Selections from House Debate on Superconducting Super Collider Funding

On June 24, the House of Representatives approved by a vote of 280 to 150 an amendment to terminate SSC funding (see FYI #82.) The following are selections (not necessarily in sequence) from the debate on the House floor preceding this vote:

Rep. Jim Slattery (D-Kan.) (Author of the amendment): "...let us look at the cost. Under all of the technological jargon and scientific hype, the debate on the super collider comes down to a very simple question: What does it cost, and what are the benefits? This vote, in one word, is about money, and a lot of it. If we did not have a $300 billion deficit, my friends, we would not have to be so concerned about these kinds of issues, I suppose. But we do, and we must.”

Rep. George Brown (D-Cal.) (Chairman of House science committee): "...the United States has long been a world leader in high energy physics, a field of research that delves into the nature of the elements that make up the universe around us, and seeks to rationalize the complex forces and particles that comprise all matter. To continue our leadership in the field we must move on to the next generation of particle accelerator--the basic research tool of the high energy physicist. We must build the superconducting collider.” Later Brown said, “We owe it to young scientists who are attempting to make rational career decisions to come to our own decision on the super collider and stick with it.”

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY): “I suggest you talk to some scientists. Many scientists - including Nobel Prize winners and a past president of the physicists’ professional society - fear that it is the SSC itself that is most likely to doom science in this country. While the Federal agencies that train and fund most of the scientists in this country are turning down more than two-thirds of their applications, the SSC - a single project in a single subfield of science - the SSC is eating up $11 billion.”

Rep. Robert Livingston (R-La.): "...the argument about neglecting other scientific research and about not funding enough grants at NIH [National Institutes of Health] does not hold water. The annual bill is about the come to the floor to provide NIH in just one year -- over $11 billion. We annually fund just NIH $10 to $11 billion a year. Where is the neglect to other science? Give me a break. We fund over 6,000 new NIH grants a year. National Science Foundation -- over $3 billion coming in next week....”

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ): “The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported considerable cost overruns, contractor abuses, and the absolute failure of DOE to monitor and account for the expenses associated with the SSC. Yet, Congress continues to build an $11 billion toy for a select number of high-energy physicists.”

Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Cal.): “I firmly believe that SSC may be the most important scientific project of our lifetime, certainly the most important one we will pass judgement on as Members of this Congress. Frankly, it is even more important for us economically to be exploring the innermost particles of matter than visit the corners of outer space. The history of investments in particle physics shows beyond a doubt that the payoffs from the SSC will be enormous.”

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): “Federal spending continues to run amuck. We are slipping into debt at the rate of a billion dollars per day. We can no longer afford the things that we need, let alone those we merely want. The super collider is a want, not a need. It would be nice to have. I don’t doubt that there would be some scientific benefit to having it, but we cannot afford it. It’s as simple as that.”

Rep. Norman Mineta (D-Cal.): “a failure to follow through with the SSC will profoundly disturb the credibility of the DOE and the U.S. Government to both the world at large and to our own scientific community. A failure to build the SSC will disrupt the Nation’s current high-energy physics program....”

Rep. Jack Reed (D-RI): “Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world with no budget deficit and a vibrant economy, we could afford projects that excite the explorer in all of us. However, we have a budget deficit and sluggish economy, and we simply cannot afford these projects.”