[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 86 (Thursday, June 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that congressional 
fellow Larry Ferderber be extended privileges of the floor during the 
discussion of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Harkin].
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as soon as I finish my opening remarks, I 
will be sending an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Feingold, Senator Akaka, Senator 
Boxer, Senator Campbell, Senator Wellstone, Senator DeConcini, and 
Senator Roth.
  Mr. President, this rather modest amendment that I will be offering 
raises a simple question of spending priorities. It essentially 
transfers $33 million from the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons 
activities to support for renewable energy.
  Let me put this in context. The total budget for the nuclear weapons 
activities is about $3.25 billion. This $33 million would represent, as 
you can see, about a 1-percent shift. That is all.
  Mr. President, it is time to look to the future and change our 
priorities. For too long we have lavished our limited resources on 
nuclear weapons activities and starved programs to develop and deploy 
renewable energy systems.
  The Clinton administration has proposed a modest increase in solar 
energy funding. I applaud this very modest increase.
  However, renewable energy funding should be much greater than it is 
today. For frame of reference, the renewable energy budget was about 
$1.33 billion in 1980. That is in constant, 1995 dollars. The 
renewables budget request is only 30 percent of renewables funding 15 
years ago. The Department of Energy will have only 30 percent of the 
buying power next year that they had in 1980 for renewable energy.
  Nuclear energy research still receives over twice as much Federal 
funding as renewables in this budget, about $861 million in the fiscal 
year 1995 request. That breaks down to $312 million for fission, $372 
million for magnetic confinement fusion, and $176 million for inertial 
confinement fusion.
  So what we have in this appropriations bill before us is twice as 
many taxpayers' dollars going for nuclear energy research than we do 
for all renewable energy research.
  Why should we spend over twice as much on nuclear energy R&D as we do 
on renewable energy? With all the problems of radioactive waste 
disposal, weapons proliferation, safety and cost of nuclear fission, 
and all of the scientific and engineering uncertainty of fusion, we 
should be shifting the balance even more toward renewables that are 
becoming more competitive every year.
  Fossil energy also continues to receive a larger share, about $520 
million, despite the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels, and 
despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry is alive and well with 
substantial profits to plow back into research and development.
  So, again, Mr. President, let me make this point very clear. We are 
putting about $400 million into the total renewable energy research. We 
are putting $520 million into fossil energy research. And all of the 
fossil energy companies that I know of are making money. They are 
profitable; a lot of profits. Yet, the fledgling renewable energy 
industry is not all that profitable yet. So it does not make much sense 
to me to be plowing so many taxpayers' dollars into fossil energy 
research and cutting short on renewable energy research.
  The amendment we are offering is addressing the administration's 
request of $300.9 million for solar energy, part of the $409.6 million 
renewable energy budget. The House energy and water appropriations bill 
includes the full amount requested for solar energy. The bill before 
us, however, reduces the solar energy request by just over $29 million, 
and reduces the total renewable budget by $40.6 million.
  This amendment I will offer fully restores the $29 million for solar 
energy and also adds $4 million for the Solar Hydrogen Program, 
bringing the total renewable budget to within $7.6 million of the 
administration's request.
  Frankly, we should have taken more money and had it fully funded. In 
other words the President's request ought to be fully funded but we 
come pretty close to it with this amendment.
  The primary beneficiaries of this amendment are the wind energy and 
photovoltaic programs. The bill before us reduces wind energy by $11.71 
million and photovoltaics by $10.4 million from the President's 
request. Solar thermal, international solar programs, resource 
assessment and solar program direction were all reduced. Our amendment 
fully restores all of these requests made by the President.
  Wind energy systems have made dramatic progress over the last decade. 
Wind energy systems have come of age. The wind turbines installed in 
California provide enough electricity for over one million citizens, 
about 3 billion kilowatt-hours each year. These 16,000 turbines have a 
combined capacity of 1,700 megawatts.
  Wind energy prices have fallen dramatically. Costs in the range of 
4.3 to 5.7 cents per kilowatt hour have been quoted for high wind 
areas.
  But now we have to improve the technology even more, and extend wind 
energy systems to other States. While wind energy systems are being 
planned in at least 10 States outside Hawaii and California, much more 
is needed to fully exploit the potential of wind energy.
  Photovoltaics or solar cells are still too expensive for mass 
markets, but costs have been reduced sufficiently to permit development 
of niche markets. For example, utilities are now finding that 
relatively small PV systems may be cost effective away from the central 
power stations to avoid costs of new transmission networks.
  This is the exciting news. The utilities themselves are finding 
applications for PV systems. They have recently formed a market-driven 
industry association, the Utility PhotoVoltaic Group, or UPVG for 
short. This fledgling industry group has already obtained interest from 
70 utilities to install 7 megawatts of PV systems. These projects would 
cost a total of $79 million. But here is the good news: Private 
industry would provide 86 percent of the cost, or $68 million. The 
Federal Government would provide just 14 percent of the costs for these 
PV systems. I believe this is the type of leverage we need to stimulate 
a dynamic PV market, which in turn will lead to economies of scale and 
reduced PV prices.
  But we need the DOE investment in solar energy to make these projects 
happen and to support the research and development needed to improve PV 
efficiency and reduce manufacturing costs.
  Our amendment, in addition to restoring the full $29 million for 
solar energy programs, would also increase the Solar Hydrogen Program 
by $4 million.
  For those of you not familiar with solar hydrogen, let me say just a 
few words about this exciting concept for storing and utilizing solar 
energy.
  For small market penetration, wind and solar energy can be used to 
supplement the electrical grid. Conventional fossil fuel power plants 
provide electricity when renewable sources are not available.
  But what happens when we reach that happy and environmentally clean 
day when solar and wind energy provide more than 15 to 20 percent of 
our Nation's energy needs?
  What do we do when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not 
shining?
  How do we capture solar energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, and 
trains?
  Hydrogen is the answer.
  Hydrogen gas can be generated by electrolyzing water with solar or 
wind energy. Hydrogen gas can be produced from biomass--crops grown 
specifically for producing energy.
  Hydrogen can be used to power our homes, cars, and factories, and 
hydrogen is the ultimate environmental fuel.
  Burning hydrogen produces no acid rain, no ozone depleting chemicals, 
no ozone precursor chemicals, no toxic air pollutants, and no 
radioactive waste. Hydrogen produces clean, pure H2O--water.
  Hydrogen is used to power the space shuttle. Hydrogen and oxygen are 
combined in a fuel cell to produce electricity and water for the 
astronauts to drink.
  Hydrogen could also be used to power our automobiles equipped with 
fuel cells--as we have on the shuttle--and produce the electricity 
needed to run quiet, clean electric motors.
  If that hydrogen were produced by solar energy, there would be 
absolutely no pollution of any type, and no resource depletion during 
operation.
  In short, solar hydrogen is the ideal environmental fuel. Solar 
hydrogen could be the basis of a truly sustainable energy system in the 
next century.
  In my judgment, we should be spending $50 to $100 million on solar 
hydrogen, given its potential for a sustainable energy future. But this 
amendment adds just $4 million for the Solar Hydrogen Program in DOE.
  That $4 million will bring it up to $14 million. So for this most 
promising of all environmentally clean fuels we are only putting in $14 
million.
  This bill only puts $10 million in. We are trying to get it up to $14 
million for solar energy.
  When we think about all we put into efficient energy in the last 30 
or 40 years--and I will be talking more about that. Mr. President, in 
the last 42 years, from 1948 to 1990, when you add all the investments 
we have made in nuclear R&D--that is government funding, avoided 
insurance costs, uranium enrichment costs, radioactive waste disposal, 
dismantling three enrichment plants, nuclear plant decommissioning, 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating costs, tax breaks and 
accelerated depreciation--add all those up and the amount of taxpayer 
subsidies that have gone into the Nuclear Energy Program comes to 
somewhere between $188 and $328 billion. Think about that. In our 
lifetimes, most of us anyway, we have put over $200 billion, if you 
take the lowest figure--$200 billion of taxpayer subsidies in the 
Nuclear Energy Program. Yet that is not reflected in the price you pay 
for nuclear power when you power your homes.
  Again, $200 billion, and now we are wondering where to store it, we 
are dismantling plants, we are seeing it is too expensive. And all we 
are asking for is $14 million for solar hydrogen, an energy system that 
could truly revolutionize the way we live and clean up our environment.
  Let me just discuss for a moment my concern about the continued high 
levels of funding for the DOE Nuclear Weapons Program. In my judgment 
it should be reduced substantially. The total atomic defense activities 
in this bill are twice the levels they were in 1979, even after 
adjusting for inflation.
  Let us look at 1979. The cold war was still raging. In 1979 they were 
still designing, building, and testing nuclear weapons. Today we are 
not designing any new nuclear weapons.
  Today we are not building any new nuclear weapons, and today we are 
not testing any nuclear weapons, old or new.
  Why do we need to spend over $10 billion for atomic defense 
activities in 1995 when $5.2 billion was added in 1979? And that is in 
constant dollars.
  This amendment that I will be offering reduces the atomic defense 
activities by a meager $33 million, or three-tenths of 1 percent. I 
suppose we will hear all kinds of talk that this will deal a terrible 
blow to the atomic defense activities to cleanup to storage. I cannot 
believe that three-tenths of 1 percent is going to cause any real undue 
hardship in the atomic defense activities. But as I pointed out, we are 
already spending twice as much today as we did in 1979.
  The amendment reduces the nuclear weapons activities account by just 
1 percent, from $33 million out of $3.25 billion for nuclear weapons 
activities--$33 million out of $3.25 billion; 1 percent. Is it not 
worth it for our children and grandchildren and for the future energy 
security of our country to take just 1 percent and put it into 
renewable energies and solar hydrogen?
  In summary, this amendment is a modest step in changing our 
priorities. As I said, it probably should be more. I really believe 
solar hydrogen ought to be in the neighborhood of $100 million a year, 
rather than $14 million or $10 million, as is in this bill.
  So this is a modest step in moving back from cold war spending levels 
for nuclear weapons. It is a modest step in fully funding the 
administration's request for solar energy research and development. It 
is a modest step in supporting the solar hydrogen program.
  This amendment addresses one fundamental question: Do we look to the 
future and make a wise investment in our energy and environmental 
security, or do we continue to waste billions to keep a cold-war 
industry afloat well beyond its needed lifetime?
  I see the cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Jeffords, seeking 
recognition.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield? I wonder if the Senator will 
offer his amendment at this point.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the Chair.)


