New DOE Developments: Richardson Nomination, Spending Bills
Yesterday, President Clinton announced that he was nominating Bill Richardson to succeed Federico Pena as Secretary of Energy. Richardson, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, formerly served in the House as a Democrat from New Mexico (1983-1997), where his district was home to Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Also yesterday, the Senate approved S. 2138, the FY 1999 Energy and Water Development bill. No details are known yet about the Senate’s floor actions. (See FYI #88 for Senate appropriators’ recommendations for DOE science programs.) Two days previously, on June 16, the House Appropriations Committee passed its version of the DOE funding bill, H.R. 4060. House floor debate on this bill is expected to begin today and continue into next week. Details of the House committee bill follow.
The House bill would give High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, and Fusion Energy Sciences more money than requested by President Clinton. Funding for additional work on ITER, however, is denied. Basic Energy Sciences would receive less than requested, due to a lower recommendation for the Spallation Neutron Source than the request.
DOE FY 1998 FY 1999 Senate House
Program Approp. Request bill bill
(In millions)
High Energy Physics $680.0 691.0 691.0 696.5
Nuclear Physics 320.9 332.6 332.6 335.1
Basic Energy Sciences 668.2 836.1 836.1 779.1
Fusion Energy Sciences 232.0 228.2 232.0 232.0
The House Appropriations Committee report, H. Report 105-581, which accompanies the bill, provides some insight into the committee’s thinking. Some selected passages from the report are quoted below.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: The Committee supports “the increased emphasis on innovative confinement concepts and university-based experiments,” and urges “special emphasis...placed on funding operations, upgrades, and enhanced design work on both existing research and proposals for new alternative concept experiments at the proof-of-principle level.” The report directs DOE “to comprehensively review all known [fusion] technologies and submit a program plan that includes activities funded in this account and potentially-related activities funded elsewhere in the Department. Recognizing the significant advances in Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) sponsored by the national security program, the Committee strongly supports the complementary work to be funded in this account including heavy-ion drivers, high gain target concepts, and reactor concepts.” (Funding for Inertial Confinement Fusion is provided under Atomic Energy Defense Activities. The Committee recommendation of $508.0 million is an increase of $10.0 million over the request. The Committee would provide the full request of $291.0 million for the National Ignition Facility.)
On ITER, “The Committee is concerned about the recent announcement that the Department has already proposed to enter into a new agreement to start engineering and design of a newly-conceived, less costly reactor: ITER-Lite’.... The Committee continues to question whether the tokamak is the most promising technology and whether the current partners in ITER are willing and able to meet their commitments. The Committee observes that after ten years and a U.S. contribution of $345 million, the partnership has yet to even select a site for this construction project. The Committee objects to the proposed extension of the EDA [Engineering Design Activity] and has not provided any additional funds for ITER, ITER-Lite or the Joint Central Team. The Department may use prior year funds for closeout costs related to ITER.” Additionally, for the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, the report “directs the Department to prepare a reasonable, timely and cost-effective decommissioning plan and to submit this plan with the fiscal year 2000 budget request.”
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: “The recommendation includes a $3,000,000 increase over the budget request for facility operations, and a $2,500,000 increase for the research and technology program.” The Committee would provide $65,000,000 for the Large Hadron Collider, equal to the request. The report states, “the recommendation does not include the advance appropriation for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The Committee recognizes the importance of this new machine to the physics community. The nation’s scientists who have played a vital role in the recent cutting edge discoveries at Fermilab and other U.S. facilities, including the discovery of what may be the top quark, certainly should have an opportunity to participate in the cutting edge science that will be possible upon completion of the world’s most powerful accelerator. The Committee will carefully monitor this program to protect the investment made by the American people and with the hope that this unprecedented investment across borders will be a model for future sensible cost-sharing international partnerships.”
NUCLEAR PHYSICS: No detail is provided on the recommendation for Nuclear Physics.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: “The recommendation includes $100,000,000 for a new neutron source.... There is widespread agreement that a new neutron source and related instrumentation would provide scientists with the tools needed to advance understanding of materials composition and cell structures. Due to severe budget constraints, the Committee was unable to provide the full amount of the request” for the spallation neutron source. (The Administration requested $157.0 million in FY 1999 to begin construction on the neutron source.)
NOTE: To reach the funding levels recommended for DOE’s science programs, the House committee report recommends the use of $7.6 million in “prior year balances” - money left over - from the SSC, a suggestion with which DOE agrees. However, there has been some concern expressed over language in the Senate committee report, which recommends not only the use of the SSC balances, but an additional $32.0 million in other prior and current-year balances. It is not clear whether these balances are available, or whether the result would be the reduction of science program funding by this amount. The House report does not appear to include these additional balances in its calculations. This will be an issue for the conference committee.
