URA MEMBERS BULLETIN August 26, 1992 Forwarded on an occasional basis - #8/92 For additional information, C. M. Anderson 202-293-1382/CANDER@FNAL _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS COMING UP > After September 8: House-Senate conference on the Energy and Water bill FOR THE RECORD 1. Senate consideration of Energy and Water bill, Bumpers amendments [Jul 31 - Aug 3] 2. SSCL conducted successful magnet string test [Aug 14] _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ COMING UP . . . > After September 8: House-Senate conference on the Energy and Water bill Now that the House and Senate have both passed their versions of H.R. 5373, the Fiscal 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, the differences between the bills will be resolved by a House-Senate conference committee. Traditionally, the committee is composed of each side's Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, plus the full-committee chairmen and ranking members. As a general rule, since there are hundreds of large and small differences between the two bills, most items are negotiated in advance and approved by the committee en bloc. The remaining issues -- the most significant and/or controversial and/or late-breaking -- are left as "conference items." These items are usually discussed by the committee with a compromise in mind. When a consensus "Conference Report" is agreed to by the committee, it must be presented for final approval to both the House and the Senate, with or without subsequent modifications. When a single final report is approved, it is sent to the President for signature, veto, or approval without signature. [As Congress approaches the end of the fiscal year, various parliamentary options sometimes enter the debate. If these options become relevant to the picture for Fermilab and the SSC, they will be reported here later.] In the meantime, most predictions for timing of the conference begin around the second week in September, when Congress returns from August/Labor Day recess. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ FOR THE RECORD . . . 1. Senate consideration of Energy and Water, Bumpers amendments [Jul 31 - Aug 3] o This year's appropriations for high energy physics are in H.R. 5373, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993. The House version recommended $15 million for the Fermilab Main Injector and $484 million for the SSC; the SSC recommendation was reduced by an amendment on the House floor to $33.7 million, with the intention to cancel the SSC. The Senate version recommends $25 million for the Injector and $550 million for the SSC. o The Senate took portions of two days to complete its work on the bill. Action began on Friday, July 31. Principal debate on the SSC took place on Monday, August 3. o The bill was "managed" by Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Bennett Johnston (D-La) and by subcommittee ranking minority member Mark Hatfield (R-Ore). There were two major amendments debated on Monday: one by Dale Bumpers (D-Ark) to kill the SSC (defeated 62-32), and one by Hatfield to limit nuclear testing (approved 68-26). Two other lesser SSC amendments were proposed by Bumpers: approved without a roll- call vote was a proposal to clarify international contracting rules, and disapproved (63-31) was a requirement that international donations reach a certain level before the project could proceed. o For high energy physics, the centerpiece was the Bumpers amendment to kill the SSC. It was debated during the morning for several hours and again in the evening, with a vote at 6:30 p.m. Several observers noted that many of the far-afield questions raised in the House had been resolved, so that the discussion was more about science policy and economic priorities than the somewhat confused hyperbole about spinoffs that dominated much of the House discussion. The real progress and purpose of the SSC were given space in the Senate, as were its implications for the future of research and the economic and intellectual vitality of the United States. o The vote on the Bumpers amendment was actually a vote on the motion to "table" or kill the amendment. Thus, an Aye vote was a vote in favor of the SSC. The tally was 62-32, with 6 not voting. Routinely, the Bulletin has not reported vote tallies. However, in view of the historic interest in the outcome, the tally is included at the end of this item. o Highlights of the debate are included below, on an issue-by- issue basis rather than in chronological order. An abstract of each point/counterpoint accompanies each issue. Readers interested in following the actual dynamics and getting the complete text may wish to consult the August 3 Congressional Record. The debate and vote are summarized in the following order: I. Bumpers amendment to kill the SSC outright (tabled 62-32) II. Vote tally on amendment I. III. Bumpers amendment to stop the SSC if $650 million in foreign contributions have not been received by a date certain I. Bumpers amendment to kill the SSC outright (tabled 62-32) Topics covered below are: * The SSC and the Budget Deficit * Competing Non-Science Priorities * Competition for Funds Among Scientific Fields and Labs * The Scientific Mission of the SSC * Education and the SSC * The Cost of the SSC * SSC Management * International Participation * SSC Advocacy * Spinoffs *** THE SSC AND THE BUDGET DEFICIT *** Abstract: Numerous Senators said the SSC must be cut because it will raise the U.S. federal budget deficit. Johnston and others pointed out that the SSC is such a tiny faction of