However, in a May 5, 2003 presentation to the National Academies Burning Plasma Assessment Committee entitled "Administration Perspective on ITER and Fusion Energy", Marburger aide Patrick Looney, OSTP Assistant Director for Physical Science and Engineering, told the committee "There is no agreed upon fusion energy development timeline." Though acknowledging that President Bush stated "The results of ITER will advance the effort to produce clean, safe, reliable and commercially-available fusion energy by the middle of this century," Looney said there were "large error bars" on the President's estimate and did not constitute a timeline commitment. Furthermore, Looney said "This is energy science not (underline not) an energy technology." He said the U.S. decision to join ITER negotiations is not part of a "broader fusion initiative." "The ITER decision will not imply endorsement of other fusion-related initiatives," Looney said. He said, "As (ITER) construction does not begin until FY06, the (ITER) decision will be overall budget neutral until FY06." He also said "If the U.S. joins ITER it would not be as a lead player," and "the U.S. is absolutely neutral on the issue of site." "The U.S. has no interest in hosting ITER," he said.

On the positive side, Looney said that the decision to join ITER negotiations was in part based on a recognition that "a burning plasma experiment is the crucial element missing from the world fusion energy science program." "ITER provides U.S. scientists access to the world's most sophisticated burning plasma experiment," he said.

Looney's vugraph presentation is posted at http://fire.pppl.gov