[Sempre che il progetto del SSC verrˆ abbandonato.]
 
Vous trouverez ci dessous des informations detaillees
au sujet de l'abandon du projet SSC.
Certains points sont sans doute anecdotiques, d'autres sont
a mediter pour l'avenir.
*******************************************************************
 
From:   CCPNGW::"HEPSSC@SSCVX1.ssc.gov" 28-OCT-1993 13:04:27.02
To:     subscriber@ssc.gov
CC:     HEPSSC@SSCVX1.ssc.gov
Subj:   Last? HEPSSC mailing
 
You will find below several pieces detailing the demise of the SSC. Many of
these have been circulated in the US, but not abroad, so this may be of benefit
mostly to our friends abroad ---although even those of you in the US may have
missed some of them and may want to read them.
 
Enclosures:
1. Personal briefing of situation at the lab
2. URA Interim Bulletin:  October 26, 1993
3. URA Interim Bulletin:  October 21, 1993
4. URA Interim Bulletin:  October 19, 1993
5. Statement by Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary
6. Statement of Sen. Bennett Johnston
7. Article from New York Times, Friday October 22, 1993; Page A11
8.  SSC Bill Language As Adopted (as of OCt-23)
9. Language of first Conference Report (for comparison)
10. FYI's and What's News (from AIP and APS) of relevance
 
Let me brief you of the situation at the lab, as I see it. As you may have
guessed, the mood is somber. We have stopped greeting each other "How are you!"
wary of actually getting a response.
 
The personnel department has reemerged as an outplacement department. They
claim their phones have been ringing non-stop since it became clear the lab
would close, with firms from around the nation looking for employees.
Apparently the lab has earned a reputation in the bussiness world for having an
exceedingly well trained, sofisticated and capable work force. Many workers at
the lab have expressed a feeling of relief, that they won't have to put up with
the yearly emotional rollercoaster any more.
 
Physicists are in an entirely different boat. Putting aside the loss of
physics, our job situation is bad. As you well know, by and large these jobs
follow an academic calendar. The local DOE office seems determined to close
shop by X-mas (happy holidays!). (That is, we may get 60 days termination
notices next week). While there is no final word on this, we have all learned
that around here the worst possibility seems to always happen. Few physicists
have enough savings to survive for 2/3 of a year until the beginning of a new
academic year ---and that assuming they can land a job! Worse, many have
relocated to the area around the SSC, where it will be next to impossible to
get any money for their homes.
 
I am afraid this is my last mailing from HEPSSC.
 
Best wishes,
 
Benjamin Grinstein
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2.
From "FNALV::CANDER"@SSCVX1.ssc.gov Tue Oct 26 16:53:51 1993
 
Interim Bulletin:  October 26, 1993
 
     This afternoon, the House passed the revised Energy and
Water Conference Report by a vote of 332-81.  It now proceeds to
the Senate, where quick passage is possible before going to the
President for signature and enactment.
 
     There were two periods of debate during today's action on
Energy and Water.  The first was on the report as a whole, but
dealt almost exclusively with the SSC.  Much of the time was
taken up by Sherwood Boehlert's (R-NY) protestations that he had
not only not harmed science (many scientists had applauded him,
he said), but that there was no reason for the next generations
of students to leave high energy physics  -- that it would be
alive and well and all the complaints of recent days were
misplaced.  Boehlert also hammered home on several of the
concessions he had extracted from the conferees.  On the other
side, Texas Reps. Martin Frost and Joe Barton reminded colleagues
of the devastation of stopping the project, and of the brilliant
and productive work done by all participants.  Other speakers
debated termination costs -- whether the report's $640 million
was too much, not enough, or an unknowable percentage of the
final total that would be necessary.
 
