[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 DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4506, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4506) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995 and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations with amendments; as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                               H.R. 4506

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes.


                         general investigations

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of 
     authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     [$179,062,000] $181,199,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which funds are provided for the following 
     projects in the amounts specified:
       [Los Angeles County Water Conservation and Supply, 
     California, $700,000;
       [Norco Bluffs, California, $400,000;
       [Indianapolis, White River, Central Waterfront, Indiana, 
     $4,000,000;
       [Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, $900,000;
       [Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, $260,000;
       [Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, 
     $150,000;
       [Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky, $2,000,000;
       [Hazard, Kentucky, $500,000;
       [Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania, $200,000;
       [Hartsville, Trousdale County, Tennessee, $95,000;
       [West Virginia Comprehensive, West Virginia, $350,000; and
       [West Virginia Port Development, West Virginia, $800,000]
       Red River Navigation Study, Arkansas, $500,000;
       Indianapolis, White River, Central Waterfront, Indiana, 
     $4,000,000;
       Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, 
     $150,000;
       Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky, $2,000,000;
       Hazard, Kentucky, $500,000;
       Hartsville, Trousdale County, Tennessee, $95,000;
       West Virginia Comprehensive, West Virginia, $350,000; and
       West Virginia Port Development, West Virginia, $800,000.


                         construction, general

       For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
     shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws; 
     and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
     projects (including those for development with participation 
     or under consideration for participation by States, local 
     governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible 
     for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
     commitment of the Government to construction), 
     [$1,023,595,000] $977,660,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as are necessary pursuant to 
     Public Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland Waterways 
     Trust Fund, for one-half of the costs of construction and 
     rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, including 
     rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi 
     River, Illinois and Missouri, and GIWW-Brazos River 
     Floodgates, Texas, projects, and of which funds are provided 
     for the following projects in the amounts specified:
       [Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
     Louisiana, $6,000,000;
       [Red River below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization, 
     Arkansas and Louisiana, $1,500,000;
       [West Sacramento, California, $500,000;
       [Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Glenn-Colusa 
     Irrigation District), California, $400,000;
       [Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Deficiency 
     Correction), California, $3,700,000;
       [San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California, 
     $5,000,000;
       [Central and Southern Florida, Florida, $11,315,000;
       [Kissimmee River, Florida, $9,000,000;
       [Casino Beach, Illinois, $1,000,000;
       [Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt, Iowa, 
     $4,000,000;
       [Harlan (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and 
     Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $20,000,000;
       [Middlesborough (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $1,200,000;
       [Williamsburg (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $3,000,000;
       [Pike County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $5,000,000;
       [Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Jefferson Parish), 
     Louisiana, $800,000;
       [Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), 
     Louisiana, $12,500,000;
       [Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, $3,000,000;
       [Hackensack Meadowlands Area, New Jersey, $2,500,000;
       [Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey, $600,000;
       [Salem River, New Jersey, $1,000,000;
       [Carolina Beach and Vicinity, North Carolina, $2,800,000;
       [Fort Fisher and Vicinity, North Carolina, $900,000;
       [Broad Top Region, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000;
       [Lackawanna River, Olyphant, Pennsylvania, $1,100,000;
       [Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000;
       [South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Restoration 
     Infrastructure and Resource Protection Development Pilot 
     Program, Pennsylvania, $7,000,000;
       [Wallisville, Lake, Texas, $1,000,000;
       [Richmond Filtration Plant, Virginia, $2,000,000; and
       [Southern West Virginia Environmental Restoration 
     Infrastructure and Resource Protection Development Pilot 
     Program, West Virginia, $1,500,000]
       Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
     Louisiana, $6,000,000;
       Red River below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization, 
     Arkansas and Louisiana, $1,500,000;
       West Sacramento, California, $500,000;
       Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Glenn-Colusa 
     Irrigation District), California, $400,000;
       Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Deficiency 
     Correction), California, $3,700,000;
       San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California, 
     $5,000,000;
       Kissimmee River, Florida, $3,000,000;
       Savannah Harbor Deepening, Georgia (Reimbursement), 
     $11,585,000, of which $2,083,000 is for a cost-shared 
     Savannah River recreation enhancement and public access 
     project along 900 linear feet of shoreline in the City of 
     Savannah;
       Casino Beach, Illinois, $1,000,000;
       Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt, Iowa, 
     $2,000,000;
       Harlan (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and 
     Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $20,000,000;
       Middlesborough (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $1,200,000;
       Williamsburg (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $3,000,000;
       Pike County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $5,000,000;
       Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Jefferson Parish), 
     Louisiana, $800,000;
       Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), 
     Louisiana, $12,500,000;
       Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, $4,500,000;
       Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, $3,000,000;
       Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey, $600,000;
       Broad Top Region, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000;
       Lackawanna River, Olyphant, Pennsylvania, $1,100,000;
       Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000;
       South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Restoration 
     Infrastructure and Resource Protection Development Pilot 
     Program, Pennsylvania, $2,000,000;
       Wallisville Lake, Texas, $1,000,000;
       Richmond Filtration Plant, Virginia, $2,000,000;
       Southern West Virginia Environmental Restoration 
     Infrastructure and Resource Protection Development Pilot 
     Program, West Virginia, $1,500,000;
       Hatfield Bottom (Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), West Virginia, $500,000; and
       Upper Mingo (Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River and 
     Upper Cumberland River), West Virginia, $250,000:

     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $71,000 are permanently canceled.


 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
       Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee

       For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood 
     control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance 
     of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood, 
     as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), [$334,138,000] 
     $328,138,000, to remain available until expended, [of which 
     $3,000,000 is provided for the Eastern Arkansas Region, 
     Arkansas, project] and of which funds are provided for the 
     following projects in the amounts specified:
       Eastern Arkansas Region, Arkansas, $3,000,000;
       Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, Upper Yazoo Projects, Belzoni 
     Bridge Removal, $640,000; and
       Tiptonville, Tennessee, Levee Extension, Mississippi River 
     Levees, $1,000,000.


                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, 
     maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 
     control, and related works, including such sums as may be 
     necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by 
     a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of 
     harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce 
     and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and 
     northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and 
     straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to 
     navigation, [$1,646,535,000] $1,631,434,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as become 
     available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to 
     Public Law 99-662, may be derived from that fund, and of 
     which $37,000,000 shall be for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities, to be derived 
     from the special account established by the Land and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l), and of 
     which funds are provided for the following projects in the 
     amounts specified:
       [Tucson Diversion Channel, Arizona, $2,500,000;
       [Jeffersonville-Clarksville, Indiana, $750,000;
       [McAlpine Lock and Dam (Ohio River Locks and Dams), 
     Kentucky, $1,000,000; and
       [Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, $5,330,000]
       Tucson Diversion Channel, Arizona, $2,500,000; and
       John H. Kerr Reservoir, Virginia and North Carolina 
     (Mosquito Control), $40,000:

     Provided, That not to exceed $7,000,000 shall be available 
     for obligation for national emergency preparedness programs: 
     Provided further, That of the offsetting collections credited 
     to this account, $1,000 are permanently canceled: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Army is directed during 
     fiscal year 1995 to maintain a minimum conservation pool 
     level of 475.5 at Wister Lake in Oklahoma.


                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $101,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

       For expenses necessary for emergency flood control, 
     hurricane, and shore protection activities, as authorized by 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, 
     as amended, $14,979,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $5,000 are permanently canceled.


                           Oil Spill Research

       For expenses necessary to carry out the purposes of the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund, pursuant to title VII of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990, [$625,000] $900,000, to be derived 
     from the Fund and to remain available until expended.


                            General Expenses

       For expenses necessary for general administration and 
     related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and 
     offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal 
     Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center 
     Support Activity, and the Water Resources Support Center, 
     [$152,500,000] $156,255,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed [$56,480,000] 
     $59,280,000 of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for general administration and related functions in 
     the Office of the Chief of Engineers: [Provided further, That 
     no part of any other appropriation provided in title I of 
     this Act shall be available to fund the activities of the 
     Office of the Chief of Engineers or the Division Offices] 
     Provided further, That no part of any other appropriation 
     provided in title I of this Act shall be available to fund 
     the activities of the Office of the Chief of Engineers or the 
     executive direction and management activities of the Division 
     Offices, except that activities conducted under the authority 
     of 33 U.S.C. 702a and 702g-1 will be funded by the Flood 
     Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries account.


                        Permanent Appropriations

       Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year 
     1995 are reduced by $4,000.


                  Rivers and Harbors Contributed Funds

       Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year 
     1995 are reduced by $16,000.


