* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
|
|
* U N I V E R S I T Y F U S I O N A S S O C I A T I O N
|
|
* News and Information
| February 14, 1999
|
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. UFA ELECTION AND MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL COMING SOON

2. FY 2000 DOE BUDGET RELEASED FOR FUSION SCIENCES

3. FUSION EDUCATION DAY PLANNED FOR MARCH 18, 1999

4. RECENT CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFINGS FOR FUSION

5. REACHING OUT TO CONGRESS TO SUPPORT FUSION SCIENCE RESEARCH

6. JOINT US-EUROPEAN TTF MEEETING

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
1. UFA Executive Committee Election and Membership Renewal
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //

All members of the University Fusion Association will soon be receiving a mailing including: 1) ballots for new members of the UFA Executive Committee (our governing board); 2) a year-end newsletter; and 3) membership renewal form. The vitality and influence of our organization is directly related to the size and breadth of our membership, and we should strive to have members from every university group involved in magnetic or inertial fusion energy science research.

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
2. DOE FY2000 Budget Released
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //

MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT FUSION

On Feb. 1, the Department of Energy released it's proposed budget for FY 2000. Overall, DOE's budget is proposed to go from $17.4 billion in FY 99 to $18.1 billion in FY 2000. DOE's Office of Science (the new home of the Fusion Energy Science program) is proposed to go from $2.698 billion in FY 1999 to $2.835 billion in FY 2000 - - a $137 million increase.

With regard to the fusion energy science component of the budget, DOE is proposing a budget of $222.6 million for FY 2000 exclusive of Program Management costs, which are carried in a separate category. Adding Program Management costs of approximately $7 million onto this makes the number take on the appearance of level funding when compared to this year's $229.7 million.

Significant changes from FY 1999 to FY 2000 include the following:
- Increases for alternate concepts for:
Exploratory experiments - - up $0.8 million
Reserve for Proof of Principle Experiments (require FESAC approval) - - up $3.9 million
- IFE - - up $0.3 million
- Theory - - up $0.5 million
- DIII-D and C-Mod - - up $1.7 million
- TFTR Decommissioning and Decontamination - - up $10.0 million
- Engineering and Technology Research (including ITER closeout) - - down $15 million

This overall budget for fusion is relatively good news when compared to earlier reports of a very substantial cut to the program (below $200 million at one point). Several Members of Congress are known to have worked with the Administration on behalf of the fusion program. These Members include: Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ). Their efforts evidently paid off and they (and any others we don't know about) deserve our sincere thanks.

Note that the FY 2000 fusion budget could be considered to have been effectively cut by $10 million dollars. This is due to the fact that the program is being asked to carry the decontamination and decommissioning of the TFTR experiment at a cost of $10 million in FY 2000 - - a cost that is scheduled to increase to $15 million and then $23 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 respectively. Unless Congress provides some mitigation, this would have the effect this year of eliminating $10 million of research that would otherwise be going on - - specifically, engineering, materials and technology research is being most impacted. The budget will have to go up significantly in subsequent years to make up for this charge, or severe damage to other key elements of the program will result.

A budget of at least $250 million is required to begin meeting the expectations laid out for the fusion energy program in recent appropriations acts (including the strong signals directing the program to be more inclusive of alternate fusion technologies, including IFE). However justified it may be, winning this increase will require all of us working together effectively together and as individuals. See items #3 and #5 below for some concrete suggestions about what to do.

Here is the description of the FY 2000 Fusion Energy Sciences Budget contained in DOE's Congressional Budget Request document that was released today:

"The FY 2000 budget for Fusion Energy Sciences is $222.6 million, the same as in FY 1999. Funding for the Doublet III-D (DIII-D) at General Atomics continues operation of the facility for 14 weeks, with a focus on auxiliary heating systems and power exhaust systems (FY 1999 $51.1; FY 2000 $52.4). The Alcator C-Mod at MIT increases from 12 weeks of operation in FY 1999 to 18 weeks in FY 2000 (FY 1999 $17.5; FY 2000 $17.9). The National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) (FY 1999 $26.6 million; FY 2000 $26.3 million) fabrication is completed and it will have its first full year of operations in FY 2000 (14 weeks). Research on novel magnetic confinement configuration is increased (FY 1999 $19.0; FY 2000 $23.7). A three-year, $48 million, decontamination and decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) will begin in FY 2000 ($+10.0 million). Theory and General Plasma Science efforts will be funded near the FY 1999 level, and Inertial Fusion Energy is also funded at near the FY 1999 level (FY 1999 $9.8; FY 2000 $10.1). In addition to reduced funding for ITER, the Enabling R&D subprogram has reduced funding for engineering research (FY 1999 $43.1; FY 2000 $27.8)."

INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION

Reproduced below is the ICF language included in DOE's FY 2000 Congresional Budget Request document:

"Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) (FY1999 $503.4; FY 2000 $465.7)

o The operation and maintenance funds (Other Project Cost funding) associated with the National Ignition Facility (NIF) decrease in line with the project's outyear plan (FY 1999 $6.8; FY 2000 $5.9) and the O&M funds for the ICF base program remain flat. (FY 1999 $212.4; FY 2000 $211.7)

o Construction funds associated with the NIF decrease in line with the project's outyear plan. (FY 1999 $284.2; FY 2000 $248.1)"

[compiled with info from Mark Haynes, Kate Bannan, Toby Smith, and Nan Wells]

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
3. Fusion Education Day Planned for March 18, 1999
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //

Thursday, March 18th has been identified as this year's Fusion Education Day. This will be an excellent time to go to Washington and visit with your Congressman and Senators (and/or their staffs) about the fusion program. Although you can and should be contacting these or their state offices throughout the year (see #5 below) the March 18th event provides an opportunity to have a breakfast with key Congressional staff and to participate in meetings with other members of the fusion community.

If you would like to be kept informed of the arrangements, please advise Mark Haynes in the General Atomics Washington Office (haynes@ga.radix.net) of your interest.

These "Education Days" have been very important in spreading the word about fusion on Capitol Hill and increasing support for the program. Obviously, the better attendance we have, the more effective the event will be.

In the coming weeks, more specific information about arrangements and schedules will be forthcoming. In the meantime, please start identifying someone(s) from your institution who would be interested in participating.

The UFA strongly endorses this activity as it offers a planned time to have members of the community reach out to their representatives. This provides us a focused time for educating our Congressional sponsors on the high quality science and technology research supported by the program.

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
4. Recent Congressional Briefings for Fusion
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //

On January 7th and 8th, five fusion program leaders from both ICF/IFE and MFE (Rob Goldston, Steve Bodner, Ray Fonck, Mike Campbell and Dave Baldwin) gave briefings to staff of three key Congressional committees: Senate Appropriations, House Appropriations, and House Science. The purpose of the briefings was to discuss the status of and issues facing the development of IFE and MFE; to discuss and demonstrate the substantial progress that has been made towards more effectively integrating both IFE and MFE within the fusion energy research program; and to discuss and get feedback on the proposed roadmap concept for the fusion program which has been undertaken by a number of leaders in the fusion program. (See the full roadmap document at http://www.fusionscience.org/).

The briefings were very well attended and seemed well received. Staff seemed very pleased with the fact that the IFE and MFE communities are working closely together and also seemed very pleased with the concept of a roadmap for a more inclusive and integrated program containing definite decision points, strong peer review with definitive metrics for making decisions about which experimental approaches to fusion energy will advance and which will ultimately fall by the wayside. (For those who have access to it, there is a good article by Mark Crawford on this series of briefings in the January 19th issue of New Technology Week.)

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
5. Reaching Out to Congress to Support Fusion Science Research
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
What You Can (and Should) Be Doing Now

Without a doubt, it has been the active involvement in Washington of a broad segment of the fusion community that has played a key role in keeping the fusion budget fairly level over the past couple of years. The continuation and expansion of these efforts are key to any hope we have of getting the fusion budget increased.

If we are to succeed this year, we need to begin our efforts right away.

This an excellent time to call or write your Congressional office and renew old acquaintances or make new ones. This is particularly important if your Members have changed or their staff (as often happens) has changed. Your message right now could be as simple as "My name is ABC and I do fusion research at XYZ. I want to thank you for the past help your office has been in supporting this program and research in the past. I hope to call or stop by later in the year to briefly talk with you about where the fusion program is heading and how our research is going". A short call like this will lay the groundwork for later meetings to talk about budgetary matters.