     The process on amendments to conference reports, if followed
the traditional way, is for the conference chairman (in this case
Tom Bevill, D-Ala.) to propose to the House the conference's
changes for approval, one by one, with rare additional changes.
[Long-time SSC-watchers may recall that it was during this
process in September of last year that George Brown (D-Calif.)
ratcheted up his revolution against the prerogatives of the
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.]  Bevill had
earlier today secured approval for a rule requiring adherence to
the no-more-changes procedure -- drawing complaints from
Republicans against the tyranny of the majority party.  Thus,
when the conference's language on the SSC was proposed (Amendment
#33), the only choice available was to vote for or against the
conference's decision -- making the vote nearly irrelevant for
determining an individual's support or opposition vis-a-vis the
SSC.
 
     For example, one Indiana Member (a perennial fiscal
watchdog) railed against the inclusion of a brand-new high-
energy-physics project, a B-Factory he knew nothing about, he
said; his opposition was so strong, he said, that he would vote
against Amendment #33 in protest against General Science in
general.  Members protested other initiatives in the report as
well, including the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor and increases
above inflation for the Corps of Engineers.  Again, reasons for
voting for or against the amendment were so mixed that the 227-
190 result is not an indicator on any single issue; the SSC was
not mentioned here nearly so much as on the previous vote.  The
generalized cut-the-budget fervor remained the tone of the day.
 
     Fermilab did receive favorable notice in a general reference
to long-time projects in the report, as did commitments to
renewable and alternative energy sources.
 
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3.
From:   FNALV::CANDER       "CATHERINE ANDERSON AT URA (202-293-1382)"
21-OCT-1993
 18:53:54.80
 
Interim Bulletin:  October 21, 1993
 
     This afternoon's House-Senate Conference on Energy and Water
Appropriations verged on the melodramatic, as the SSC's most
ardent supporters and most vehement critics negotiated the
termination of the program.  Bottom line:  the conference report
includes $640 million, to be available until expended, for the
orderly termination of the SSC.
 
     Rarely are non-conference members in the room during such
conferences, and virtually never do they speak -- and perhaps it
is unprecedented that they participate in negotiations.  Today
was different.  In addition to House and Senate conferees, the
room contained several of the Texas delegation, seated along the
wall; each was given an opportunity to speak of his/her personal
disappointment over the cancellation of the Collider, including
profound worries about personnel, the need to capture the
scientific and technical benefits already produced by the teams
at the lab, and their appreciation to conferees for the
opportunity to speak.  Effective and moving statements were made
by Reps. Joe Barton, Martin Frost, and Eddie Bernice Johnson, and
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  Rep. Jim Chapman of Texas, as a
member of the conference, also spoke powerfully about the SSC.
 
     Much more out of the ordinary was the presence of the SSC's
arch foes:  Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Jim Slattery (D-
Kan.).  They were seated in a spectator section, accompanied by
staff, and were invited on several occasions to participate in
the discussion of privileges and obligations for all parties to
the termination process.  At several points during these
discussions it was clear that the momentum behind their recent
anti-SSC votes was so strong that no conference agreement that
did not meet with their approval was going to be allowed to pass
the House.  It was also clear that House Energy and Water
Subcommittee Chairman Tom Bevill (D-Ala.) was in the position of
having to support the House's anti-SSC stance, against his own
wishes.
 
     The most poignant and powerful dimension of the afternoon,
however, was Senator Bennett Johnston's impassioned defense of
the SSCL staff.  As House Members attempted to chip away at some
of the helpful personnel-related provisions Johnston was
proposing, Johnston frequently raised his voice -- at one point
saying "Do you know what we have DONE to these people?"  He
described with great eloquence the talent that had been
assembled, and the critical importance of preserving as much as
possible of the investment that had been made.  He referred
several times to the importance of the SSC in world high energy
physics and the task of planning for new directions.  Johnston
had opened the proceedings by saying the SSC could not be
revived, and he had no intention of trying to do that -- but that
he was determined to minimize the nation's losses and maximize
the usefulness of what had been developed at the Laboratory.
 
