House Science Chairman Sensenbrenner’s Problems with LHC Agreement

House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) addressed the AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy, as did Department of Energy Secretary Federico Pena. Below are Sensenbrenner’s prepared remarks on the Large Hadron Collider, as well as his more explicit comments during a question and answer session.

During a follow-up briefing, Secretary Pena described a meeting with Sensenbrenner on the LHC. Pena declared that the United States “must succeed with this one,” but also said, speaking of his meeting with Sensenbrenner, “frankly, I support much of what we talked about in that meeting.”

SENSENBRENNER’S PREPARED REMARKS:

“Another issue of particular concern to the [House Science] Committee is the funding and management of the Large Hadron Collider project. At issue is a February 3, 1997 preliminary agreement between representatives of the Department of Energy, NSF, and CERN. Under this agreement, United States taxpayers are being asked to contribute approximately $500 million over a period of time through FY 2004. While supportive of our participation in principle, I am concerned for the following reasons. First, the U.S. is contributing directly to the construction of the LHC accelerator, which is contrary to the tradition that the project host assume the full accelerator construction costs. Second, the U.S. has no formal management role in spite of our significant contributions. Third, several CERN member states are reducing their contributions at the time we are being asked for increased resources. Fourth, this level of commitment may impact the utilization of the Nation’s current portfolio of High Energy and Nuclear Physics facilities. In addition, I am concerned about the impact of LHC cost overruns on the US’s planned experimental program at the facility, their refusal to commit in writing to an `Open Access’ policy. I have met this week with DOE Secretary Pena and discussed these concerns and other provisions of the Energy bill. I look forward to working with him in defining the United States’ role in the LHC.”

SENSENBRENNER’S RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION:

“I’m for international cooperation. You know, we tried to internationalize the Superconducting Supercollider. The then director of CERN, a gentleman named Carlo Rubbia, waved at the United States with the upraised finger and actively lobbied European governments not to give a penny to the SSC. And the reason the SSC failed was because its lack of attracting international contributions and helping the United States build it. I certainly support internationalizing the cost of the space station and the LHC, but to do it it, it must be done right. Now, last Friday, I spent most of the afternoon at CERN... And I asked some very, very penetrating questions of the CERN management and reached the conclusion that the preliminary agreement that was reached between DOE and CERN about an American contribution was not a good one in several respects....

“I expressed my concerns to Secretary Pena and Martha Krebs of the Office of Energy [Research] at DOE. I believe that the Secretary realized that these were legitimate concerns. And, I want to work with him to make sure that the initial agreement is okay so that I can go to the floor of the House of Representatives in good conscience, saying that in my belief the interests of American taxpayers and the interests of American scientists are protected.

“Now, let me talk about some of the things I found out about at CERN and share them with you. First, during a good part of the last decade there were all kinds of rumors that CERN was going to kick out American scientists and researchers. A lot of those rumors were spread around by Mr. Rubbia, I might add. In March of last year, the CERN board of control discussed the issue and while there was a disagreement, they verbally reached a policy without a vote that they would continue their open access policy. That has never been reduced to writing, and it is not a part of the agreement between the DOE and CERN. And, it ought to be, because if we’re going to put over $500 million into CERN we ought to have a contractual agreement with CERN that the open door policy will be there so that our scientists can come and do their research at CERN.

“Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that most of the European nations have reduced their contribution to CERN, and they all have told CERN that there will be no cost overruns on the LHC. In 1994, the Germans didn’t want to give as much money to CERN; they wanted to have a reduction. Most of the other European nations wanted to keep Germany at about 25 percent of the total CERN budget, so rather than allowing Germany to go down by itself, they decided that they all would reduce their contributions and then to freeze the CERN budget at that level for 6 years. So obviously CERN is hurting financially, even though Switzerland has got a very, very low rate of inflation. Because there will be no additional European money to fund cost overruns of the construction of the LHC, and because the Europeans have a relatively small amount set aside for contingencies, which we don’t do, and is not in the proposal that we have for the construction costs as well as for the detectors. My fear is that is unless there are specific arrangements made, five, six years down the road, if there is a cost overrun at CERN, and they don’t have a contingency built into their budget, and we still have a contingency left because of prudent fiscal management, the CERN board is going to say, well we’ve taken the policy that we’re not going to put more money in, the program has got to be reduced at CERN. We’re sorry, Americans -- the research that you planned to do there we can’t do because the machine is not going to have that type of capability because we can’t afford it. But if you would give us some of your contingency for construction cost, then perhaps we could be able to accommodate the type of research that you’ve got planned. That in my opinion is a deal breaker, but it would be done so late that there really wasn’t anything that we could do about it. And the time to make sure that Americans are protected happens right now before the Congress goes into financing the LHC. [At this point, Sensenbrenner discusses Russian participation in the LHC.]

“To sum up: these are the concerns that I have expressed to Secretary Pena. I am hopeful that this matter can be resolved. Finally, let me say that after the LHC is done, I think those of you who are physicists in the audience know that the LHC is not the end of the line for high energy physics research, because it is about 17 miles in circumference and there is going to have to be a bigger accelerator built some time in the future -- probably 20 years, or maybe even more than that. I think the European governments, if we contribute money to CERN, ought to state very clearly that if this bigger accelerator is built in the United States, they will help us build that bigger accelerator sometime in the future like we are helping them with the LHC. And this will put an end to Rubbia-ism in Geneva forever.”

The House Science Committee has finished its consideration of H.R. 1277, the Department of Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 1997. It has been referred to the House Committee on Commerce for consideration of those sections of the bill under its jurisdiction. The Commerce Committee is to complete its work not later than June 6. Secretary Pena noted that Martha Krebs has already talked with CERN seeking contractual clarifications, Pena adding that more dialogue is appropriate. When asked about the signing of the U.S. - CERN agreement, he said that he was “not sure” of its status.