August 3, 1996

Congress has recessed until September 4. During August, members will be checking out sentiments in their home districts, attending the national Republican and Democratic Conventions, and preparing for the November elections. >From the fusion point of view, they will also be preparing for the Conference on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which will probably occur by mid September, to resolve the differences between the versions already passed separately by House and Senate (See FPN-4 and FPN-8). The Senate leadership allocated almost a billion dollars more to its Energy and Water appropriations than did the House. Consequently it is perhaps not surprising that fusion made out better in the Senate bill. The fusion strategy for Conference is to try to get the House to accept the Senate version. If this strategy is to be successful, the House leadership is going to have to be willing see some money come out of some other programs. House leadership is generally not supportive of DOE civilian programs.

The most influential members of the House in this regard are Bob Livingston (R-LA), chair of the full Appropriations Committee (who allocates $ among the subcommittees), John Kasich (R-OH), chair of the Budget Committee, and John Myers (R-IN), chair of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. It would be useful if fusion supporters make contact with their representatives (in person if possible) while they are in their home districts, provide them with the arguments for fusion, and ask them to urge the House leadership to accept the Senate version of the Energy and Water bill. Providing them with a draft letter to send to Livingston, Kasich and Myers (and other conferees) may increase the likelihood that they will follow through. Also, it is important to get to know your representative's staff person who follows energy issues. Contact with this person will be easier and they are the ones on the inside who will see to the follow through. You can identify this person by calling your representative' s office.

As a reminder, the House and Senate both approved the full President's request for Inertial Confinement Fusion, including the National Ignition Facility. These programs are part of DOE's Defense Programs. The problem is with the DOE's civilian programs, which are caught up in the larger issue of cutting discretionary funding as part of deficit reduction. The DOE's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences programs recieved $240 million from the Senate and $225 million from the House. This compares to $244 million this year and $272 requested for next year by the President. The Fusion Energy Advisory Committee recommended a budget of at least $275 million to DOE and said that below $250 million "it is not possible to implement the goals of the restructured program." Recall that this year's budget of $244 million is already a 34% cut from the FY 1995 fusion level of $368 million and well below the $320 million which, in July 1995, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) said "would preserve what we believe to be the most indispensable elements of the U.S. fusion effort and associated international collaboration."

The "Conferees" are expected to be all the members of the respective Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittes and the chairs of the full Appropriations Committees. They are lised below:

House Republicans: Bob Livingston (LA), John Myers (IN), Harold Rogers (KY), Joe Knollenberg (MI), Frank Riggs (CA), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Jim Bunn (OR).
House Democrats: Tom Bevill (AL), Vic Fazio (CA), Jim Chapman (TX). Senate Republicans: Pete Domenici (NM), Mark Hatfield (OR), Thad Cochran(MS), Slade Gorton (WA), Mitch McConnell (KY), Robert Bennett (UT), Conrad Burns (MT). Senate Democrats: Bennett Johnson (LA), Robert Byrd (WV), Ernest Hollings (SC), Harry Reid (NV), Bob Kerrey (NE), Patty Murray (WA).

In addition to those persons quoted in FPN-4 making supportive statements on fusion during floor debate in the House, Frank Riggs (R-CA) also made the following remarks:

"Within the Department of Energy, I do have some concerns about the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. Fusion is important to the Nation because it is one of our most promising future energy sources. I am pleased that there is a strong fusion presence in California, resulting in high technology jobs and spinoffs at universities, national laboratories, and industrial facilities.

"Funding for fusion has decreased significantly over the past 2 years. Last year, in connection with a $130 million cut, conferees asked the Department of Energy and its Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee to restructure the program. This year, we adopted an amendment in subcommittee which gives guidance to the DOE on allocation of even more limited funds. While I supported this amendment, I am concerned that, in prescribing how 90 percent of the fusion funds are to be spent, we may be contradicting some of our prior direction to the Department. It is entirely appropriate that the committee suggest to DOE how its fusion funds should be used. However, the restructuring that was put into place as a result of last year's budget, and the accompanying peer review process, have been widely praised.

"As we proceed to conference with the Senate, we need to evaluate how we can achieve the appropriate balance between identifying funding priorities and giving program managers necessary flexibililty."

For more information, contact: Stephen O. Dean