                           Amendment No. 2128

(Purpose: To provide that certain funds appropriated for the Department 
of Energy for weapons activities for atomic energy defense be available 
instead for energy supply, research and development activities relating 
   to certain renewable energy sources and to fund fully activities 
                    relating to such energy sources)

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Lautenberg, Senator 
Feingold, Senator Akaka, Senator Roth, Senator DeConcini, Senator 
Wellstone, Senator Campbell, and Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair asks the Senator from Iowa if he is 
seeking to set aside the pending committee amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending 
committee amendment to take up the amendment I just offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. 
     Boxer, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. DeConcini, and Mr. 
     Roth, proposes an amendment numbered 2128.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 40, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:


funding for energy supply, research and development activities relating 
                      to renewable energy sources

       Sec. 502. (a) Reduction in Appropriation for Weapons 
     Activities for Atomic Energy Defense.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, the amount appropriated in title 
     III of this Act under the heading ``Atomic Energy Defense 
     Activities Weapons Activities'' is hereby reduced by 
     $33,042,000.
       (b) Increase in Appropriation for Energy Supply, Research 
     and Development Activities.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the amount appropriated in title III 
     of this Act under the heading ``Energy Supply, Research and 
     Development Activities'' is hereby increased by $33,042,000.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--Of the funds appropriated in 
     title III of this Act under the heading ``Energy Supply, 
     Research and Development Activities''--
       (1) not less than $94,400,000 shall be available for 
     photovoltaic energy systems (of which $93,400,000 shall be 
     available for operating expenses and $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for capital equipment);
       (2) not less than $33,293,000 shall be available for solar 
     thermal energy systems (of which $33,593,000 shall be 
     available for operating expenses and $700,000 shall be 
     available for capital equipment);
       (3) not less than $51,710,000 shall be available for wind 
     energy systems (of which $50,710,000 shall be available for 
     operating expenses and $1,000,000 shall be available for 
     capital equipment);
       (4) not less than $13,129,000 shall be available for 
     international solar energy programs;
       (5) not less than $4,700,000 shall be available for 
     resource assessment (of which $4,300,000 shall be available 
     for operating expenses and $400,000 shall be available for 
     capital equipment);
       (6) not less than $9,460,000 shall be available for solar 
     and renewable energy program direction; and
       (7) not less than $14,000,000 shall be available for 
     hydrogen research.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa wish to retain the 
floor?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am wondering if I can direct an inquiry 
to the manager of the bill and the Senator from Iowa who offered the 
amendment?
  There is a markup at 3:30, and I am interested in this amendment. I 
wonder if there is going to be a time agreement on this amendment. Has 
that been talked about?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, if the question is asked of me, we had 
discussed a time agreement. I am in hopes that we can dispose of it 
even faster without a time agreement, because the time agreement we 
discussed is 3 hours. I do not believe that we will need 3 hours on 
this amendment. So I think perhaps we can terminate it faster than 
that.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I take the floor today to oppose this 
amendment. This amendment, if adopted, would impose irresponsible 
funding reductions on the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons 
activities.
  My friend from Iowa said that he had a simple question, and that was 
spending priorities. I say that the priority question is whether or not 
we feel confident about our nuclear defense funding as compared to 
further increased spending in the solar area.
  I say to my friend from Iowa, I would not take a second seat to 
anyone in the work that has been done these last few years in the 
Congress dealing with alternative energy sources.
  As the Senator from Iowa knows, he and I have led the fight for 
increased spending for hydrogen fuel development. I am convinced that 
through the development of hydrogen fuel that we will have a better 
world in which to live, we will have no more oil spills, we will have a 
cleaner, safer environment.
  I am glad to see that there is a slight increase in the hydrogen fuel 
development budget this year. I say slight. It is very small. There has 
been a slight increase in the solar energy field--not enough--but 
certainly there is one. Why is the Senator from Iowa attacking the 
weapons activities budget when his fight is with other energy funding?
  If we take a look at what is really happening, we find that assuring 
adequate nuclear weapons funding, of course, is a serious issue. It 
cannot be viewed as a simple budget issue to be traded off against any 
other budget item. It cannot be viewed as something to be cut as a 
symbolic act to advance world disarmament.
  I say to my friend from Iowa and others who are sponsoring this 
amendment, I have worked hard to prevent proliferation of weaponry 
around the world. One of my first votes in the House of Representatives 
was for a nuclear weapons freeze. I did that in spite of the fact that 
Nevada was the place where nuclear testing had taken place for 40-odd 
years. I did it because I believe that it was important that there be a 
freeze.
  I support totally the builddown of the nuclear weaponry in the former 
Soviet Union and the United States. Nuclear weapons are heavy 
responsibilities for the nations that possess them. Their stewardship 
cannot be treated lightly. Nuclear weapons remain an instrument of U.S. 
national security policy and will continue to be for the foreseeable 
future.
  We have a responsibility to the United States, and to the world at 
large, to maintain our nuclear competence and to maintain our nuclear 
weapons in a safe, secure, and reliable manner. With this 
responsibility comes a responsibility to fund the organizations that 
are responsible for care of the weapons and the expertise that supports 
them.
  In addition to our moral responsibility, Madam President, to 
responsibly manage our nuclear stockpile, we must realize that we still 
have nuclear defense needs. The worldwide nuclear dangers have changed 
but, sadly, they have not gone away. International events are still 
unpredictable. Our daily news is filled with examples of nuclear 
proliferation threats and terrorist activities.
  We have been very fortunate as a nation and as a world that we have 
not, as yet, had terrorist activities relating to nuclear weaponry. Of 
course, one of the main responsibilities of those who are concerned 
about nuclear weapons is what we do about terrorists who come in 
contact, who obtain, build or steal nuclear weapons.
  Yesterday in the newspaper was North Korea. Today it is the Russian 
mafia acquiring nuclear material to sell to the highest bidders.
  For example, I offer this New York Times article: ``Russian Aide Says 
Gangsters Try to Steal Atom Material.''
  I ask unanimous consent to print this newspaper article from the New 
York Times in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 26, 1994]

         Russian Aide Says Gangsters Try To Steal Atom Material

                         (By Michael R. Gordon)

       Washington.--A senior Russian law enforcement official said 
     today that organized crime in Russia was trying to infiltrate 
     military installations to steal nuclear material and sell it 
     on the black market.
       ``These crime groups in recent years are demonstrating more 
     and more interest toward the defense facilities of the former 
     Soviet Union,'' Mikhail Yegorov, head of the organized crime 
     control department of the Russian Ministry of Internal 
     Affairs, said in an appearance before a Congressional 
     committee.
       Mr. Yegorov insisted that Russia's military bases were well 
     guarded, but he acknowledged that 47 criminal investigations 
     had been opened into attempts to steal radioactive materials.
       But Louis J. Freeh, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, provided a less reassuring picture.
       Mr. Freeh told the Senate Government Affairs Committee that 
     while the F.B.I. did not have any evidence to confirm reports 
     that Russian criminals have stolen nuclear warheads or bomb-
     grade materials, Interpol, the international police agency, 
     had reported the disappearance of two kilograms (4.4 pounds) 
     of highly enriched uranium from an institution near St. 
     Petersberg.
       Mr. Freeh indicated that the report was being taken 
     seriously and was under investigation. Six to 10 kilograms of 
     highly enriched uranium are needed to make a small nuclear 
     bomb.
       More broadly, American officials are worried that the 
     growth of organized crime in Russia and the fact that the 
     Russian mafia has targeted military installations have 
     greatly increased the risk of nuclear theft.
       ``We are gravely concerned Russian organized crime members 
     may have already attained or will attain the capacity to 
     steal nuclear weapons,'' Mr. Freeh said.
       The Russian mafia's interest in nuclear materials is just 
     one result of a crime wave that has occurred in Russia since 
     the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Mr. Yegorov told the 
     Senate panel that crime was endangering economic reforms in 
     Russia and added that Russian criminals were beginning to 
     make inroads in Europe and the United States.
       ``At the present time, organized crime is a real threat to 
     the stability of the country's economic and social life,'' 
     Mr. Yegorov said. ``Up to 50 percent, in some cases, of the 
     profits that these criminal organizations get they use to 
     bribe official persons.''
       Russian officials say that organized crime existed under 
     Soviet rule, mostly in black markets, but that it has 
     flourished in recent years with the growth of a private 
     economy.
       Mr. Yegorov said that there were nearly 5,700 criminal 
     groups in Russia with about 100,000 members, and that 101 
     Russian criminal organizations operate abroad, in 29 
     countries.
       He said 183 Russian police officers were killed and over 
     800 wounded fighting in gun battles with organized crime last 
     year.
       Mr. Yegorov said that the Russian criminal organizations 
     were involved in drug dealing, money laundering and other 
     activities in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago and 
     New York.
       And Mr. Freeh said Russian organized crime was linked to a 
     $1 billion health care fraud case in Los Angeles. To work 
     with Russia, the F.B.I. is setting up an office in Moscow.
       He added that there were 47 Russian groups in Germany 
     involved in extortation, fraud and economic crimes, and that 
     more than 60 such groups operated in Italy.
       Trying to defend Russian handling of the nuclear issue, Mr. 
     Yegorov insisted that military installations had good 
     security. He also detailed some of the attempted 47 thefts, 
     saying the vast majority of them involved attempts to steal 
     very small quantities of nuclear material or low-enriched 
     uranium that were thwarted by the Russian authorities.
       But he said nine of the cases involved allegations of 
     attempted thefts of highly enriched uranium. He said one of 
     those nine cases was linked to organized crime.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, from the Washington Post we have the 
following headline: ``Nuclear Theft Found at Chernobyl: Ukraine's 
Reactors Are Vulnerable, Security Chief Concedes.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this Washington Post article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Nuclear Theft Found at Chernobyl: Ukraine's Reactors Are Vulnerable, 
                        Security Chief Concedes

                           (By Robert Seely)

       Kiev.--A top official in charge of security at Ukraine's 
     nuclear power stations has painted a picture of dangerously 
     lax conditions and sloppy standards.
       As a result, Anatoly Marushchak said in an interview 
     Wednesday, thieves were able to walk out of the Chernobyl 
     nuclear power station with two uranium-filled reactor control 
     rods, officials discovered late last month. ``Our atomic 
     power stations are not secure against theft,'' he said
       Western nations have repeatedly expressed concern about 
     safety and policing standards in Eastern Europe's nuclear 
     power industry. Marushchak's comments are likely to increase 
     that concern.
       The Chernobyl power station, scene of the world's worst 
     nuclear accident in 1986, is a special target of attention. 
     Despite the theft--and Chernobyl's acknowledged poor safety 
     record--lawmakers in this former Soviet republic voted last 
     month to overturn an earlier decision to close the power 
     plant.
       Marushchak, an Interior Ministry official in charge of 
     Ukraine's nuclear defense coordinating team, said only one of 
     the country's five nuclear power plants is equipped with 
     isolation doors and electronic passes.
       ``In Western countries, only some specific people can be 
     admitted to premises where nuclear fuel is stored. Such a 
     registration system has not existed here for the past few 
     years,'' Marushchak said.
       A combined police and secret service team, he said, is 
     looking for the thieves who stole the Chernobyl fuel rods.
       The 3-yard-long zirconium rods and the 454 uranium pellets 
     they contain are valued locally at more than $1 million. 
     ``This looks like the work of a specialist, someone who knows 
     the price and value of the fuel rods,'' Marushchak said.
       Ukrainian police, he said, still do not know when the theft 
     took place. ``We think it was sometime this year. We should 
     know soon.''
       With hyperinflation, economic decline and a drastic drop in 
     living standards plaguing Ukraine, nuclear safety has dropped 
     on the government's list of priorities. The same has happened 
     in many neighboring states.
       Thefts from nuclear power stations are nothing new in the 
     former Soviet Union. Authorities in Belarus, which borders 
     Poland, admit their republic served as a conduit for 
     smugglers trying to export uranium to the West.
       So far, however, smugglers have not been able to get hold 
     of weapons-grade uranium, according to William Potter, 
     nuclear weapons control expert at the Institute of 
     International Studies in Monterey, Calif.
       For Ukraine, Marushchak said, it will take at least a year 
     to install effective security systems against theft in 
     nuclear power plants.

  Mr. REID. What will we see tomorrow in the Washington Post, the New 
York Times, the L.A. Times, whatever the newspaper might be or the 
media outlet. Who can guarantee that something that we had not heard of 
4 or 5 years ago, called Russian nationalism, will not create new 
threats in the future? Who is responsible for making sure that we are 
prepared for this not so unlikely future? We are responsible. We, 
Congress, must support the Nation's nuclear deterrent and the complex 
that supports it.
  A cut of $33 million from this account as proposed in this amendment 
comes after several years of continuing reductions in the weapons 
activities budget. Since 1990, the weapons activity funding has been 
cut by 30 percent in real dollars.
  On top of this have been inflation losses, and increasing costs due 
to rising regulatory requirements, that have resulted in further 
reduction in buying power. The amount available to actually conduct the 
weapons program is approximately one-half of what it was 5 years ago. I 
repeat, Madam President, the amount available to actually conduct the 
weapons program is approximately one-half of what it was 5 years ago. 
We have as many weapons as we had 5 years ago. In addition to that, we 
have added responsibilities to help the Soviet Union in their 
builddown.
  These reductions in support for nuclear weapons activities stand in 
sharp contrast to the cuts in the defense budget over the same period 
of time. The DOD budget in 1990 was $291 billion. The 1995 request is 
for $252 billion. This is a 13 percent cut in real dollars. We have 
drawn the line on defense cuts, yet we have accepted continuing cuts, 
and larger cuts, in nuclear weapons support.
  Both the House and the Senate Armed Services Committees have 
expressed strong concerns that the Department of Energy has not 
adequately funded its nuclear weapons activities. The House has 
directed the Department of Energy to submit a plan to reverse the 
losses of nuclear competence that have resulted from the recent budget 
cutting.
  The amendment now pending before this body to accelerate the losses 
at the same time that the House is trying to reverse the situation is 
wrong. It is time to draw the line with respect to our nuclear 
deterrence. We must stabilize and protect our nuclear weapons 
infrastructure. We are not talking about building more weapons.
  This amendment is based on numerous, I respectfully submit, 
misinformed beliefs. The sponsors and supporters of this amendment are 
mistaken in believing that with the end of the cold war the nuclear 
weapons stockpile and support infrastructure can be adequately 
maintained at some tiny fraction of the previous program requirements. 
The requirements on the stewardship of our nuclear stockpile and the 
maintenance of our nuclear competency have increased, not decreased.
  This may be surprising to those who do not understand the 
requirements and responsibilities of those entrusted with our nuclear 
stockpile. But it is not simply a matter of numbers of weapons. There 
are costs to keep the doors open, and costs to maintain critical 
technical capabilities, that do not scale with the number of nuclear 
weapons.
  The proponents of the amendment are also misinformed of the impact 
their amendment will have on the goals they claim to be seeking. My 
friend from Iowa is talking about a 1-percent cut.
  Well, this is not just a 1-percent cut. This is one more step to 
further a massive cut in the nuclear weapons program. It is a cut on 
top of an administration reduction of over 10 percent.
  This amendment will not save dollars in the long run. It will not 
maintain the stockpile in a safe and reliable manner. And it will not 
speed up the reconfiguration and downsizing of the weapons complex.
  The responsibilities of owning nuclear weapons are tremendous. These 
weapons that are now being reduced in total number have to be 
disassembled by someone. It just does not happen magically. Weapons 
that are built have to also be taken apart, and you have to be just as 
concerned about safety in taking them apart as you do in putting them 
together.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? I did not want to 
interrupt, but I would like to engage him in a question.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, I would really like to discuss this 
issue in detail with you but I have to be at a markup in just a few 
minutes. Could you wait?
  Mr. HARKIN. I just wanted to know where the Senator got the 10 
percent.
  Mr. REID. The 10 percent of about 3 plus billion dollars?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, $3.25 billion.
  Mr. REID. We will go over that before we finish here. I will be happy 
to go over those numbers.
  Madam President, in short, this amendment will not aid arms control 
or disarmament. In fact, it will put it in jeopardy. It will cause 
concern with our allies that we do not have a safe stockpile. It will 
cause significant concern in the Republics that make up the former 
Soviet Union, as we know we must also help those Republics in their 
disarmament. The truth is this amendment will delay and undermine our 
efforts to reduce the worldwide nuclear danger.
  Several years of nuclear weapons activities budget cuts have occurred 
while requirements on the nuclear weapons program have increased. 
Requirements to reconfigure the complex, dismantle the stockpile, and 
provide reliability and safety without nuclear testing have been added 
to administering the nuclear stockpile. The responsibility has 
increased significantly now. Although we are not conducting nuclear 
tests and not designing new weapons, the responsibilities and 
requirements to maintain these capabilities have not gone away.
  The President has directed that the Department of Energy maintain the 
ability to conduct a nuclear test on 6 months' notice. That is a 
directive from the President of the United States. Congress, through 
its safeguards to the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, still requires the 
Department of Energy to maintain a viable testing and research program. 
So the total requirements on the weapons program have increased 
dramatically, while the budgets have been reduced dramatically.
  Some find it difficult to believe that the requirements are going up 
when we are not building new weapons. Let me offer an example. We have 
an accelerated stockpile dismantlement program. This dismantlement 
process is a reverse of the assembly process. So the work per weapon is 
the same and it is performed in the same facility. As we are being 
pushed to dismantle at a higher rate by far than when we built, the 
workload is increasing, and this is happening in a plant that is 
getting older--that is Pantex--in an increasingly regulated 
environment, which is further driving up the cost.
  So the fact that we are not designing and building new weapons does 
not translate into fewer requirements on our nuclear weapons assembly 
complex. Rather, there are more requirements, and more stringent 
requirements.
  Likewise, in the nuclear testing area, we have not abdicated our 
responsibility to assure the safety and reliability of the stockpile. 
However, we have given up our most cost effective tool for certifying 
the reliability and safety of nuclear weapons. While the testing 
program is trying to maintain a marginal capability to resume testing 
if directed to do so by the President, it is also working to develop 
alternative experimental techniques and associated facilities to 
acquire the data previously obtained through nuclear testing.
  So here again the requirements have not decreased but, Madam 
President, they have increased.
  To further exacerbate the situation, the current budget request from 
the DOE is already underfunded. We have spoken to the Secretary, and 
the budget she submitted, I think she would be the first to 
acknowledge, is one that is very, very tight. It cannot support 
readiness to resume testing as directed by the President. It cannot 
support and adequately stockpile the stewardship program. It cannot 
support the builddown of the nuclear weapons complex or the builddown 
of the stockpile. How can we justify further budget cuts when the risks 
are so high.
  I know that my friend from Iowa--and I see in the Chamber my friend 
from Vermont, and I have seen in the Chamber the last little bit my 
friend from Oregon have the best intentions. I know they think that 
since we do not have testing anymore we can get rid of everything. 
Their well-intentioned thoughts are contrary to the facts. Even though 
their hearts are in the right place, I respectfully submit that their 
heads are in the wrong place. They have not thought this process 
through. And for what they have worked for all these years, to make a 
safer world, they are now going in the opposite direction. If this 
amendment passes, there will not be a safer world; there will be a 
world that is simply not as safe.
  Additional funding cuts as proposed in this amendment will not drive 
the cost down in the long run. Until funds are available to provide the 
experimental means to assure reliability and safety without testing, to 
build the facilities to support a smaller, more efficient complex and 
to support the storage and dismantlement of nuclear weapons and 
materials, we will have to maintain an old, outdated complex to provide 
marginal or perhaps submarginal stewardship over our nuclear weapons 
stockpile.
  That is not the way it should be. This will cost more in the long run 
and delay the time when we can have a smaller more effective nuclear 
weapons complex. It will also increase the risks of owning nuclear 
weapons. And let us not forget that we will own nuclear weapons for the 
foreseeable future. It is only a question of how many.