the budget that killing it wouldn't noticeably help the deficit situation. Opponents: o Bumpers said his principal objection to the SSC was its effect on the budget deficit. He also acknowledged that the reason the House voted to kill the project as that "it had been only 3 or 4 days from the time they voted on this that they had voted not to put a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in our Constitution. Those who had voted . . . were looking for cover. . . . I would have been, too. . . . [T]he House, because they had been chided . . . about not ever being able to cut any projects, killed this sucker dead. . . ." He later said, "If I were a physicist, I would be curious about the origin of matter . . . [b]ut . . . I would also know one thing: This research can be done today, next year, 100 years from now. . . ." o Richard Bryan (D-Nev) said the U.S. has a $4 trillion national debt, that we are spending $800 million every day on interest on that debt, and that for FY93 Congress was about to add another $400 billion to the debt. o Jim Sasser (D-Tenn), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), Herb Kohl (D-Wis), Chris Dodd (D-Conn), and John Warner (R-Va) cited the national debt and the SSC's unaffordability. Supporters: o Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex) concurred that the deficit must be dealt with, but emphasized that the United States' economic future is being harmed by declining international competitiveness, due in part to insufficient investment in basic research: "A technologically and economically more competitive America will generate more revenue for the Federal Treasury, and will help raise the standard of living of our people," he said. "If you put it in perspective. . . [the SSC] represents only 3.5 percent of the Federal budget expenditure for general science, space, and technology. . . ." o Further on the issue of economic stimulus, David Boren (D- Okla) also pointed out that the General Accounting Office had estimated the SSC will have a 3:1 multiplier effect -- generating $3 in economic utility for every $1 invested. o Johnston mentioned that the SSC is 43 one-thousandths of one percent of the federal budget, as he and Sasser were acknowledging that the main deficit problem is entitlements ("automatic" spending programs) -- with Johnston emphasizing that it is not isolated projects like the SSC that really create the trouble. Regarding suggestions that the SSC could be postponed until the deficit picture clears, Johnston said: "[L]et us not kid ourselves. It is virtually now or never on this project. What we have done as a Nation is created a long-term plan. Based upon that plan, the State of Texas has floated bonds in the hundreds of millions of dollars. . . . We have expropriated land. We have moved people out of their homes. We have a team of thousands of the finest scientists in the United States who have been assembled for the purpose of building the superconducting super collider. . . . [A]nyone who says that we can tell all those folks to go home, wait a few years, and do not call us, we will call you if we change our mind, it is not going to happen. . . ." *** COMPETING NON-SCIENCE PRIORITIES *** Abstract: Opponents said the funding for the SSC is not as high a priority as funding for human-needs programs. Supporters said the juxtaposition was a false choice. Opponents: o Bumpers initially said that investments in highway construction yield four times as many jobs per dollar as the SSC will. Later: "I do not know anything about the science of particle physics . . . but I do know that we only fund Head Start at 50 percent of what we ought to be funding it at. . . there are 35 million people in this country with no health insurance. . . . we have 10 million people walking the streets looking for jobs. . . . there are unmet needs in the National Institutes of Health, where they are trying to deal with AIDS, cancer, leukemia, arthritis, heart disease, you name it, and can only fund 25 percent of the good applications for medical grants. . . . Later, he included a story about a constituent who'd approached him in a crowd and asked him for help: "Every Senator knows what this is like. When you walk into a crowd you walk out with five cases to take back to your staff, that is how troubled people in this country are. `My daughter had a heart transplant, and she has been doing very well . . . . But she can no longer afford the medication. And Medicaid will not buy her drugs for her.' There were tears streaming down her cheeks. `My daughter is going to die if she does not get help.' I wanted to say I would like to help but we have to fund this big $20 billion super collider." He included several other such references, including child immunizations, closed VA hospital beds, prison populations, etc. o Harkin expressed a preference for projects recommended by the High-Speed Rail Association and listed several examples. He also said that 74 percent of the grants approved by NIH peer review will not be funded; he listed numerous diseases for which cures might be slowed, for lack of funding. His list of priorities also included the genome, health programs for women and children, and Head Start. o Dave Durenberger (R-Minn) said that the 21st century demands a greater focus on human-focus issues rather than the 20th's focus on science, citing such examples as infrastructure, preventive health care, educational overhaul, arts and humanities, human relationships, and the application of the arts of history, language, geology, and anthropology: "We