                       Administrative Provisions

       During the current fiscal year the revolving fund, Corps of 
     Engineers, shall be available for purchase (not to exceed 100 
     for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       Sec. 101. In fiscal year 1995, the Secretary shall 
     advertise for competitive bid at least 7,500,000 cubic yards 
     of the hopper dredge volume accomplished with Government-
     owned dredges in fiscal year 1992.
       Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the 
     Secretary is authorized to use the dredge fleet of the Corps 
     of Engineers to undertake projects when industry does not 
     perform as required by the contract specifications or when 
     the bids are more than 25 percent in excess of what the 
     Secretary determines to be a fair and reasonable estimated 
     cost of a well equipped contractor doing the work or to 
     respond to emergency requirements.

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project


                central utah project completion account

       For the purpose of carrying out provisions of the Central 
     Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575 (106 Stat. 
     4605), $38,972,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $22,839,000 shall be to carry out the activities 
     authorized under title II of the Act and for feasibility 
     studies of alternatives to the Uintah and Upalco Units, and 
     of which $16,133,000 shall be deposited into the Utah 
     Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account: Provided, 
     That of the amounts deposited into the Account, $5,000,000 
     shall be considered the Federal Contribution authorized by 
     paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Act and $11,133,000 shall be 
     available to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission to carry out the activities authorized under title 
     III of the Act.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior under 
     the Act, $1,191,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       For carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     as provided in the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 
     1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or 
     supplementary thereto) and other Acts applicable to that 
     Bureau as follows:


                         general investigations

       For engineering and economic investigations of proposed 
     Federal reclamation projects and studies of water 
     conservation and development plans and activities preliminary 
     to the reconstruction, rehabilitation and betterment, 
     financial adjustment, or extension of existing projects, to 
     remain available until expended, [$14,190,000] $14,340,000: 
     Provided, That, of the total appropriated, the amount for 
     program activities which can be financed by the reclamation 
     fund shall be derived from that fund: Provided further, That 
     funds contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes 
     similar to this appropriation shall be available for 
     expenditure for the purposes for which contributed as though 
     specifically appropriated for said purposes, and such amounts 
     shall remain available until expended.


                          construction program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For construction and rehabilitation of projects and parts 
     thereof (including power transmission facilities for Bureau 
     of Reclamation use) and for other related activities as 
     authorized by law, to remain available until expended, 
     [$432,727,000] $425,727,000 of which $23,272,000 shall be 
     available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 
     authorized by section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 
     U.S.C. 620d), and $153,793,000 shall be available for 
     transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund 
     authorized by section 403 of the Act of September 30, 1968 
     (43 U.S.C. 1543), and such amounts as may be necessary shall 
     be considered as though advanced to the Colorado River Dam 
     Fund for the Boulder Canyon Project as authorized by the Act 
     of December 21, 1928, as amended: Provided, That of the total 
     appropriated, the amount for program activities which can be 
     financed by the reclamation fund shall be derived from that 
     fund: Provided further, That transfers to the Upper Colorado 
     River Basin Fund and Lower Colorado River Basin Development 
     Fund may be increased or decreased by transfers within the 
     overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further, 
     That funds contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes 
     similar to this appropriation shall be available for 
     expenditure for the purposes for which contributed as though 
     specifically appropriated for said purposes, and such funds 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     no part of the funds herein approved shall be available for 
     construction or operation of facilities to prevent waters of 
     Lake Powell from entering any national monument: Provided 
     further, That all costs of the safety of dams modification 
     work at Coolidge Dam, San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona, 
     performed under the authority of the Reclamation Safety of 
     Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 506), as amended, are in addition 
     to the amount authorized in section 5 of said Act.


                       operation and maintenance

       For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or 
     parts thereof and other facilities, as authorized by law; and 
     for a soil and moisture conservation program on lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
     law, to remain available until expended, [$286,521,000] 
     $282,165,000: Provided, That of the total appropriated, the 
     amount for program activities which can be financed by the 
     reclamation fund shall be derived from that fund, and the 
     amount for program activities which can be derived from the 
     special fee account established pursuant to the Act of 
     December 22, 1987 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), may be 
     derived from that fund: Provided further, That of the total 
     appropriated, such amounts as may be required for replacement 
     work on the Boulder Canyon Project which would require 
     readvances to the Colorado River Dam Fund shall be readvanced 
     to the Colorado River Dam Fund pursuant to section 5 of the 
     Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act of July 19, 1940 (43 
     U.S.C. 618d), and such readvances since October 1, 1984, and 
     in the future shall bear interest at the rate determined 
     pursuant to section 104(a)(5) of Public Law 98-381: Provided 
     further, That funds advanced by water users for operation and 
     maintenance of reclamation projects or parts thereof shall be 
     deposited to the credit of this appropriation and may be 
     expended for the same purpose and in the same manner as sums 
     appropriated herein may be expended, and such advances shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     revenues in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund shall be 
     available for performing examination of existing structures 
     on participating projects of the Colorado River Storage 
     Project.


              bureau of reclamation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, [$9,000,000] 
     $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, as authorized 
     by the Small Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as 
     amended (43 U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed [$23,000,000] $20,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $600,000: 
     Provided, That of the total sums appropriated, the amount of 
     program activities which can be financed by the reclamation 
     fund shall be derived from the fund.


                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, to remain available 
     until expended, such sums as may be assessed and collected in 
     the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to 
     sections 3407(d), 3404(c)(3), 3405(f) and 3406(c)(1) of 
     Public Law 102-575: Provided, That the Bureau of Reclamation 
     is directed to levy additional mitigation and restoration 
     payments totaling $37,232,000 (October 1992 price levels), as 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.


                    general administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses of general administration and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, $54,034,000, of which $1,400,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, the total amount to be derived from 
     the reclamation fund and to be nonreimbursable pursuant to 
     the Act of April 19, 1945 (43 U.S.C. 377): Provided, That no 
     part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted for the 
     current fiscal year as general administrative expenses.


                             emergency fund

       For an additional amount for the ``Emergency fund'', as 
     authorized by the Act of June 26, 1948 (43 U.S.C. 502), as 
     amended, to remain available until expended for the purposes 
     specified in said Act, $1,000,000, to be derived from the 
     reclamation fund.


                             special funds

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sums herein referred to as being derived from the 
     reclamation fund or special fee account are appropriated from 
     the special funds in the Treasury created by the Act of June 
     17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391) or the Act of December 22, 1987 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), respectively. Such sums shall be 
     transferred, upon request of the Secretary, to be merged with 
     and expended under the heads herein specified; and the 
     unexpended balances of sums transferred for expenditure under 
     the head ``General Administrative Expenses'' shall revert and 
     be credited to the reclamation fund.


                          working capital fund

       Of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $863,000 are permanently canceled due to reduced GSA rental 
     charges and $1,848,000 are permanently canceled due to 
     efficiencies in the procurement process.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed 9 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

           Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy activities 
     including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant 
     and capital equipment and other expenses incidental thereto 
     necessary for energy supply, research and development 
     activities, and other activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 25, of which 19 are 
     for replacement only), [$3,302,170,000] $3,329,728,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Energy may transfer available amounts appropriated for use 
     by the Department of Energy under title III of previously 
     enacted Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts into 
     the Isotope Production and Distribution Program Fund, in 
     order to continue isotope production and distribution 
     activities: Provided further, That the authority to use these 
     amounts appropriated is effective from the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

                Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy in connection with 
     operating expenses; the purchase, construction, and 
     acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other expenses 
     incidental thereto necessary for residual uranium supply and 
     enrichment activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et 
     seq.) and the Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486, section 
     901), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; purchase of 
     electricity as necessary; purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles (not to exceed 11 for replacement only), 
     $73,210,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That revenues received by the Department for residual uranium 
     enrichment activities and estimated to total $9,900,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995, shall be retained and used for the specific 
     purpose of offsetting costs incurred by the Department for 
     such activities notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     3302(b) of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues 
     are received during fiscal year 1995 so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 1995 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $63,310,000.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 1992, $301,327,000 to be derived from the fund, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That at least $41,700,000 
     of amounts derived from the fund for such expenses shall be 
     expended in accordance with title X, subtitle A of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992.

                General Science and Research Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy activities 
     including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant 
     and capital equipment and other expenses incidental thereto 
     necessary for general science and research activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion; purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to 
     exceed 12 for replacement only), [$989,031,000] $973,632,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available under this section for Department of 
     Energy facilities may be obligated or expended for food, 
     beverages, receptions, parties, country club fees, plants or 
     flowers pursuant to any cost-reimbursable contract: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts previously appropriated to 
     orderly terminate the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) 
     project in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
     Act, 1994, amounts not to exceed $65,000,000 shall be 
     available as a one-time contribution to the completion, with 
     modification, of partially completed facilities at the 
     project site if the Secretary determines such one-time 
     contribution (i) will assist the maximization of the value of 
     the investment made in the facilities and (ii) is in 
     furtherance of a settlement of the claims that the State of 
     Texas has asserted against the United States in connection 
     with the termination of the SSC project: Provided further, 
     That no such amounts shall be made available as a 
     contribution to operating expenses of such facilities.