  Simply put, this amendment is not in line with the realities of the 
post-cold-war era. It is not consistent with the nuclear powers' 
responsibility in the post-cold-war world. We have significant 
responsibilities now that we did not have before. We are not only 
concerned now about our safety regarding nuclear weapons, but the rest 
of the world's safety. We have to be on top of what is going on in the 
rest of the world. We cannot do that with any certainty with the budget 
we have now. To cut $33 million from it, I believe, is irresponsible.
  This body must defeat the Harkin amendment and preserve the 
Department of Energy weapons activity budget. We must stop the self-
proclaimed arms control organizations outside the Government from 
pushing us into reckless action. And that is what this is. It is now 
time to stabilize the nuclear defense infrastructure, time to allow the 
stewards of our nuclear weapons to manage their responsibilities, and 
time to allow the administration to implement arms control testing and 
nonproliferation policies that the Congress has given them.
  I learned, coming to the Congress 12 years ago, that the reason we 
have a Secretary of State, the reason we have a Secretary of Defense, 
and the reason we have a Secretary of Energy is that Congress has 535 
secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, and secretaries of 
energy. We all have our own views as to how we can administratively 
handle the areas that I just outlined. That is why we must rely on the 
executive branch of Government to make these decisions for us. All we 
do is fine tune them. We are not fine tuning anything we have been 
given by the administration in this instance. We are continuing to 
bludgeon it and really wreaking havoc with what I believe is a decent 
arms control policy that is now in effect in this country.
  If we let this amendment pass, we will support reckless national 
security policy. We will be continuing to support actions that will 
have serious detrimental impacts on the safety, security, and the 
reliability of the nuclear stockpile. The builddown of the nuclear 
stockpile, both here and in Russia, will be slowed down.
  We cannot let this happen. The storage and disposition of excess 
nuclear weapons materials will be hampered. The smaller, more 
efficient, and more environmentally benign nuclear weapons complex will 
be delayed with added costs and, most important of all, reduced margins 
of safety.
  Furthermore, we will be undermining our arms control and 
nonproliferation goals. Without adequate stockpile stewardship, a 
comprehensive test ban is at risk. The U.S. Senate has historically 
required assurances and safeguards before it adopted a major nuclear 
arms control treaty. These assurances cannot be given if the budget 
continues to be whacked and cut. If we cannot be reasonably assured of 
being able to ratify a comprehensive test ban treaty, we will be 
further at risk of not being able to secure an extension of the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty in the spring of next year. This is a major 
goal of the administration and of the arms control community. Failure 
to support stockpile stewardship undermines this goal.
  In conclusion, the Congress must provide clear, responsible 
leadership with respect to the management of our nuclear weapons 
stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. As both the House and 
Senate Armed Services Committees have been clear about, the responsible 
action is to stop cutting funds to this very important function.
  We must defeat this amendment and send the message that, really, 
enough is enough. The cold war is ended. Nuclear testing is stopped. We 
have begun to dismantle our stockpile, and we have drastically reduced 
the numbers in the nuclear budget. We can no longer allow the nuclear 
weapons program to be the whipping boy of the antinuclear crowd. It is 
now time to let those responsible for management of our nuclear weapons 
stockpile to try to do their job.
  Let me tell my friend from Iowa. I have just spoken to my staff, and 
the numbers--I ask the Record to reflect it in my statement--that I 
gave, the 10 percent number should have referred to the cuts already 
taken by the administration and was not meant to represent the impact 
of this amendment alone.
  Mr. HARKIN. I know. Reasonable people can disagree on this. My good 
friend has been a great supporter of hydrogen energy. I want to make 
sure the numbers are correct.
  Mr. REID. I apologize if my point was not clear.
  Mr. HARKIN. $3.25 billion, and I am trying to transfer $33 million.
  Mr. REID. Yes, I understand. I do say this to my friend from Iowa. 
The testing program, which makes up the key part of the $3.2 billion, 
has been an obvious target of the Senator's remarks in the past, and I 
perhaps misspoke in reacting to this cut as being directed at the 
testing budget. I think the main point is still true, the overall 
weapons budget has already been cut enough. As I have outlined in my 
statement, I think enough is enough.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I did not realize 1 percent 
was going to make that big of an upset. The Senator pointed out that 
the testing and dismantlement amounts to $627 million out of $10.5 
billion. So you have a long way to go. We could do double testing, 
double dismantlement, and still not get much of that $10.5 billion. 
There is quite a lot of other money. You have $627 million out of $10.5 
billion in the whole atomic activity that is just used for testing and 
dismantlement. Again, as I say, there is a lot of room in there for 
money for testing and dismantlement, if that is the Senator's wish.
  Mr. REID. I just say to my friend from Iowa that since 1990 the 
weapons activities fund has been cut by 30 percent in real dollars. So 
there have been significant cuts. My friend from Iowa has been 
responsible for some of those cuts. I think he should be satisfied with 
the great progress that has been made in cutting this. The amount 
available actually to conduct the weapons program is approximately half 
of what it was 5 years ago.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to point out before the 
Senator from Nevada leaves that the appropriations in this particular 
item for the weapons system is $50 million higher than the House 
version. Therefore, the amendment that the Senator from Iowa and I are 
offering is actually only taking $30 million of the $50 million that is 
in excess of the House version. So we are not asking for anything 
Draconian here, at least with respect to the House Appropriations 
Committee.
  So I do not want to leave the impression which the Senator from 
Nevada would like to leave, that we somehow are eliminating this 
program. There is still $20 million more that the House is allocating 
for this provision.
  I also would like to differ very strongly with the assertions that we 
somehow are sending the wrong message to the world by reducing the 
amount of money that we are putting into this system. It seems to me 
the right message to be sending to the rest of the world at this time 
when we are faced with nuclear proliferation is to really do some 
substantial reordering of our priorities and reduce the funding in the 
nuclear area, the weapons area in particular, and send the message to 
the world that it is not our intention to keep improving on our system 
but rather send a message to the world that, hopefully, nuclear 
proliferation is out as far as this Nation is concerned and the rest of 
the world.
  So I am very hopeful that we will reorder the priorities of the 
Nation that have been recommended by the administration and that we put 
back in or put up what the administration requests in this area of the 
renewable resources.
  So I say, though we have argued these issues many times and I am not 
going to take a long time today, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 begins 
to outline a national energy strategy for our country. The reason this 
body labored long and hard to pass and support legislation some years 
ago is to achieve energy security which is vital to our economy and our 
national security. And very critical aspects of that were to, 
especially in such areas as biomass conversion, as well as wind and 
solar, that the great hopes for this Nation are to get ourselves into 
an energy security situation.

