I believe our priorities should continue to be the funding of energy research and basis science programs, and my mark will reflect those priorities. However, we should still have enough flexibility to meet other Members' concerns even in the markup.

And let me also say as we move through this process and have votes of the Subcommittee, if the majority of the members of this Subcommittee have a different priority from the Chairman, that's what will be reflected in the final bill when we pass this out of our Subcommittee.

The only thing I'm asking for is for all of us to try at least to meet the goals, our budget goals that we've set before us and not simply try to increase the spending level, but if we have different priorities to set those priorities and say more money should be here and less money should go to another area.

Turning to today's hearing, we will first cover the Office of Environment, Safety and Health, and the Office of Environmental Management. Later we will hear witnesses on the request of the Office of Nuclear Energy. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the waste cleanup of non-defense sites, a small portion of the entire waste cleanup budget.

The Fiscal Year 1997 Administration request is I believe $651 million, which is a nine percent increase over the 1996 appropriation. The Environment, Safety and Health request of $112 million represents a six percent cut from the current appropriation level. The Office of Nuclear Energy is requesting $248 million for fiscal year 1997, and that also is a cut of 1.4 percent from the current funding.

Agency representatives will not be the only witnesses today. We will also hear from the GAO and the National Academy of Sciences. Both organizations have conducted recent studies on the DOE's waste cleanup program.

We will also hear from representatives of Citizens Against Government Waste and Public Citizen on continued funding of the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program, which should be an interesting discussion.

Although I believe that nuclear power provides a safe, clean energy source, I seriously question the continued use of scarce research dollars to pay for certification requirements and for the fees of major corporations, and this will be something we will be discussing.

Before I introduce our first panel, let me turn to my colleague from Indiana, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Roemer, for his opening remarks.

I apologize that we got started a half an hour late. There was a conference on the floor about a major issue in which Republicans had to make up our minds. We were discussing these things between ourselves, and I'm sorry that that caused us to be a little late this morning.

Mr. Roemer.

Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to have my entire statement entered into the record. Chairman ROHRABACHER. Without objection.

Mr. ROEMER. First of all, I would like to welcome our witnesses.

larly interested in discussing the efforts on behalf of the Department of Energy to move toward external regulation.

So I have a bill, H.R. 1510, that would move the Energy Department towards these external regulations by legislative direction, but I'm hopeful that we can hear some testimony from you today as to what your recommendations are and what progress you might see the Department making in this area in the future.

I'm interested in exploring aspects of the nuclear energy R&D budget. My statement gets into a host of other things, including some of the certification that the Chairman talked about with the light water reactor facility.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Which side were you on?

Mr. ROEMER. I would like to engage our Chairman a little bit on what he opened and what he prefaced his remarks on, and that is the markup schedule for this Subcommittee. He indicated that this Committee is going to go to markup on the 15th.

Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The 15th, yes.

Mr. ROEMER. It's the 15th. Now as many people here, Members know and people testifying know and people from the audience know, we've already marked up an Omnibus Energy Bill in Full Committee, and now we're saying that this Subcommittee, which is one of the crucial cornerstones of developing energy policy, is to make recommendations to the appropriators, to the science community and to the Senate. We are not going to even mark up our bill until the entire bill has been marked up in Committee and has gone to the floor on May 9th. Now I think we're moving very quickly toward making this Committee irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have had talks on the Floor about this, and I am in no way insinuating or implying that you agree with this kind of strategy that might make this Committee irrelevant. But this kind of strategy, whether it's on the part of the Chairman of the Full Committee or whether it's on the part of the consensus of this Committee, is quickly going to make those proponents that want to get rid of the Science Committee next year, which I strongly oppose, it gives them fuel for the fire to say when you cannot bring the energy component of this bill to Full Committee markup and to make that part of the Omnibus Bill, then maybe we should eliminate the Science Committee.

I think you just give the proponents who are trying to eliminate this Committee more and more logical arguments to get rid of it, and I am very, very upset about this, Mr. Chairman. I really think that this is like bringing an agriculture bill to the floor without the dairy component, like bringing a defense bill to the floor without the Air Force component, or bringing an education bill to the floor without the student loan component, and I really hope that we can talk this Committee and the majority party into including the entire part of the Committee's jurisdiction into an omnibus, what is called, what is purportedly and supposedly called an "omnibus bill." As the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, I cannot convey to you how upsetting and how discouraging and disappointing this process is. So I hope that we can still work together in a bipartisan way. I know you and I will, but I hope this Sub

where we can make energy policy recommendations to the appropriators, to the United States Senate, to other people interested in the policy implications that we undertake in the deliberations of this Committee.

Certainly we're taking valuable time of these witnesses today, and if these people are testifying, and we're having people testify this week and next week, are we wasting their time when this Subcommittee is not going to be taken seriously by the Full Committee and we're not going to be part of the Omnibus Bill?

It's surprising to me that the Washington Post lists this Committee and our deliberations here in the paper this morning. I'm surprised that our distinguished expert panelists showed up, and I wonder if we can continue to get people to show up for Committee hearings when this Committee is left out of the process, Mr. Chair

man.

With that in exasperation and in frustration I would yield back any time I have remaining.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Chairman takes note of that very justified criticism, and recognizing that it's not this Chairman's decision that he's criticizing.

Let me note for the Committee that we do have 10 minutes reserved for opening remarks. I would invite other Members to submit their remarks for the record. Usually we just open it up for the Ranking Member as well as the Chairman to speak for their sides of the aisle.

