NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #23/NN_1992_23.iso/spool/sci/research/1143

Internet Message Format | 1992-10-09 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.centerline.com!noc.near.net!hri.com!ukma!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!relay!diamond.nswc.navy.mil!rsherme
From: [e-mail] (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #128: House Passes SSC Funding Bill
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:10:37 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.
Lines: 118

]
Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Richard M. Jones
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]



House Passes SSC Funding Bill; SSC Opponents Outraged

FYI No. 128, September 24, 1992


On the evening of September 17, the House of Representatives
reversed itself by voting its approval of H.R. 5373, the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1993.  In
stark contrast to a vote three months earlier to kill the
superconducting super collider, the House struck down a motion to
send the final version of the bill back to the conference
committee, and then approved by a vote of 245 to 143 the bill
containing $517 million for the SSC.

As noted in FYI #104, the House and Senate conferees who settled on
the final SSC funding level support the collider, and could be
expected to continue funding.  Nevertheless, congressional
opponents of the project were outraged that the final bill provided
$517 million for the collider.  Some of their remarks, as well as
those of the few representatives who spoke in favor of the SSC,
follow:

Rep. Jim Slattery (D-Kansas): "...I must inform my colleagues that
the conference includes $517 million for the SSC.  This is $34
million more than even the DOE said that they needed to continue
the project in the upcoming fiscal year.  Mr. Speaker, the
House-passed version of this bill contained only $34 million for
shutdown costs of the SSC.  The 232 Members of this body who voted
as I voted might be surprised to learn that not one of the members
of the conference committee voted with the House majority on the
SSC vote, not one, my friends.  In other words, the House majority
position was not defended at the conference committee.  Needless to
say, Members like myself, who spent countless hours trying to save
the taxpayers $10 billion by terminating the super collider, do not
find this operation very humorous."

Rep. Martin Frost (R-Texas): "Let us be clear about what the SSC
means for America.  It is a symbol of our Nation's commitment to
scientific leadership in this century and the next.  It is an
investment in the future, as it will enhance our Nation's
competitiveness by yielding exciting discoveries and technological
innovations.... At a time when fiscal constraints require prudent
spending decisions, this is precisely the type of investment that
merits our support."

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York): "...for years the Supreme
Court of the United States has been wrestling with the definition
of obscene.  They have not succeeded, but the conferees have.  It
is obscene that we are being asked today here in this Chamber to
vote for funding $517 million...."

Rep. Carl Pursell (R-Michigan): "...in all due respects to my
colleague [Rep. Boehlert], I am glad that the Nation is taking the
national world leadership in high energy physics.  It is not a
military project.  It is not for defense.  It is for the best in
terms of collegiate, and university and academic research that will
bring about new science research in the civilian application
process which we desperately need throughout the world."

Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-Michigan): "The product that has come back
before us does not sustain the House position.  But even more
remarkably, not only did the House conferees fail to represent the
House position, which was one of opposition to the SSC, but they
agreed to even more SSC funding than they had originally proposed
before the House voted to cut the program.  There is simply no way
that can be justified as a rational or fair outcome of this
conference agreement."

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colorado): "But somehow I felt that like the
phoenix, this thing would rise again.  And sure enough, it has.
And it would be seeking more and more money.  And, friends, that
day has come.... Despite the fact that we have twice voted to kill
this project, here it is again to the tune of $517 million.  How
many times do we have to say no before this boondoggle goes away?"

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "We have a budget crisis.
A few months ago this Congress voted overwhelmingly for a balanced
budget amendment, but we are not willing to take practical steps to
balance the budget.  If we are not willing to cut defense,
eliminate the Space Station, the SSC and other expensive projects,
if we are not willing to cut the budget in other areas and we are
not willing to raise taxes, how in the world are we going to
balance our budgets?"

Rep. George Brown (D-California): "...the SSC, has vexed me as it
has many others over the years.  I came to the conclusion that it
was in the best interest of the country for us to proceed with the
funding of this massive, large science project.  And I did it for
many reasons.... There is no question of its scientific validity.
The main questions having to do with it are whether or not at this
time of budget crisis we ought to continue.  I weighed that
argument very, very carefully.  I felt that the House was wrong
when they acted on this bill, when it first came before us in June,
to strike out the SSC.  I recognized that in the heat of the
emotions at that particular time that it was the popular thing to
do, but I think that the conference committee has acted properly in
restoring some of that funding."


Final congressional approval is expected on this bill within the
next few days.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Richard M. Jones
[phone]
##END##########