"I am not going to allow the U.S. to enter into an
international commitment that it cannot afford. I would rather kill
the ITER project. The fusion community will have to be realistic.
It cannot have all its current projects and ITER. And it will not."
- House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), the chairman of the House Science Committee,
has been vocal over his concern that the U.S.'s participation in ITER,
the international fusion research project, will be jeopardized unless
plans are made to restructure the domestic fusion program to pay for
the international effort. This spring, he succeeded in getting the House
to adopt an amendment to the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill that would have prevented the U.S. from entering into an agreement
"obligating the United States to contribute funds to ITER"
prior to March 1, 2006 (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/077.html).
Boehlert is a supporter of ITER, but as he explained at the time, "ITER
is expensive. The U.S. contribution is expected to exceed $1 billion.
And I want to make sure that before we commit a dime to ITER that we
have a consensus on how we will find that money." The amendment,
he said, was intended to "ensure that the Administration and the
Congress and the fusion science community agree on how we're going to
pay for ITER before we sign on the dotted line."
This provision was eliminated during the House-Senate conference on
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. In a prepared
statement during House debate of the conference report, Boehlert highlighted
this omission: "The conferees dropped House language preventing
an agreement on ITER...from being finalized before March 1. This language,
which I offered and the House approved by voice vote, was designed to
prevent the U.S. from moving ahead with ITER until we had a consensus
on how to finance the billion-dollar U.S. contribution."
"I want to make clear to everyone concerned that I will do everything
in my power to kill the ITER project if there is not an agreement by
March that the domestic fusion program has to be scaled back to pay
for ITER," Boehlert declared. "Fusion science is important
and may be a key to our energy future," he said, "but it cannot
consume the entire budget of the Office of Science. And that is what
will happen if the domestic program is held harmless while ITER is constructed."
The full text of Boehlert's November 9 statement follows:
"I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank
Chairman Hobson for working on behalf of the civilian research and
development programs of the Department of Energy. Needless to say,
I wish the bill could have been even kinder to those programs, but
I know that Chairman Hobson pressed on their behalf.
"I want, though, to bring attention to one concern
I have about the conference report. The conferees dropped House language
preventing an agreement on ITER , the international fusion project,
from being finalized before March 1. This language, which I offered
and the House approved by voice vote, was designed to prevent the
U.S. from moving ahead with ITER until we had a consensus on how to
finance the billion-dollar U.S. contribution.
"You'd think that would just be common sense in this
period of fiscal austerity when we are talking about cutting programs
that Americans rely on. But the House language has been replaced by
weak report language calling for a study by the Government Accountability
Office."
[The Conference report language is as follows: "In addition, the
conferees direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to undertake
a study of the Office of Science Fusion Energy Sciences program in order
to define the role of the major domestic facilities in support of the
ITER, including recommendations on the possible consolidation or focus
of operations to maximize their research value in support of ITER."]
"I understand why, in the give and take of conference
negotiations, my provision may have had to go away. But the issue
is not going to go away.
"I want to make clear to everyone concerned that
I will do everything in my power to kill the ITER project if there
is not an agreement by March that the domestic fusion program has
to be scaled back to pay for ITER.
"I am not going to allow the U.S. to enter into an
international commitment that it cannot afford. I would rather kill
the ITER project.
"The fusion community will have to be realistic.
It cannot have all its current projects and ITER. And it will not.
"This year's appropriation already makes clear why
this is so. Just about every area of activity under the DOE Office
of Science sees a cut, especially if earmarks are excluded, except
Fusion Energy Sciences. Fusion science is important and may be a key
to our energy future, but it cannot consume the entire budget of the
Office of Science. And that is what will happen if the domestic program
is held harmless while ITER is constructed.
"So I look forward to working with my colleagues
on Appropriations and all my colleagues to make sure that the U.S.
handles its international commitments responsibly. No one should misread
what happened in this conference. The ITER program is in grave danger,
and I guarantee you that it will not be completed with U.S. participation
unless there is a more realistic plan to fund it."
Boehlert's is not a voice to be ignored. It is of note that he was
a key player in the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider.
It is also worth recalling that former Science Committee chairmen, such
as James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), have used their influence to affect the
terms of the U.S.'s participation in international projects such as
the Large Hadron Collider.
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
301-209-3094
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl