Supporters, in an effort to blunt criticism that the project is merely an expensive toy for a handful of high-Energy physicists, make broad claims for its practical uses, particularly in medicine. They also argue that it is essential to the preservation of U.S. superiority in science. Opponents stress that the project is prone to mismanagement, that it would drain funds from other research fields, and that the government's limited resources would be better spent on small-science projects that are more likely to benefit society.
The question of foreign participation is a sticky one: Both sides would like to see other countries share in the huge cost of the project, but neither side wants the U.S. to sacrifice the technological spin-offs from the SSC.
Following are excerpts from the June 28 House debate on an amendment offered by Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) to strip all construction funds from an appropriations bill ...