     There was also some excitement associated with Johnston's
plan to require a new round of DOE reports on the department's
plans for financing several other large new projects, potentially
halting construction for 90 days pending review.  He had said
earlier that if the U.S. can get this far along, and do this
well, on a project as worthy and important as the SSC, and then
stop it cold, he was not eager to commit funds to other large
long-term projects -- especially without knowing exactly how the
administration proposed to finance them.  His initial proposal
listed many of these new projects individually, sending shock
waves through conferees who feared that such a series of reports
and delays might pose a threat to the completion of projects in
their districts.  After protracted, heated debate, Johnston
finally agreed to ask for the reports in a generic way.
 
     Also discussed were the frameworks for new interactions
between DOE and Texas, the desirability of using URA's
accumulated expertise during the termination proceedings, and the
continuation of Environment, Safety & Health requirements
throughout the termination process.
 
     With regard to the actual language of the report, in view of
the extreme seriousness and controversy with which most nuances
were debated, it might be preferable to postpone transmission of
the text until the written interpretive statement of the
conferees is available -- possibly Friday (10/22).  House action
on the conference report is currently expected on Tuesday 10/26.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4.
From:   FNALV::CANDER       "CATHERINE ANDERSON AT URA (202-293-1382)"
19-OCT-1993
 15:12:28.50
 
Interim Bulletin:  October 19, 1993
 
     In what several observers described as a painful but
potentially temporary setback for the SSC, the House voted this
afternoon in favor of a Slattery amendment which reinforced the
House's earlier vote against the SSC.  Slattery's amendment won
on a vote of 282-143.
 
     The amendment was part of a complicated parliamentary
procedure associated with the FY 1994 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations conference report (which had provided
$640 million for the SSC).  Initially, John Myers (R-Ind.), a
supporter of the SSC and ranking minority member of the Energy
and Water Subcommittee, had attempted to deflect an assault by
Reps. Jim Slattery (D-Kan.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) by
offering a generalized motion on the conference report.  Myers'
attempt failed, however, by a vote of 159-264.  Immediately after
that vote, Slattery introduced his motion:  to send the report
back to the conference committee with instructions to kill the
SSC.  His point was that the House had voted 280-150 (officially
280-141) against the project last June, and should uphold that
position.  His amendment passed by a vote of 282-143.
 
     Thus, the report was sent back to the Energy and Water
conference committee, which must reconvene to craft another
compromise version of the bill.  There is no way, at this moment,
to answer the following questions with any real certainty:  (1)
Would a reduction in FY94 SSC funds be meaningful enough to
convince a sufficient number of House members that their concerns
had been met and that they could vote for a final E&W report with
the SSC still in it, or will nothing but "termination costs" be
allowed?  (2) Will the conference follow through on its members'
earlier-stated intention to slash other programs if the SSC is
cut?  (3) If these other cuts are anticipated to be severe, will
additional House members change their understanding of the larger
context and decide to support the report with SSC funds included?
(4) Will there be answers to these questions before the
expiration of the current continuing-resolution (CR) (October
21), or will additional short-term CRs be required?  (5) Will
negotiations/deadlocks continue past the CRs and put parts of the
government on emergency operation?  (6) Will these CRs affect the
outcome of decisions on the SSC?  (7) How hard will the pro-SSC
Senate fight to maintain its own position in this debate?
 
     In short, the conference process is quite alive, malleable,
mutable.  There could be other opportunities in the process, very
soon, for further/other decisions on the SSC.  The patience of
readers in tolerating this level of uncertainty is deeply
appreciated.  Updates will be provided ASAP.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5.
The following is a statement by Secretary of Energy Hazel R.
O'Leary on the Superconducting Super Collider(SSC):
 
The decision by the Congress to terminate this project is a
devastating blow to basic research and to the technological
and economic benefits that always flow from that research.
The SSC was expected to be the flagship for the world's high
energy physics program, but Congress has now decided that
the SSC will not be completed. The House made this decision
based on the need to reduce the federal deficit, yet the outcome
will be the loss of an important, long-term investment for the
Nation in fundamental science.
 