Is there anyone who would like to submit something for the record?

[No response.]

If not, our first panel will cover the Offices of Environment, Safety and Health and Environment Management.

Peter Brush is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment Safety and Health at the Department of Energy.

Rear Admiral Richard Guimond serves in the same role for the Office of Environmental Management.

Bernice Steinhardt is Associate Director of Resources, Community and Economic Development Division for the General Accounting Office.

And Dr. E. William Colglazier is Executive Officer for the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council.

So without further ado and without objection, your entire testimony will be submitted for the record. I would just ask if you could summarize in a five-minute segment. That will give time to the members of the Committee to follow-up and ask questions. Mr. Brush.

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER N. BRUSH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. BRUSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues here to discuss the Department of Energy's fiscal 1997 budget request for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.

Mr. Chairman, the Office of Environment, Safety and Health is

ing the safety and health of more than 100,000 workers as well as the public living near our facilities and the environment around our facilities.

Considering this compelling mandate, I think you will agree that our budget request of $176 million represents a fair allocation of resources in these difficult budgetary times. Our request is one percent of the Department's entire budget, and it is about eight percent below last year's level.

This pared-down budget request is the result of a serious commitment by our office to meet our obligations while satisfying calls for greater efficiencies. We are reducing reliance on support service contractors, we are consolidating training and other administrative functions, and at the same time we are boosting our ability to enhance safety at DOE through a reorganized program and a strategic plan that focuses our resources on making DOE safer.

In creating our program, Mr. Chairman, we have benchmarked ourselves against major U.S. corporations, from Dow Chemical to U.S. Steel to Union Carbide, all of which recognize the need for a strong internal environment, safety and health organization focused on providing a safe workplace through prevention, and I underscore prevention, of accidents, illnesses and environmental dam

age.

These corporations have recognized that safety is an investment that allows us to target our most urgent risks, use our limited resources most efficiently and do our work most effectively.

The need for such a program was recently recognized by the Advisory Committee on External Regulation of DOE nuclear facilities which pointed out that a strong internal DOE safety management system will be essential under any regulatory regime.

We need such a program, Mr. Chairman, because the Department is responsible for managing and disposing of enormous quantities of radioactive and other hazardous materials and the contaminated soils and groundwater around our facilities.

This includes 26 metric tons of plutonium that had previously been recycled into warheads. Some of this is now left in containers in facilities in conditions not suited for long-term storage. Other inventories include about 2,700 metric tons of spent reactor fuel, more than 430 metric tons of other radioactive materials and more than 1.9 million cubic meters of radioactive waste.

In describing and summarizing our program I want to mention three major program areas of the Office of Environment, Safety and Health-independent oversight, health studies and technical assistance.

Mr. Chairman, we manage a comprehensive program of independent oversight of the Department's facilities and activities. These assessments provide to DOE management validated professional appraisals of a site's performance, greatly aiding the program's ability to target resources to areas of greatest risk, to workers, the public and the environment. These assessments have identified where we're doing well, where we have to work harder, and they also aid in spreading the good practices at one site amongst the various Department of Energy facilities.

I also want to point out that our budget request for oversight in

Amendments of 1988 which gave to the Department of Energy the authority to enforce nuclear safety rules and issue civil penalties on its contractors for violation of those nuclear safety rules. I'm pleased to say that program is now up and running effectively. We have issued two major rules, and recently issued our first enforcement action in the form of a Notice of Violation against one of the Department's contractors.

We intend to further strengthen our Price-Anderson enforcement program in the coming fiscal year to add Federal staff to that effort and elevate the office so that it reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health.

Our second major program area that I want to mention is health studies. Our Office of Health Studies sponsors domestic and international studies to increase our understanding of radiation health effects and the environmental and occupational health impacts of DOE operations.

Some examples of this program are the State Health Agreements Program, our programs for epidemiological surveillance and our agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services under which we foster significant scientific studies of safety and health around our facilities.

Finally, under health studies, Mr. Chairman, let me mention the Radiation Effects Research Foundation which we jointly support with the government of Japan in studying the health effects on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Ongoing programs at RERF include studies of the effect of atomic bomb radiation on the health of survivors, studies on whether the lifespan and causes of death of atomic bomb survivors differ from those of unexposed individuals and studies of generic effects.

We have underway, Mr. Chairman, a distinguished Blue Ribbon Panel looking at the RERF over the course of this past year, since the RERF is in fact the single largest budget element in our budget for the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.

Finally, the third major part of our program, Mr. Chairman, is our Program of Technical Assistance. Like any major corporate resource, the Department of Energy needs a program which focuses on providing to Federal managers the tools they need to improve safety or management systems that are especially important when you have hazards such as we have at the Department of Energy.

This program provides specialists to advise and work with Department line programs on matters of environment, safety and health following the tenet that the essence of protecting environment, safety and health at DOE sites is effective work planning, hazard analysis and hazard control.

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, accidents cost money. DOE paid out some $500 million in worker compensation over the past 10 years. Considerably more has been lost to medical costs and lost productivity, much of which could be saved by effective work planning and hazard analysis.

Our experience suggests that an effective Technical Assistance Program will reduce workplace risks, will reduce the need for compliance-based regulation and will reduce costs; and we've provided to the Committee a complete list of the savings that we believe can be achieved through an effective Technical Assistance Program.