Near-Miss on Spallation Neutron Source Construction Authorization
The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) survived what can only be called a near-miss yesterday when the House Science Committee voted to prohibit SNS construction, and then later reversed itself, following last minute negotiations, to allow construction. The SNS can now move to the next stage in this year’s budget cycle, but at a potential loss of up to $50 million.
The full committee hearing started around 9:30, with what seemed at the outset to be overly-ambitious plans to mark up a raft of authorization bills. First up was H.R. 1655, the DOE Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act. Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) briefly described the bill’s provisions, including authority for the full funding of the Large Hadron Collider, a reinvigoration of the fusion program, and a prohibition on the closure of MIT’s Bates Laboratory. Left unmentioned by the chairman was the bill’s provision prohibiting SNS construction during the next two years.
The committee then voted on a series of successful amendments, including funding for a solar beamed power technology demonstration, biodiesel fuels, energy from gas hydrates, and a failed attempt to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewables. The latter provoked considerable discussion about budget caps and the interplay between authorization and appropriations legislation. Sensenbrenner told his colleagues that the amount of money the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee would have was $2 billion less in FY 2000 than in the current year, adding “it is brutal.” “The subcommittee chairmen are going crazy,” said Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA), who also sits on appropriations.
Then the committee turned to the SNS, in the form of an amendment offered by Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL.) Costello’s amendment would have authorized $150 million (the original request was $196 million) in SNS construction funding, providing DOE met a series of management requirements. Failure to authorize this construction funding “would,” he said, “kill the spallation neutron project . . . would pull the plug on the nation’s #1 scientific project.”
Sensenbrenner was asked by one of his Republican colleagues, “are you literally trying to kill the project?” Sensenbrenner responded that he supported the SNS, but then went on to heavily criticize DOE, citing the superconducting super collider, and said, “I don’t want to see history repeat itself.” He was critical of DOE’s failure to produce a budget baseline last January (it is now due in July), and told his colleagues that it is “just flat out irresponsible” to authorize construction without better projections. Sensenbrenner promised his colleagues to move a separate SNS bill later in the year “if DOE gets its act together.”
Costello and Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) responded to Sensenbrenner that “we want what you want,” but Costello warned his colleagues that if they failed to authorize construction in the current bill “this project will be dead.” “Either we go forward, or we kill it,” said Gordon.
Sensenbrenner criticized the amendment’s offsets -- what programs would be cut to fund construction. He complained that he had only received the amendment a few minutes before the hearing. Sensenbrenner blasted a Tennessee tax that would be levied on the SNS. Joining the chairman was committee vice chairman Vern Ehlers (R-MI), who said “I support . . . the SNS,” but it “should not be started until we clear up the questions that have been raised . . . The last thing we need to do is start up this project, and see it go in the gutter.” Costello, in a later response, said that without construction funding, SNS staff would have to be terminated, and that most would not come back even if construction funding was later provided.
Sensenbrenner became more adamant, both in his plan to move a separate bill (“I give everybody my word that I will do this,”) and in his criticisms of DOE management (“I don’t want this to be the committee’s record,” he said of the SNS, comparing it to the SSC.) He pointed to the hardline he drew on LHC management problems, and said, “give me a little bit of credit for the track record on the LHC.”
The committee was at an impasse, with the atmosphere turning more unsettled by the minute. Members asked Costello to withdraw his amendment so as not to force a vote. Costello replied that “if we zero today, we will kill the project.” The committee had been working on this bill for more than three hours, and needed to move on. And so Sensenbrenner called for a voice vote, and then announced that the “no’s” had it. SNS supporters asked for a roll call vote, and when the total was announced, it was 17 yes - 17 no. An amendment must garner the most votes to prevail, and it was a tie -- the Costello amendment was dead, as was the authority in H.R. 1655 to proceed with SNS construction. (All Democrats voted for the SNS construction funding authority; all Republicans, following the lead of their chairman, voted against it, with the exception of Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), in whose district the SSC was to have been built.)
And then the committee went to lunch, which was a good thing. Over the next hour or so, committee staff hammered out a new SNS amendment. Gordon described this new amendment as a “statement to the appropriators” supporting SNS construction, although at a lower figure of $100 million. Offsets to pay for the construction were explained. Tougher management requirements would be imposed. Sensenbrenner declared the amendment “deals favorably with the concerns,” saying it offered more protection for the taxpayers. He lavishly praised Project Director David Moncton, saying that with this amendment he “will be the boss of the project.” Another vote was held, this resulting in 28 “yes” votes and no “no” votes. The SNS had dodged a near-miss.
Sensenbrenner’s support of SNS construction will be powerful. After he pronounced himself satisfied with changes in LHC management, the collider has moved easily through the budget cycle. But this is a difficult budget year, and as George Nethercutt said of the appropriations process, “that’s where the rubber hits the road.” Right now, that FY 2000 road is about $2 billion short.
