclear or something much like that to maintain clean air for the world, not just for China.

My question is how will DOE meet the objective I have just read if it closes down its nuclear reactors like EBR-2 and discontinues promising programs such as the integral fast reactor. We have a couple of technologies here that are phenomenally promising, and yet, bluntly put, they want to kill one. If you drain the sodium out of EBR-2, it is permanently inoperable.

How do you respond to what appears to be a statement on one side and contradictory actions on the other side?

Dr. MONIZ. Senator Craig, first let me endorse the general position that was offered. Certainly, as I said earlier, I firmly believe that we must be developing this energy technology portfolio, different time scales, different risks, and clearly in that portfolio I certainly believe we must maintain a nuclear option in terms of research and development for advanced reactor types.

Certainly, it is a fact that in the last several decades of course, about 90 percent of the avoided carbon emissions have come from the nuclear power contribution to our electricity generation in this country.

Having said that, I will be looking, using the results of the current laboratory studies requested by Secretary Peña and the PCAST study of the President, which is forthcoming in a week or so, or a week and half. I will be evaluating those reports. I believe they will provide a firm basis for advancing this portfolio concept. Within that portfolio concept I think we must evaluate the nuclear research option and, within that option, then I think I would certainly pledge, when confirmed, to look aggressively at the issue of how we use current assets.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much.

Ms. Sullivan, a couple of questions of you, one actually, and others that I will too submit in writing. Then I will turn to Senator Domenici.

First, I will send you a question in relation to your area of responsibility in workforce restructuring, the exemption of Argonne and Brookhaven from section 3161. I wish you would respond to that in writing.

But let me ask this question for the record now. Your written statement refers to nearly complete projects that we need to get

45-882 98-2