I deeply regret the House decision, but we see no prospect of
reversing it. Accordingly, we have begun the process of an
orderly termination of this project. The department will
work with the state of Texas as it moves to terminate the project.
Over the next months we will study the feasibility of other
uses for the assets of the project. The department will also
work with the scientific community as we search for ways to
ensure the continued progress of research in high energy
physics in the absence of the SSC.
 
Throughout the project's history, the state of Texas has been
an excellent, patient partner. To the employees at the
SSC site, to the scientists around the Nation and the world
who have supported this project, and to the people of Texas,
I extend my profound appreciation for your dedication, effort
and vision. The department will work closely with the
employees and other interested parties to mitigate the impacts
of the termination and to assist with transition activities.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6.
 
                        Statement of Sen. Bennett Johnston
                      On the House vote regarding the SSC
 
 
                Today is a sad day for science. The demise of the SSC
undoubtedly will mean the demise of other good science projects. How can
this country begin another big science projects if this successful project
is terminated 10 years and $2 billion after its inception?
 
                The House was wrong, but they have a right to be wrong.
Their message on deficit reduction and the SSC was clear and unmistakable.
The conference must find ways to accommodate this message.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7.
>From thomas@nmhepb.unm.edu Fri Oct 22 23:42:13 1993
 
           New York Times, Friday October 22, 1993; Page A11.
 
     CONFEREES, AFTER FINAL WRANGLE, OFFICIALLY KILL THE SUPERCOLLIDER.
 
                             by Michael Wines.
 
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 -- A congressional panel officially killed the $11 billion
Superconducting Supercollider today, but not before a final bitter wrangle
between the members of the House and Senate conference committee over how
lavish to make the burial.
     The House members prevailed, just as they had Tuesday, when the House
voted for the third time in 16 months to delete the supercollider's budget
from an annual water-projects bill.
     The government has already spent $2 billion to complete about one-fifth
of the project, a 54-mile, magnet-lined tunnel beneath the Texas plains in
Waxahachie, south of Dallas.
     The clear loser was Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat
who had led the Senate's charge to save the project but who conceded defeat
after Tuesday's vote in the house.
     Mr. Johnston, who represents a state where giant magnets for the project
are being assembled, met with the House members today to draft legislative
language closing the vast Texas atom-smasher and dispensing with the 20
percent of the project that has already been built.  At issue was whether
any of the $640 million that had been allotted to help build the project
should be spent for anything other than to shut it down as cheaply as
possible.
     The meeting was supposed to last 10 minutes, but instead it lasted for
a hour and 20 minutes.  At times, it brimmed with all the good will and
trust of an encounter between a cobra and a mongoose.
     Among other adjectives, Senator Johnston called the actions of the
House "stupid" and "ridiculous."  "Oh, give me a break," he complained
at another point.
     His democratic counterpart in the house, Tom Bevill of Alabama, was
unsparing.  "We're here to terminate this project," he said at one point.
"Now, why don't we just terminate it?"
     The house cast aside Senator Johnston's suggestion that the
supercollider's 2,000 scientists and other workers be given severance
packages that include at least 90 days' pay, relocation subsidies and
other unnamed assistance.
     But House members did call it overly generous, saying it went beyond
normal benefits for Federal contractors.  Instead, they voted to leave
the terms of severance benefits up to the Energy Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8.
 
Apparently this is the SSC-related language that has been adopted in the
conference bill.  Please note especially the final paragraph.  An earlier
version explicitly listed the B-Factory, Main Injector, ITER, RHIC,
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, and the Advanced Neutron Source, but this
final version does not name any particular labs or projects.
 
