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 con-stitutional 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.
|