need a revival of the spiritual in our country. We are both the better -- and the less well -- for all we learned and all we have as a result [of science and technology]. We need to pause. . . ." o Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) cited low-income weatherization, maternal nutrition, immunizations as programs having a hard time being funded. Supporters: o Larry Craig (R-Idaho) said a vote for the SSC was a vote for the future of a more successful nation, which would be better able to take care of all worthwhile priorities in both humanitarian and scientific realms. o Pete Domenici (R-NMex) pointed out that the SSC's annual cost pales in comparison to the expenditures for humanitarian aid. o Johnston invoked the higher purpose of basic research and said it was absurd to accuse the SSC (at 43 one-thousandths of one percent of the budget) of damaging other programs. *** COMPETITION FOR FUNDS AMONG SCIENTIFIC FIELDS AND LABS *** Abstract: Bumpers said other areas of science, and possibly even HEP, might be crowded out by the SSC. Sasser said other science was being squeezed. Harkin was for materials science and solid-state physics. Johnston showed how small the SSC is in comparison to other sciences and, regarding HEP, highlighted the healthy growth in the field over all. Opponents: o Bumpers quoted several physicists who, over the years, had expressed concern about the SSC's impact on other science. He also commented on the presentation on the MacNeil-Lehrer news hour of Rustum Roy, who had questioned [among other things] "`putting money into a totally esoteric corner of the most `use-less' part of science. . . .'" Bumpers also commented on other HEP labs, first suggesting they would be in trouble if the SSC were built but later acknowledging that Johnston would protect them from being harmed by SSC construction. o Richard Bryan (D-Nev) said that "Particle physics is an exciting field, but so is exploration of space, genetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, and dozens and dozens of other worthwhile projects. Given our current financial situation, we do not have the luxury of funding all the exciting science initiatives presented to us. . . ." Bryan recommended a three-part test for science funding: How much money is there for science? How does each project benefit the nation's global competitiveness and standard of living? How well is each project being run? He said the SSC would fail these tests. He also cited several surveys indicating that the SSC ranked low in lists of projects able to generate immediate industrial payoffs and repeated the fear that other areas of science would be starved in order to support the SSC (NIH, etc.). o Sasser said DOE tech transfer and EPA R&D were funded at levels only a fraction of the SSC's size. Supporters: o Johnston noted that the cost was no threat to Fermilab, for which the Senate proposed more than the House had for Main Injector ($25 million over the House's $15 million), or to Brookhaven, where the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) is being well treated budgetarily. Johnston also inserted in the Record a "letter signed by 40 eminent scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, who say, `We are deeply alarmed by its immediate destructive effect on the entire U.S. scientific enterprise and even more concerned about the serious long-term damaging consequences of [canceling the SSC].'" The letter also said that "To kill an undertaking that is so splendidly fulfilling its expectations and its mission raises fundamental questions about our national commitment and our ability to carry out long-term scientific projects. Such an action is clearly damaging to future international collaboration on our scientific ventures. . . ." Johnston also mentioned that over 2,000 scientists from around the world had signed similar letters. He then quoted Ernest Henley, President of the American Physical Society, who had provided a copy of the APS Board's letter opposing cancellation of the SSC. Other contributions came from Jerry Friedman, Al Trivelpiece, and Leon Lederman, who reaffirmed their support; the need for reaffirmation stemmed from Bumpers' attempt to portray them as being doubtful. One of Johnston's most persuasive points was a comparison of U.S. support for various areas of science: "[I]f you look at Federal [R&D] spending, [NIH takes] 19.4 percent of the budget on Federal R&D spending, SDI takes 6.2 percent, the space station 2.9 percent, NASA basic research takes 2.6 percent, the [NSF] takes 2.6, energy basic research takes 2.3 percent, defense basic research is 1.3 percent, and the [SSC] takes 0.6 percent of the R&D funding budget. . . . [T]he argument that this 0.6 percent of the Federal R&D budget is going to stop cancer research, is going to keep us from building [RHIC], is going to cut off funding from Fermi Lab, is going to stop progress in this country is about as absurd as the Senator's joke that we claim this is going to stop everything from corns to halitosis. . . . The fact is . . . that the [SSC] . . . represents 43/1000 of 1 percent of the budget. If you cancel this project and 22 others like it, you would save 1 percent of the budget. . . . Later, Johnston also pointed out in response to Sasser that his home state of Tennessee wanted to build an advanced neutron source at Oak Ridge for $6 billion; Johnston said he thought it was a good idea, but that Sasser's arguments about the need to reduce the deficit could be applied there as well. o Bentsen made a point of saying the SSC's $1 billion