 
                             SSC BILL LANGUAGE AS ADOPTED
 
 
... and, in addition, $640,000,000 to remain available until expended to be
used only to orderly terminate the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project
under terms and conditions as follows:
 
1.  to the extent provided by guidelines of the Secretary of Energy,
    full-time employees of contractors and designated subcontractors whose
    employment is terminated by reason of the termination of the SSC may receive
 
    (A) up to 90 days termination pay dating from the date of termination
    notice, and (B) reasonable relocation expenses and assistance.
 
2.  The Secretary of Energy shall prepare and submit a report with
    recommendations to the President and the Congress containing:
 
    (a)  a plan to maximize the value of the investment that has been made in
         the project and minimizing the loss to the United States and involved
         states and persons, including recommendations as to the feasibility of
         utilizing SSC assets in whole or in part in pursuit of an
         international high energy physics endeavor, and
 
    (b)  The Secretary is authorized to consult with and use Universities
         Research Association and/or other contractors and/or recognized
         experts in preparing this report and recommendations and is
         authorized to contract with such parties as may be appropriate in
         carrying out such duties;
 
    (c)  The Secretary shall release any recommendations from time to time as
         available but the final report shall be submitted by July 1, 1994.
 
3.  Nothing herein or any action taken under this authority shall be
    construed to change the Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of
 
    Energy and the State of Texas dated November 9, 1990, regarding the project.
 
 
4.  The Secretary shall also submit to the President and the Congress a
    report and recommendations concerning plans for other large science projects
 
    within the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy.  This report shall
    include recommendations as to whether high energy physics and other large
    scale research projects and programs should continue to be pursued by the
    United States and, if so, for what purposes should they be pursued and how
    should they be funded and financed.
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9.
From:   FNALV::CANDER       "CATHERINE ANDERSON AT URA (202-293-1382)"
15-OCT-1993
 16:36:02.35
 
...from the FY94 Energy and Water Appropriations
   Conference Report           (H.Rept. 103-292)
 
[Note:  Conference reports resolve matters in dispute between the
House and Senate.  Thus, items like Fermilab's Main Injector --
recommended at $25 million by both House and Senate -- are not
part of the report.]
 
 
Text of the General Science Section of Title III (DOE):
 
     "Amendment No. 33:  Appropriates $1,615,114,000 as proposed
by the Senate instead of $1,194,114,000 as proposed by the House.
     "Amendment No. 34:  Deletes language proposed by the House
limiting the availability of funds to construct a B-Factory.
     "The conferees agree to provide $36,000,000 for the
construction of the asymmetric B-meson production facility (B-
Factory) as proposed by the House.  Since the review and
selection of the site for the project have been completed, the
restrictions contained in the House bill are no longer required.
     "Amendment No. 35:  Deletes language proposed by the Senate
restricting the availability of funds for the Superconducting
Super Collider.  [Ed. Note:  this is the (Hank) Brown amendment,
the contents of which ARE included, immediately below.]
     "The conferees direct that none of the funds made available
for the [SSC] construction may be spent 90 days after the
beginning the fiscal year unless the Secretary delivers to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate an
implementation plan for the specific recommendations of the
Report of the DOE Review Committee on the Baseline Validation of
the [SSC] and the Secretary certifies that the management issues
raised by the General Accounting Office in its report dated
February 1993, number GAO/RCED-93-87, have been adequately
addressed and will not reoccur.
     "The Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF), the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), and the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) are funded as proposed
by the Senate.
     "Because of budget limitations, the conferees recommend a
general reduction of $15,000,000.
     "Language in the Act would prohibit the expenditure of funds
for `food, beverages, receptions, parties, country club fees,
plants or flowers pursuant to any cost-reimbursable contract'.
The managers do not intend to preclude legitimate activities such
as cafeteria services.  It is intended to prohibit the waste of
the taxpayers' money on payment of contractors' country club fees
or fancy parties and receptions.
 
