House Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner on the SSC, LHC, and ITER

House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) addressed the Indian Science Congress Association on January 4. His speech focused on international cooperation; selections relating to the SSC, Large Hadron Collider and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor follow. Sensenbrenner’s concerns regarding the LHC have been voiced before, and they were resolved, as he explains below, to his satisfaction. Notable are his statements on the LHC’s “lessons learned” as they apply to ITER, found in the last paragraph.

FYI #5 provides Sensenbrenner’s remarks on the International Space Station.

“When I assumed the Chair of the Science Committee in January of 1997, I defined several guiding principles that have been applied to the Committee’s work in order to reach our goal, enabling the United States and its scientists to remain the world’s preeminent intellectual and economic leaders in the 21st Century. One of my principles is centered on the need to nurture international scientific partnerships to leverage scarce federal dollars. I am privileged to be here today at this prestigious scientific gathering, the annual meeting of the Indian Science Congress Association, to discuss the increasingly important principle of fostering international scientific partnerships.

“The increasing cost of cutting edge science requires cost sharing by international partners. Over 90 percent of the space science projects launched by NASA have international components. The International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider could not be built by any single nation.

“The US Congress is putting emphasis on these projects. Four years ago, funding for the International Space Station was sustained in Congress by a one vote margin. Today, Congressional support for the Space Station is solid and continued funding receives support from a majority of both parties.

“International scientific cooperation is politically popular in Congress because, contrary to most foreign aid programs, it is viewed as an international investment with tangible returns for the US. Not only do international partnerships enable countries to make the most of federal resources, it allows vital knowledge to be shared in hopes that it will be used to its full potential.

“However, any agreement for international cooperation requires well-defined and enforceable terms from the outset. This is essential to maintain existing relationships and promote future projects. Without well-defined and accepted parameters, international cooperation will not succeed.

“The United States learned this lesson the hard way when we failed to secure international partners before beginning construction of the Super Conducting Super-Collider (SSC). With initial cost estimates of 4 billion dollars, the US decided to fund the project on its own. As the costs of the SSC escalated past 18 billion dollars, the US was forced to solicit international partners to finance completion of the project. Despite the generous commitment of the Indian government, acceptable funding agreements could not be secured with enough international partners to keep the project from being canceled. Had international partnerships been properly arranged at the beginning of the project, we would be completing work on the SSC rather than just beginning construction of the LHC.”

“A firm foundation is the key to every successful international scientific partnership. As many of you know, the US has agreed to join India and 22 other countries as a participant in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project located at the European Council for Particle Physics (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland. The preliminary agreement initialed in February by officials of CERN and the US Department of Energy (DOE) did not contain assurances I felt were absolutely imperative before the United States finalized the deal.

“I advocated several modifications to the original agreement to protect non-European partners, including:

- open access to CERN facilities for all scientists;
- protection of non-European interests in the event of LHC cost overruns, including a funding cap;
- good faith reciprocity by CERN and its participants on contributions to the next high energy physics facility, if and when it is built anywhere in the world; and
- an appropriate management role for non-Europeans.

“I voiced these objections after my visit to CERN in April, 1997, as I felt that these issues needed to be resolved before any US funds were transferred to the project in order to better protect the interests of non-European researchers and taxpayers. In June, CERN ratified modifications made at my suggestion which were negotiated by DOE. It is imperative that all parties involved in large multinational scientific projects remain vigilant on behalf of their interests. Prior to modifying the agreement, funding caps were reserved exclusively for CERN members. If construction costs went over budget, non-European contributors such as India and the US would have been left to pay the bill. Our taxpayers would have been asked to make additional contributions or our scientists would have been forced to work with an inferior research tool.

“The lessons learned during the negotiation of the LHC agreement should be applied to any scientific negotiations that the US undertakes. They are particularly important to the negotiations currently underway with respect to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Although the ITER discussions are currently focused on the explorations process, it is important to have clearly defined and enforceable terms for each participant at every stage of an international project.”