Opening Round in Superconducting Super Collider Debate

It is difficult to tell if over six hours of exhausting testimony yesterday before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee did much to change any minds about the superconducting super collider. Billed as a hearing to examine the merits, economic potential, and funding requirements for the collider, the impressive turnout by Members at the beginning of the hearing dwindled to only three or four by its conclusion.

This is just the opening round in what is sure to be another lengthy SSC battle on both the House and Senate floors. Yesterday’s hearing is best seen as an investigation/education exercise, drawing some of the SSC’s best known supporters and opponents. At times confrontational and emotional, it allowed a public exchange of ideas that is never really possible in the appropriations committees. Nevertheless, the appropriations committees are where the money is, and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill which will go to the House floor next month is the bill to watch. Both the House and Senate appropriations committees have always supported the SSC, so while the $640 million request for FY 1994 could be trimmed, it will not be eliminated by these committees.

The SSC’s opponents have their best shot against the collider on the House and Senate floors. Last year the House voted to kill the SSC, although it was later funded following conference committee action, prompting SSC opponent Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York) to charge yesterday that the SSC is like “the living dead.” This year the political equation has changed: Texas-based President Bush is no longer in the White House, the next presidential election is years off, foreign contributions are still not available, and the budget situation has become even tighter. On the other hand, one of the House’s major SSC critics, Rep. Howard Wolpe, retired, and much more of the SSC lab has been built or is underway.

Trying to summarize six hours of hearings in a page or two is difficult, so this FYI will make a few general observations and conclusions. A key player in this process - as is true for all science-related issues - is House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California). Brown’s opening remarks left no doubt that he is still squarely behind the collider, concluding “any nation that aspires to greatness cannot afford to turn its back on this quest.” During the hearing, Brown bemoaned the lack of foreign contributions for the project, and offered a funding concept that seemed to attract some support. He suggested that the physics community support the “internationalization” of both CERN’s proposed Large Hadron Collider and the SSC. Access to both would be fully shared, with international contributors viewed as partners, not “supplicants.”

There does, however, seem to be some wavering of support by Ranking Minority Member Robert Walker (R-Pennsylvania) who has previously voted for the SSC. Decrying the lack of international contributors, he said yesterday, “if they are not willing to share in the cost of the discovery, then I think it may be the moment to consider pulling the plug.”

Getting a reading on other committee members was somewhat hazier. The Texas delegation on the science committee - which has grown considerably in this Congress - is even stronger in its support of the project. Many Members, especially those new to the committee, expressed uncertainty about the collider. This uncertainty will be reflected on the House floor, because so many Members are new this year.

During the hearing there were numerous references to the role which physicists have played in influencing Members’ thinking. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Indiana) stated, “physicists in my district and the country have convinced me” about the merits of the SSC, although he did express reservations about escalating construction costs. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia), citing the CEBAF project located in his district, said that high-energy physics research was particularly interesting to him. Rep. Martin Hoke (R-Ohio), while also expressing misgivings about the collider’s cost, spoke about contacts he has had from physicists in three near-by universities.

Other Members and witnesses disputed the contention that the majority of the physics community supports the project. Dr. Ted Geballe, Department of Applied Physics at Stanford, told the committee that “most physicists are not in support of the SSC.” Boehlert spoke of a conversation with an ex-officer of the American Physical Society which “got me on the trail to where I am right now.” Boehlert and Rep. Pete Geren (D-Texas) spent considerable time discussing the degree of support that exists within the physics community for the SSC.

Attention will now focus on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Chairman Tom Bevill (D-Alabama) said yesterday that his subcommittee will start to mark up the DOE bill during the week of June 7. This bill is expected to include the full $640 million requested for the SSC. He cautioned that the project now lacks the votes to pass on the House floor.