                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

       For the nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, [$304,800,000] $402,800,000, to remain available 
     until expended, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund. To 
     the extent that balances in the fund are not sufficient to 
     cover amounts available for obligation in the account, the 
     Secretary shall exercise her authority pursuant to section 
     302(e)(5) of said Act to issue obligations to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury: Provided, That of the amount herein 
     appropriated, within available funds, not to exceed 
     [$6,000,000] $5,500,000 may be provided to the State of 
     Nevada, for the sole purpose of conduct of its scientific 
     oversight responsibilities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of the amount herein appropriated, not more 
     than [$8,500,000] $7,000,000 may be provided to affected 
     local governments, as defined in the Act, to conduct 
     appropriate activities pursuant to the Act: Provided further, 
     That the distribution of the funds herein provided among the 
     affected units of local government shall be determined by the 
     Department of Energy and made available to the State and 
     affected units of local government by direct payment: 
     Provided further, That within ninety days of the completion 
     of each Federal fiscal year, each State or local entity shall 
     provide certification to the Department of Energy, that all 
     funds expended from such payments have been expended for 
     activities as defined in Public Law 97-425, as amended. 
     Failure to provide such certification shall cause such entity 
     to be prohibited from any further funding provided for 
     similar activities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     herein appropriated may be used directly or indirectly to 
     influence legislative action on any matter pending before 
     Congress or a State legislature or for any lobbying activity 
     as provided in section 1913 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds herein appropriated 
     may be used for litigation expenses: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds herein appropriated may be used to support 
     multistate efforts or other coalition building activities 
     inconsistent with the restrictions contained in this Act.

           [Isotope Production and Distribution Program Fund

       [For Department of Energy expenses for isotope production 
     and distribution activities, $11,600,000, to remain available 
     until expended.]

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 104, of which 103 are 
     for replacement only, including 22 police-type vehicles), 
     [$3,201,369,000 to remain available until expended, of which 
     $20,765,000 shall be available only for program activities at 
     the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; and 
     $8,750,000 shall be available only for program activities at 
     the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of 
     Columbia] $3,251,268,000, to remain available until expended.

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense environmental restoration and waste management 
     activities in carrying out the purposes of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     the acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion; and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
     (not to exceed 87 of which 67 are for replacement only 
     including 6 police-type vehicles), [$5,128,211,000] 
     $5,083,691,000, to remain available until expended[: 
     Provided, That funds previously made available under this 
     head in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
     1992, to assist the State of New Mexico and affected local 
     governments in mitigating the impacts of the Waste Isolation 
     Pilot Plant are available for any authorized purposes under 
     this head].

              Materials Support and Other Defense Programs

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense materials support, and other defense activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, [$1,842,204,000] $1,865,910,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $129,430,000, to remain available until expended, 
     all of which shall be used in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions of the Nuclear Waste Fund appropriation of the 
     Department of Energy contained in this title.

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for Departmental Administration and other 
     activities in carrying out the purposes of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     the hire of passenger motor vehicles and official reception 
     and representation expenses (not to exceed $35,000), 
     $407,312,000, to remain available until expended, plus such 
     additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 
     estimated amount of cost of work for others notwithstanding 
     the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511, et 
     seq.): Provided, That such increases in cost of work are 
     offset by revenue increases of the same or greater amount, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous revenues 
     estimated to total $161,490,000 in fiscal year 1995 may be 
     retained and used for operating expenses within this account, 
     and may remain available until expended, as authorized by 
     section 201 of Public Law 95-238, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 3302 of title 31, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced by the amount of miscellaneous revenues received 
     during fiscal year 1995 so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 1995 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $245,822,000.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $26,465,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

         Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     projects in Alaska and of marketing electric power and 
     energy, $6,494,000, to remain available until expended.

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the purchase, operation and maintenance of two rotary-wing 
     aircraft for replacement only, and for official reception and 
     representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000.
       During fiscal year 1995, no new direct loan obligations may 
     be made.
       [Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year 
     1995 are reduced by $485,000.]

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southeastern power area, $22,431,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, and for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     connected therewith, in carrying out the provisions of 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     as applied to the southwestern power area, $21,316,000, to 
     remain available until expended; in addition, notwithstanding 
     the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $3,935,000 in 
     reimbursements, to remain available until expended.

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7101, et seq.), and other related activities including 
     conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized, 
     including official reception and representation expenses in 
     an amount not to exceed $1,500, [$224,085,000] $222,285,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $202,512,000 
     shall be derived from the Department of the Interior 
     Reclamation Fund: Provided, That of the amount herein 
     appropriated, within available funds, $5,135,000 is for 
     deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Account pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to transfer 
     from the Colorado River Dam Fund to the Western Area Power 
     Administration $7,472,000, to carry out the power marketing 
     and transmission activities of the Boulder Canyon project as 
     provided in section 104(a)(4) of the Hoover Power Plant Act 
     of 1984, to remain available until expended.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, including the hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000); $166,173,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $166,173,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 1995, shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues are 
     received during fiscal year 1995, so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 1995 appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, and for 
     necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the 
     alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for 
     payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses 
     of the Commission, including services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, to remain available until expended, 
     [$187,000,000] $287,000,000.

                DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $17,933,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     United States member of the Delaware River Basin Commission, 
     as authorized by law (75 Stat. 716), $343,000.

            Contribution to Delaware River Basin Commission

       For payment of the United States share of the current 
     expenses of the Delaware River Basin Commission, as 
     authorized by law (75 Stat. 706, 707), $478,000.

            INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN

    Contribution to Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

       To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay in advance 
     to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin the 
     Federal contribution toward the expenses of the Commission 
     during the current fiscal year in the administration of its 
     business in the conservancy district established pursuant to 
     the Act of July 11, 1940 (54 Stat. 748), as amended by the 
     Act of September 25, 1970 (Public Law 91-407), $511,000.

                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including the employment of aliens; services authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; publication and 
     dissemination of atomic information; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms, official representation expenses (not 
     to exceed $20,000); reimbursements to the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles and aircraft, [$540,501,000] $535,501,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $22,000,000 shall 
     be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That from 
     this appropriation, transfer of sums may be made to other 
     agencies of the Government for the performance of the work 
     for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the 
     sums so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That moneys received by 
     the Commission for the cooperative nuclear safety research 
     program, services rendered to foreign governments and 
     international organizations, and the material and information 
     access authorization programs, including criminal history 
     checks under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
     amended, may be retained and used for salaries and expenses 
     associated with those activities, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, 
     and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and 
     other services and collections estimated at [$518,501,000] 
     $513,501,000 in fiscal year 1995 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code, and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during 
     fiscal year 1995 from licensing fees, inspection services and 
     other services and collections, excluding those moneys 
     received for the cooperative nuclear safety research program, 
     services rendered to foreign governments and international 
     organizations, and the material and information access 
     authorization programs, so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 1995 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $22,000,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, including services authorized by section 
     3109 of title 5, United States Code, $5,080,000, to remain 
     available until expended; and in addition, an amount not to 
     exceed 5 percent of this sum may be transferred from Salaries 
     and Expenses, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Provided, That 
     notice of such transfers shall be given to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate: Provided further, 
     That from this appropriation, transfers of sums may be made 
     to other agencies of the Government for the performance of 
     the work for which this appropriation is made, and in such 
     cases the sums so transferred may be merged with the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other 
     services and collections shall be retained and used for 
     necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code, and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during 
     fiscal year 1995 from licensing fees, inspection services, 
     and other services and collections, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 1995 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $0.

                  NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $2,664,000, to be transferred from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund and to remain available until expended.

                 OFFICE OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE NEGOTIATOR

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the office of the Nuclear Waste 
     Negotiator in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended by Public Law 
     102-486, section 802, $1,000,000 to be derived from the 
     Nuclear Waste Fund and to remain available until expended.

                   SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     United States member of the Susquehanna River Basin 
     Commission as authorized by law (84 Stat. 1541), $318,000.

           Contribution to Susquehanna River Basin Commission

       For payment of the United States share of the current 
     expenses of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, as 
     authorized by law (84 Stat. 1530, 1531), $288,000.