  To accomplish this security, the primary goal of the act is to 
develop domestic energy sources so as to reduce our reliance on foreign 
sources of energy, particularly foreign oil. Such sources include wind, 
solar, and biomass. And biomass, as we know from our long discussion, 
is a very important area where we can substantially reduce our 
dependency upon foreign oil. Hydrogen, as eloquently outlined by the 
Senator from Iowa, is another very promising area.
  These are the energy sources of the future. But they are also energy 
sources of the present. Madam President, renewable energy is becoming a 
larger share of the energy market, currently supplying close to 12 
percent of the national energy demand, and that is way up from where it 
was 20 years ago.
  The Department of Energy predicts that this percentage will increase 
dramatically as advanced technologies are developed. Let us not 
undercut this progress. Small, large and medium companies across this 
country are working to create cutting-edge renewable technologies.
  One of the problems we have, of course, when you discuss the 
renewable technology, is that you do not have the ability in 
infrastructure that nuclear has, so there are the great defenders. But 
we need to sort of represent all of the country in the sense of trying 
to reorder our priorities to promote renewable energy sources.
  The use of renewables has taken hold in almost every State from 
California to Maine. In addition, U.S. firms are capturing a larger 
share of the world market in renewable energy technologies. It is 
valuable to these developing nations to be able to participate and be 
able to utilize renewable sources of energy. To me, our greatest help 
for these developing nations can be in providing them with renewable 
technologies.
  More than one-half of the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. solar 
industry is geared to exports. Northern Power Systems, from my State of 
Vermont, markets wind turbine technologies around the globe. If a city, 
town, or power system in Saudi Arabia wants a wind turbine, they call 
Waitsfield, VT.
  This technology, and many like it, was developed in coordination with 
the DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The renewables 
research and development programs at DOE support the work of over 1,000 
companies which provide 15,000 megawatts of energy in the U.S. and 
supply electricity to over 175,000 communities worldwide.
  But we need to do more. Wind, solar, biomass--these sources will 
provide the energy of the future. Let us not continue to invest in 
finite energy options while other countries move ahead in developing 
renewables. We have the lead here; let us keep it.
  Over the past decade, wind turbines have undergone a technological 
revolution. They have become more reliable and less expensive, as 
designs have improved and the wind power companies have gained 
experience in manufacturing the turbines and picking the best sites on 
which to install them.
  Wind machines now being installed can potentially offer electricity 
at 5 cents per kilowatt hour, cheaper than the traditional sources. The 
wind turbines in the United States now generate as much power as two 
large nuclear power plants.
  New designs for solar cells and improved manufacturing techniques are 
lowering the costs of what many energy experts see as one of the most 
promising energy sources for the future. Solar cells, which convert 
light directly into electricity, are becoming cost competitive with 
other energy sources. Vast improvements have been made in the last few 
years in that regard.
  Our continuing investment in this technology will allow us to develop 
more solar-based power and move away from more polluting fuels. 
Examples of successful solar projects are abundant. In Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, and elsewhere, solar is an 
integral part of the energy market. We need more resources to make sure 
we can take advantage of those opening markets in Asia, Africa, and 
South America.
  The utility industry has invested heavily in renewables. Over 80 
utilities have joined the Solar Compact program, where they plan to 
invest $360 million in cost-sharing with the Federal Government. This 
program was identified as the leading national environmental program in 
Time Magazine this past January.
  For those who argue that these fuels are in their infancy and will 
only play a minor role in our energy mix, let us dispel that myth. Take 
New England, where it is cold, not always sunny, and where energy 
demands are very high, and the cost of traditional sources are very 
high. In Vermont, 20 percent of our electric demand comes from biomass. 
In Maine, 25 percent comes from biomass. Studies indicate that wind 
power could potentially supply 22 percent of current electric demand in 
New England. A 1991 report by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated 
that Vermont has the potential to satisfy more than 90 percent of its 
electrical needs using renewables. Statistics for other States in the 
country are the same. Let us really do something important in our 
energy situation in this Nation.
  Maintaining the funding for renewables is vital for the future 
viability of the development of such technologies. The President 
requested $300 million, but the committee mark before the Senate cuts 
this by almost $30 million; 10 percent of the entire renewables budget 
has been cut by this committee. We want to put it back to what the 
President's request is and to take it from the source which will end up 
with still $20 million more than what the House has for the nuclear 
weapons program.
  If we cut this now, it could be disastrous. Our national security 
comes not only from the billions spent on nuclear weapons, but from the 
millions we spend on weaning ourselves from our addiction to foreign 
oil.
  We are far more secure if we maintain our commitment to renewables, 
and move $30 million from the $3 billion requested for nuclear weapons 
activities. That is all. We need not beat all our swords into 
plowshares, but let us see if we cannot fuel the forge with renewables. 
Let us invest in the future, not the past.
  Let us take a look at chart 1 here. The chart beside me points to the 
imbalance we see in our country's investment in energy technologies 
over the past 20 years. Seventy-nine percent of our energy research and 
development funds have been dedicated to nuclear and fossil fuel 
technologies and energies of the past. Only 14 percent of the 
Department of Energy funds have gone for development of renewable 
energy technologies.
  Yet, since the oil embargo of the early 1970's, we have been trying 
to wean ourselves away from our dependence on foreign oil and away from 
fossil fuels. For 20 years, we have been talking about developing our 
own domestic energy supply. We are doing it. Let us not stop now.
  As I pointed out earlier, I think the real challenge to us is in 
stopping nuclear proliferation. But another danger we still have, as we 
found in the gulf war, is we were so dependent upon foreign oil, and 
when there was a disruption in the Middle East, we were quite insecure. 
We should do something about that.
  Chart number two indicates graphically that if you look at the past 
20 years, look at the difference in our investment in renewables versus 
nuclear. It is close to $12 billion invested in research and 
development of nuclear power plant technologies.
  But when is the last time we licensed a nuclear power plant? Over 18 
years ago. We are no longer building nuclear power plants in this 
country. Solar, wind, biomass are the power choices of today and of the 
future.
  Madam President, clearly, I have not discussed many of the other 
important reasons for investment in renewables. Use of traditional 
fuels is a major cause of local, regional, and global environmental 
problems. The renewable energy systems displace fossil fuel use, 
thereby reducing emissions of pollutants that contribute to acid rain, 
urban smog, and global climate change.
  The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 helped reduce the amount of air 
pollutants, but we must do more. What easier way than to reduce harmful 
air emissions than switch to clean alternatives where economically 
feasible? So much can be done, as outlined earlier, and as we found 
when we discussed the energy bill some years ago.
  As regions around the country struggle with their energy mix for the 
future, many look to renewables as a vital component of that mix. As 
nuclear powerplants are decommissioned, as utilities look to reduce 
their reliance on foreign oil, many look to wind, solar, or biomass as 
a replacement.
  As I mentioned earlier, biomass has so much potential. Yet we spend 
so little to get the breakthrough--we are now on the edge--especially 
by cellulose conversion.
  By definition, the supply of renewables is endless. Though at times 
the short-term investment in renewable energy systems may seem high, 
these systems can generate clean, cheap energy for years and years with 
little additional investment apart from maintenance.
  The Federal Government needs to maintain its commitment to this 
important technological development. Cutting the President's request 
for commercialization of these technologies may severely restrict our 
ability to compete in this multi-billion-dollar worldwide market. 
Already, the European Economic Community threatens the U.S. global 
leadership in ability to provide these systems.
  It is incredibly important that we do not lose that leadership, that 
we take advantage of those opening markets not only for our own self-
interest but in the interest of those nations which can benefit from 
these kinds of low cost and low polluting sources.
  Let us stick with the President's request, as the House has, and keep 
our commitment to these successful programs. We cannot take such a 
large step back at this point in the development of these technologies.
  I urge my colleagues to support us in our efforts to replace these 
funds.
  Madam President, I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, the difficulty sometimes in the 
appropriations process is trying to put everything in its proper place 
and proportion. It is a question of setting priorities, and it is 
always--particularly in recent years--a question of cutting out that 
which we would like to do.
  I would like to say at the outset, Madam President, I am a supporter 
of solar and renewables. The EPAC, the Energy Policy Act, passed 2 
years ago which came out of my committee--Senator Wallop and I were the 
lead authors of that--has done more in terms of establishing solar 
renewable energy efficiency programs than all the bills put together 
passed or considered by the Congress in all the years prior to that 
time.
  It is a real breakthrough in energy efficiency, conservation, and 
solar energy. We do not take second place to anyone on our committee in 
promoting these technologies.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield for 
a brief question?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. NUNN. I am not going to be able to stay. I am trying to get ready 
for the defense bill, assuming this bill passes any time soon.
  It is my understanding that the committee has not increased the 
request for the nuclear weapons components from the administration. Is 
that right?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No. As a matter of fact, we have cut the administration 
request. We are $49 million less than the administration requested.
  Mr. NUNN. So you are already below. If that amendment passes, you 
would be that much more below?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is right, an additional $32 million, which would 
be $71 million less than what the administration requested.
  Mr. NUNN. It is also my understanding, and this is confirmed by, I 
believe, our committee as well as the Senator's committee, that the 
main purpose of the funding in the nuclear weapons program is to 
maintain the safety and reliability of the weapons and assist in 
dismantling the weapons, which is a very, very difficult and hazardous 
job unless done properly.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It is not only dismantlement. It is public health and 
work health and safety, research and development work related to safety 
issues for those weapons which are to remain in the stockpile for the 
foreseeable future, and environmental activities at DOE facilities to 
maintain compliance with Federal, State, and local laws.
  I mean these are separate from Tom Brumbley's activities over in the 
Department of Energy. These are defense activities funded under this 
budget line.
  Mr. NUNN. We are not developing new weapons now?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
  Mr. NUNN. What we are trying to do is take care safely of the old 
weapons and dismantle those weapons in a safe manner.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Safety, reliability, and dismantlement. We will be 
dismantling about 50 tons of plutonium from nuclear weapons over the 
next few years. That is half of our stockpile. I believe the period of 
time is the next 5 years. It is a very, very expensive proposition.
  Mr. NUNN. You already also reduced this budget the last 2 years 
something like 30 percent; is that correct? My understanding is it is 
from $4.5 billion down to $3.2 billion in the last 2 years.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct. We reduced the budget by $1.4 
billion.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator.
  I do not want to take any more of his time when he would be making 
his case.
  I would urge the Senate carefully to listen to the Senator from 
Louisiana because I think he is absolutely right on this, and I would 
hate to see this account reduced when we are really trying to dismantle 
the results of the cold war in terms of the nuclear weapons but do it 
in a safe way and a reliable way.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator for making the central point of 
this whole thing, which is we are reducing this budget line for nuclear 
weapons really faster than the administration.
  I heard speeches on this floor this week to the effect that this is 
an antinuclear administration. You can believe that or not. If the 
administration is antinuclear as shown by what they have requested in 
this budget line, we are already $49 million below getting nuclear than 
the administration, and we are a little bit above the House. That is 
because we are $50 million over the House, but the reason we are is 
that we got a $93 million increase after this bill left the House--
budget increase from the President, and we only granted $50 million of 
that.
  So again we cut the President's request. I mean, how much can you cut 
the dismantlement of nuclear weapons without in effect going exactly 
opposite from whatever one wants to do which is rid ourselves of 
nuclear weapons?
  Mr. NUNN. At some point you lose the skills and people and the kind 
of knowledge that is necessary to do this job and do it safely.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is exactly correct.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana, and I hope the Senate 
will support the position he is advocating.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, as I said it is a question of how much 
do you cut everything and keep it in proportion.
  I pointed out that my Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is a 
strong supporter of solar efficiency and renewables. We have done a lot 
for that. We have done more than all the committees in all the history 
of the Congress in one bill. That is EPAC.
  Our EPAC bill, for example, had a renewable tax credit of 1\1/2\ 
cents for kilowatt hours. That amounts in a 5-year period for wind, $67 
million; for biomass, $29 million; for solar geothermal, $291 million. 
There is an excise tax exemption for ethanol and an additional one 
which we put in our bill of $151 million. That is on top of a Federal 
subsidy of 54 cents a gallon for ethanol, which amounts to an 
additional $500 million a year.
  The PURPA bill came out of our committee a few years ago. That 
requires purchases in effect of solar and renewables at voided cost 
which has been a massive subsidy for the solar and renewable energy 
industry.
  The California Public Utilities Commissioner testified before our 
committee that in California alone it has amounted to a cumulative 
subsidy of $7 billion.
  Madam President, there has been a lot done for solar and renewables, 
and most of it has come out of our committee. So let it not be said 
that we are not supporters of solar and renewables.
  The question is, how do you put it in context; how do you put in 
proper balance? I tell you what we did. We increased solar and 
renewables by 10 percent this year. This is in a budget where our 
budget, as I said at the outset, is down $1.5 billion in outlays over 
last year. That is in nominal dollars, $1.5 billion.
  Our whole nondefense expenditure is about $10 billion; our defense is 
about $10 billion. But we are down $1.5 billion. So we do not have 
increases to spread around. But even though we had no increases to 
spread around, we did spread 10 percent increase to solar and 
renewables, not as much as we would like, not as much as the 
administration would like, but we did do that.
  Having said that, Madam President, let us put solar in context. I 
have been here 22 years. I remember my very first year here, the late 
great Hubert Humphrey came in with an amendment where we were going to 
have a subsidy for solar energy, and I said put me on it because I had 
heard, like everybody else, boy, this is the be-all and the end-all, 
and since then I have seen billions of dollars of subsidy for solar and 
renewables go through this Senate and I voted for I think virtually all 
of it, most of it, and we are making some breakthroughs. We are doing 
some real good.
  You look at wind energy now. Wind energy now is actually competitive 
in some areas of the country. Photovoltaics are an important niche 
source of energy, important but niche and likely to be a niche for the 
foreseeable future. By niche I mean remote locations. In future years 
we hope in some of the desert southwest we will be able to use it in 
rays on homes perhaps with air-conditioning in the hot part of the day. 
There is real hope for it.
  There is real hope for it. That is why we have increased 
photovoltaic.
  But, Madam President, to say that this is going to solve our problem 
is just not so.
  For example, the World Energy Council in a 1992 report entitled, 
``Energy for Tomorrow's World: The Realities, the Real Options, and the 
Agenda of Achievement,'' involving over 250 national experts 
contributed to the 30-year outlook.
  What they say is:

