WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 19 June 1992 Washington, DC 1. DID THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT KILL THE SUPERCOLLIDER? And is it really dead? Just a week ago, Joe Barton (D-TX), in whose district lies Waxahachie, was a co-sponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. This week, Barton led the defense of the SSC. The BBA is dead, but it reached out from the grave to take the SSC with it. Democrats were furious with the Texas delegation for leading the fight for the BBA and were delighted to have an opportunity to retaliate. Moreover, in the debate on the BBA many of them had bared their chests, growling that they could make the tough decisions to cut the deficit without a constitutional amendment. The vote to zero the SSC was the first opportunity to show constituents just how tough they could be. 2. IS THE SUPERCOLLIDER DEAD, OR CAN THE SENATE RESUSCITATE IT? The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee just got its FY 93 allocation, and it is essentially the same as that of its House counterpart. The House Subcommittee allotted $484M for the SSC (WN 12 June 92)--and we saw what happened to that. Even if the Senate restores the full $650M Administration request, it would still have to be reconciled with the House. The most likely result would be to halve the Senate figure. That would keep the SSC alive for another year, by which time the matter of Japanese participation should be settled. Ironically, the uncertainty is likely to make it more difficult to get a commitment from Japan. Before the House passed the Eckart amendment to kill the SSC, they overwhelmingly passed an amendment offered by George Brown (D-CA) and Robert Walker (R-PA) that cuts off funding for the SSC on 1 June 1993 if foreign contributions do not exceed $650M. 3. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD WILL NOT TAKE A POSITION ON THE SSC, according to Board Chairman, James J. Duderstadt. At a NSB press conference this morning, a reporter asked if the Board would make a statement in support of the SSC. Duderstadt, President of the University of Michigan and a member of APS, responded that: "The SSC is sufficiently controversial that I don't think the Board can make a statement. We could not get agreement. I don't think this represents a sea change in the support of science." 4. THE PROSPECT OF USING THE SSC FOR CANCER THERAPY WAS INVOKED at a press conference at the Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas the day before the House vote. Cancer therapy with excess protons from the SSC linac could be the first tangible benefit of the collider project, according to Roy Schwitters, SSC director. Supporters cited the medical spinoff during the House hearings. 5. WILL FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING OVERCOME FEAR OF NUCLEAR POWER? Not unless advanced reactor technology is developed, according to a National Research Council panel headed by John Aherne. On the day the study was released to Congress, demolition of the never-used $5.5B Shoreham plant on Long Island got underway. Robert L. Park OPA@AIP.bitnet The American Physical Society. ----------------------------------------------- FYI No. 85, June 18, 1992 House Votes to Terminate the SSC By a vote of 232-181 the House of Representatives voted last night to end construction of the Superconducting Super Collider. Action now shifts to the Senate, which will become the focus of intense efforts by both supporters and opponents of the SSC. The vote was on an amendment offered by Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) to H.R. 5373, the fiscal year 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Last week the House Appropriations Committee recommended level funding for the SSC, cutting the administration's $650 million request to $483.7 million. Eckart's amendment cut an additional $450 million from this amount. It is too early for either supporters or opponents of the SSC to view this $8.2 billion project as dead. The Bush Administration strongly supports the project, and will no doubt heavily lobby the Senate in coming weeks. It was only yesterday that Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) determined the 602(b) allocations for his subcommittees. The Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee will receive about the same amount of money as did its House counterpart to fund programs under its jurisdiction. Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana) chairs this subcommittee, and is a strong SSC supporter. However, earlier this year Senator Byrd expressed reservations about the SSC, saying "Exotic luxuries like the space station and the super collider perhaps ought to be put off or canceled until we can shore up our faltering economy." Last year Byrd voted for the SSC. So what is the outlook in the Senate? Last year amendments were offered in both the House and Senate to terminate the SSC. In each chamber 37% of the Members voted to terminate the project. So it is not far-fetched to suggest that the Senate could follow the House's action this year - since the percentage of opposition in the House and Senate last year was the same. Last year the Senate voted 37-62 to terminate the SSC. Vote counters can probably rely on the 37 senators voting against it to do likewise this year. Thus efforts will be concentrated on getting 14 pro-SSC senators to change their minds and vote against the SSC for a 51-vote majority. It would be premature to suggest what the Senate might do. The first indication was the 602(b) allocation which the subcommittee received, which was not so low as to force large scale reductions in DOE programs below levels in the House bill. The next sign will be the FY 1993 bill drafted by the Senate appropriations subcommittee. As of today, they do not have a schedule for marking-up their bill. Both supporters and opponents of the SSC will be contacting senators in the next few days about the project. FYI readers who wish to do so can find out how their senators voted last year in FYI #86. FYI #87 lists the House roll call vote last night. FYI #88 will examine some of the statements made on the House floor both in support of, and in opposition to, the SSC. Public Information Division American Institute of Physics Contact: Richard M. Jones (202) 234-7058