average annual cost, including high-cost construction, was half of one B-2 bomber -- and looked especially modest next to the [NIH] annual budget of $14 billion. He also responded to the charge that the SSC is a "slice of Texas pork" by reminding colleagues that Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is not California pork, and Fermilab is not Illinois pork. *** THE SCIENTIFIC MISSION OF THE SSC *** Abstract: Bumpers and Dodd claimed that the physics to be done at the SSC could be done at another place and/or another time -- notably at CERN at some point in the near or distant future. Johnston, Reid, and others expounded on the glories of science in general and the potential of the SSC in particular. Opponents: o Bumpers included for the Record an article from the London Economist (June 27 - July 3 edition), which conceded the importance of particle physics and the current fruitfulness of it but recommended that collaborative experiments at CERN -- even at a maximum potential of less than 40% of the SSC's energy -- would be a more cost-effective way to get the same information. o Sasser said he didn't dispute the importance of the SSC's goals: "The attempt to re-create some of the conditions and reactions believed to have formed the universe is an impressive undertaking. It is an endeavor that I would, in all probability, support if our budget were not constrained by more immediate challenges." o Kohl said no one could be against reaching the Holy Grail of science, and he was concerned about the departure of particle physicists for Europe, and he regretted the loss of teachers for a new generation of specialists. o Dodd said he didn't "necessarily disagree with the ideals and aspirations" of those who wanted to continue the SSC. o John Warner (R-Va) said his negative vote was reached with great reluctance because he recognized it has considerable scientific merit -- and that he had always been supportive of basic research. Supporters: o Johnston devoted several short speeches to the historical context of particle physics and to the SSC's mission, which are excerpted here because of the rarity of this kind of subject matter being discussed by Members of Congress during public debate. A number of physicists were nevertheless clearly moved by the force of Johnston's willingness to convey his excitement about the project. "Scientific knowledge" he said, ". . . is like peeling an onion. . . . We began with the Greeks. . . . Dr. Lederman says that scientific knowledge began in the town of Miletus in ancient Greece in 650 B.C. Clearly the ancient Greeks were those who began peeling back the layers of knowledge in Greece with Pythagoras, Euclid, Ptolemy. . . ." Johnston went on to list Galileo, Prince Henry the Navigator, Sir Isaac Newton, Mendel, Madam Curie, Dr. Geiger, Professor Einstein. . . . "And finally . . . we have come to what we believe are the ultimate particles and the ultimate forces, quarks and electrons and what we are trying to do with the superconducting super collider is to reconcile the whole pattern, the whole code if you will, of the universe. . . . We have heard Dr. Leon Lederman, the distinguished Nobel Laureate, quoted a great deal. I would like to read just a couple of paragraphs from his testimony because I think it puts in context the [SSC] better than my words could do it. . . . "Now we have reached what many, a consensus, believe is the bottom line. The quarks and electrons and their friends are, we believe, points of mass and energy in space. . . . [Brief explanation of particles.] "[L]ike a motorist on a winding forest road, we are beginning to glimpse, however, fleetingly, the towering peaks of a grand unity. But the mathematics is incomplete when we try to predict what happens at higher energy, at the energy of the super collider. . . . "Until we can complete the unification process and make the picture mathematically whole, the question of how the world works will not be answered, but the obstacles realized in the 1970's focuses on a bizarre, revolutionary new idea which was immortalized by the mayor of a place called Waxahachie, Texas, who in public some years ago said, `We have got to find the Higgs Boson.' Johnston continued: "[W]hat that distinguished Nobel Laureate was saying is that we are trying to determine the code of the universe. What makes it work, what we are made of, what the cosmos is made of. . . . Dr. George Smoot, who testified before our committee, the distinguished astrophysicist and cosmologist who . . . discovered the ripples in space, in his testimony . . . gave one of the most fascinating . . . monologues on the cosmos that I have ever heard. Interesting little tidbits . . . were that the world, our solar system, is part of the Milky Way. Maybe ordinary people know that. I did not know that. . . . But the thing that really was confounding to me was when he said that there are billions of other galaxies like the Milky Way, billions. . . . Smoot said that the information that will come from the superconducting super collider on particles and forces and the code of the universe is essential to the understanding of astrophysics. . . ; that the 80 percent of matter out there in space which the scientists call dark matter, cannot be understood . . . without an understanding of the elementary forces and particles that make up nature. . . . [More here on quarks and leptons.] [Also,] what Dr. Lederman was saying in the quoted piece from Senator Bumpers when he said we should not do this because of the spinoffs, he did not mean at all that there would not be incredible spinoffs. To the contrary. . . . But the point Dr. Lederman was making is that this is the most fundamental mystery of the cosmos. . . . Einstein, when he came up with the theory of relativity -- E=mc2, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared -- no one knew what that was going to reveal. . . . Most of [space exploration] is because of the curiosity of man and woman. What could be more basic and fundamental than the code which regulates this entire scheme of things? . . . Paul Freund says that the thing that unites mankind, unites civilization, is our profound ignorance of the three fundamental questions of the universe: Whither, whence, and why. . . . "[More here on how much greater the SSC's collision energies will be than at other labs, the four elemental forces, cancer therapy, and superconductivity technologies.] o Domenici said, "[I]f you do not find the secrets of science when you know how, you give the American people a legacy of less, rather than a legacy of what they are entitled to, what humankind is entitled to; because you do not go after these secrets to write textbooks. You go after these secrets because they yield things for human beings like the laser which is now on every country when you go through the supermarket. . ." *** EDUCATION AND THE SSC *** Abstract: The role of the SSC in education at all levels was addressed in general terms. Opponents: o Several opponents listed "education" as one of the human needs that might go unmet if the SSC were funded -- along with health care, infrastructure, etc. Supporters: o Harry Reid (D-Nev) quoted Lester Thurow's book Head to Head about the importance of science, technology, and education to the nation's economic future. Reid said that there are fewer physics teachers than school districts in the United States. . . . Should we abandon or delay the [SSC], the Europeans will . . . train a generation of physicists in Europe, not in America. . . . Do we want that? No, we do not want that. . . . [M]y colleagues should base [their votes] on an America that is still . . . dreaming like Albert Einstein . . . stretching through new horizons, horizons based on science and technology. . . ." o Bentsen focused on competitiveness in education: "Would you really rather have our scientists travel to France of Japan because that was the fertile breeding ground of scientific thought and research and exchange of viewpoints? Even today . . . thousands of students and professors at over 100 universities and colleges across the country, from Boston to Honolulu, are already engaged in SSC-related projects. . . ." o Boren, saying the march toward discoveries at the SSC would result in the emergence of "educational worlds never [before] explored," said it would be more difficult to encourage young people "who must live in tomorrow's world" to study math and science if the government failed to honor its commitment to a project like the SSC. *** THE COST OF THE SSC *** Abstract: Bumpers said he did not believe the SSC's cost would be held to $8.25 billion or that the Laboratory could produce accurate reports on cost-and-schedule adherence. Sasser focussed on prior-year changes in the estimate. Opponents: o Bumpers devoted an extensive amount of commentary to the project-cost issue, including references to changes in the total since the early conceptual estimate, the capacity for measuring cost and schedule performance, international participation, differential estimates on magnet costs, and the context of the national budget deficit. His most often-used figure was $20 billion, and he even soared to $60 billion, when he included compounded interest and 30 years of inflated operating costs. o Bryan and Leahy repeated the litany of years of revised costs and the accusations of overruns outlined by Reps. Wolpe and Boehlert over several years. Supporters: o Johnston pointed out that the project is on time and on budget, at $8.25 billion. Johnston noted that Bumpers continued to use totals of various sizes that include hypothetical and exaggerated extrapolations unrelated to the cost of building the laboratory. He also noted that much of the construction cost experience is already better than the estimate and that the contingency estimate may prove to be excessive. He explained how and why the design change in the dipole magnets several years ago had resulted in an increased estimate and then described the wonderful test performance of the dipoles. Johnston's chart showing the overall stability of the cost estimate -- with the exception of the magnet- design change -- was especially effective; he then explained why the change had been beneficial: "The fact that there were cost escalations . . . when we redesigned the magnets in no way means that those cost escalations will continue. To the contrary, . . . the biggest unknown in this project was the design and the manufacture of the magnets. They have been redesigned. . . . [A] set of magnets . . . has been designed, manufactured, and tested and the performance is excellent. . . ." *** SSC MANAGEMENT *** Abstract: Bumpers alluded to a General Accounting Office report that had outlined the progress of implementation of the SSC's cost and schedule accounting system, with reference to the fact that full-scale totally integrated operations had not yet begun. Johnston provided detailed assurances about the budgetary status and cost-consciousness of the project. Opponents: o Bumpers cited letters from DOE warning about overruns and suggested that the twin problems of overruns and being unable to