Progress Reported on US Contribution for Large Hadron Collider

Yesterday afternoon, House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) declared himself “extremely pleased with the results of the negotiations” between the Department of Energy and CERN over the Large Hadron Collider. Although there is one remaining issue yet to be resolved, the future is looking much better for the LHC.

Sensenbrenner’s statement came at the start of a hearing on DOE’s FY 1998 budget request featuring DOE Secretary Federico Pena in his first appearance before the committee. Sensenbrenner used his opening statement to “discuss some issues of personal concern.” First mentioned was the LHC, Sensenbrenner stating:

“As you and I have discussed, Mr. Secretary, I have a number of concerns with the agreements that were initialed by DOE, NSF, and CERN in early February. Under this agreement, United States taxpayers are being asked to contribute approximately $530 million through FY 2004. While supportive of our participation in principle, I have been concerned for a number of reasons. First, the U.S. is contributing directly to the construction of the LHC accelerator, which is contrary to the tradition that the project host assume the full accelerator construction costs. Second, the U.S. has no formal management role in spite of our significant contributions. Third, several CERN member states are reducing their contributions at a time when the United States is being asked for increased resources. Fourth, this level of commitment may impact the utilization of the Nation’s current portfolio of High Energy and Nuclear Physics facilities. In addition, I have had concerns about the impact of LHC cost overruns on the U.S.'s planned experimental program at the facility, and CERN’s refusal to commit in writing to an Open Access’ policy.

“I am pleased to note Secretary Pena’s willingness to address these concerns and that his staff and Committee staff have been working closely to develop acceptable changes to the February agreement.

“Just earlier today, the Committee received proposed changes to the agreement that the DOE has cleared with the Director General of CERN. We are currently reviewing those changes, but as I told Dr. Jack Gibbons, the President’s Science Advisor just a little over an hour ago, I am extremely pleased with the results of the negotiations to date.

“We have, I believe, come to closure on the issues of (1) a specified funding cap that better protects U.S. taxpayers; (2) open access to CERN facilities; (3) an appropriate management role for the U.S.; and (4) reciprocity on contributions to the next high energy physics facility, if and when it is built, anywhere in the world.

“The one remaining issue, which I am hopeful that we can come to closure on in the next day or so, is the protection of U.S. interests in the event that the LHC experiences cost overruns that may degrade its capabilities to perform in the manner expected by our scientists. The CERN Member States have made it very clear that their contribution to the LHC construction is capped, and that if cost overruns occur, the LHC capabilities will have to be degraded. I want to make sure that if unanticipated civil construction or other cost overruns occur that CERN will not be allowed to come back to the table and demand additional resources to finish the job. If this one remaining issue is resolved, I am willing to give my support to the LHC.”

Following Sensenbrenner was Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-California), stating, “I’ve been supportive of the chairman and his quest for a better deal for the LHC.”

In Pena’s 20 page prepared testimony, his only reference to the LHC was the following: “In addition, the U.S. in working to finalize negotiations to participate in the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland -- a machine that will have about 7 times the energy of the world’s current highest energy accelerator, the Tevatron in DOE’s Fermilab in Illinois. Successful international collaboration is important to the future of these large scientific facilities; we must succeed on this one.”

During Pena’s oral testimony, he expressed his appreciation for Sensenbrenner’s leadership and personal interest in the LHC negotiations. Pena reiterated the importance of U.S. participation in the LHC, and expressed hope that an agreement could soon be reached.

Sensenbrenner asked Pena about American involvement in LHC construction, which he termed a “departure from...[previous] policy.” Pena replied that others are asking this same question, but added that the investment for a project this size is extraordinary, and “no one nation can do it alone, anymore.” In response to Sensenbrenner’s observation that CERN had “stonewalled” the SSC, Pena said that he was “hopeful” that there was a “new understanding of a more constructive relationship.” Finally, Pena reassured Sensenbrenner that the LHC was a “wise investment” benefitting American companies, labs, and universities, even as Germany has reduced its own contribution.

Pena’s first appearance before the House Science Committee went well. He never hesitated or dodged a question, and seemed to have the support of committee members from both sides of the aisle. Sensenbrenner, with his plain speaking approach (see FYI #59 ), has held his chairmanship for just a few months, but during this time has become an important catalyst in resolving concerns about U.S. participation in the LHC.