OPENING STATEMENT FOR U.S.-JAPAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY We are very pleased with the opportunity to return to Japan for the continuation of exchanges on science and technology issues that our two nations have established. Each time that we meet, here in Japan or in America, each one of us departs with a share of new knowledge as well as a new and shared understanding. It is in the spirit of that shared understanding that we continue to meet and to talk. It is in the hope that from this growing understanding there will emerge, between our two countries and beyond our two nations, a more universal meaning to the role of science and technology in the service of mankind. Ever since man left the confines of this planet to venture into space more" than two and one-half decades ago, the limited circle of our globe and the even tighter circle of our dependency on each other have emerged in a clearer light. Those first photographs of earth taken from space spoke not only of our shape and size in the vast universe, but of our singularity and our unity. First, we are all citizens of our own proud nations, but all of us are also citizens of the globe, of this planet. As each industrial nation considers technological development, it must do so not only within the context of its own domestic confines but also within the larger context of the ever-shifting balance among individual nations within the community of nations. In today's world, we know that the continuing technological development that we all strive to achieve is heavily dependent on the new insights and knowledge that our scientific probes can uncover. Scientific research is a significant factor in both current and future industrial advances. And so we come together, your nation and mine, and our mutual friends from Korea, to search for new and more cooperative ways to advance the science that we all trust will provide an important part of the foundation for future technological advances. As we view the larger task of promoting technological advancement, we know that is has neither a beginning nor an end. It is an ongoing process by which industries, nations, and societies continuously change and progress by using new knowledge and insights to solve their problems, improve conditions and meet the challenges of contemporary civilization. While science and technology have helped us each meet our national objectives and goals, they have also played a role in bringing all nations of the globe closer in cooperation. However, these international efforts have been, for the most part, isolated programs. We, as a community of industrial nations and growing industrial nations in the world, have not yet developed a consistent pattern of using science and technology to move us beyond the realization of individual nation goals to the next level, that of global goals. Science and technology are tools of such potential and magnitude that, given their possibilities, we have barely begun to utilize them to achieve global well-being and prosperity. We are a wonderfully diverse conglomerate of nations, and a group of several unique continents; ultimately, however, we are one planet upon which mankind must continue to survive. Although our different cultures and histories cause us to function in different ways, this individuality, this nationalism, must also become more compatible with our global goals. There can be both competition and cooperation among nations; there can be both diversity and uniformity. They are not mutually exclusive but rather, I believe, mutually beneficial. The eminent scientist and writer Jacob Bronowski said, "Every animal leaves traces of what it was; man alone leaves traces of what he created." Through the ongoing discussions between the legislators of our nations, I am confident that we shall be able to immeasurably enhance the level of that creation for the benefit and bounty of all mankind. STATEMENT ON BASIC SCIENCE Through basic scientific research, mankind seeks answers to the fundamental questions of nature and our universe. From a purely philosophical point of view, this basic research is inherent to mankind's probing character and his desire to expand the boundaries of his knowledge and the understanding of our world. This rational knowledge is a key underpinning to all of our civilizations and provides a common linkage between our many diverse cultures. The United States has had a long and abiding interest in supporting basic scientific research. Dr. Vannevar Bush in his Presidential report on scientific research of the mid-forties stated clearly that: "Without scientific progress, no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world". In following that report, as well as numerous other efforts, Congress has worked long to support basic scientific research in various fields and programs. The National Science Foundation was created in the early 1950's; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with a strong fundamental science component was established later that decade; and in the 1970's, the Department of Energy with a renewed focus on basic energy sciences was established. Today, the U.S. Federal Government spends approximately $8.0 billion on basic scientific research, roughly 70% of the nation's total. The National Science Foundation, charged with the responsibility to maintain the health of our national scientific enterprise, today supports more than 27,000 individual scientists and graduate students. The Foundation has a total research expenditure of over $1.5 billion. This level of funding represents an almost 50% increase in funding support from the early part of this decade. Similar increases, though somewhat smaller, in our other major research agencies, demonstrate Congress' continued interest in supporting basic scientific research. This support has been maintained despite the budgetary problems now confronting the U.S. Recent passage of the Deficit Control Act -- more popularly known as the Gramm-Rudman Act will force Congress and the President to be even more judicious in allocating our limited resources. Our nation, as well as many others, looks with keen interest on Japan's announced plans and ongoing programs for focused research in the basic scientific areas of materials, biotechnology, computational sciences, and others. Japan's reputation for management and coordination for such complex programs among your private and public sectors provides an excellent model from which the rest of the world can learn. I look forward to hearing more details of these and other basic scientific research programs during our visit here. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS The people of our nations live in a time of engineering and technological marvels. We have creature-comforts that man has never known before. It is not a coincidence that this has come in conjunction with an increased understanding of the laws of nature and a recognition of the building blocks of matter. Scientists tell us that we have now arrived at a point in our scientific understanding when we have a good chance to learn how all the different forces of nature tie together. These are the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Scientists tell us further that we are on the verge of learning what happened in the first instant of time and what the conditions are at the edge of the universe. While science is a matter of imaginative speculation, ultimately it requires pragmatic measurements. The measurements that are now called for require energies that are almost a million, million times what one finds in ordinary chemical reaction and even about a million times the energy one has in a nuclear reaction. To obtain energies of this magnitude involves the most sophisticated technology that man is capable of creating. More to the point, and this is Important to us as legislators, it involves the expenditure of a vast amount of money. The machine that the scientists are asking for is the so-called Superconducting Super Collider, the SSC. Over the years, science and scientists have found ways of supporting their search into the secrets of nature. Society has been willing to do this because of the curiosity we all possess and because unlocking secrets has been the key to material progress. But now we have come to a time when further experimentation in the area will require the expenditure of billions of dollars. We are now speaking of an experiment which will cost a significant fraction of the Gross National Product. The search for more and more basic particles of matter is certainly the purest of pure basic research. However, we are accustomed to thinking of the conducting of pure research as being relatively inexpensive compared to doing applied research or to doing development. The SSC will not be a matter of giving some university a modest grant to carry out research in its laboratory. Thousands of technicians will be employed. A substantial community will have to be built to provide support facilities. The cost will be enough to give pause to any government that decides to go ahead with this experiment, and the experiment will not be done unless a government decides to do it. This is why a number of us have been saying that just as the more practical developments of space transportation and nuclear fusion energy are so expensive that they need the combination of resources of several countries, so the SSC is a prime candidate for international cooperation. I expressed my personal views on this matter last year at a conference in Bonn, Germany, sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. I spoke of the possibility of synchronized long-range planning and joint action with the possibility of designating a "lead nation" in the various main areas of modern science. Then I said, "But we cannot hope for this kind of comprehensive outlook for each science discipline to be successful if we do not go one significant step further. As we attempt to parcel out and balance the long-term responsibilities for each major discipline of science, we will have to do so in the much larger area of all science disciplines viewed collectively. In this largest scientific context, each nation will be able to see the benefits for itself in the more comprehensive scheme. It seems to me that this can only be accomplished if we agree to set up something in the nature of an international science decision-making mechanism." That may be too visionary for our time, but I believe that if we do not cooperate, much that we could and should do today, will not be done for a long, long time. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN MFE RESEARCH The United States' program in magnetic fusion energy (MFE) has undergone some significant budget cuts over the past two fiscal years. The funding for the U.S. program in FY 1986 will be roughly $385 million, which is $87 million below the FY 1984 budget and a 12% reduction from the FY 1985 level. There are a number of reasons why the U.S. program has undergone such budget cuts. They include the pressures of a deficit climate, the belief by some in the Congress that the program had over-promised and did not deliver and, finally, the absence of strong supporters for the program in the Appropriations committees in both the House and Senate. Our Science and Technology Committee has recognized these budget pressures, but believes that the Department of Energy (DOE) can still carry out a strong MFE program in the neighborhood of $400 million a year. However, it does not appear that such a budget is achievable in FY 87 since the rumored request is estimated at $333M, amounting to an additional $50 million cut. The programmatic impacts of the recent cuts have been an increased design emphasis on more compact fusion devices and an indefinite stretch-out of the MFTF-B device in the mirror program, which has been the chief backup to the mainline U.S. Tokamak program. Under these circumstances our Science and Technology Committee, the U.S. fusion community, and large segments of the International community have agreed on the merits of a U.S.