account precisely for adherence to the baseline estimate would run the SSC's costs out of control in future years. o Terry Sanford (D-NC) said he could not vote for what he considered to be a valuable project that was being "run in a wasteful and inefficient manner." He said if there is a new administration (President) he hoped the project would be made more efficient, and that he might change his vote to a positive one if that happens. o Dodd cited GAO reports on SSC management. Supporters: o Johnston did not dwell on the specific issue of accounting, but emphasized that "this project is on time and on budget." He devoted time to the necessary design change made in the dipole magnets, using a chart to show how stable the cost estimate had been, with the exception of that change, and mentioned how efficiently and cost-effectively contracts are being let. *** INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION *** Abstract: Opponents claimed that there would never be significant foreign contributions to the SSC. Supporters pointed out how natural it is for non-U.S. partners to postpone decisions until it is 100% certain that the project will proceed -- a fact not clearly in evidence after repeated attacks in the House. Opponents: o Bumpers made scathing remarks about the dearth of foreign contributions thus far. o Sasser elaborated on the lack of Japanese support in particular. o Leahy said DOE's attitude has been "build it and they will come." Supporters: o Bentsen said foreign participation shouldn't be the make-or- break issue: "Sure it would be nice to have others pick up part of the cost, but I hope we have not reached a point in this country where our readiness to proceed with any major scientific enterprise is to be made contingent on foreign attitudes rather than based on our best judgment of what is right for our country. . . ." *** SSC ADVOCACY *** Abstract: Bumpers complained that the tactics used by SSC supporters had been unfair. Harkin cited DOE's internal study and a Sigma Xi survey. Opponents: o Bumpers commented several times about the outpouring of support from several communities of SSC advocates. He said that "one of the reasons I will not win today . . . is because the scientists of this country, and the Department of Energy, especially have learned . . . is . . . you . . . have the people . . . go to their Senators and say: you are going to kill the jobs in my State if you vote against the superconducting super collider. Do you know how many States have contracts on the SSC? Forty-eight. . . . Arkansas, whom George Bush now says is probably the worst State in the Nation . . . and there is no State in the history of the world that has ever been so ill-governed . . . wants to extract $83 million from that terrible State of Arkansas . . . to build a piece of science from which they will probably never derive one single ounce of benefit. . . ." Bumpers later said "The most intense lobbying I have ever seen in my life since the Panama Canal Treaty has just taken place in the last 2 weeks on this amendment. The physicists of this country have lobbied. . . ." o Harkin said a DOE internal study had recommended deemphasizing the SSC. He also referred to a 1988 survey by Sigma Xi (which characterized itself as a "sketch") that ranked the SSC low on priority, and to a study many years ago in which the Industrial Research Institute asked its corporate R&D members to rank projects according to quick-spinoff value -- also ranking SSC low. He included an article from the Des Moines Register that highly touted Maglev trains and said the SSC's discovery of the origins of the universe "isn't worth a bucket of warm spit." o Wellstone aid ". . . [S]ometimes when we are asked to vote on a particular project it is an easy vote. This has not been the case for me when it comes to the superconducting super collider. . . . [O]ver the past month or so, many people have called me and have talked with me: Nobel laureates, project scientists, physicists from the University of Minnesota, many good friends. And they have told me that the super collider represents real frontier science and research. . . . I am quite convinced that they have said that in good faith. But the question before us tonight on this vote is not whether the super collider is a project with scientific merit. I think we all agree. o Kohl said a number of physicists had been to his office and made a good case for the SSC. "But they made it only from their perspective as physicists. My perspective is supposed to be broader, to encompass the national interest as well as the interest that all human beings have in answering basic scientific questions. . . ." Supporters: o Domenici referred to the June 30 hearing attended by many leading high energy physicists [July 24 Bulletin]: "[I]t was something to behold . . . in that room an accumulation of Nobel laureates from all over America, who made the great science breakthroughs, there standing shoulder to shoulder saying, `Do this project.' And then to see along with them one of America's captains of industry ... the former chief executive officer of Motorola, a company that is known for its progressiveness . . . [who] said `You ought to do this, because to stop it is an acknowledgement of defeat, and it is an acknowledgement that America does not want to be on the cutting edge. . . ." o Johnston noted that presidential candidate Bill Clinton endorsed the project, as had President Bush. o Symms inserted into the Record a letter from Bill Moffitt of Idaho Falls, a letter he said was representative