Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chair of the House Committee on Science, gave the opening address at Fusion Power Associates 20-Year Anniversary Meeting and Symposium, October 19 in Washington, DC.

Introducing him, FPA president Steve Dean noted, "Like Fusion Power Associates, Congressman Sensenbrenner is also celebrating a 20-year anniversary, having come to the Congress in January of 1979, after being elected in November of 1978." Dean stated, "Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Sensenbrenner served 10 years in the Wisconsin State Legislature. In his current position, he is responsible for developing and overseeing government science policy, which includes the U.S. fusion program. And we are honored to have him join us today."

The Congressman said, "I come before you today with a little bit of fear and trepidation because I know what most people think of political messages. And I found that out the first time I ran for Congress when I had a real long day on the campaign trail and ended up in a little restaurant outside of Waukesha, Wisconsin. After giving the waitress my order, I went into the men's room to clean up, and above the hot air hand dryer on the wall there was a little bit of graffiti that said, Press this button for a brief political message. Today I am here to give you a brief political message."

Congressman Sensenbrenner said, "I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning and hope to provide some insight on science and technology policy from a congressional perspective. First, I want to congratulate the fusion community for all of the hard work you have put in over the past several years in redirecting the DOE fusion energy program. While I am sure this has been a painful and agonizing experience, I believe it is clear from the positive response by Congress in the fiscal year 2000 budget process that fusion has turned the corner."

He noted, "The final FY2000 fusion energy sciences appropriation, which I would point out has been signed into law and is not a part of the budget embroglio that is currently enveloping this town, of $250 million, tracks the earlier recommendation made by the Science Committee in the House with the passage of H.R. 1655, the DOE RD&D Authorization Act of 1999. This represents an increase of $27.4 million or 12.4 percent above the fiscal 2000 President's request of $222.6 million, and an increase of $28.5 million or 12.9 percent above the fiscal '99 appropriated level of $221.5 million."

He said, "To have increases in the double digits with spending caps and in this budget climate is really miraculous, and I think that a lot of the credit goes to those of you in the fusion community who have redirected the program and focused the program. In addition, on the defense side of DOE, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report included an additional $10 million to further development of high average power lasers, an activity directly related to fusion energy. Believe me, achieving these sorts of increases in an exceedingly difficult budget year is no small feat. It is a feat due primarily to efforts of those of you here in this room, and those of you with whom you have been collaborating. And I might note that the fiscal 2001 authorization level of $275 million in H.R. 1655 should give you additional optimism."

He continued, "Now let's talk about how science in general is faring this year after some long budget negotiations. The final science funding numbers in the VA/HUD/independent agencies bill the President will sign this week are very good, and much better than most of us thought possible a few months ago and even a couple of weeks ago. The National Science Foundation received a $240 million boost, fully six and a half percent higher than last year's level. NASA gets around $13.6 billion, more than the President requested and about a billion dollars more than the earlier House- passed appropriations bill. The new spending bill includes $126 million this year for a new information technology project that is consistent with the intent of the bipartisan IT legislation unanimously approved by the Science Committee and awaiting scheduling on the House floor. This legislation, which I introduced with the late Congressman George Brown of California, the committee's ranking minority member, would nearly double federal IT research over the next five years. And by focusing these enhanced federal IT efforts on basic research, we are planting the seed corn for technological breakthroughs that promise to drive our future economic prosperity. These developments are extremely welcome news for our scientific community."

He said, "We should take a few lessons from the recent budget struggle, however. First, our budget process is neither short nor pretty. I was told when I got into this business that watching legislation being made is about as appetizing as watching sausage being made. One of my drivers back home where we make a lot of sausage didn't eat a hotdog after a tour that we took through a sausage-making plant. Back in February, the President began the process by offering his budget request. This request set optimistic spending levels for some, but by no means all, science programs. Unfortunately, this spending plan was based upon unrealistic assumptions -- tax hikes everyone knew had no chance of being enacted, and other budgetary gimmicks. This approach received only two votes in the House and two in the Senate, with 523 Senators and Representatives rejecting it. Congress, however, responded and responded positively. Without increasing taxes, it crafted science appropriations that meet our scientific needs. Our second lesson is that achieving sufficient spending levels for science will continue to be a dog fight in the near future. Discretionary spending, which means that's subject to annual appropriations by Congress under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, are not slated to increase. Many of my colleagues and countless Washington special interests love to curse the budget caps precisely because they force tough choices and impose a limited budget. I think this is responsible government for the taxpayers. But regardless, remember the funding decisions Congress makes are based upon competing interests. For instance, NASA and NSF must compete against veterans and housing programs in its funding bill, not to mention education and other priorities in the larger budget context. That's no easy task, and it's not going to change. The third lesson is the critical importance of maximizing each federal research dollar. This involves reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, and employing other solid management tactics that increase taxpayer confidence on how federal science dollars are spent. The former Senator from my state, William Proxmire, loved to ridicule science with his Golden Fleece Awards a decade or two ago. I think we have come a long way, but getting better results from our federal science investment and the resulting scientific breakthroughs build credibility and political support for our science programs. This can only improve science's lot when fighting against the other discretionary programs. Finally, the scientific community must aggressively push its interests in Washington. Let's not kid ourselves. Washington is a political town that responds to political pressure. The scientific community cannot afford to rest upon its laurels or not engage in science funding fights. It's critical for scientists to meet with their legislators and talk to the community about their work and its value. And in practically every scientific conference I have addressed since becoming Chairman over two and a half years ago, I have given the audience a challenge -- to get themselves invited to speak at a local rotary club or other service organization twice during the next two years, to explain to community leaders in plain English what you are doing, what you hope to accomplish, and why the federal dollars that you are getting to conduct research is important in terms of the economic future of our country and the quality of life that our children and grandchildren will be able to lead. Doing this is hard work, and it is often inconvenient. But if the science community wants to compete with other interests for the limited amount of discretionary dollars, then it must work as hard or harder than others to get the message across. This past year I think has represented a very, very good start in giving to the Congress and to the administration the message that science is important for the future of our country. But believe me, it is harder to make that message stick when science is so subjective and sometimes the payoffs are a long time down the road when building an aircraft carrier or a freeway or a bridge is something that legislators who support that can point to to their constituents come election time and say, "See, voters, what I did."

The Congressman fielded a number of questions. In response to one he stated, "I think the fusion community has matured in its political approach to Congress. Even though there are going to have to be winners and losers that you have chosen amongst yourself. But, again, it has worked. And if you don't lock yourself up at Snowmass every so often, you know, to figure out what your priorities are, then you're going to lose credibility. And once the credibility is lost, then we're going to see numbers shrink rather than grow."

Dr. Dean thanked Congressman Sensenbrenner for coming to the meeting, noting that "he has taken a lot of his time to get to know us, to get to know our problems and to give us his advice."