**Remarks of U.S. Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL-13)**[^1]

***2006 Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting and Symposium***

**Capitol Hill Club**

**300 First Street, SE; Washington DC**

**8:30 AM -- Thursday, September 28, 2006**

Thank you, Steve.

I am happy to report that this has been a very productive year for my
Subcommittee. The Science Committee has reported out several bills that
directly impact research and education at the Department of Energy.

On June 27, the Committee reported out H.R. 5656, which will move to the
floor as HR 6203, the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. I
am very proud that this bill was crafted with significant bipartisan
cooperation. H.R. 6203 focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency
technologies.

The bill authorizes grants to cities to deploy plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, a technology that has the potential to reduce oil demand by
millions of barrels per day. It also extends the reach of the
Administration's Solar America Initiative to more broadly demonstrate
advanced solar photovoltaic technologies. It provide incentives for
constructing energy efficient buildings by providing grants for up to 50
percent of the associated design and energy modeling costs. Today's
buildings consume more energy than any other sector of the economy,
including industries and transportation. In fact, U.S. buildings consume
39 percent of our Nation's primary energy and 70 percent of electricity.

H.R. 6203 tackles the issue of technology transfer by further developing
section 917 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Inspired by the successful
"cooperative extension" program that aided farmers in incorporating
advanced technologies into food production, energy extension is designed
to help individuals and businesses actually use advanced energy
technologies. The bill also asks the National Academies to further study
their recommendation in their *Rising Above the Gathering Storm* report
that Congress establish an "ARPA-E," that is an Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Energy.

Strengthening STEM education has been a real focus of the Committee's
attentions this year. Section 12 of H.R. 6203, originally introduced as
the Green Energy Education Act of 2006 sponsored by Representative
Michael McCaul of Texas, authorizes the Office of Science and the
applied energy technology programs to contribute funds to the National
Science Foundation\'s existing Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship -- "IGERT" -- program in support of projects
related to the science and energy missions of the department. This
section also authorizes DOE high performance building technology
programs to contribute to NSF\'s ongoing curriculum development
activities for the purpose of improving undergraduate and graduate
interdisciplinary engineering and architecture education related to the
design and construction of high performance buildings. Mr. McCaul
thought it essential that different parts of universities work together
to train generations of engineers, architects, and urban planners how to
build an energy efficient future.

On June 7 the Science Committee reported out two bills we believe will
advance U.S. economic competitiveness by strengthening math and science
education as well as research programs at DOE and NSF. The bills are
H.R. 5358, Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act and
H.R. 5356, the Research for Competitiveness Act. Another competitiveness
bill, the Early Career Research Act, was incorporated into the Research
for Competitiveness bill. The Science and Mathematics Education bill
authorizes education programs in the Office of Science, including
activities such as offering scholarships or fellowships for study or
research, research experiences for undergraduates, and summer institutes
for improving teacher content knowledge in science and mathematics.

The Research for Competitiveness bill authorizes programs at the Office
of Science to provide grants to researchers just starting their careers
to conduct high-risk, high-return research at the cutting edge of new
scientific fields. Some of the grants would go to researchers to perform
innovative work for which the government would match funds provided by
businesses. These bills, along with H.R. 6203 I mentioned earlier, form
the core of the Science Committee's response to the National Academies
*Rising Above the Gathering Storm* report.

We have also had a full slate of hearings on important energy technology
topics. We have examined the Administration's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership proposal and the strategic plan for its Climate Change
Technology Programs. We considered whether Congress should establish an
ARPA-E. We took an in-depth look at the opportunities that plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle would provide. Personally, I find the idea of
pulling into the garage at the end of the day and "filling the car up"
just by plugging it into a regular 110-volt socket very appealing.
Finally, we held field hearings on advanced technologies for vehicles
and fuels and on renewable energy technologies.

Clearly one of the themes of the energy conversation these days is fuel
switching, that is developing ways to the use of nuclear power instead
of coal or to replace oil in transportation applications with
electricity. Plug-in hybrids are one way to do that. The end result of
this trend is that we need to develop additional base load electric
power in large quantities that is also free of harmful emissions of
greenhouse gases. That's where you and fusion come in.

Clearly, ITER is the top item on your agenda. First, let me congratulate
Under Secretary Orbach, Todd Harding, Anne Davies and her staff in the
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences for their hard work over the past
several years in securing agreement on the ITER project. I think this
agreement is a major accomplishment. It will serve as a template for
other major international science projects, such as the international
linear collider that I hope will be built at Fermilab.