of hundreds he had received. *** SPINOFFS *** Abstract: Bumpers, Sasser and others derided claims that the SSC would foster technological advance. Johnston, Reid and others briefly explained the nature and history of tech transfer and downstream development. Opponents: o Bumpers also attacked the spinoff arguments, with an unfortunate contorted mis-emphasis on Leon Lederman's testimony (July 24 Bulletin) to the effect that spinoffs are not the reason to build the SSC although they will inevitably be the result. "[This kind of research] is reputed to be a cure for cancer, the common cold, sties, corns, athletes foot, you name it. . . . Listen to Dr. Krumhansl . . .: `It's about time to dispel the illusions in Congress and the public in general about technological and education spinoff from particle physics. Not only is this largely a fiction, but in some instances at least claims by the SSC proponents were actually work done by others. . . . [I]n the view of many members of the American Physical Society the extravagant representation to the public of the potential fruits from the SSC are fictitious [and] ethically irresponsible.' Dr. Nicholaas Bloembergen . . : `I can state categorically that MRI is not a spinoff from SSC related activities.'" [Ed. Note: Despite strenuous attempts by dozens of people over several years to clarify the interrelated developments of high energy physics, computer architecture, superconductivity, magnet industrialization and medical applications, public debate is still vulnerable to this type of misunderstanding.] o Sasser made clear his strong preference for small science and for commercial applications rather than large, basic-science facilities. o Harkin said point-blank that there would be no real spinoffs, that there never are, from basic research. He acknowledged downstream developments from new knowledge "down the road." o Leahy cited an earlier dispute between advocates and other physicists about the origins of discoveries in physics, said the SSC is not a cost-effective jobs program. o Kohl acknowledged the spinoff potential: "I am convinced that completing the SSC would yield some as-yet unknown findings which can be translated into commercial technology. Other pure science projects have yielded commercial technologies in the past and there is no reason to believe that this project wouldn't. Supporters: o Johnston opened with a reference to the importance of science to the American way of life: "[O]rdinary Americans today live in more comfort, with better health, with better quality of life than kings and emperors of old because of what? Because of science. . . . " He said when Einstein came up with e=mc2 he was not intending to treat 20 million Americans in 1992 with nuclear medicine or improve America's GNP. o Reid used a previous example of how government expenditures had resulted in private-sector development: it was the federal government, he said, that in 1844 had funded the experimental telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. "For the expenditure of this money, the world was revolutionized. . . . The Government stepped out and the private sector stepped in and the future was certainly better. . . ." o Bentsen emphasized the value of the SSC in the transition from a nation whose strength rested in the military to one whose strength rests in technological and economic prowess: "The SSC demands engineering, manufacturing, fabrication, and management skills that have been the foundation of our now shrinking aerospace and defense industries." Bentsen also focused on proton-beam therapy for cancer and on the University of Florida's development of SSC plastics that can be used for medical purposes. o Symms listed technologies that had evolved from physics research conducted from 1910 to 1940 -- the sum of which now comprise one-fourth of the nation's gross national product (radar, x-rays, televisions, microwaves, semiconductors, computers, and lasers). He also highlighted the SSC's importance as a vehicle of transition out of military priorities. o Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) said his opposition had turned to support because of what he'd learned about the potential of HEP research to advance the cause of cancer therapy, Maglev trains, silent boats, computer architecture, and new forms of energy. o Gramm said the SSC's future-oriented investment would yield hundreds of thousands of jobs in the next century. II. Vote tally on amendment I. Senate Vote on the SSC, 1992 (62-32-6) [Bumpers Amendment to Cancel the Project] Brock Adams (D-Washington) Pro SSC Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) Pro SSC Max Baucus (D-Montana) Pro SSC Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) Pro SSC Joseph R. Biden (D-Delaware) Anti SSC Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) Pro SSC Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Missouri) Anti SSC David L. Boren (D-Oklahoma) Pro SSC Bill Bradley (D-New Jersey) Anti SSC John B. Breaux (D-Louisiana) Pro SSC Hank Brown (R-Colorado) Pro SSC Richard H. Bryan (D-Nevada) Anti SSC Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas) Anti SSC Quentin N. Burdick (D-North Dakota) NV SSC Conrad Burns (R-Montana) Pro SSC Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia) Pro SSC John H. Chafee (R-Rhode Island) Pro SSC Dan Coats (R-Indiana) Anti SSC Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) Pro SSC William S. Cohen (R-Maine) Anti SSC Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Anti SSC Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) Pro