Congressional Hearing on Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program

The House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on March 7 to review the Department of Energy’s fusion energy sciences program. Testimony centered on the recent Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) report (see FYIs #13 - 15.) The over-all message of this hearing: general support for continuation of a restructured DOE fusion program, against a background of considerable skepticism among some key Members of Congress.

Subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) spoke in plain words about what he described as a “40-year, $14 billion” fusion program that he said ignored budget realities and set no priorities in future spending projections. He left no doubt that he approves of the FY 1996 fusion appropriation of $244 million, which is 33% below the administration’s request (see 1995 FYI #154.)

FEAC Chair Robert W. Conn, in prepared testimony stated, “the fusion community and, I believe, the Department of Energy has read the language from the Congress carefully, has listened to the message, and has worked diligently to be responsive to the Congress” in the FEAC report recommendations. After describing three budget scenarios and their impacts, Conn was unambiguous in his recommendations. While outlining how DOE could manage a $250 million budget, he declared that at this level “there remains continuing and substantial dislocation in this program.” A budget significantly below this level would have major adverse impacts, Conn said, concluding, “We do not recommend this to you.” He continued, “FEAC recommended to the Department of Energy, and I recommend to you and your subcommittee, that you provide $275 million in FY 1997 for the newly restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program.” He later added, “Even at this level, the U.S. program is only about 20% of the world fusion energy effort, making us close to marginal as a player on the world scene.” Japan is spending approximately $450 million per year on a fusion program; while Europe is spending $600 million.

Additional witnesses on the first panel (William Drummond, University of Texas; George Miley, University of Illinois; L. John Perkins, Lawrence Livermore; and Clifford Surko, University of California) had differing ideas on a future program, but appeared to be in general agreement about a $275 million budget. Rohrabacher, replying at various times to the witnesses, said “sometimes making cuts actually spurs productivity,” and, “we keep shoveling money out of the back of the truck.”

Four other witnesses testified, some calling for a higher level of spending, others for much less. Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs also testified (see FYI #40.) The upshot of this hearing seemed to be general support for this program, although it looks like it is going to take a concerted effort to convince key Members, such as Chairman Rohrabacher, to support a $275 million FY 1997 fusion budget.