                       TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

                    Tennessee Valley Authority Fund

       For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
     ch. 12A), including purchase, hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, and purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, [$136,856,000] $142,873,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


            purchase of american-made equipment and products

       Sec. 501. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all 
     equipment and products purchased with funds made available in 
     this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the majority 
leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, the Senate will 
now consider the energy and water appropriations bill. As I stated last 
evening, it is my intention that we complete action on that bill this 
morning. So far, very few Senators have indicated an intention to offer 
amendments, and those Senators who intend to do so must be present 
promptly to offer their amendments. We must complete action on this 
bill in order to resume consideration of the Department of Defense 
authorization bill. As I indicated last evening, we will remain in 
session this week until we complete action on these two bills. As soon 
as we finish the DOD authorization bill, the Senate will adjourn for 
the Independence Day recess. But we will stay in session however long 
it takes to complete action on the Department of Defense authorization 
bill. My hope is that we can do it by a reasonable hour tomorrow, but 
if not we will simply stay here until we finish it.
  However it is important--indeed it is imperative--that those Senators 
who intend to offer amendments to the energy and water appropriations 
bill come to the Senate floor immediately to be in a position to do so, 
because we are going to proceed promptly with this bill, as I have now 
stated on several occasions so Senators are plainly on notice in that 
regard.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I note the presence of the 
managers, the distinguished Senators from Louisiana and Oregon, and I 
therefore yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly, yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Would the leader give us a little guidance as to how 
long would be a reasonable period to wait for amendments to be offered 
before we might ask for third reading?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, my hope is that Senators have heard this 
and are hopefully in the process of alerting their staffs to notify the 
staffs of the Senators from Oregon and Louisiana. I do not wish at this 
time to impose a time deadline, but I think there is a real sense of 
urgency. Senators are on notice if they are not going to come to the 
Senate floor to offer their amendments we are going to proceed to 
complete action on the bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. If I might just comment, I would take note of the fact 
that only the managers and the majority leader are presently on the 
floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Not an uncommon event.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader 
yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly, yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe the distinguished majority leader said 
something similar to what he has just said yesterday.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. So Senators have twice been put on notice.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. And solicited to come with their amendments.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Right.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, does the leader concur with me that if 
Senators do have an amendment and do want protection, that they should 
see the floor managers? At this point the only amendment we know 
about--and I tell this to Senators--is a Kerry amendment, which I 
assume he will put in. He has been alerted to the fact we are starting 
at 9 today. So I would assume he will be here after very short opening 
statements.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, what I will do, if that is the only 
amendment that has been specifically noted, I will direct the floor 
staff to contact Senator Kerry's office to notify him of what has been 
said and what the plans are so he will understand that it is imperative 
he be present promptly to offer his amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I take it any time agreements we can enter to dispose 
of amendments, the majority leader would concur in? May we seek those 
freely?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Not only concur but encourage.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we, again, are on the floor and I say 
again, because this is an annual event with my friend and colleague 
from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, on handling the energy and water 
appropriations bill. I guess we are probably the longest running 
twosome in the Appropriations Committee, I having chaired on and off 
for a number of years, and Senator Hatfield having chaired on and off 
for a number of years and having rotated as ranking minority members.
  Again, Mr. President, it is a relationship that is greatly to be 
desired among Senators: Productive, pleasant, and always, I think, the 
kind of relationship that Senators seek and glory in when it is 
present.
  Senator Hatfield and I are pleased to present the energy and water 
appropriations bill again today. Our total obligational authority is 
$20.5 billion. We are $143,000 over the President's estimate and $157 
million more than the House-passed bill, but we are within our 302(b) 
allocation.
  Mr. President, this has been a particularly difficult year for the 
energy and water appropriations bill. I say that because our bill had 
greater cuts in our 602(b) allocation, proportionately, than any other 
appropriations subcommittee. There are 13 appropriations subcommittees 
and we had the largest cuts of all.
  We are $1.3 billion under last year's nominal spending levels in BA--
that is, in budget authority--and $1.5 billion below last year's 
nominal spending levels in budget outlays. So it was very, very 
difficult to meet the needs of the Nation in the areas of energy and 
water.
  I might say here on the floor, as I have said in committee and as I 
have repeated over and over again, I think we made a real mistake in 
adopting the Exon Grassley amendment because it is beginning to impinge 
on the muscle and fiber and bone of the infrastructure of this country 
in our subcommittee and in other subcommittees, because that amendment 
goes to that very small percentage of spending which is discretionary 
spending and which is largely infrastructure-type spending to meet the 
new priorities, to meet the new vision of the country.
  All of us know that the real spending in this country is in 
entitlements. Senator Bob Kerrey, of Nebraska, is chairman of a new 
entitlement commission. I hope they can find a way to cut entitlement 
spending because that is where the money is.
  In discretionary spending, such as energy and water--such as 
protecting people from the ravages of floods, such as protecting them 
from rivers flooding and hurricanes, building water projects and 
providing the infrastructure in California, for example, to restore the 
salmon runs--all of that kind of spending is severely cut, $1.5 billion 
less than last year.
  We have had, I believe it was, 1,200 separate requests from Senators 
to include items in this bill. To say that we could even meet a 
majority of those requests, of course, is impossible. We are not 
meeting the needs of the Nation in this bill.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate, the energy and 
water development appropriation bill for the fiscal year beginning on 
October 1, 1994, and ending on September 30, 1995. This bill, H.R. 
4506, passed the House of Representatives on June 14, 1994, by a vote 
of 393 yeas to 29 nays. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development marked up this bill on June 23, 1994, and the full 
committee marked it up and reported this bill the same day, June 23, 
1994.
  Before summarizing the principal aspects of this year's appropriation 
bill, I want to take a moment to especially thank the chairman of our 
full Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished President pro 
tempore and our leader for all the hard work confronting us in moving 
these appropriation bills through the subcommittee, the full committee 
and now to the Senate. I commend the chairman in leading us to this 
point.
  Mr. President, as usual, I want to thank the distinguished Senator 
from Oregon, [Mr. Hatfield], who is a former chairman of the full 
committee and the ranking minority member of the committee for his 
cooperation, teamwork, and leadership. He is an outstanding minority 
member as he was an outstanding chairman.


                          purpose of the bill

  The bill supplies funds for water resources development programs and 
related activities, of the Department of the Army, Civil Functions--
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program in title I; for the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities--except for fossil 
fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory functions--
including atomic energy defense activities in title III; and for 
related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian 
Regional Commission and Appalachian regional development programs, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority in 
title IV.


                       summary of recommendations

  Mr. President, the fiscal year 1995 budget estimates for the bill 
total $20,512,750,000 in new budget obligations authority. The 
recommendation of the committee provides $20,512,893,000. This amount 
is $143,000 over the President's budget estimate and $157,271,000 more 
than the House-passed bill.
  Mr. President, I will briefly summarize the major recommendations 
provided in the bill. All the details and figures are, of course, 
included in the committee report, 103-291, accompanying the bill, which 
has been available since last Friday, June 24, 1994.


                    title i, army corps of engineers

  First under title I of the bill which provides appropriations for the 
Department of the Army Civil Works Program, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, we are recommending a total amount of new budget authority 
of $3,391,565,000, which is $60,869,000 below the House and $77.7 
million over the budget estimate.
  The committee has had a large number of requests for various water 
development projects including many requests for new construction 
starts. However, due to the limited budgetary resources, the committee 
could not provide funding for each and every project requested. The 
committee recommendation does not include a small number of new 
construction starts and has deferred without prejudice the largest of 
the projects eligible for initiation of construction. Because of the 
importance of some of these projects to the economic well-being of the 
Nation, the committee will continue to monitor each project's progress 
to insure that it is ready to proceed to construction when resources 
become available. I should caution, however, that due to the cost to 
construct a number of these projects, budgetary support from the 
executive branch will be critical in making the decision to proceed.


                  title ii, department of the interior

  For title II, Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, we 
recommend a total in new budget authority of $869.4 million, which is 
$47.4 million over the budget estimate and $14.2 million under the 
House.


                    title iii, department of energy

  Under title III, Department of Energy, the committee provides a total 
of $15.9 billion. This amount includes $3.3 billion for energy supply, 
research, and development activities; $63.3 million for uranium supply 
and enrichment activities; $301.3 million for uranium enrichment 
decontamination and decommissioning fund, $973.6 million for general 
science and research activities, $402.8 million for Nuclear Waste 
Disposal Fund, and $6.2 billion for environmental restoration and waste 
management--defense and nondefense.
  For the atomic energy defense activities, there is a total of $10.3 
billion, comprised of $3.2 billion for weapons activities; $5.1 billion 
for defense environmental restoration and waste management; $1.86 for 
materials support and other defense programs and $129.4 million for 
defense nuclear waste disposal.
  For Departmental Administration $407.3 million is recommended offset 
with anticipated miscellaneous revenues of $161.5 million for a new 
appropriation of $245.8 million. A total of $272.5 million is 
recommended in the bill for the power marketing administrations and 
$166,173,000 is for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] 
offset 100 percent by revenues.
  A net appropriation of $272 million is provided for solar programs, 
including photovoltaics, wind, and biomass and for all solar 
renewables, $373 million, an increase of over $25 million compared to 
1994.
  For nuclear energy programs, $308 million is recommended, which is 
about $30 million less than the current level. The major programs 
provided for include funds to continue the integral fast reactor and a 
phase shutdown which will complete the research program, as opposed to 
an immediate termination. The sum of $12 million is included for the 
gas turbine modular helium reactor, also known as the gas reactor, or 
HTGR. The amount recommended for the IFR Program is $98 million.
  For the magnetic fusion program, we are recommending $362.5 million, 
which is $10 million less than the budget. The main issue here is 
called the TPX or the tokamak physics experiment at Princeton 
University. The House included a new start for this program. 
Construction of TPX would be in the range of $800 million to $1 
billion, and probably a like amount to operate it over the life of its 
years. It is on the critical path to what we call ITER, the 
international tokamak experiment. It is necessary to do ITER or 
something like ITER to get to the commercialization of fusion. ITER 
will probably cost $10 billion and another $10 billion to operate, for 
$20 billion overall. If $2 billion is added for TPX, the program is 
about $22 billion. Now, it is an international tokamak. If it is built 
in this country, the estimates are that the United States' share would 
be 60 to 70 percent. If it were built in Japan, the United States would 
have to pay at least 25 percent. So that the 64-dollar question is--
``Is America willing to sign a mortgage for TPX for almost $2 billion, 
including operation.


          title iv, regulatory and other independent agencies

  A total of $475.4 million for various regulatory and independent 
agencies of the Federal Government is included in the bill. Major 
programs include the Appalachian Regional Commission, $287 million; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, $535.5 million; and for the Tennessee 
Valley Authority, $142.9 million. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
amount of $535.5 million is offset by licensing fees.
  The 602(b) allocation for the bill is $20.513 billion in new budget 
obligational authority and $20.943 billion in outlays. The bill before 
the Senate contains $20.525 billion in budget authority and $20.889 
billion in outlays. So there is no room to add to the bill.
  Let me give a few highlights.
  First of all, the biggest science endeavor that this country faces in 
the future, or at least one of the biggest--perhaps the space station 
competes in size, I have not compared the two--is nuclear fusion. 
Fusion offers the hope to the country of limitless energy, relatively 
clean and with a fuel which is inexhaustible. However, it is also 
extremely expensive.
  The way we would get from here to commercialization is, first, to do 
what we call the TPX, the tokamak physics experiment at Princeton, 
which will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 million to build, 
perhaps over time, over a decade or so, maybe another $1 billion to 
operate.
  Following on as a second iteration is what we call the ITER, the 
international tokamak experiment. ITER is likely to cost $10 billion to 
build and $10 billion to operate. ITER should bring us what we call 
break even--that is, more energy out than goes in--and it should be 
that which proves the feasibility of fusion energy.
  Fusion energy is greatly debated, Mr. President. I believe the 
evidence is fairly clear that it will work, that we can get more energy 
out than we put in. The big unanswered question is whether it could be 
made to work on an economically feasible basis. If it can, it may 
produce commercial amounts of energy by the year 2050; in other words, 
more than half a century from now, we may be able to get this limitless 
energy, this energy from limitless sources in the middle of the next 
century sometime. So it is a very big question to go into.
  In the committee language, we kept the team at Princeton together for 
TPX, but we said we should not enter into this endeavor, the 
international physics experiment, ITER--$20 billion in scope, TPX which 
itself could be, including operations money, $2 billion--without a 
national debate, without the Congress having been involved and without 
the President having signed on.
  This Senator led the fight on the SSC, the superconducting super 
collider, and after 10 years and $2 billion, we finally decided--the 
House did--that we could no longer pursue the SSC. I think it was a 
great mistake and a terrible loss to the country. Nevertheless, that 
was the will of the Congress and that is what we have done. With 
termination expenses, that will probably be in the neighborhood of $3 
billion down the drain.
  We are determined on this committee not to have that happen on 
fusion. If we are going to go into fusion--and I believe we should; I 
believe this great country ought to pursue this limitless source of 
energy--then we ought to do so only after national debate, to have the 
budget cutters come here and talk about why we should not do it, have a 
debate, have a vote and then abide by decisions and not get into this 
thing incrementally. The TPX has never been authorized. It has never 
had that debate. Let us not get another $2 billion into a project and 
then say we cannot afford it.
  For that reason, in our bill we provided that we would keep the team 
together at Princeton but that we would not make a decision on a start 
of construction of TPX until and unless the Congress and the President 
had signed on to this endeavor for fusion.
  In other words, you should not do TPX unless you also decide to do 
ITER, ITER being an international Tokamak experiment. If we build it in 
this country, we would probably have to pay from 60 to 70 percent of 
the cost, or if we built it in Japan, pick a figure--maybe 25 percent, 
and 25 percent of $20 billion is still a lot of money, particularly to 
build a Tokamak reactor in another country.
  So we need to think about those things as a country. I am for TPX but 
not now, not until it is authorized, not until the President and the 
Congress go into this with their eyes wide open.
  Now, another big project, Mr. President, is the advanced neutron 
source at Oak Ridge, TN. The advanced neutron source is clearly a very 
useful reactor. It would examine the structure of metals and other 
materials. It would also cost $3 billion.
  Now, in the case of the advanced neutron source, the House had a new 
start, committing us to the $3 billion. We said, and we believe, that 
the advanced neutron source is not yet ready. The environmental impact 
statement has yet to be completed, the site specific environmental 
impact statement. They have not yet made a decision as to the kind of 
fuel, the degree of enrichment that they would use in this reactor, a 
very fundamental choice involving what is a new reactor.
  Mr. President, we believe that we should commit the same amount of 
money as the House to the advanced neutron source but that they should 
complete those studies, complete the EIS, make those fundamental 
determinations of fuel enrichment and the structure of the machine and 
then make a decision--again, an eyes-wide-open decision. It is not as 
expensive, of course, as fusion, but believe me at a time when spending 
this year is down $1.5 billion in this bill below last year, and next 
year with the Exon-Grassley amendment, it will take an even further 
hit.
  To start a new project like the advanced neutron source, which will 
probably peak out at somewhere between, well, perhaps $800 million in 1 
year it would require, taking from other programs is something you 
should not enter into lightly and certainly not prematurely. For that 
reason we believe that was premature this year.
  Now, Mr. President, we underfunded a lot of programs that we would 
like to be able to fund more. In solar energy, we would like to have 
had an even greater increase than we had. We have a $25 million 
increase in solar energy over last year which, considering the budget 
stringencies of this year, is heroic. We had a $15 million cut in our 
nuclear programs, which are getting more and more modest, but some 
spending in this area is absolutely essential.
  All in all, Mr. President, this is a bill that is very sparse and 
that demands and needs much more money than it has.
  Mr. President, I expect an amendment on what we call the IFR, the 
integral fast reactor from Senator Kerry today. There may or may not be 
an amendment by Senator Harkin. And we hope to have the bill finished 
by noon. Those are the directions given us by the majority leader. So I 
ask all Senators to come to the floor and let us know if they have 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Johnston, 
first of all, for his introductory remarks and the explanation and 
description of the bill we have now before us, the energy and water 
development bill for fiscal 1995.
  Chairman Johnston, let me say, has done an outstanding job again this 
year in developing the Committee's bill that we have before us, and I 
am very pleased to be associated with his effort. It has been truly 
bipartisan throughout.
  Mr. President, the subcommittee's work was more difficult this year 
than ever before. We say that each year because it is true each year. 
And if you put it into a 5-year context, you can certainly understand 
then the drastic changes that have occurred and are occurring at this 
time. Our 602(b) allocation was $20.513 billion in budget authority, 
which was $1.176 billion below the current year's enactment level of 
$21.689 billion. Unfortunately, the lack of resources that this 
committee was provided means that we have made some very drastic cuts 
in programs that are very worthy and very important to this country.
  Chairman Johnston and I have worked many years on both the 
Appropriations Committee and on the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee which, as you know, is the authorizing committee. We have 
mutual interests in developing our policies which will provide for the 
long-term energy security of the United States. Although we sometimes 
disagree on what the Nation's energy priorities should be, we respect 
each other's views and understand the reasoning behind our respective 
positions.
  Ultimately, I believe that the dynamics and bipartisan nature of the 
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee have tended to narrow the 
swing of the energy policy pendulum from one extreme to the other, 
whether it be nuclear, solar, and renewable technologies, or atomic 
energy defense activities.
  In the end and over the years, the subcommittee's recommendations 
have been guided by prudence, reason and fiscal awareness. This 
constancy of purpose on the subcommittee's part has been of tremendous 
benefit I believe to the Nation.
  Although the chairman has presented the highlights of the bill 
earlier, I wish to mention a few areas in which I have particular and 
special interest.
  First, the committee has recommended a total of $369 million for 
solar and renewable energy programs under its jurisdiction. While this 
is about $40 million below the President's request, it is $22 million 
above the current funding level.
  I know that many Members of the Senate share my concern that the full 
amount requested by the administration has not been provided for these 
popular and very important programs. While I am disappointed with the 
lack of available resources for the solar and renewable programs, I 
also believe that this should be viewed in a historic context. The 
committee's recommendation of $369 million represents a 257 percent 
increase in the solar and renewable budgets over the last 5 years. From 
anyone's perspective, this represents a significant commitment on the 
part of the subcommittee to support the development of these particular 
technologies.
  The committee's proposals regarding atomic energy defense activities 
also should be viewed historically to appreciate fully the change in 
the U.S. nuclear weapons policy since the end of the cold war. The 
total amount provided in this bill for atomic weapons activities is 
$10.33 billion. Approximately half of this amount, $5.084 million is 
for environmental restoration and waste management activities at the 
Department of Energy's nuclear weapons production facilities, and 
$5.246 billion is for weapons-related activities.
  In other words, it is about a 50-50 split.
  Comparing these funding levels of the fiscal year 1990 
appropriations, we find that our nuclear weapons priorities have 
changed significantly. During this 5-year period, environmental 
restoration and waste management funds have increased by 306 percent, 
while the weapons activities and nuclear materials support programs 
have declined by about 34 percent.
  And even this 34-percent decline does not tell the full story if we 
acknowledge that significant weapons resources are now directed to 
technology transfer activities with private industry, nonproliferation, 
nuclear safeguards and security, and other nontraditional nuclear 
weapons programs.
  The bill also contains $50 million, under the Materials Support and 
Other Defense Programs appropriation account, for fissile materials 
control and disposition activities. This represents a $41 million 
increase over the President's request. I think it is important for 
every Member of the Senate to understand that the committee is 
providing these funds for activities relating to research and 
evaluation of reactor and accelerator technologies for plutonium 
disposition and tritium production.
  While I agree we must investigate all possible options for plutonium 
disposition and storage, I am concerned that we may be heading down 
this path a little too quickly. I am especially disturbed by the 
proposals which would have us embrace existing light water reactors to 
burn plutonium and generate electricity for commercial consumption. In 
my view this obscures the line between nuclear weapons activities and 
commercial power generation, and has significant implications on 
national security and worldwide nonproliferation policies. We should 
take care to ensure that any decision we make on plutonium disposition 
does not further encourage the development of a global plutonium 
economy.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to mention the funding provided in the 
bill for salmon recovery activities in the Columbia River Basin. We 
have provided $38.3 million for the Corps of Engineers to continue its 
activities under the Columbia River Juvenile Fish Mitigation Program to 
increase fish bypass efficiency on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
  The committee report provides additional direction for the corps to 
investigate new bypass technologies including surface flow facilities, 
sound and light guidance systems, and other devices.
  An additional $9 million has been provided under the Lower Snake 
River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program for fish hatchery 
construction projects in the Snake River Basin. These projects include 
adult trapping and juvenile acclimation facilities in various streams, 
and water treatment facilities for the Lookingglass fish hatchery. I am 
pleased to say that these represent the first funds appropriated 
specifically for hatchery projects to assist in rebuilding depleted 
salmon stocks in the Columbia Basin. Once again, the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee is taking the lead in providing initial and crucial funds 
for salmon recovery efforts.
  Also, the committee has provided the $5.6 million requested by the 
administration for the Bureau of Reclamation's salmon recovery 
activities.
  Mr. President, I am compelled to emphasize that salmon recovery 
activities encompass a wide range of activities dealing with the 
hydroelectric system, hatchery reforms, habitat enhancement, and 
changes in salmon harvest. The recent release of the Snake River Salmon 
Recovery Team's final recommendations, together with the Northwest 
Power Planning Council's Strategy for Salmon, now provides us with two 
regionally developed, complementary plans to recover the species.
  Let me also emphasize that the rate payers of the Pacific Northwest 
will, in addition to these figures and funds, provide $350 million this 
year for further salmon mitigation; and that over 50 percent of these 
funds that I have just enumerated will be repaid to the Federal 
Treasury by the rate payers under the Bonneville Power Administration.
  Mr. President, just to give you some indication, in the last 10 years 
the rate payers of the Pacific Northwest have paid over $1 billion--
over $1 billion--for salmon mitigation and recovery. So no one can say 
that the regional resource is not being tapped as far as salmon 
recovery and salmon mitigation.
  These two plans that we now have for recovery provide a broad 
prescription of activities which deal with all four major areas of 
reform.
  Both documents indicate that the recovery process will be slow and 
painful--there are no quick fixes or free lunches. While there 
certainly are measures which should be taken sooner rather than later, 
we need to develop a common sense strategy based on science and public 
input that directs our scarce resources to those areas which will 
provide the most immediate protection for the remaining depleted stocks 
and best prospects for rebuilding them.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Johnston for his assistance in 
providing the salmon recovery funds included in the bill, and surely 
will look to him again in future years when funding requirements 
inevitably will increase further.
  I think we have to understand that point as well; that these will be 
increases in the outlying years, and we must meet those needs.
  I also want to thank Senator Byrd, the chairman of the full 
Appropriations Committee, who has the great responsibility of 
shepherding 13 separate appropriations bills through the subcommittee 
process, the full committee process, to get them passed on the floor, 
into conference, back into the respective Chambers for approval of the 
conference reports, and down to the White House for signature. This is 
no mean undertaking, and Senator Byrd has done this with great skill 
over the years, as he has done all of his work with great skill in the 
committee.
  Finally, I want to thank the staff of the Energy and Water 
Development Subcommittee for their assistance in putting this bill 
together. Senator Johnston has already indicated that we have a long 
tenure of partnership in giving leadership to the subcommittee, which I 
treasure. But we also have been blessed with a very outstanding staff, 
who have great seniority in time and in service to this subcommittee.
  I want to especially recognize Proctor Jones, David Gwaltney, Gloria 
Butland, Mark Walker, and Dorothy Pastis, who have all worked for many 
weeks on this bill. And their efforts should not go unnoticed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston].