-built, lower-cost Ignition (i.e., under $500 million) device. In fact, the Versailles Summit Technical Working Party (TWP) draft paper on fusion recommended a U.S. ignition experiment. This project is necessary both to focus the U.S. program in the near-term and to support the design and operation of the next Japanese and European fusion devices in the 1990's. As you know, the US/USSR Summit involved an agreement on enhanced cooperation in fusion but it is too early to determine what this means for the U.S. program. Since you have expressed an interest in learning more about U.S./U.S.S.R. cooperation, I will outline what I know. There is no agreement on the specifics of what "enhanced collaboration" in fusion energy involves between the U.S. and the Soviets. The U.S. Department of Energy has the lead to identify what "makes best technical sense" and frame a proposal, with the support of the State Department and in coordination with the Department of Defense. As I understand it, questions of technology transfer are key issues and these aspects are being discussed comprehensively in National Security Council (NSC) meetings. The U.S. position also is that cooperation must be multi-lateral and thus President Reagan will ask Japan and our other allies to agree to a proposal at the Tokyo Summit this June. The agreement must also comply with COCOM export rules. There will undoubtedly be meetings between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to arrive at a mutually agreeable technical program before the Tokyo Summit. Presumably, if agreement is reached with our allies on the proposal at Tokyo, this more specific proposal with the Soviets would be signed at the Reagan/Gorbachev Summit now apparently scheduled for September. I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that negotiations will be complex and will introduce an ingredient of uncertainty in our own budget process. If the U.S. can go ahead with a burning plasma experiment in a relatively timely fashion, it will provide valuable data for both the Japanese Fusion Test Reactor (FTR) and the Next European Torus (NET) machine. This suggests a revised U.S. fusion strategy which recognizes budget realities, yet provides for optimum use of resources in the MFE program. If the U.S., Japanese and JET programs go forward in this manner, the international strategy should be to then "leap frog" beyond FTR and NET with the next machine (very close to a demonstration reactor), with significant involvement by all three participants. As regards international cooperation, my belief is that the U.S. should welcome Japanese and JET participation in our lower-cost ignition device. Although cost-sharing would not be significant, you and the Europeans should expect some meaningful participation from the U.S. in both FTR and NET design, construction and operation. I presume that the extent of U.S. cost-sharing in those projects would also be modest. I believe that it is important for both the Japanese and Europeans to understand that the U.S. MFE program, although obviously on a stretched-out timetable versus the ambitious goals of the Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act of 1980, nevertheless requires a near-term focus. The choice of the lower-cost ignition device as this focus flows from the expectations of increasing budget constraints and the progress which has been achieved in Tokamak physics, as well as recent advances in designs of smaller, more compact devices. Our committee cannot defend a budget level of $400 million for magnetic fusion without specific milestones, such as ignition, but as I noted earlier, funding problems may be much more serious. At $330 million or so, the DOE will have to make some difficult decisions about future experiments. I would welcome discussion from our friends in the DIET on possible approaches to make the best of limited funding for fusion. In that way perhaps all of the participating nations can go forward with a strong international fusion program in the face of, foreseeable economic constraints. ACCESS TO JAPANESE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION As we all know, over the past several decades, Japan has made substantial advances in science and technology, particularly in such areas as computers, semiconductors, fiber optics, biotechnology, and robotics. The dramatic change in Japan's competitive position in high technology is demonstrated by its expanding bilateral balance in trade with the United States. From a deficit in 1968, Japan has moved to a record $35 billion international trade surplus; in contrast, the United States is experiencing a $140 billion international trade deficit. At least part of your nation's economic success can be attributed to your active national effort to collect, translate, and subsequently apply foreign scientific and technical information to meet your own needs. One must surely admire your efficient, well-coordinated networking system, which is supported by the Japanese Government. We understand that the Japan Information Center of Science and Technology (JICST), within the Prime Minister's Office, has over 5,000 scientists and engineers actively engaged in scientific research throughout Japan who process and abstract over 10,000 foreign and domestic journals, as well as technical reports, conference presentations, and patents. The United States does not have a similar coordinated effort on a national level. However, we know that if we are to remain internationally competitive, we must make a greater effort to be aware of scientific and technological developments in other nations, including Japan. Clearly, we need to improve our access to scientific and technical information that is available in your country. This is a difficult task because there is no clearly defined U.S. government policy or agency for monitoring foreign scientific and technical information. In addition, the complexity of the Japanese language and difficulty in learning it have limited our translation capabilities. There is an acute shortage of American people who are literate both in Japanese and in scientific and technical fields. We, as a nation, need to look at ways to overcome the language barrier. Our Committee in the Congress has held hearings over the past two years on these problems. In November 1985, I along with several of my colleagues from the Science and Technology Committee introduced The Japanese Technical Literature Act of 1985 (H.R. 3831). The legislation is designed to enhance our ongoing efforts in private industry to make translated material available. The United States and Japan have common interests in developing new technologies. The rapidity of change in today's world makes it even more Important for Japan and the United States to have an intimate and cooperative relationship. We hope that these meetings will continue to take us in that direction, and we look forward to your suggestions and recommendations. TMI NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING STATEMENT FOR MEETING WITH JAPANESE DIET In March of 1979, the worst nuclear powerplant accident in the United States occurred in the state of Pennsylvania at a location called Three Mile Island. By means of what is now believed to be a confluence of unusual circumstances, the coolant water in the reactor core of Three Mile Island reactor unit two vas lost, causing the reactor to reach core meltdown temperatures. The ramifications of that accident have been felt not only in our country, but |