SSC Alan Cranston (D-California) Pro SSC Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-New York) Pro SSC John C. Danforth (R-Missouri) Pro SSC Thomas A. Daschle (D-South Dakota) Pro SSC Dennis DeConcini (D-Arizona) Pro SSC Alan J. Dixon (D-Illinois) NV SSC +* Christopher J. Dodd (D-Connecticut) Anti SSC Bob Dole (R-Kansas) Pro SSC Pete V. Domenici (R-New Mexico) Pro SSC Dave R. Durenberger (R-Minnesota) Anti SSC James J. Exon (D-Nebraska) Anti SSC Wendell H. Ford (D-Kentucky) Pro SSC Wyche Fowler (D-Georgia) Anti SSC Jake Garn (R-Utah) Pro SSC John Glenn (D-Ohio) Pro SSC Al Gore (D-Tennessee) NV SSC Slade Gorton (R-Washington) Pro SSC Bob Graham (D-Florida) Pro SSC Phil Gramm (R-Texas) Pro SSC Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) Pro SSC Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Anti SSC Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) NV SSC +* Mark O. Hatfield (R-Oregon) Pro SSC Howell T. Heflin (D-Alabama) Pro SSC Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) NV SSC Ernest F. Hollings (D-South Carolina) Anti SSC Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) Pro SSC James M. Jeffords (R-Vermont) Anti SSC J. Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana) Pro SSC Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kansas) Anti SSC Robert W. Kasten (R-Wisconsin) Pro SSC Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) Anti SSC J. Robert Kerrey (D-Nebraska) Pro SSC John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts) Anti SSC Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) Anti SSC Frank R. Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) Anti SSC Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) Anti SSC Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Anti SSC Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Connecticut) Pro SSC Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) Pro SSC Richard G. Lugar (R-Indiana) Pro SSC Connie Mack (R-Florida) Pro SSC John McCain (R-Arizona) Pro SSC Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) Pro SSC Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) Anti SSC Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Maryland) Pro SSC George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) Anti SSC Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York) Pro SSC Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) Pro SSC Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma) Pro SSC Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) Anti SSC Bob Packwood (R-Oregon) Pro SSC Claiborne Pell (D-Rhode Island) Pro SSC Larry Pressler (R-South Dakota) Pro SSC David Pryor (D-Arkansas) Anti SSC Harry Reid (D-Nevada) Pro SSC Donald W. Riegle (D-Michigan) Anti SSC Charles S. Robb (D-Virginia) Pro SSC John D. Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) Pro SSC William V. Roth (R-Delaware) Pro SSC Warren B. Rudman (R-New Hampshire) Pro SSC Terry Sanford (D-North Carolina) Anti SSC Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Maryland) Pro SSC Jim Sasser (D-Tennessee) Anti SSC John Seymour (R-California) NV SSC +* Richard C. Shelby (D-Alabama) Pro SSC Paul Simon (D-Illinois) Pro SSC Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyoming) Pro SSC Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) Anti SSC Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) Pro SSC Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) Pro SSC Steve Symms (R-Idaho) Pro SSC Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina) Pro SSC Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyoming) Pro SSC John Warner (R-Virginia) Anti SSC Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Anti SSC Tim Wirth (D-Colorado) Pro SSC Harris Wofford (D-Pennsylvania) Pro SSC +* by a non-voting Senator's name indicates that it was announced after the vote that the Senator would have voted Aye (for the SSC) had he been present (Dixon, Hatch and Seymour). III. Bumpers amendment to stop the SSC if $650 million in foreign contributions have not been received by a date certain o The first amendment, on killing the SSC, was tabled 62-32. The second vote was on an amendment to halt the SSC if the project had not received a certain amount of foreign contributions; it was tabled 62-31. Eight Senators voted differently on the amendments. Those who supported the SSC position on the first vote, then switched, were Grassley, Kasten, and Pressler. Senators who had first opposed the SSC position then switched were Biden, Coats, Sanford, and Warner. Rudman (a positive vote first) did not vote on the second. _________________________________________________________________ 2. SSCL conducted successful magnet string test [Aug 14] o The most vital technology of the SSC passed a major milestone in August. The following quote comes from the SSC Laboratory: STRING TEST IS SUCCESSFUL "At 11:39 AM, Central Daylight Time, on Friday, August 14, the Accelerator Systems String Test (ASST) successfully met its objective by operating a half cell of five collider dipole magnets, one quadrupole magnet, and two spool pieces at the design current of 6500 amperes. This major milestone for the SSC was met six weeks ahead of the schedule that was established two years ago. The cooldown for the key test began in June and the current was slowly raised in the string, testing the quench protection system along the way. The test demonstrated the quality of the industrially assembled magnets and the associated power, cooling, and control equipment to operate together successfully as a system. . . ." # # #