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, and that the bill, as thus 
amended, be regarded for purpose of amendment as original text; 
provided that no point of order shall have been considered to have been 
waived by agreeing to this request.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, Mr. 
President, may I say to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Johnston, 
that I have just had a request by Senator Stevens to set aside the 
committee amendment on page 32.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I will certainly do that. I say to my 
colleague that this would be considered original text under my request 
for the purpose of further amendment. So it would be amendable by 
Senator Stevens to accomplish whatever he wishes to accomplish.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I do not have the background as to his request. But 
that has been sent to me at this moment by telephone. I request that of 
the chairman; if he might exclude that from his unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. All right. In view of the request, Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, 
except for the committee amendment on page 32, line 15; and that the 
bill, as amended, be regarded for the purpose of amendment as original 
text; provided that no point of order shall have been considered to 
have been waived by agreeing to this request.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I might say that I have now received 
word that Senator Harkin will have an amendment that will transfer $33 
million from the nuclear weapons program to renewable energy; that he 
will have a second amendment that will strike $275 million from the 
Nuclear Weapons Program; that Senator Wellstone has asked to reserve 
two relevant amendments; that Senator Lautenberg has two amendments 
which he believes to be cleared. And other than that Kerry amendment, 
which will be shortly offered, we have no word of any other amendments.

