July 26, 1996

The House passed the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill on July 24, containing the $225M for fusion recommended by Subcommittee. This compares to this years budget of $244M, so it is a 7.8% reduction. In addition, however, the House voted 275-135 to increase solar and renewable energy programs by $42M over that recommended by the Subcommittee, which could result in about a $1m tax on the fusion program. The Senate began debate on their version of the Bill today (July 26) and is expected to vote on Monday July 29. Due to the August recess that will begin in the first week of August, it seems that the House-Senate conference is not likely until September. Restrictive language in the Subcommittee report is not part of the bill, but will be merged/changed and incorporated into conference committee report language later. Several persons spoke out in favor of fusion and against the restrictive language. Excerpts follow.

Chairman Myers (R-IN): "The fusion program has been around here as long as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and I have been here. Back 26 years ago when he and I first went on this committee, we were promised that we would have a fusion prototype reactor by now. We are not too much closer now than we were then. But we are still strong supporters of fusion. We have fusion now in many reactors, but we have not finally produced a fusion reactor that is producing power, but we are still supporting it. Last year we had $244 million for a fusion program. This year we have cut it back to $225 million. We still support fusion, but the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee has suggested a reorganization, realignment for the fusion program in the Department of Energy. We are not going quite as fast as they would like to see it, but we do provide for $225 million, including funds for the ITER program, which is an international fusion program; $55 million goes for the ITER program."

Rep. Timothy Roemer (D-IN): "I would also like to encourage my colleagues to not overly micromanage in the area of fusion R&D, and there is report language in this bill that I think can be as harmful as some of the cuts that have taken place over the years in fusion. I would say let us not micromanage to our universities, big or small, exactly where each and every one of these dollars should go in fusion research."

"I appeal to the eventual conferees on this bill to negate this report language in conference. Such ear,arking does not reflect well on the Congress and may do more harm to the fusion R&D program than even the 40% cut it has received these past 2 years."

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD): "I rise today to express my concern for the future of our Nation's fusion program. First of all, I am disappointed with the funding level for fusion research in H.R. 3816. This cut from last year's funding level is significantly below the recommendation of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee's for a strong U.S. fusion program. The FEAC report warned that any sustained funding level below $250 million would adversely impact the productivity of the U.S. fusion facilities and severely strain our relationship with our international partners. what concerns me most about the fusion funding level is the language in the committee's report to H.R. 3816. On pages 82 and 83 of the report, the committee recommends that 90 percent of the $225 million for fusion research be allocated for specific programs of the fusion research program. While each of these specific projects are important aspects to a comprehensive U.S. fusion program, this language does not include key elements of the program plan outlined by the FEAC report and is inconsistent with the guidelines Congress provided the fusion community when ordering a restructuring of the program. The FEAC report's key component for the new domestic fusion program plan is the pursuit of new innovative approaches to fusion through small scale experiments at universities and laboratories throughout the country. This program element was explicitly mandated by Congress and was given top priority by FEAC even at budget levels below $250 million. The committee report cannot support this priority area because there is simply not enough unspecified funding remaining in the fusion budget. The unfortunate consequence is that university experimental fusion research would be virtually eliminated from the fusion program. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and expectation that members of the House-Senate conference for this appropriation bill will take another look at the congressional guidelines to the fusion community as well as the FEAC report. This earmarking language must be reconsidered to ensure that the fusion community continues its peer review process and that vital small scale university program are maintained."

Rep. Ron Packard (R-CA): "Fusion research takes place at a number of universities and institutions around the country. San Diego is particularly blessed:we host major programs at the University of California at San Diego and at General Atomics. In addition, we serve as the host to the U.S. team for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor -- a major international science and engineering project. Last year's Energy and Water conference report called for a restructuring of the fusion program and set into motion an extensive and effecive peer review process carried out through the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee. The restructured program and this ongoing peer review process has been widely praised and I belive the fusion community should be congratulated for a job well done. Because of the budget difficulties in achieving a higher level for fusion energy, the committee included prescriptive report language concerning fusion programs. This language is not consistent with the recommendations of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee and the ongoing peer review process. I am also concerned about its impact on university and other aspects of the fusion programs. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support a higher funding level for fusion energy in conference. A higher level could enable the current fusion programs to continue their important work, thus making report language unnecessary to keep these programs intact."

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA): "I know that the chairman, as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) are supporters of fusion, that we have very tight fiscal constraints. However, last year we had a 33 percent reduction below the requested amount. This year, once again, funding is a little bit on the slim side for what will be needed for the restructured program envisioned last year. Mr. Chairman, I know that every effort has been made to support the program. I guess my question to the chairman is not an amendment or a suggestion to change the language or anything of that nature, but to ask whether he would be willing, if additional funds become available within this bill in the conference committee, to do his best to see that especially university-based fusion research and basic research might be the beneficiary of any good news in conference."

Mr. Myers: "Of course the committee is always willing to look at additional funds if we can find them. Unfortunately we were not able to find them before we came to the floor today. But when we do go to conference with the other body we will have to wait and see what they may have. We appreciate the interest the gentlewoman has. This committee has always supported fusion."

Rep. Vic Fazio (D-CA): "Mr. Chairman, the fusion energy program is one of the most exciting and important programs at the Department of Energy. It is also very important to my State. California is host to the U.S Home Team of the ITER project. Several campuses of the University of California have fusion research programs. Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley Labs have programs and several California companies are heavily involved in fusion research and development. Unfortunately, for both the Nation and my State, at the same time the fusion program is making tremendous progress, it has suffered heavy cuts at the hands of this Congress. Last year, as many of my colleagues are aware, the fusion program was cut $130 million -- 33 percent -- and the bill before us now cuts another $19 million from the program. Accompanying the cuts in last year's Energy and Water bill were instructions for the Department of Energy and the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee to restructure the fusion program. This Congressional guidance set off an extensive , time consuming, and, frankly, a painful redesign of the fusion program. It also put into place a thorough peer review process. Both the redesigned program and the ongoing peer review process have been widely praised. It is regrettable that the lack of adequate funding in this bill pits one aspect of the program against another. I will work in conference to see that all of the needs of the fusion program are met. I think it is important. However, if that does not happen, I am concerned that the language currently in the bill which tries to set priorities for the program within the limited funding constraints may conflict with the direction the program is intended to take. It could also result in substantial damage to a number of California programs, facilities, and high tech jobs and divide the fusion community. If funding constraints force us to make difficult choices in how to fund the fusion program, we should leave that decision up to the Department of Energy with the guidance of the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee. I look forward to working in conference to fully fund the fusion program and to work toward language that is less prescriptive and more consistent with the peer review process for this important program."

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ): "In addition, this bill provides $225 million for magnetic fusion energy research. While this number is reduced from last year's level, I am hopeful that as the bill moves through the legislative process the committee will be able to increase the number. I am also optimistic that the committee will be able to reach a compromise on language giving the Department the greatest flexibility in meeting the FEAC recommendations contained in this year's report. Scientists who work in this special area of fusion research tell me that the prospects for achieving practical fusion energy have never been greater. The progress over the past several years has been truly impressive. Fusion energy research needs to be continued if we have any hopes of finding future energy sources that do not harm our environment. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents real progress toward setting national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill."

For more information, contact: Stephen O. Dean