       The predominant new energy sources for electricity 
     production coming into service between now and 2020 will be 
     coal, nuclear, natural gas, and hydropower--in that order. 
     There will be smaller contributions from oil and renewables; 
     renewables other than hydropower will contribute only 2 
     percent of the worldwide generating capacity in 2020.

  Now, Madam President, 2 percent is a lot and it is worth going after 
and it is why we are increasing that. So, you know, I feel torn here, 
because I want to speak for the renewables because they are important 
and we have increased them by 10 percent.
  On the other hand, I have to get over on the other side with my other 
hat and say, ``Look, let us do a reality check before we rush off and 
think all you have to have is a photovoltaic array on your house and it 
is going to solve the problem, or a windmill.''
  It does not. The Sun does not shine all the time. The wind does not 
blow everywhere. And in some places where you can put the windmill, it 
is even intermittent there. I mean, the Altamont Pass in California, 
where you have all the windmills, the wind blows there most every day 
during certain parts of the day, not all of the day but certain parts 
of every day it blows. But even then it has some problems, what we call 
avian problems, with birds flying through it. Some do not like it 
because it pollutes the visual landscape.
  My purpose is not to speak against wind energy, because we have an 
increase of wind energy in our bill. For photovoltaic, we increase $10 
million; soil thermal, we increase $593,000; wind energy systems, we 
increase by $11.7 million.
  I am not speaking against wind. I am just trying to do a reality 
check. The reality check says, yes, at a time when everything else is 
going down, at a time when we are cutting $1.5 billion from this 
budget, let us go ahead and increase solar and renewables by a full 10 
percent. And I think that is generous.
  As a matter of fact, Madam President, this budget function in 1990 
was $130 million. Since I have resumed the chairmanship since 1990, we 
have increased that to $370 million, or almost 300 percent.
  Now is that enough? Gosh, it is never enough. I believe it was John 
L. Lewis, the great labor leader, when asked what he wanted in 
negotiations, he said, ``More.'' And, you know, that is what everybody 
wants in this budget process. We want more. Whatever we give you, we 
want more because it is never, never enough.
  Now, let us look at nuclear weapons, on the other hand. The Senator 
from Georgia put it very well when he said that these nuclear weapons 
activities are not building new nuclear weapons. They are maintaining 
the reliability and the safety of the stockpile. Nobody is talking 
about abolishing our stockpile of nuclear weapons. I say ``nobody.'' I 
do not believe anybody in the Senate, not one single Senator, is saying 
abolish all nuclear weapons.
  I mean, it is really not a point of real debate. We are going to keep 
a certain number. Some say we ought to keep fewer; some say we ought to 
keep more. Everybody says we ought to keep some nuclear weapons in the 
stockpile.
  To the extent that we dismantle any and reduce, we have to have 
research, we have to have the plant at Pantex to dismantle those 
weapons and take those what we call pits out, which are made out of 
plutonium. We have to store the plutonium. We have to do research to 
determine the safety of those nuclear weapons and the reliability of 
those nuclear weapons. We have to maintain the public health and safety 
of the workers, because it is a real problem.
  We discussed the nature of plutonium earlier. Plutonium, if inhaled, 
is a very deadly poison. And they do some milling of those things that 
puts some of this dust into the air. As a matter of fact, there are 
some pounds of plutonium that are in the ducts at some of our plants, 
and that is one of the dismantling problems we have.
  So, Madam President, when we have cut this line of nuclear weapons, 
what we have done is not just quit making nuclear weapons. We have cut 
the safety and the dismantlement programs. We are $344 million less 
than last year in this account, $49 million less than the 
administration requested. And if you consider that we had an additional 
$93 million budget request that came in after the bill left the House, 
if you factor that in, we are less than the House.
  So, Madam President, I think we dare not cut this important weapons 
program--which is really a dismantling of the nuclear weapons program--
more than we have. I submit that we have done very well in a tight 
budget year, where everything else is getting cut, by increasing solar 
and renewables by 10 percent.
  Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise in support of the Harkin-Jeffords 
amendment. This amendment will restore funding for solar and renewable 
research and development to the amount recommended in President 
Clinton's budget.
  I want to thank Senator Harkin for offering his amendment, because I 
believe that our country's renewable energy program is at a watershed. 
With support from Congress and the Federal Government, we can forge 
ahead with sustainable development based upon appropriate, renewable 
technologies. We can position our renewable industry to capture its 
share of the rapidly expanding market for solar technology. And, we can 
provide power in an environmentally responsible way.
  Or, we can retreat from this promising growth industry, as we did 
throughout the decade of the 1980's, and watch our international 
competitors carve up a market that will exceed a billion dollars by the 
turn of the century.
  Should we allow our renewable initiatives to sputter and stall? Or, 
do we move forward, as other countries are doing, and make essential 
investments in technologies that will create new jobs, open export 
markets, and promote a quality environment? This is the choice we will 
make when we vote on this amendment.
  At stake is our ability to compete in an international energy market 
that will experience explosive growth in the years ahead. An estimated 
75 percent of the population in the developing world still lives 
without electricity. Many local governments cannot afford to meet the 
growing energy demand by building, operating, and maintaining 
centralized power plants and the costly infrastructure associated with 
them. The flexibility offered by renewable energy technologies is a 
natural fit.
  The administration's fiscal year 1995 budget request for solar and 
renewable energy was carefully crafted to provide a balanced portfolio 
of research, development, and export promotion for the coming fiscal 
year. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today upsets this 
delicate balance. The $29 million cut, from a proposed budget of $300 
million, represents a significant step backward at a time when the 
Clinton administration wants to accelerate renewable energy 
development, and to integrate these technologies into the energy grid.
  The past decade was a period of unparalleled success in the drive to 
reduce the cost of solar and renewable technology. Some are on the 
verge of becoming cost-competitive with conventional energy sources.
  This trend will continue to improve in the years ahead. As prices 
continue to drop, the rate at which these technologies are integrated 
into the energy grid will steadily increase.
  The efficiency that has been achieved in generating power from 
renewable technologies is simply remarkable. In the case of wind 
energy, the typical cost per kilowatt hour was 35 cents in 1980. Today, 
wind-generated electricity costs 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour.
  Electricity generated from photovoltaics cost 90-cents-per-kilowatt-
hour in 1980. Today, the average cost is 30 cents. By the end of the 
decade, photovoltaic generating costs could drop by an additional 50 
percent. It is no wonder that the Energy Information Agency is 
projecting an annual growth rate through the year 2010 of 1.8 percent 
for renewables--which is higher than any other power source.
  What is at stake is the ability of a young, but dynamic industry to 
capture world markets for renewable technologies so that Americans can 
hold their share of rewarding, high paying jobs in the future. That is 
what the Harkin amendment is all about. If we are to move into the 
future with a strong economy and a healthy environment, renewable 
energy technologies must be a part of our investment portfolio.
  today, the value of U.S. renewable energy exports exceeds a quarter 
of a billion dollars. But the U.S. industry is barely penetrating the 
expanding world market for renewable energy technologies. This is a 
direct result of a weak commitment to renewable energy research, 
development, and export promotion. A 1992 Department of Energy report 
found that the United States ranks lowest in the amount of resources it 
commits to solar and renewable export promotion, compared with seven 
leading trading nations.
  I support the Harkin amendment because I want to reverse this trend. 
Frankly, I would have preferred higher spending levels for solar and 
renewable programs, but that is not realistic given the budget 
constraints we face. Unless we maintain the funding level recommended 
by the Clinton administration, we will continue to lose ground, and 
should not be surprised if other countries out-compete U.S. industry in 
this rapidly expanding market.
  This is something that we need to do. We need to adopt the Harkin-
Jeffords amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I will try to be brief. I understand 
our chairman wants to move on.
  We had a good debate on this subject. I just want to make a point on 
solar energy. I am here because I support the committee bill, the 
committee increases in solar energy, and reluctantly support the 
committee's decreases in funding for nuclear weapons and nuclear 
weapons research activities.
  I am not going to take a back seat to anyone on solar energy. I think 
the chairman will remember that one of the instrumentalities that we 
used to maximize the marketplace, in terms of not only solar energy but 
wind energy and all of the renewables, was the Public Utilities 
Regulatory Policy Act, commonly called PURPA.
  What it did was it forced the utility companies to buy from renewable 
sources, and put them in their grid at prices above the prices that the 
utilities could buy energy from central sources. This put a great 
pressure for the demands of these kinds of energies and caused them to 
be purchased and thus caused many of these facilities to be built.
  I was the author of an amendment, and it was debated long and hard in 
the Energy Committee, to increase the qualifying facilities definition 
so these kinds of off-power-grid energy-producing facilities, that were 
solar and wind and the like, could actually get purchased and increase 
the market even more. So this Senator has been a strong proponent all 
the way from solar, and its divergent approaches, to photovoltaics, to 
everything in between. I supported funding on the appropriations side 
and I have supported regulatory changes that will enhance the market 
demand on these kinds of sources.
  But I want to make sure that nobody in the Senate thinks I am 
standing up here supporting a bill that does not provide a history and 
a legacy of dramatic increase in solar energy funding. I just want to 
repeat what has been said, and do it my way. In 1990 we were spending 
$90 million on the program that the distinguished Senator, Senator 
Harkin, wants to increase. That went from $90 million to $252 million 
for the year we are now living in--from $90 to $252 million. Under the 
appropriations bill, which--Madam President, you were present when we 
discussed and voted on that bill in appropriations--it will now go to 
$272 million.
  So, in all honesty we are going from $90 million in 1990 to $272 
million this year, which is a very, very substantial increase. In terms 
of percentages it is 45.6 in 1991; 34.4 in 1992, very steep increases; 
6.3 in 1993; another huge jump, 34.8 in 1994; and now up again about 8 
additional percent.
  So I do not believe the issue is whether we are adequately 
considering solar energy and funding it at increasing rates. I think, 
since 1990, the record is dramatic, it is positive, and it is clearly 
on track for those who think we should spend more money on solar 
energy, as this Senator does, and as our committee, the full committee 
does, and the subcommittee that reported the bill.
  Having said that, that is what is increasing. Everybody should know--