                  SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER
 
     "The conferees agree to $640,000,000 for the [SSC] as
proposed by the Senate.
     "The conferees note that construction of the SSC is the
highest priority in particle physics today and is a critical
necessity to permit progress in the basic understanding of matter
into the 21st century.  Numerous scientific reviews have affirmed
and reaffirmed the fact that the SSC is the next logical and
meaningful step in the ages-old quest for a deeper understanding
of what things are made of and how they work.
     "As did the two preceding Presidents, President Clinton
strongly supports this important project and has declared it a
top priority of his Administration.  In his letter of October 12,
1993, the President has stated:
     "`The SSC represents not only the culmination of high energy
physics research in the twentieth century, but also the
cornerstone of continued American international scientific
leadership in the century to follow.  The SSC is expected to
unlock fundamental secrets about the nature of matter and energy.
     "`The SSC represents a vital investment in our nation's
ability to maintain its preeminence in basic scientific research
and to stimulate the development of new technologies in many
areas critical to the health of the U.S. economy.  We cannot
abandon our commitment to improving our national scientific and
technological performance, which will, in turn stimulate economic
growth.  The SSC is an investment in our future.
     "`Fundamental science forms the foundation of technological
progress. The SSC has the potential to strengthen the U.S.
superconducting magnet industry.  Materials and techniques
resulting from the SSC will help to improve the performance of
U.S. manufacturing and may stimulate advances in health care....'
     "In her letter of October 13, 1993, the Secretary of Energy
urged the continued support for the SSC and advised that the SSC
will be an essential tool for carrying all of humanity to the
next level of understanding about the origin of mass and the
relations between mass and energy.  Termination of the SSC would
cause severe damage to the field of high energy physics and would
signal that the United States is withdrawing from its position of
clear world leadership in basic science.
     "The Secretary of Energy further advised of her intention to
institute a number of management reforms and has committed to
comply with the Senate provisions concerning the appropriate
improvements.
     "The Secretary of Energy advised that she expects that the
project will be completed in 2002 for less than $11,000,000,000
in as-spent dollars.  The conferees intend to hold the Secretary
of Energy to a commitment of less than $11,000,000,000 for the
construction of the Superconducting Super Collider.  If at any
time the estimate for the project exceeds this figure, the
Secretary should advise the Congress of actions to reduce the
cost of the project or reduce its scope."
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10.
 
>From whatsnew%apsedoff.BITNET@SDS.SDSC.EDU Fri Oct 22 15:01:44 1993
 
WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 22 Oct 1993    Washington, DC
 
1. SUPER COLLIDER DEFENDERS IN CONGRESS RUEFULLY LOWER THE FLAG.
Late yesterday, a reconvened conference on the FY 94 Energy and
Water Bill agreed to use the $640M allocated for the SSC to pay
for its "orderly termination."  It probably won't be enough; the
DOE estimate for shut-down costs is $1.1B.  As we reported last
week (WN 10-15-93), House conferees had agreed to full funding of
the SSC even though the House had voted 280-150 to kill it.  But
on Tuesday, the House voted by an even greater margin (282-143)
to send the bill back to conference with instructions to insist
on termination of the SSC.  SSC opponents made it clear they
would accept no compromise--and they had the votes to back it up.
 
2. WILL OTHER LARGE PROJECTS BE SUCKED UNDER WITH THE COLLIDER?
The conference agreement calls for the Secretary of Energy to
submit a report on "other large science projects" within DOE,
including "whether high-energy physics and other large research
projects should continue to be pursued by the United States."  A
cantankerous Bennett Johnston (D-LA), the chief SSC champion in
the Senate, wanted the agreement to specify the "large" projects.
He also wanted language holding up construction of the Advanced
Neutron Source, the B-Factory and the Tokamak Physics Experiment
until 90 days after the report was received by Congress, but in
the final version, no other projects are mentioned by name.
 