Another very important option is to set up a meeting to visit with the staff (or Member) in their local district office. While one step removed from the Washington scene, district offices are, by their very nature, the primary lifeline to a given Member's constituency. Because they are located in the district, those offices are obviously, more sensitive to the needs and interests of constituents. Further, the staff in the district offices often may have more time and interest in delving into the details of your program. If you establish good relations and convey the excitement and importance of fusion to these staff, they will in turn, convey that message to the Washington office and/or the Member. An excellent idea may be for a number of folks from your lab to pay periodic visits to the District staff, ask the District staff to visit your lab if there is hardware to see. If there is no hardware to see, ask them to come to your lab and give a brief talk on the Member of Congress (their background, committtee asssignments, etc.)

The main point here is to not wait until we're up against the budgetary wall to call your Congressional office. Establishing and maintaining a relaxed and familiar working relationship is appreciated and critically important and should be going on now.

Below you will find reproduced some helpful hints for dealing with Washington offices.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUGGESTIONS FOR COMMUNICATING
EFFECTIVELY WITH CONGRESS

1. Work to establish long-term relationship: every call or visit should not be a panicked plea for money or for your facility's future.

2. Do your homework: know something about the Member, the Congressional process, and about the status of the legislation you're discussing. This way, you have a better context for framing your remarks and understanding the perspective of the Member or staff person.

3. Carefully plan what you want to say. This will help ensure that your message gets across.

4. At the very beginning of the meeting, try to get a sense of how much the Member or staffer already knows about the fusion program (and fusion itself) and then tailor your remarks accordingly.

5. Come to the point quickly and be as brief as possible. Members of Congress and their staffs are very busy. By being brief and to the point, they are more likely to want to talk to you in the future.

6. Work to make your conversation a dialog, not a monologue. First, there is much to learn by listening to Members of Congress and their staffs. Second, given the complexity of the Fusion Energy Sciences program and what your institution is doing, people glaze over quickly when being subjected to a long monologue.

7. If you have any negative feelings about the political system, keep them to yourself - - they will not help your case.

8. When talking about plasma physics and fusion, work hard to speak in simple and understandable terms. Don't even think of using terms like "magnetohydrodynamic" or "H-Mode" in hopes that they will clarify a point.

9. Seek to convey the excitement and promise of the whole field of plasma physics and fusion. Don't just talk about your own lab or facility: its future rests on support for the whole endeavor of plasma science and fusion.

10. Be as positive as possible in your interactions: don't lay down any guilt trips or make threats or accusations. From the point of view of people in Congress, few people or institutions are really entitled to anything. Scientists and their facilities are, unfortunately, no exception. So, be humble.

11. Ask perceptive questions and listen, listen, listen.

12. Once is not enough. Almost without exception, getting support from a Congressional office for anything (a signature on a letter, a favorable vote, a meeting, etc.) requires more than one call. Only the politely persistent will prevail and you should therefore feel comfortable in establishing a relationship based on several contacts over time.

5. Key Committee Membership for the 106th Congress

The 106th Congress is bringing with it a number of new Members for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee and available Subcommittee listings are as follows with new Members underlined:

Full Senate Committee on Appropropriations

Ted Stevens (R-AZ)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Slade Gorton (R-WA)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Robert Byrd (D-WVa)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations

(Republican Membership has not changed from last year. Although the Democrats have not officially named their Subcommittee Members yet, it appears likely that there will be no changes.)

Pete Domenici (R-NM) Chairman
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Slade Gorton (R-WA)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Larry Craig (R-ID)

Harry Reid (D-NV)
Robert Byrd (D-WVa)
Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