  Mr. President, with respect to the Kerry amendment, it is our 
intention to have opening statements and then, thereafter, to seek a 
time agreement, but we will not do so at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] 
is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment at the 
beginning of the debate on this important appropriation bill to thank 
the chairman and ranking member for their work on behalf of the Pacific 
Northwest and my State of Idaho, and the cooperative relationship we 
have been able to maintain as we have worked with these very important 
issues.
  My colleague from Oregon has mentioned very key appropriations on the 
Snake and Columbia River systems to deal with an issue in the Pacific 
Northwest that is absolutely key and must be resolved, and that is the 
endangered species of salmon in the Snake and Columbia system and the 
mitigation plan to try to save those important species.
  That plan, while it is important, must be balanced with the economy 
of the Pacific Northwest and intermountain area. Of course, the Senator 
from Oregon and this Senator knows how key the hydro production on the 
Snake and Columbia is, the transportation systems that have been 
developed that are now a critical link to the economy of that region, 
and the areas within the bill that deal with fish mitigation and dam 
modification are all part of an ongoing responsibility that I think the 
Federal Government has to share with us in the cost of providing for an 
environment in which the salmon can live and can continue to grow and 
develop. That is part of this bill, it is an important part.
  The Senator from Oregon has been extremely sensitive to making sure 
that we continue to resolve this issue and that the Federal Government 
be a partner with us in the Pacific Northwest in the resolution of this 
particular problem. I must also say that with the Department of the 
Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, and all of the kinds of issues 
that are in part here, and also the Department of Energy with its 
national laboratory in my State, this is a key appropriation of funds 
not only critical to jobs, but very important science programs that are 
charting a future for this country's energy. This committee has been 
extremely sensitive to that.
  Senator Johnston is well known for his knowledge in those areas and 
his advocacy of them, and I appreciate the relationship we have as this 
budget has been developed in the work we do on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee together.
  In the next few moments, we will begin debate on an amendment that I 
hope the Senators will listen very carefully to and weigh its 
consideration as it relates to our future, not only in nuclear energy 
as a safe, clean energy source for our country, but the dedication this 
country has had to resolving nuclear problems around the world, and 
especially the proliferation of plutonium and the responsibility we 
have signed off on--to be a world leader in resolving this problem and 
the development of the technology that can ultimately burn these wastes 
and these risks and put them in a state that future generations will 
know are safe and secure. That is our responsibility as a Senate, and 
this Government has so charged us. This legislation reflects those 
responsibilities, and I hope we can, in large part, pass it.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if I can respond briefly to the Senator 
from Idaho, I appreciate his comments relating to the committee's work. 
His efforts have been certainly a part of the product we bring here 
today, because the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], has been most 
attentive to the problems facing us in the region, whether it is power 
generation or salmon mitigation, or whatever it may be. If we did not 
have the broad-based support of this body, our committee's work would 
be much more difficult. Because of the leadership of the Senator from 
Idaho in helping to bring attention and to focus on these problems, it 
has been very helpful. I thank him at this time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue calling the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued calling the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a few moments before the quorum call was 
put into place, the Senator from Idaho asked Senators to listen 
carefully to this debate, because it is about the future, the future of 
nuclear power, and about the interests of the United States with 
respect to the control of plutonium.
  I think that in so stating, the Senator has framed, in one sense, the 
reality of what this debate is about and, in another sense, the 
illusion of what it is about. And I ask my colleagues indeed to listen 
carefully and to weigh carefully the truth, the reality of what is at 
stake in this debate.
  Those who want to keep what is known as the advanced liquid metal 
reactor alive will assert arguments that I respectfully submit simply 
do not stand up under scientific inquiry or under sound proliferation 
or fiscal analysis. And I ask my colleagues to weigh carefully the 
balance of what studies and who makes the arguments for the illusion 
and what studies and who makes the arguments for the reality. And there 
is not one Senator here who is not capable of distinguishing between 
the interests behind the illusion and the interests that assert the 
reality.
  The reality of the ALMR, the advanced liquid metal reactor, is that 
it is a waste and that it is a danger, that it is fiscally 
irresponsible, scientifically irresponsible, and irresponsible with 
respect to arms control and nuclear waste. And every single independent 
study--independent study--confirms what I have just said: OTA, National 
Academy of Sciences, GAO, and so forth.
  Now let me frame this debate, if I may, by reading a letter from the 
President of the United States sent to me yesterday. I will just read 
the first paragraph which is relevant.

       Thank you for your letter supporting our decision to 
     terminate the Department of Energy's advanced liquid metal 
     reactor program, including the integral fast reactor project. 
     I want to assure you that this administration does not 
     support the IFR and will oppose any efforts to continue the 
     funding for this reactor project. The IFR has no foreseeable 
     commercial value and its continuation would undercut our 
     international nuclear weapons nonproliferation efforts.

  And that is signed by the President of the United States.
  In addition, the Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, has taken a 
courageous position and put very squarely before the Senate what is at 
stake here.
  I quote from her letter of June 27:

       In summary, terminating the Integral Fast Reactor program 
     in FY 1995 would save taxpayers $2.9 billion between 1995 and 
     2010. If we take the direction that has been outlined in the 
     budget amendment submitted on June 17, 1994, and your 
     Integral Fast Reactor termination bill recommending 
     redirection of the assets of the facility * * * we would save 
     $1.3 billion in taxpayer money from FY 1995-2010. This is the 
     Administration's preferred option.
       No further testing of the Integral Fast Reactor concept is 
     required to prove the technical feasibility of actinide 
     recycle and burning in a fast spectrum reactor, such as the 
     Experimental Breeder Reactor in Idaho. The basic physics and 
     chemistry of this technology are established.
       The principal concerns that led me to withdraw my support 
     for this program are the inconsistencies with our 
     nonproliferation objectives and the high cost of further 
     development.

  Now, Mr. President, here is the President of the United States and 
the Secretary of Energy saying clearly, ``Senate, Congress, do not 
continue this program.''
  Now, who is here on the floor asking to continue it? Understandably--
and I do not begrudge them and I understand it--the Senators from 
Idaho, where you have a breeder reactor program, and the Senators from 
Illinois, where you have the research.
  The question is squarely before the U.S. Senate: Do we have the 
courage and the foresight to be willing to cut a program that every 
single analysis has deemed a waste, which the President does not want, 
which the Secretary of Energy does not want, and which so clearly 
threatens the proliferation concerns of this country?
  I ask my colleagues to weigh very carefully how, in the midst of the 
Korean crisis, where we are summoning the international community to 
come together in an effort to try to preach nonproliferation, we can 
turn around and engage ourselves in a program that embraces the 
potential for that proliferation.
  This kind of irresponsible effort for fundamental pork barrel 
purposes undercuts every single effort of the United States in the 
international community.
  Mr. President, let me show my colleagues a little of the background 
of this program.
  Unbelievably, this program really began in 1948. This program has now 
become more expensive than the Clinch River breeder reactor that we 
killed. The program, incredibly, was attempted to be killed by one of 
the cosponsors of this amendment today, Senator Bumpers.
  Senator Bumpers had the foresight to try to kill this back in 1982. 
We have spent, beginning in 1948, $297 million; this was 1948 to 1967.
  In 1968, $112 million; 1969, $132 million; 1970, $144 million. On you 
go through the 1970's. It climbs, $234 million, $353 million, $568 
million, $612 million. You get into the 1980's and we get into $614 
million, $546 million; 1984 it began to go down a little, $304 million. 
Now we are in the $136, $142 million range.
  The National Academy of Sciences, OTA, independent research, 
Department of Energy, and the President of the United States have all 
come to the conclusion we do not have anything to show for that. We do 
not have anything to show for that incredible investment except running 
up against the barrier of nonproliferation efforts, an extraordinary 
amount of increased potential waste as we pursue a technology that not 
only puts more plutonium into circulation, but increases the amount of 
waste, the actinides that you then have to have in a repository and 
hold for literally thousands of years for it to be eliminated.
  My colleagues are going to come to the floor and say you can 
eliminate all of that because this technology is going to chew it all 
up. Wrong. Wrong. The National Academy of Sciences tells you: Wrong and 
unnecessary. That is the most important thing I ask colleagues to focus 
on. When we come to the floor of the Senate and we are asked to make a 
judgment about a program--you may have the most incredibly highfalutin, 
wonderful program of creative technology, but it could be absolutely 
unnecessary because you have a far simpler, more readily available, 
safer technology at your hands. And that is precisely what we have.
  You do not need to develop a separate reprocessing capacity to burn 
fuel or to chew up plutonium because we have at our disposal means of 
getting rid of the plutonium and of controlling the plutonium better 
with the existing technology.
  Let me just frame this a little bit for some of those who have not 
had the time to read all the faxes that have been circulated on it or 
understand all the technology. It is not half as complicated as it 
sounds, because if it were that complicated I am sure I would not be 
here debating it. It is not that complicated.
  I also want to ask colleagues to look at the fact that every major 
publication in the country from the Post to the Times, Philadelphia out 
to the Far West, the South--there is not one editorial that I have read 
that said keep this going. They all label it a waste, and they have 
singled this as one of the most important opportunities for the U.S. 
Senate to eliminate waste. For those who come to the floor with all 
these line item vetoes and balanced budget amendments and all these 
techniques to control spending--here is the technique to control 
spending. Vote to cut this program.
  We all know how hard it is to cut, how few programs have ever been 
eliminated. If ever there was a golden opportunity for reality to begin 
to set in, here it is. I share with my colleagues some of the public 
opinion on this.
  The Washington Post:

       The Wrong Reactor. Killing the ALMR appropriation would 
     make it a little easier for the United States to restrain the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons in a world that has too many 
     of them.

  The Hartford Courant, Connecticut:

       End The Research On Breeder Reactor. Scientists have raised 
     serious doubts about the breeder's ability to reduce the 
     nuclear waste, to burn plutonium efficiently, to make more 
     fuel.

  The Oregonian:

       Give up nuclear breeder dream. The time has come for 
     America to abandon the 1970's dream of developing an advanced 
     light metal reactor. Continuing financial support for this 
     technology makes no sense from an energy development point of 
     view.

  St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Philadelphia Inquirer:

       It's back. The Senate meets the Clinch River monster.
       Like Freddie Kreuger, the breeder has made a nightmare 
     issue come back. The Clinton administration wants to end this 
     program. The House is virtually certain to vote it down again 
     so its prospects of survival depend once again on the Senate 
     which kept it alive by voting for it last year.

  The San Francisco Chronicle:

       Saying no to nuclear pork.