3. WHAT WENT WRONG?  AND WHAT SHOULD HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS DO NOW?
Emphasizing that the important thing is the science, high-energy
physicists are calling for American participation in a genuinely
international collider effort.  In an interview yesterday, George
Brown (D-CA), chair of the House Science Committee and a staunch
supporter of the SSC, spoke about the "globalization of science."
The SSC, he said, fell victim to a confluence of circumstances; a
highly visible project that was not understood by most voters, it
was a safe way for members of Congress to look tough on spending.
In this environment, according to Brown, no big science project
could survive the annual bashing.  He pointed out that a majority
of today's House members were not yet in office when the SSC was
first debated and approved. Ironically, a factor in the demise of
the SSC was the growing resentment in the House to the tyranny of
appropriations committees--and George Brown has emerged as the
leader in efforts to curb appropriators (WN 10-1-93; 10-8-93).
 
4. HOUSE ALSO REFUSES TO GO ALONG ON ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR!
When the House finished with the SSC, it took up the HUD/VA/IA
Appropriations--and did the same thing to ASRM. The Senate sought
to restore funding to ASRM after the House voted to kill it (WN
9-24-93). The conference agreed to $157M, but by an awesome 401-
30, the House allowed $100M for termination of ASRM only; of the
remaining $57M, the National Aerospace Plane gets $20M, NSF $22M,
and EPA $15M. It was, in fact, Louis Stokes (D-OH) himself, chair
of the Appropriations Subcommittee, who introduced the amendment.
 
Robert L. Park  opa@aps.org         The American Physical Society
 
From:   SMTP%"bgrin@hbar" 25-OCT-1993 11:55:40.71
To:     HEPSSC
CC:
Subj:   FYI on the death of the SSC
 
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 11:54:52 CDT
From: bgrin@hbar (Benjamin Grinstein)
Message-Id: <9310251654.AA26301@hbar.ssc.gov>
To: hepssc@sscvx1.ssc.gov
Subject: FYI on the death of the SSC
 
 
----- Begin Included Message -----
 
From kevin@cahill.unm.edu Sun Oct 24 00:07:30 1993
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 23:06:40 -0600
From: Kevin Eric Cahill <kevin@cahill.unm.edu>
To: pandas@cahill.unm.edu
Subject: FYI on the death of the SSC
Content-Length: 3374
 
>From daemon@aip.org Sat Oct 23 00:36:20 1993
 
It's Over: Conference Committee Votes to Terminate the SSC
 
FYI No. 141, October 22, 1993
 
"The SSC as we know it is dead.  It cannot be revived."
 - Senator J. Bennett Johnston
 
In a decision which has surprised many in Washington, a
House-Senate conference committee has terminated the
Superconducting Super Collider.  This action seals the fate of the
collider: there is no possibility that the SSC will survive this
latest, and final, decision.
 
The SSC was terminated yesterday afternoon in a two-hour meeting in
the Capitol Building.  Pre-conference corridor speculation and
rumor was that SSC supporters, chief among them Senator J. Bennett
Johnston (D-Louisiana), chairman of the Senate appropriations
subcommittee overseeing DOE's budget, was still searching during
the hours leading up to the conference for some solution to the
impasse between the House and Senate.  A sign of his willingness to
deal with SSC opponents was obvious when Rep. Jim Slattery
(D-Kansas) and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York), leaders of the
House SSC opposition, strode into the meeting room.  The
negotiations were of no avail: at the meeting's conclusion Slattery
said, "The super collider is dead -- and everyone understands
that."
 
Reacting to the decision, Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary said,
"the decision by Congress to terminate this project is a
devastating blow to basic research and to the technological and
economic benefits that always flow from that research."  She
announced, in accordance with forthcoming conference committee
report language, that DOE will work with the State of Texas and
other parties to wind down work on the collider.  As part of
yesterday's conference agreement, the $640 million which would have
been used for new collider construction this year will be used
instead to close down the project.  Full-time employees will
receive up to 90 days of termination pay.  An analysis will be done
to determine how to make best use the scientific equipment at the
site.  An environmental study will be performed to assess what
actions should be taken.  Contrary to some reports, the disposition
of the almost 15 miles of tunnel at the site has not been made.
 