I repeat--that we are not building any new nuclear weapons. All the 
talk about the Department of Energy nuclear deterrent laboratories and 
what they are doing for the United States post-cold war should start 
with the premise that we are not building any new weapons. But we had a 
gigantic arsenal that we have to builddown, and we have a certain 
number of nuclear weapons that we must maintain, keep safe, make sure 
that they deliver what they are supposed to deliver at the right time 
and not the wrong time, and all of this costs a lot of money.
  The Pantex plant, for instance, at Amarillo is now running at full 
speed. So some might say, ``What is different, Senator? It was always 
running at full speed.'' Madam President, it is running at full speed 
backward. It is full speed disassembling weapons to meet the SALT II 
limitations, and that is not cheap. It is highly sophisticated, it is 
dangerous, and no one wants us to cut any of the corners on that.
  Over the next 5 to 10 years, more than 20,000 nuclear weapons will be 
disassembled with everything that goes with that. That is a function of 
this funding that we seek to cut further today. I will put a chart in 
on how much it has already been cut, especially over the last 2 years 
but starting with the cold war termination.
  The laboratories under the jurisdiction of the DOE that do work for 
the Department of Defense in this area are developing new technologies 
to dispose of this plutonium that comes out of the disassembling of our 
nuclear bombs and the uranium that is coming out of these weapons using 
reactors or accelerators. Frankly, we are engaged in the scientific 
evaluation and engineering evaluation to see which will work best, and 
this bill contains money, for the first time, to make that evaluation 
so that we will be in a position with reference to plutonium in the 
future to decide whether it is accelerators or reactors, but we are 
charged with getting rid of it.
  These same facilities that we use to produce plutonium and highly 
enriched uranium, hand explosives--Hanford, Savannah River--have moved 
out of the defense complex and are now being cleaned up. If anybody 
thinks that is cheap, then just look at the budget for that part and 
the research that goes with it over the past 6 years.
  These laboratories that we seek to further reduce in funding are 
developing new technologies to reduce the anticipated $300 billion 
pricetag that cleanup currently has as the estimates for achievement. 
Clearly, we do not want to spend that much money, and the very labs 
that we would cut additional resources from are engaged in exciting 
research that says maybe we can do that for a lot less money.
  The Department is transitioning or moving to a stockpile stewardship 
role. I have described that in my own words, but the best thing to call 
it is a stewardship role. This entails--and I believe everybody agrees 
this must be the case for the foreseeable future--being responsible for 
3,500 warheads, mandated under SALT II, for an indefinite period of 
time. We all hope that will not be the case, but we cannot tell our 
nuclear scientists that they are not going to have the money to do what 
they are ordered to do and what we have agreed to by treaty.
  They have to design modern safety features for the remaining 
stockpile, and that is in accordance with the President's reduction 
strategy, which is clearly a tough strategy in terms of safety features 
during this period of time. Anyone who has worked in nuclear activities 
knows that we have to have a safety program for this builddown and for 
this maintenance and knows that that does not come cheap.
  They are going to continue these laboratories to support arms control 
and verification and help for all of the treaties on which we are 
working. They are there all the time. They are the best in the world.
  I could go on. They are even charged now, Madam President, with 
helping their former enemies, the scientists of the Soviet Union, in 
trying to disassemble Soviet nuclear weapons and related products. 
These same laboratories are involved in that as part of their mission 
of disassembling and exchanging the very best science technology 
around.
  So anybody who thinks we are going to maintain this expertise by 
letting these laboratories do work for others just does not understand 
that you are not going to do work for others, be it the EPA, the 
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the civilian 
needs of our Nation through the private sector. You are not going to 
build your laboratories with that kind of work. You must have a basic 
ingredient sustained there of the scientists that make up this treasure 
trove of America's great history and legacy that comes from these 
laboratories.
  Just in summary, so no one will think that this Committee on 
Appropriations is not aware of its responsibility to begin reducing the 
costs of the nuclear weapons activities and the laboratory and science 
apparatus that goes with it, I am going to insert in the Record a chart 
that shows from 1990 the weapons activities which were $4.520 billion 
will be $3.251 billion, and that is even with some parts of it having 
to go up. Nonetheless, it has been reduced by the amount that I have 
just stated, which is almost 40 percent.
  Our chairman has indicated, because of budget constraints where we 
could not cut things that the President had cut, we are not even fully 
funding the weapons activity requested of this President. We are about 
$40 million to $41 million less. This would say, on top of that, 
another 30-plus so that we can fund solar energy, which we just 
described as receiving the kind of increases that I believe are 
indicative of our full confidence and full support, but that we 
probably, in choosing here, ought not put another $33 million in that 
growing account to the detriment of the accounts we are speaking of, 
which clearly are among the most precarious, dangerous, needed 
activities of the scientific community and technology community of this 
Nation.
  I know the distinguished occupant of the chair has one of these great 
laboratories in her State, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. It is 
doing all of the kinds of work that I described. It, too, is struggling 
under a builddown. Yet, it is committed to do the kind of work that has 
been described by the Senator from New Mexico in this statement to see 
that we have safe, reliable activities as we build down in this very, 
very different world, hopefully one that will have no nuclear weapons 
around at some time in the future; but in the meantime, that we will 
have no accidents, that we will not be taking any untoward risks and 
that we will be doing it right.
  I ask unanimous consent that my summary chart on DOE solar budget 
activities from 1990 through 1995 be printed in the Record, and the DOE 
defense budget 1990 through Senate appropriations recommendation on 
this bill for 1995, including the environmental restoration account, 
which has gone up dramatically, and other atomic defense activities, 
which have come down dramatically, be printed in the Record, along with 
the annual percentage change chart that accompanies it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                               DOE AND THE DEFENSE BUDGET                                                               
                                                             [Budget authority in millions]                                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Senate approps
                                               1990            1991            1992            1993            1994        Clinton 1995        1995     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons activities......................           4,542           4,636           4,660           4,561           3,595           3,300           3,251
Environmental restoration and waste                                                                                                                     
 management.............................           1,975           3,160           3,681           4,828           5,182           5,194           5,084
Other atomic defense....................           3,133           3,782           3,639           2,670           2,084           2,028           1,995
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total atomic energy defense                                                                                                                       
       activities.......................          9,649,          11,578          11,980          12,059          10,861          10,523          10,330
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               DOE AND THE DEFENSE BUDGET                                                               
                                                               [Annual percentage change]                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Senate approps
                                                               1991            1992            1993            1994        Clinton 1995        1995     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons activities......................................             2.1             0.5            -2.1           -21.2            -8.2            -9.6
Environmental restoration and waste management..........            60.0            16.5            31.2             7.3             0.2            -1.9
Other atomic defense....................................            20.7            -3.8           -26.6           -22.0            -2.7            -4.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total atomic energy defense activities............            20.0             3.5             0.7            -9.9            -3.1            -1.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                    DOE SOLAR BUDGET                                                                    
                                                         [Budget authority dollars in millions]                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Senate approps
                                               1990            1991            1992            1993            1994        Clinton 1995        1995     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations..........................             $90            $131            $176            $187            $252            $301            $272
Annual percentage change................  ..............            45.6            34.4             6.3            34.8            19.4             7.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield the floor and thank the Chair 
for recognition.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I rise as a proud cosponsor of an 
amendment introduced by Senator Harkin and Senator Jeffords. I believe 
that this is an important issue to our Nation and also a very important 
issue to my State of Delaware. I agree with the President's budget 
request to fully fund renewable energy programs. Renewable energy 
programs promise to supply economically competitive and commercially 
viable energy, while also assisting our Nation in reducing greenhouse 
gases and oil imports. The Nation should be looking toward alternative 
forms and sources of energy, not taking a step backward by not fully 
funding these programs.
  Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 1972, the 
University of Delaware established one of the first photovoltaic 
laboratories in the Nation. The university has been instrumental in 
developing solar photovoltaic energy, the same type of energy that 
powers solar watches and calculators. In addition to this outstanding 
record in solar engineering, the university has one of the premier 
centers for solar energy policy issues, the Center for Energy and 
Environmental Policy. Recently, the University of Delaware was 
recognized as a Center for Excellence for solar energy research. My 
State also has a major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, which is 
now the fastest growing manufacturer of photovoltaic cells. In 
collaboration with the University of Delaware and Astro Power, 
Delaware's major utility--Delmarva Power & Light--has installed an 
innovative solar energy system that has proven to significantly reduce 
building electricity demand. Through this collaboration, my State has 
demonstrated that solar energy technology can be an economically 
competitive and commercially viable energy alternative for the utility 
industry.

