PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 9, 1994
Fusion Energy Research Authorization Act of 1994 - Directs the Secretary of Energy to implement a Fusion Energy Research Program to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of producing safe, environmentally sound, and affordable energy from fusion. Prescribes program goals and elements. Directs the Secretary to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to review various magnetic fusion technologies and alternative fusion concepts with respect to their commercial viability. Instructs the Secretary to: (1) submit a comparisons study to the Congress regarding the siting of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER); (2) seek to reach an agreement with international partners to select a host country for ITER; (3) initiate a process to identify candidate sites for ITER within the United States; and (4) provide within a certain time period a detailed estimate to the Congress of final ITER project costs. Directs the Secretary to submit reports to the Congress on: (1) a parallel design effort on the Tokamak Physics Experiment; (2) the Fusion Energy Research Program; and (3) resource sharing with the Secretary of Defense to enhance the civilian energy applications of the Defense Inertial Confinement Fusion Program. Repeals the five-year fusion energy program established under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Directs the Secretary to form a new University Radiation Science and Technology Program comprised of: (1) the Nuclear Engineering Research and Education Program; (2) the University Research Reactor Program; and (3) the University Reactor Fuel Assistance Program. Directs the Secretary to establish a fee collection program for certain ITER purposes and the Tokamak Physics Experiment. Authorizes appropriations for: (1) the Alternative Fusion Research Program; (2) the Tokamak Physics Experiment; and (3) the University Radiation Science and Technology Program. Sets limitations upon funding for ITER construction and for magnetic fusion facilities.
People & committees
Rep. Brown, George E., Jr. [D-CA-42] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1166-1168)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4553 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4553 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4553 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4553 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.