In her prepared statement, O'Leary said DOE "will also work with
the scientific community as we search for ways to ensure the
continued progress of research in high energy physics in the
absence of the SSC."  This will involve HEPAP, and is likely to
lead to discussions on a number of levels with CERN.  Johnston
stated that "we should attempt to minimize the loss and maximize
the use of this great facility."
 
It is expected that this decision will impact approximately 15,000
jobs nationwide.  Concluding her statement, O'Leary said, "To the
employees at the SSC site, to the scientists around the Nation and
the world who have supported this project, and to the people of
Texas, I extend my profound appreciation for your dedication,
effort and vision."
 
The House and Senate will conclude their consideration of H.R. 2445
with floor votes next week.  Future FYIs will provide additional
information.
 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
(202) 332-9661
###############
 
 
----- End Included Message -----
 
>From daemon@aip.org Thu Oct 21 04:24:22 1993
 
Back to the Precipice: SSC Funding Rejected by the House
 
FYI No. 140, October 20, 1993
 
In what has become a major test of wills, the House of
Representatives by a vote of nearly 2 to 1 has rejected the
conference bill containing $640 million in funding for the
Superconducting Super Collider.  Although this is by no means the
final chapter, the SSC is in trouble.
 
This most recent action occurred yesterday afternoon when the House
of Representatives took up the conference report on H.R. 2445, the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.  Through a series
of complex parliamentary procedures, SSC opponents were successful
in forcing a vote on the collider.  The Ranking Republican on the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, John
Myers (R-Indiana), a SSC supporter, tried to head-off a direct vote
on the collider by asking for a vote to end debate and the
possibility of amendments.  His motion, which would have sent the
conference report back for further unspecified work, was rejected
by a vote of 159-264.
 
This opened the door for SSC opponent Jim Slattery (D-Kansas) to
offer his own motion.  Slattery also wanted to send the report back
to the conference committee, but his motion included instructions
to House conferees to terminate the SSC.  The House adopted his
motion by a vote of 282-143.  This vote closely parallelled last
June's vote to terminate the SSC, which was 280-141.  SSC opponents
obviously had done their homework, and were ready and waiting.
 
So where does this leave the SSC?  With only about one day left in
DOE's stop gap funding, SSC proponents and opponents are no doubt
working on new report language.  If opponents were unsuccessful in
being welcomed into the process earlier this month, they have now
forced their way, even if informally, into the negotiations.  A now
more conciliatory Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana)
admitted as much when he said yesterday, "Today is a sad day for
science.  The House was wrong, but they have a right to be wrong.
Their message on deficit reduction and the SSC was clear and
unmistakable.  The conference must find ways to accommodate this
message."
 
There is speculation that a way might yet be found to secure some
level of SSC funding.  While it is clear that SSC supporters
underestimated their opposition, there is the distinct possibility
that SSC opponents could make the same mistake.  Johnston is one of
the best tacticians in the Senate, and it is probably too early to
count him, or the SSC, completely out.  Nevertheless, if this was
a boxing match, it would be safe to say that the SSC has sustained
a body blow, and the referee has probably reached a count of around
"7" or "8."  What will occur next is anyone's guess; there is much
rumor today in Washington and very little hard fact.  Yet to be
seen is if SSC opponents will accept any level of collider funding,
as well as the degree of Senate resolve to fund the project.  Also
unknown: the amount of pressure which the White House, already busy
with NAFTA and health care, is applying on Congress to secure SSC
funding.  The conference committee is due to meet tomorrow.
 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
(202) 332-9661
###############
 
%%%%%%%%%%%end of HEPSSC mailing%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%