Friday, 28 May 93 Washington, DC

1. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE SLASHES NSF'S FY 94 REQUEST!
There are only three holdovers on the nine-member VA/HUD/IA sub- committee, but its first action on the NSF request followed the old pattern: give them more than they want for education and cut research. The increase for research went from 18% down to 10%. The full Appropriations Committee will take it up later in June.

2. COULD THE SSC BE CONVERTED INTO A TRULY INTERNATIONAL PROJECT?
Wednesday's SSC hearing was meant to introduce the 25 new members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to the SSC debate. Alas, most freshmen were absent. The veterans jabbed at the soft spot--foreign support. Rep. Boehlert (R-NY), an SSC critic, took the first poke, referring to "years of fruitless begging." But even Rep. Walker (R-PA), who has always supported the SSC, warned that unless foreign sources provide 25% of the cost he will move to "defund." Asked why other nations are so reluctant to contribute, Bob Schrieffer of Florida State snapped "because they see it as an American sandbox." But the words with the greatest impact were Sid Drell's--and he wasn't even there! Ted Geballe of Stanford quoted from a Drell speech that proposed three options: 1) complete the SSC on schedule; 2) if that's not possible, convert it to a truly international project; 3) and if neither can be done, terminate it. That prompted Committee chair George Brown (D-CA) to suggest fully shared leadership of CERN and SSC, with the US contributing to CERN and Europe contributing to the SSC. "Even now", Brown said, "it may not be too late."

3. MEANWHILE, DOE AND NSF WILL JOINTLY REVIEW B-FACTORY PROPOSALS
from Cornell and SLAC, but since the FY 94 budget request assigns $36M for a B-factory to DOE, the Department will be responsible for construction no matter which proposal wins. The two institu- tions have until 7 June to update their proposals; a decision is due by 15 July--just in time for the FY 94 appropriation process.

4. DO YOU EVER MISS FLEISCHMANN AND PONS? WELL, THEY'RE BACK!
They still can't seem to get the hang of calorimetry, and the editor of Physics Letters A would not allow them to use the word "fusion," but they continue to claim that "explanations in terms of chemical changes must be excluded." That much is probably true--which leaves error and fraud. A good case can be made for both. They are still trying to use an open system, which they justify with a solemn warning about "possible consequences" in closed systems. This is powerful stuff! Meanwhile, an Italian newspaper referred to F&P as "scientific frauds," which it compares to "fornicating priests." They are suing the paper.

5. NOTICE! THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
is seeking a PhD physicist for a senior staff position to advise on DOE programs in high-energy and nuclear physics. Applicant should also have experience with the Federal budget process.



Bob Park can be reached via email at whatsnew@bobpark.org
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be.