Looking Back: Why the SSC Was Terminated

It will take several months of reflection to fully assess why Congress, after spending over $2 billion (including the Texas contribution) on the Superconducting Super Collider, decided last week to cancel the project. An initial appraisal suggests the following:

ESCALATING COST: SSC critics repeatedly cited increases in the construction price of the collider, initially described as costing around $4 billion+. In 1989, soon after President Bush signed the FY 1990 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill into law, The Washington Post carried a page one story describing technical problems which could increase the overall cost of the SSC by 30%. At that time, a top DOE official said, “either we’re going to build it for the figure of $5.9 billion...or we are not going to build it at all.” Construction estimates continued to increase. DOE Secretary Hazel O’Leary recently told Congress that the collider was going to cost something less than $11 billion, with the next firm estimate due by June 1994.

THE BUDGET DEFICIT: Pressure on Congress to cut government spending is overwhelming. Congress eliminated programs this year ranging from the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor to government subsidies on honey and wool. A freshman representative, discussing the SSC said, “Voting no on this project is the way to send a message that we in fact are serious about cutting waste. If we mean it, it is time to put up or shut up.” A spokesman for the SSC Laboratory conceded, “We have become a symbol for cutting the budget deficit.”

FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: Another point repeatedly cited by SSC critics was the lack of significant foreign participation in collider financing. Although the Senate was always much less enthusiastic about the value of foreign contributions, opponents hammered away at this point.

MANAGEMENT/BOOKKEEPING: It was painful watching DOE and other SSC officials trying to explain to House SSC critics the lack of an accounting system for accurately tracking collider expenditures. The General Accounting Office issued several critical reports on the subject, one with a made-to-order title for SSC opponents: “Super Collider is Over Budget and Behind Schedule.” In late June, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) held a hearing on SSC management at which he said, “the SSC ranks among the worst projects we have seen in terms of contract mismanagement....” Congressional doubts about SSC management and spending were undoubtedly reinforced by DOE’s dismissal of Universities Research Associates as the construction agent. Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyoming), a SSC supporter said that the questionable expenditures may be “little in the scheme of things,” but since “the whole program is beyond most political comprehension, small amounts of money spent on scandalous things is about the only part [Members of Congress] can understand.”

PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE COLLIDER: During the many years of wrangling about the collider there were few arguments that the science was unworthy or somehow flawed. During House debate on October 19, Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York), who co-lead the effort to kill the project said, "...it is good science.” He went on to say, however, “It simply is not affordable science.” Nevertheless, it is a safe assumption that few Members of Congress could describe the SSC or its purpose. Earlier this year, a member of the House energy appropriations subcommittee said to a DOE witness who had just described various DOE physics programs, “no one can challenge you, because we don’t know a damn thing.” DOE Secretary O’Leary admitted last week, “I am appalled that we didn’t do a good enough job with educating the public on the benefits” of the SSC.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS: Why was the SSC terminated, while the space station was funded? While the space station program has many of the same problems as the SSC, the number and distribution of jobs it supports is far greater. A SSC spokesman stated that the collider “was big enough to be visible, but unlike the space station, it was not so big that the number of jobs in the country would counterweigh” its termination.

POLITICS: One of the SSC’s strongest supporters was President Bush, who claimed Texas as his home state. Support for the SSC became more politicized after the election of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), who joined Senator Phil Gramm (R). Both Gramm and Hutchison were vocal critics of President Clinton’s economic package. Various sources have described President Clinton’s efforts as ranging from a “medium” press to a Hutchison claim that “the president didn’t come in and try and help.” It is of note that no one is viewing the collider’s termination as a defeat for the new administration.

THE HOUSE FRESHMAN CLASS: In the key House vote on the SSC, 81 of the 113 voting freshman voted against the collider. Many were elected on the platform of cutting government spending, and had little knowledge about the SSC program. One Republican freshman stated, “Most of the freshmen came in with a bias against the super collider.”

THE APPROPRIATORS: Congress is increasingly restive about the decisions made by the all-powerful House and Senate Appropriations Committees. By deciding to go for “broke” in keeping SSC critics out of the all-important conference on the energy appropriations bill, and then funding the SSC in full, SSC proponents may have “broken” any chance to ultimately salvage the collider. Boehlert told his House colleagues before the floor vote, “The issue is whether House Members are willing to stick to their guns or be sabotaged by a small group of appropriations conferees.” Boehlert and Rep. Jim Slattery (D-Kansas) were ultimately invited into the last and final conference on the SSC; by this time it was too late and Boehlert and Slattery knew they had the votes to demand that the SSC be terminated.

In mid-June, a strong SSC proponent, Jim Chapman (D) of Texas, said, “if we can hold that [SSC funding] all the way through, I’d say it’s more than a major victory. It would be a miracle.” Last week it became evident that there were to be no miracles this year for the Superconducting Super Collider.