The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science is the largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the country. It operates ten of DOE’s national laboratories and more than 30 user facilities with broad applications that go well beyond energy innovation. Nearly 28,000 of our nation’s top researchers from industry, academia, and other federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials for advanced energy storage technologies, to new pharmaceuticals that will better treat disease, to even examining the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
Last year, the DOE Office of Science funded more research in the physical sciences than the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), or any other federal agency. Each of these agencies has its own robust authorizing legislation, but for various historical reasons, the Office of Science does not. I believe that this is an unfortunate oversight and an abdication of our responsibility, so I am now calling on Congress to finally pass comprehensive authorizing legislation for DOE’s Office of Science.
First and foremost, effective mission-driven research programs need clear priorities and long-term objectives in order to succeed. Right now, Office of Science research priorities are set almost entirely by the Administration, with some additional guidance provided by a few piecemeal – and in many cases outdated – sections of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The America COMPETES Act of 2007 and its Reauthorization in 2010 ultimately included robust top-line funding levels, but no policy guidance or other legislative language for the Office of Science. This is a significant difference with the NSF and NIST components of COMPETES, which contains such language.
Strong funding levels are certainly necessary given the importance of the Office of Science, which the National Academies recognized in the seminal Rising Above the Gathering Storm report as one of three agencies, along with NSF and NIST, that are critical to our nation’s continued scientific and economic leadership. But this minimal legislative approach cannot provide the overarching vision for the Office of Science, nor can it provide the stability that will help the Office succeed even in difficult budget times by identifying and codifying more specific, longer-term priorities. Congress has an opportunity – and the responsibility – to fill this gap.
The user facilities supported by DOE’s Office of Science are often referred to as the “crown jewels” of the United States’ research and development enterprise. Using clear authorization language, we can provide guidance to the Congressional appropriations committees relative to which proposed new facilities or upgrade projects have been identified through a rigorous review process as critically important to our continued leadership in research and innovation. Without sufficient and sustained investments in the facilities that are identified, subsequent delays will actually result in higher costs to taxpayers as project schedules are extended. This is largely because the teams required for construction and maintenance are essentially “standing armies” that need significant annual resources even if unplanned budget reductions force the project schedule to be extended.
In addition to these amazing user facilities, the Office of Science supports initiatives like the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) that are focused on achieving scientific breakthroughs in a wide range of areas relevant to future energy technologies. However, despite widespread praise from the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the broader research community, EFRCs have never been authorized in statute. Doing so would both highlight the important work being done at EFRCs and ensure their continued record of excellence by, for example, requiring merit-based recompetition at regular intervals; allowing the Secretary to terminate an underperforming center at any time; and disallowing use of award funds for building construction, so no EFRC can be considered permanent. These are the legislative options for ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
Finally, a comprehensive authorization will provide the research community with the certainty it needs about the future direction of the Office of Science. Ongoing important programs, such as the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, which is charged with advancing U.S. leadership in high-end computing capabilities, deserve explicit Congressional support and guidance. Moreover, a comprehensive authorization of the Office would identify and create new opportunities for areas of research that should be federally supported, but aren’t. For example, the federal government currently has no official steward for research into inertial fusion energy generation; despite a recent National Academies report which found that several inertial fusion energy concepts now have significant technical promise. A comprehensive Office of Science authorization bill could establish such a program.
For all of these reasons, I have included a comprehensive, 5-year authorization of DOE’s Office of Science as part of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014. As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I am committed to maintaining our leadership in technology and innovation.The Office of Science is an important enabler in achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to support comprehensive authorizing legislation for the Office of Science so we can finally provide it with the direction and stability it deserves.