  Rapid development of solar energy technologies is occurring. The 
Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratories 
expect the domestic sales of solar energy technologies to double by the 
year 2000. Cutting the President's request for commercializing these 
technologies would have a chilling effect on the U.S. industries' 
ability to compete on an international scale in these billion-dollar 
markets of today and tomorrow. The employment potential of renewables 
represents a minimum of 15,000 new jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 
the next decade. It is imperative that this Senate support solar energy 
technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our 
economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My State has 
done and will continue to do its part. And I hope my colleagues in the 
Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and 
reliable energy future.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I believe that everyone has had his or 
her say on this issue and, if so, I move to table and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator withhold? I just have a couple comments.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I just want to respond to a couple of 
things. We heard a lot of talk about the dismantlement program and how 
much is involved in the dismantlement program. I wish the Senator from 
New Mexico had stayed around. I wanted to engage in a colloquy. 
Obviously, he has another committee meeting to go to.
  Out of the $10.5 billion that is in this bill for nuclear activities, 
atomic activities, about $252 million goes for dismantlement at the 
Pantex plant in Texas. There is another $375 million that goes for 
testing. So out of $10.5 billion, we have about $627 million that is 
going for dismantlement and testing.
  To hear the opponents of my amendment talk, you would think that I 
was taking $33 million out of dismantlement and testing. That could not 
be further from the truth. That is a very small part of the big pie.
  One wonders, if they are only using $627 million for testing and 
dismantlement, what the rest of the money is really going for. I might 
point out, Madam President, that one of the activities involved in 
doing some of the solar hydrogen research is in the Presiding Officer's 
State at Lawrence Livermore. They are already beginning the process of 
changing it over and doing different things in energy.
  But again, with the meager amounts of money being involved here, $10 
million, not much can be done.
  I might also point out, I think there was a misstatement earlier that 
somehow there was a modest increase in solar hydrogen. That is not so. 
Solar hydrogen last year was $10 million. There is $10 million in this 
bill. There was no increase at all. In fact, my amendment attempts to 
give that a modest increase from $10 million to $14 million, a somewhat 
small, modest increase. As I said before, I really believe a strong 
case can be made for a solar hydrogen, or at least a hydrogen research 
budget of about $100 million.
  Madam President, I have a couple of things I ask unanimous consent to 
insert in the Record. One is a table showing the estimated Government 
subsidies for nuclear power from 1948 to 1990.
  The other one is a renewable hydrogen program plan, a table showing 
where in 1995 $113 million could be wisely spent on research in 
renewable hydrogen. So when we are asking for $14 million, that does 
not even come close to the $113 million that could be used in all of 
the various areas of research for renewable hydrogen.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Estimated Government subsidies for nuclear power--1948-90

Nuclear R&D......................................................... 33
Price-Anderson avoided insurance costs...........................30-150
Uranium Enrichment Costs............................................ 11
Radioactive Waste Disposal..........................................4.1
Dismantling 3 enrichment plants...................................16-36
Nuclear Plant decommissioning.......................................  5
NRC operating costs.................................................9.2
Tax breaks & accelerated depreciation............................... 30
                                                             __________

      Total.....................................................188-328

         Senator Harkin's renewable hydrogen program plan, 1995

                                                               Millions
1.0  Hydrogen R&D..................................................55.5
  1.1  H2 Production...............................................14.6
    Photoelectrochemical............................................2.0
    Biological......................................................2.0
    Advanced Electrolysis...........................................2.5
    Biomass:
      Plant Growth..................................................0.4
      Bio Gasification..............................................3.5
    OTEC............................................................3.0
    Natural Gas Reformer............................................1.2
  1.2  H2 Storage..................................................13.1
    Compressed H2:
      Stationery Tanks..............................................0.4
      On-board Vehicle Storage......................................2.4
      Underground...................................................0.8
    Liquification: Magnetic Refrig..................................2.0
    Hydrides........................................................3.5
    Cryo Adsorption.................................................2.0
    Iron rust.......................................................2.0
    Advanced Storage Materials......................................0.0
    Competitive Procurement.........................................0.0
  1.3  H2 Distribution..............................................2.5
1.4  H2 Utilization................................................15.8
    Industrial......................................................2.0
    Commercial......................................................0.5
    Residential.....................................................0.8
    Transportation:
      PAFC..........................................................3.0
      PEM FC........................................................5.0
      Solid Oxide FC................................................0.5
      Surge Power...................................................2.0
    Utility.........................................................2.0
  1.5  H2 Systems Engineering.......................................9.5
    Safety..........................................................2.0
    Environment.....................................................1.5
    Economics.......................................................6.0
2.0  H2 Integrated Systems Experiments/Demos.......................38.0
  2.1  Motor Vehicle Demonstrations................................31.0
    PAFC Bus Demo...................................................3.0
    GM PAFC Car Project............................................12.0
    FC Locomotive...................................................2.0
    Direct H2 PEM FCEV..............................................9.0
    H2 Dispensing Stations (s)......................................5.0
  2.2  Sustainable Energy Centers...................................7.0
3.0  Pre-Commercial Scale-up.......................................14.5
   3.1  Advanced Manufacturing Technology...........................2.5
   3.2  Build Prototype Fleet FCEV's................................0.0
   3.3  Build Multiple NG Reforming Stations........................0.0
   3.4  Built Fleet of Urban FC Buses..............................12.0
 4.0  Market Entry..................................................0.0
   4.1  Federal Fleet FCEV Purchases................................0.0
   4.2  Incentives for Commercial FCEV Fleets.......................0.0
   4.3  Production Incentives for Renewable Hydrogen................0.0
 5.0  Hydrogen Aircraft Development (subsonic)......................5.0
   5.1  Aircraft System Design......................................1.0
   5.2  H2 Aircraft Component R&D...................................1.0
   5.3  Airport H2 Infrastructure...................................3.0
                                                               ________

      Total.......................................................113.0

  Mr. HARKIN. So again, it is a very modest amendment. I have just been 
somewhat bemused by all of the talk of the fact that I am transferring 
1 percent, a 1 percent shift out of atomic activities into solar and 
renewable energy, 1 percent, and that 1 percent is going to devastate 
dismantlement, devastate testing, devastate the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. My goodness sakes, you would think that 1 percent 
would just devastate everything.
  Well, it is a very modest amendment. After hearing all that rhetoric, 
I probably should have tried to shift 10 percent. As long as we are 
going to devastate everything anyway, maybe I should have tried 10 
percent. But I thought I would try a modest amendment, something that 
could be accommodated very easily. One percent is not that big a deal. 
We need, in solar and renewable energy, to try to get it back up a 
little bit.
  Now, the Senator from New Mexico stated that we had increased solar 
energy. Well, again, comparable to what we had under Reagan-Bush, yes, 
we have increased it a modest amount. But I point out again that the 
whole renewable energy budget request is 30 percent of what we had in 
1980. So, yes, we took a big cut. In the 1990's, we brought it up a 
modest amount, but we are still only 30 percent of what we had in 1980. 
And again, I point out that the total renewable budget is one-half, 
just one-half, of nuclear, fusion, and fossil energy research, all of 
which totals over $800 million. The renewable budget is only a little 
over $400 million.
  So again, it is a very modest amendment. It is a 1 percent shift of 
money to try to get us back up a little bit in solar and renewable 
energy and to put $4 million into renewable hydrogen energy. And with 
that, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kohl as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________