Controversy Over Superconducting Super Collider Continues
While construction on the SSC may have been terminated last fall, it is clear that the controversy over the project has not died with it. A March 15 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Science on the termination of the SSC provided ample evidence of the heated emotions still prevalent on Capitol Hill about the project.
The subcommittee’s Ranking Republican Member, and well-known SSC critic, Sherwood Boehlert (NY) set the tone of this hearing in his opening remarks by referring to a "`shootout at the OK Corral,’” “thwarting of the will of the House,” and “theft of tax money.” Boehlert is angry because, he charges, the Department of Energy is proposing to commit to the start of another project on the SSC site.
Opposing Boehlert’s criticism of DOE was Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), in whose district the SSC site is located. Barton said he was not attempting to revive the SSC, but said, of the $1.5 - $2.0 billion spent thus far, “Let’s get something out of it.” Barton praised DOE’s handling of the termination of the SSC project, noting that the work force has dropped from 2,000 to 950 employees.
Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA), taking somewhat more the middle ground, asked many questions of Martha Krebs, Director of DOE’s Office of Energy Research. He was persistent in asking why DOE needs additional money to close the project when the department’s own estimates show that it has enough with current and previous years’ appropriations. DOE is requesting $180 million for fiscal year 1995. A February DOE “SSC Termination Plan” estimates the cost at $695 million, including a $54.7 million contingency. DOE now has $735 million. Krebs was somewhat vague in her reply, explaining that some money will be needed to settle a claim by the State of Texas, adding that DOE was developing a firm figure. Boehlert asked if the estimates came “out of thin air.”
A considerable portion of the 2 1/2 hour hearing was used in discussing what steps DOE should take at the SSC site, or in collaboration with CERN on the LHC. There is general agreement that the SSC’s assets should be preserved, with another witness, Shelton Smith, Chairman of the Texas National Research Laboratory Commission, praising the “tremendous potential” of the site. Smith recommended that 125 scientists and engineers and accompanying support staff be retained at the site through fiscal year 1995. He discussed three proposals: a Center for Research in Superconductivity (which could manufacture magnets for CERN’s LHC), a Regional Center for High-Performance Computing, and a Regional Medical Technology Center utilizing the SSC laboratory’s linear accelerator. Krebs testified that DOE will be studying the Texas proposals, a HEPAP subpanel report due this summer, and other outside Expressions of Interests. She said DOE was “not having conversations with CERN at this time.”
Expect that one of the major points of contention, if DOE decides to operate a new laboratory at the SSC site, to be the already strained budget for DOE’s existing laboratories. Under close questioning, DOE officials admitted of the current High Energy Physics budget: “It is not favorable.”
