House Appropriations Recommendations on Energy Department

Today the full House considers H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY 1998. Accompanying this legislation is the appropriations committee report (105-190), which contains several passages of interest to the physics community. The Senate has already completed work on its version of this bill; see FYI #93 . It is expected that a conference committee will not meet until September to iron out the differences in the two different versions of this bill.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: The House provides the administration’s request of $225 million. The Senate bill provides $240 million. The report states: “This appropriation will allow the DOE to fulfill its fiscal year 1998 planned program to implement the recommendations of the January 1996 report of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC).... The Committee encourages the Department to continue to place an emphasis on university programs and exploration of alternative concepts. The Committee notes the significant progress made by the community in restructuring the fusion energy sciences program since the beginning of fiscal year 1996.... This appropriation will permit enhanced operation and/or upgrades of the three major collaborative facilities: C-Mod, DIII-D and NSTX, enhancements to university programs in alternate concepts and plasma science, and the strengthening of theory and computation.”

Regarding ITER, the report states (in full): “The Committee has provided $55,400,000, the full amount of the budget request, for the final contribution for engineering and design activities (EDA). The Congress has been very clear that no obligation exists for future participation in ITER beyond the fiscal year 1998 EDA contribution. The Committee is concerned about the recent announcement that plans to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) have been suspended. The Japanese government has reportedly announced that it would not begin construction before 2003. There are considerable questions about ITER: Where will it be built? Is the current design too ambitious? What environmental concerns need to be addressed? What level of confidence can be reached regarding the willingness and ability of our partners to make timely and sufficient contributions to the project? Indeed, there are enough serious questions to justify reducing the fiscal year 1998 contribution. However, the Committee wishes to make a good faith effort to the partnership.”

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: The House recommendation is $680,035,000, higher than the administration request and Senate recommendation of $675 million. The report states: “The recommendation continues the Committee’s support for these fundamental pursuits.... The recommendation represents a sizeable increase in program funding considering that construction funding has been completed for the B-Factory at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and significantly reduced for the main injector at Fermilab, representing $66,050,000 in reduced funding requirements from the current fiscal year. The recommended increases include $20,000,000 for the U.S. contribution to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), $34,925,000 for facility operations (adjusted to exclude LHC funding), $12,000,000 for research and technology (adjusted to exclude LHC funding), and $6,400,000 for the master substation upgrade at the Stanford Linear Accelerator.”

There is a separate section on the LHC: “The recommendation includes $35,000,000, the amount requested for fiscal year 1998. The recommendation does not include the advance appropriation totaling $394,000,000 for fiscal years 1999 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 is encouraged by the spirit of cooperation that has characterized the relationship between ...CERN and the United States, and in particular recognizes the recent adjustments made to address concerns about funding, management and reciprocity. The Committee will carefully monitor this relationship 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.

“No funds appropriated in this bill for high energy physics may be used for the Large Hadron Collider project unless the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Director of the National Science Foundation, has transmitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, a report containing (1) assurances that the project will provide for equal access for United States participants and a significant management role for the United States; (2) a list of the sources of non-United States funds used for the project; (3) an enumeration of the total costs of the project and potential sources of contingency funding if the project runs over budget; (4) a statement that the Members States of CERN -- (A) have agreed that future large accelerators and other scientific facilities are expected to be constructed, operated, and supported multinationally and may be located in any participating nation, including the United States; (B) have agreed that the United States contribution to the construction of the Large Hadron Collider project represents an important step forward in international scientific collaboration; and (C) will follow the United States’ example in high energy physics accelerator construction with interregional contributions to future important scientific construction projects of mutual interest to the United States and the member states of CERN; and (5) an assessment of the impact of the obligation of United States funds for the project on high energy and nuclear physics projects in the United States.”

NUCLEAR PHYSICS: The House recommendation of $320,925,000 is higher than the administration request and House recommendation of $315.9 million. The report states: “The recommendation continues the Committee’s support for these fundamental pursuits” of nuclear physics research.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: The House recommendation is the same as that requested and provided by the Senate -- $668.2 million. “The Committee remains committed to robust basic energy research programs which are characterized by cutting-edge basic research, availability of world-class facilities to the scientific and research community, and direction to meet current and future energy-related challenges.”

There is a separate section of the NATIONAL SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE (NSNS): “The recommendation includes $23,000,000 for a new neutron source, a $15,000,000 increase over the current fiscal year. 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. The Committee directs that the department provide an outyear funding profile identifying outyear funding requirements needed to complete this project. The Committee notes that outyear projections suggest that the NSNS would require close to $300 million a year in the peak years. The profile should indicate what programs will be reduced to provide the funding in the outyears.”

Under a section of the report entitled Science, there is a report language on COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: “The Office of Energy Research informs the Committee that grants to colleges and universities represent nearly one dollar of every four dollars provided for basic research programs. This level of funding is consistent with the Committee’s direction that the Department fully support higher education. Last year, the Committee eliminated the university and science education programs and directed that the Department fully support university programs by providing funds from programs. The Committee recommendation includes the full amount of the budget request for college and university programs. The Committee urges the Department to continue to place a high priority on graduate and post-graduate students. The Committee continues to believe that the Department should place the highest priority on university programs. The use of program funds benefits the missions of the Department and directly connects our nation’s future scientists to cutting edge research.”

Under Weapons Activity, there is a section of INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION: “The Committee recommends $414,800,000 for the inertial confinement fusion program, an increase of $48,340,000 over fiscal year 1997. The recommendation includes the budget request for operating expenses, and the incremental funding request of $197,800,000 for the National Ignition Facility. The Committee also recommends $26,100,000 for the University of Rochester’s OMEGA laser, an increase of $2,500,000 over the budget request.”

There are several other sections of the report of interest: FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION: “The Committee commends the Department on the progress made in developing a storage and disposition strategy for the excess weapons-grade fissile materials. The Committee believes that the dual track strategy for disposition of excess plutonium is critical to completing the disposition mission as rapidly as possible and maintaining the credibility of the process. Additionally, the Committee believes that international confidence in the arms control process may hinge on the Department’s adherence to the dual track strategy, and specifically, the mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel option. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Department to complete the process for selection of contractors for the mixed-oxide fuel plant and reactors in FY 1998.”

There are several GENERAL PROVISIONS of note: “Section 301 provides that none of the funds in this Act or any prior appropriations Act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures. This provision would permit an exception only for the research and development portion of the work performed at any DOE facility.” Earlier in the report, the appropriations committee expressed concerns about the number of awards made on a non-competitive basis. In addition, “Section 307 provides that none of the funds provided in this Act to initiative new construction projects in fiscal year 1998 by the Department of Energy may be obligated until the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, has performed an independent assessment of the cost, scope, and schedule of each construction project, has validated the accuracy of the Department of Energy’s estimates, and reported to Congress on the results of this assessment.” Earlier in the report, the committee commented: “The Department’s track record for managing construction projects is not as successful as it could be.... There does not appear to be a strong independent assessment of projects within the internal Departmental system.”