FPN04-30

Deficit Reduction Plan Threatens US Research

April 7, 2005

Speaking to his Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) on April 7, U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Director Ray Orbach told the group that proposed FY 2006 across the board budget reductions in Office of Science programs, including fusion, had their origins in top level policy guidance from the White House, stating that President Bush planned to cut the annual U.S. budget deficit in half by the time he leaves office in 2008. This resulted in a computer-generated formula at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) targeting "discretionary" funding in most agencies, including the Department of Energy Office of Science.

Orbach said that the domestic fusion budget reduction of $34 million was "fair" compared to other reductions in the Office of Science. (The total proposed fusion budget for FY 2006 would increase by $17M, due to an add-on for ITER construction as a Presidential Initiative. The $34M reduction in domestic fusion is a 12% reduction; the overall reduction in the Office of Science is 4%) In response to a question from a FESAC member on where would future increases for the U. S. ITER contribution come from, Orbach acknowledged that the same budget reduction formula was being applied by OMB for future year guidance, but he expressed the hope that the Office of Science, which funds 42% of U. S. research in the physical sciences including fusion, would be able to fare "better than the average" on a year-by-year basis and that he had no intention of letting the U. S. domestic fusion program be unduly reduced.

Orbach's views on the fusion program are further clarified in a letter he sent March 9 to Bill Herrmannsfeldt, a scientist from the Stanford Linear Accelerator, who wrote to Energy Secretary Sam Bodman commenting that "the early start to spending construction money on ITER is causing sever damage to the base, domestic fusion program." Herrmannsfeldt says "The damage to Inertial Fusion is even more severe (than to the magnetic fusion program)." In his response "on behalf of the Secretary of Energy," Orbach says:

"FY 2006 is a very tough budget year, and the Office of Science has tried to make the difficult choices in the best possible way we can. This situation is likely to persist in the foreseeable future as the country deals with the deficit. In making these choices, we are trying to maintain U. S. scientific leadership and ensure that leading-edge research facilities will be available for the future. For the fusion program, ITER, with its capability for producing a sustained, burning plasma, represents that future.

"Within these very tough fiscal constraints and choices, further expenditures on inertial fusion energy needs to wait for a successful demonstration of the basic scientific feasibility (ignition) of inertial fusion in the National Ignition Facility or other facilities. Similarly, research on energy-related technologies for magnetic fusion must wait for the results of ITER. If the fiscal situation changes, we will consider our position with respect to support for research in inertial fusion energy. In the meantime, our priority is to do whatever is needed to ensure the success of ITER."