Full House Committee on Appropriations

REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS

C.W. Bill Young, Florida, Chairman
Ralph Regula, Ohio David R. Obey, Wisconsin
Jerry Lewis, California John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania
John Edward Porter, Illinois Norman D. Dicks, Washington
Harold Rogers, Kentucky Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota
Joe Skeen, New Mexico Julian C. Dixon, California
Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland
Tom DeLay, Texas Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia
Jim Kolbe, Arizona Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Ron Packard, California Nancy Pelosi, California
Sonny Callahan, Alabama Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana
James Walsh, New York Nita M. Lowey, New York
Charles H. Taylor, North Carolina José E. Serrano, New York
David L. Hobson, Ohio Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma James P. Moran, Virginia
Henry Bonilla, Texas John W. Olver, Massachusetts
Joe Knollenberg, Michigan Ed Pastor, Arizona
Dan Miller, Florida Carrie P. Meek, Florida
Jay Dickey, Arkansas David E. Price, North Carolina
Jack Kingston, Georgia Chet Edwards, Texas
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, Jr., Alabama
Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi James E. Clyburn, South Carolina
Michael P. Forbes, New York Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington Lucille Roybal-Allard, California
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, California Sam Farr, California
Todd Tiahrt, Kansas Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois
Zach Wamp, Tennessee Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michigan
Tom Latham, Iowa Allen Boyd, Florida
Anne Northup, Kentucky
Robert Aderholt, Alabama
Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri
John E. Sununu, New Hampshire
Kay Granger, Texas
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations

Ron Packard, R-CA) Chairman
Harold Rogers, (R-KY)
Joe Knollenberg, (R-MI)
Michael Forbes, (R-NY)
Rodney Frelinghuysen, (R-NJ)
Sonny Callahan, (R-AL)
Tom Latham (R-IA)

Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
James E. Clyburn (D-SC)

House Committee on Science

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., (R-Wisconsin), Chairman

REPUBLICANS (25)
DEMOCRATS (22)
Sherwood L. Boehlert, New York
George E. Brown, Jr., California, RMM
Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Ralph M. Hall, Texas
Constance A. Morella, Maryland
Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania
James A. Traficant, Jr., Ohio
Dana Rohrabacher, California
Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
Joe Barton, Texas
Tim Roemer, Indiana
Ken Calvert, California
James A. Barcia, Michigan
Nick Smith, Michigan
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Alcee L. Hastings, Florida
Dave Weldon, Florida
Lynn N. Rivers, Michigan
Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota
Zoe Lofgren, California
Thomas W. Ewing, Illinois
Michael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania
Chris Cannon, Utah
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Kevin Brady, Texas
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Merrill Cook, Utah
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington
Nick Lampson, Texas
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Barbara Lee, California
Mark Green, Wisconsin
John B. Larson, Connecticut
Steven T. Kuykendall, California
Mark Udall, Colorado
Gary G. Miller, California
David Wu, Oregon
Judy Biggert, Illinois
Vacancy
Vacancy

Vacancy

(Science Subcommittee assignments have not yet been made)

It should go without saying (but won't!) that if any of these Members are yours, please start now to establish a relationship with their offices and work (gently) to make them more aware of the fusion program and its importance to the country and their state or district.

Advice on how to interface with your Represenatives on behalf of Fusion can be gotten from the Washington-based respresentatives of various laboratories:

Mark Haynes (General Atomics) (202) 496-8209
Kate Bannan (Lawrence Berkeley Lab) (202) 588-0080
Christie Schoemer (Lawrence Livermore Lab) (202) 588-0002
Toby Smith (MIT) (202) 789-1828
Nan Wells (Princeton University) (202) 639-8420

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
6. Transport Task Force Meeting set for April 28 - May 1, 1999
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //

The 5th Joint US-European Transport Task Force (TTF) Workshop and 12th in a series of US TTF Workshops will be held April 28 - May 1, 1999 in Portland Oregon. The meetings will be held at the Porland Marriott Downtown located on the waterfront in the heart of the city.

The organizers are in the process of mailing the announcement and call for papers. If you don't wish to wait for the post, all the information is contained on a web site at http://www.psfc.mit.edu/ttf/portland-meeting.html

Note the deadlines are:

Workshop Pre-Registration March 7, 1999
Abstracts & Nominations for Invited Talks March 7, 1999 Special Hotel Conference Rate April 6, 1999

Please pass this along to any interested colleagues at your institution.

If you have any questions about the meeting, feel free to send email to Martin Greenwald at the address below.

TTF Chairman: Martin Greenwald (g@psfc.mit.edu)
Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Phone: (617) 253-6053
Fax: (617) 253-0627
175 Albany St., NW17-107
Cambridge, MA 02139

// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------- //