Congressional Activity on SSC, Space Station

Senate activity on the collider will pick-up next week with an August 4 hearing on the project before Senator J. Bennett Johnston’s (D-Louisiana) Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Johnston, a firm SSC supporter, will no doubt use this hearing to build support for the collider. Look for a Senate floor vote on SSC funding after Congress returns on September 8.

At an anti-SSC coalition news conference on Tuesday, Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas) admitted that “I’m not promising that I can” deliver enough votes to terminate collider funding. Bumpers predicted that concern about the deficit would sway some senators.

In the House, a “Dear Colleague” letter is being circulated by SSC opponents Jim Slattery (D-Kansas) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York.) They are asking for signatures on this joint letter to the House leadership warning of Members’ intentions to vote against the entire final Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill if it contains SSC funding. The House voted earlier this year to terminate collider funding.

SPACE STATION:

Also awaiting action by the Senate upon its return is consideration of H.R. 2491, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. Earlier this month, the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space held a hearing on the space station. Subcommittee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), while previously a station opponent, is now, according to his press release, refocusing on the station with “an open mind.”

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin, invigorated by the recent House vote in support of the station, delivered a forceful defense of the project. Goldin updated this authorizing subcommittee on an implementation plan for the station. By September 7, NASA is to provide the White House with a final station design, key technical and cost milestones, a revised management plan, and “a plan for continuation and possible expansion of international participation.” Goldin’s statement seemed to be warmly received by the senators.

The subcommittee also received testimony from other witnesses, including Dr. Robert Park who presented the position of the American Physical Society. Park reiterated a statement of the elected Council of the APS “that scientific justification is lacking for a permanently manned space station in Earth orbit.” He elaborated by discussing what he termed “the microgravity myth,” “the spinoff myth,” and “the exploration myth.” Referring to the redesign effort, Park concluded, “we applaud their efforts to reduce the cost of the space station, but if no meaningful mission can be found, a space station is not a bargain at any price.”