As you all know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required submission of
several documents for Congressional review. These are (1) the ITER
agreement, (2) a report describing the management structure for the ITER
project and providing a fixed dollar estimate of the cost of United
States participation in the construction of ITER, (3) a report
describing how United States participation in ITER will be funded
without reducing funding for other programs in the Office of Science,
and (4) a plan for the participation of U.S. scientists in ITER.

Although we are still finalizing the Committee's response to the
Secretary, I can safely say that the Science Committee is satisfied that
the ITER Agreement has been negotiated in accordance with the
requirements in section 972 of the Energy Policy Act.

Regarding the management structure of ITER, I think DOE is to be
congratulated for seeing that the ITER Agreement puts the project on
solid footing with strong central management. Strong management should
go along way to ensuring that ITER is constructed within cost and on
schedule. The European Union nomination of Dr. Norbert Holtkamp as the
ITER Principal Deputy Director-General and Project Construction Leader
and the DOE nomination of Mr. Gary Johnson as the Deputy Director
General for Tokamak Systems gives me confidence that the United States
will be intimately involved in the day-to-day management of the ITER
construction project. The contributions Dr. Holtkamp and Mr. Johnson
made in bringing Oak Ridge's Spallation Neutron Source project to
completion on cost and on schedule will prove invaluable for the
successful construction of ITER.

In EPACT, Congress did express its concern that ITER not crowd out other
opportunities in the Office of Science. President Bush's commitment,
under the auspices of his American Competitiveness Initiative, has
allayed those fears for Fiscal Year 2007. I can assure you, however,
that the Committee will remain vigilant to ensure that future budget
requests continue to strike that balance between fusion and other
opportunities in the Office of Science.

The last EPACT requirement, namely a plan for the participation of U.S.
scientists in ITER, is understandably the toughest to deliver. I think
the plan submitted by DOE on August 10 for the participation of U.S.
scientists in the ITER is best viewed as the seed for a more in-depth
planning process by the fusion research community -- and some
Snowmass-like process will be an important. The August 10 plan rightly
identifies development of a predictive understanding of the fusion
plasma system as the central focus of the U.S. fusion research program.
Articulating how that central focus informs the research agenda for
participation of the United States in ITER requires additional
consultation with you, the fusion research community. On-going feedback
from the National Academy of Sciences should help.

I know you have heard this before but identify what problems must be
solved to make fusion work. Those specific scientific goals should then
lead to technical milestones. A plan that lays that out will help
Congress understand whether ITER is promoting progress toward fusion as
a reliable and affordable source of power. Such a plan will also help
Congress understand how work on ITER relates to other elements of the
U.S. fusion program. You've made progress over the years, so take my
comments as encouragement to work with DOE to produce such a document.

Before I close, let me say a few quick words about the Senate mark for
the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill. In report
language, the Senate appropriators signal their intention to establish
an Office of High Energy Density Science within the Office of Science.
This new unauthorized \$79.9 million program would support research in
inertial fusion energy, fast ignition, petawatt laser development,
plasma accelerators, and other research presently funded by Fusion
Energy, Nuclear Physics, High Energy Physics, and inertial confinement
fusion accounts within the National Nuclear Security Agency. This field
of science currently benefits from a number of facilities that are
either operating or under construction. The Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider at Brookhaven and the National Ignition Facility at Livermore
are but two.

First, as an authorizer, let me say I don't think it is appropriate to
authorize through appropriations legislation. I am not aware of any
existing National Academy study or advisory committee panel that
recommends the establishment of a separate Office of High Energy Density
Sciences. However, if there is a case to be made for the establishment
of such a program within the Office of Science, I am willing to listen.
If convinced of its need, I would be willing to work to authorize such a
program.

I hope advocates for this Office of High Energy Density Science can
restrain their enthusiasm and let the case be made. The National
Academies of Science's *Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos* and
*Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics* reports have identified high
energy density physics as an emerging area of physics where there are
great opportunities for discovery. The Office of Science and Technology
Policy, in its *Physics of the Universe* report, has called for the
development of a science-driven roadmap that identifies major scientific
objectives and facility needs for high energy density physics.

So my advice: let the interagency working group led by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy finish developing a research plan for high
energy density physics. At this time, I believe the merit of
establishing a separate Office of High Energy Density Sciences has not
yet been made. While I am willing to consider such a move, we should
only make that assessment after we have had time to review the report of
the interagency working group. To establish an Office of High Energy
Density Sciences now before we have an adequate research plan in hand is
premature. I firmly believe Congress should not create programs first
and then derive the justification to fill them.

[^1]: Delivered by Michael Holland, Chairman Biggert's designee on the
    Energy Subcommittee