  The Morning Sentinel; the Bangor Daily News; the Buffalo News and on. 
The Los Angeles Times:

       The broad understanding about this is this is pork. It is 
     dangerous pork because it threatens the nonproliferation 
     policy of this country.

  What are we talking about? We are talking about a whole new form of a 
nuclear reactor.
  This is not a vote for or against nuclear power and it should not be 
confused as that. I support light water reactor technology. I support 
the advanced light water technology that is proposed in this bill. And 
I hope we will indeed develop more contained and even safer second-
generation technology. But that technology is based on a once-through 
fuel cycle, where you take uranium as your major fuel source, burn it, 
and then when you have waste, when the fuel is spent, as we say, that 
waste is deposited and you put in more uranium. Out of that waste you 
could reprocess, and through chemical additives you can extract 
plutonium. The extraction of plutonium reduces it to a very, very small 
amount of plutonium, and the plutonium obviously is the bomb-capable 
material, taking about 15 pounds to make a bomb.
  What this reactor does is create a reprocessing technique that is not 
dependent on the uranium, but separates and reuses plutonium. It does 
so with the technology that can very easily be used as breeder 
technology. I will later point out how the National Academy of Sciences 
and others fear the potential for this particular design to provide 
breeder technology in other parts of the world.
  We know, all of us, how difficult it is to make this kind of choice. 
But I respectfully submit that the realities of this particular program 
are such that, hopefully, colleagues will decide that we have no 
choice. I have pointed out the close to $89 billion history of 
expenditure which has left us not even with a technology at this point 
in time, let alone the problems with the threat with which it leaves 
us. But let me share with my colleagues the projections for this 
program if we do not cut it off today. This is what it is going to cost 
over the next 15 years if we pour the money into it that is currently 
in the mark that comes to us from the committee.
  This is the termination line, this red line going across, about $0.3 
billion for termination funding.
  If, on the other hand, we proceed forward--and I want to emphasize 
not just proceed forward with the 4 years of expenditure within the 
bill which will take you to a certain point in the technology, but if 
you have spent that money and you want to go to the point where you are 
really putting this technology on line, you are looking at, going out 
to the year 2010, a $3.2 billion expenditure just to begin to prove 
whether or not this is indeed truly feasible. As Secretary O'Leary has 
said, that is the difference of $2.9 billion, between continuing it and 
terminating it.
  I will say something later about that. My colleagues are going to try 
to make the argument that it is more expensive to terminate than not 
to.
  That is such an extraordinary argument, given the history of the U.S. 
Senate, and we can go into that in a little while. I know they are 
going to say it is more expensive to terminate it, and I will show how, 
in fact, that is not true.
  I just ask any colleague here, as a matter of common sense, what 
program, where you have an option between terminating it and not ever 
going on with the program or paying for it in a so-called termination 
payout--you tell me which is cheaper. There is not a program in the 
history of the Senate that has not been cheaper just to end it.
  Mr. President, you have the Secretary, the OMB, and all of your 
neutral--and I emphasize neutral--observers telling the U.S. Senate 
that there is an enormous cost to the continuation of this program.
  I know that some of my colleagues are going to say, ``OK, it's 
expensive. But even if it's expensive, probably we ought to fund 
scientific research because that is a good long-term investment.''
  In this case, it is not a good investment because it is never a good 
investment to research into something that is a bad idea. The 
technology here, even if successful, No. 1, is just not needed. We do 
not need this. And, No. 2, it is dangerous. It is dangerous for the 
very reasons that the President and Secretary O'Leary have set out: It 
threatens the nonproliferation protocol.
  I want to make it clear again--and I want to emphasize this--it is 
not just dangerous for anything to do with nuclear power, et cetera. 
That is not what is the argument here. It is only dangerous because of 
the questions that I have raised with respect to proliferation, to the 
breeder reactor and, I might add, to the additional waste that this new 
technology creates. But the prime reason for Senators being concerned 
about this truly remains this question of proliferation.
  I also would like to emphasize--and I think it is important to 
emphasize this--that the President has asked the Senate not to fund 
this program because he and all of the national security team have made 
the judgment that this threatens their capacity to make a clean-hands 
argument, a legitimate argument to other countries about proliferation.
  I think any Senator would say if, indeed, you can create more 
plutonium through this, and there is a risk of breeder reactor 
capacity, then that technology, being out in the marketplace, 
represents more possibilities for rogue nations to begin to pursue that 
technology. It is clearly not in the United States interest to do that.
  Let me share with my colleagues a letter from Senator Glenn. I think 
there is no Member of the Senate who has spent more time on 
nonproliferation issues or who has been more on the cutting edge of 
holding Pakistan and other countries accountable. He writes a letter to 
colleagues. Senator Glenn says:

       I urge you to support the Kerry-Gregg-Bumpers amendment. 
     Events on the Korean peninsula have made all of us more aware 
     than ever of the dangers of plutonium. The Korean crisis 
     underscores the importance of U.S. efforts to steer countries 
     away from programs that produce plutonium by reprocessing and 
     breeding. But if the United States is itself pursuing breeder 
     and reprocessing technologies, its credibility in these 
     nonproliferation efforts will be greatly diminished.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Senator 
Glenn, from the Secretary of Energy, and from the President be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                            Committee on Governmental Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: When the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Bill comes to the floor, Senators Kerry, 
     Gregg, and Bumpers will offer an amendment to terminate the 
     Department of Energy's Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) 
     and actinide recycling programs. As a Senator concerned with 
     stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, I urge you to support 
     the Kerry-Gregg-Bumpers amendment.
       Events on the Korean peninsula have made all of us more 
     aware than ever of the dangers of plutonium. The Korean 
     crisis underscores the importance of U.S. efforts to steer 
     countries away from programs that produce plutonium by 
     ``reprocessing'' and ``breeding.'' (``Reprocessing'' refers 
     to the extraction of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel; 
     ``breeder reactors'' are reactors that produce more plutonium 
     than they consume.)
       But if the United States is itself pursuing breeder and 
     reprocessing technologies, its credibility in these 
     nonproliferation efforts will be greatly diminished. Largely 
     for this reason, Secretary O'Leary decided to terminate 
     funding for the ALMR system. According to the Secretary, U.S. 
     pursuit of plutonium production technologies:
       ``* * * could provide an excuse for rogue nations to oppose 
     international efforts to end their plutonium separation 
     efforts * * * continued support of the IFR would make it 
     difficult, if not impossible, for the United States to help 
     lead the world toward reducing the threat of plutonium 
     proliferation.''
       In addition to undermining U.S. non-proliferation policy, 
     the ALMR system represents a proliferant technology. Recent 
     studies by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the 
     Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) have confirmed the 
     warnings of ALMR opponents during last year's floor debate--
     that the ALMR could be used by a proliferator to produce 
     material that is directly usable in a nuclear weapon, and 
     that it can be readily converted into a breeder reactor even 
     if it is not originally designed as one.
       Finally the ALMR cannot be justified as an option for 
     disposition of plutonium from nuclear weapons. The 
     comprehensive NAS study on this subject found the ALMR 
     inferior to other options because of the technological 
     uncertainties, long time frame, and high costs that would be 
     required.
       In short, the ALMR does not enhance U.S. nonproliferation 
     efforts; it is a proliferation risk. I urge you to vote for 
     the Kerry-Gregg-Bumpers amendment to terminate this unneeded 
     program.
       Best regards
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Glenn,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____



                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 1994.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: At your request, we have reviewed the 
     letter dated June 23, 1994, regarding the Integral Fast 
     Reactor/Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor program that was 
     circulated by Senators Simon, Moseley-Braun, Craig, and 
     Kempthorne. The Administration remains firmly opposed to the 
     program's continuation.
       In summary, terminating the Integral Fast Reactor program 
     in FY 1995 would save taxpayers $2.9 billion between FY 1995-
     2010. If we take the direction that has been outlined in the 
     budget amendment submitted on June 17, 1994, and your 
     Integral Fast Reactor termination bill recommending 
     redirection of the assets of the facility to work on 
     nonproliferation and environmental cleanup, we would save 
     $1.3 billion in taxpayer money from FY 1995-2010. This is the 
     Administration's preferred option.
       No further testing of the Integral Fast Reactor concept is 
     required to prove the technical feasibility of actinide 
     recycle and burning in a fast spectrum reactor, such as the 
     Experimental Breeder Reactor in Idaho. The basis physics and 
     chemistry of this technology are established.
       The principal concerns that led me to withdraw my support 
     for this program are its inconsistencies with our 
     nonproliferation objectives and the high cost of further 
     development. Research on the Integral Fast Reactor system is 
     inconsistent with the Administration's nonproliferation 
     policy, because the United States does not encourage the 
     civil use of plutonium and does not engage in plutonium 
     reprocessing for nuclear power purposes. Because it is based 
     on plutonium reprocessing and recycle, continued development 
     of Integral Fast Reactor would undercut our efforts to 
     discourage other countries from plutonium reprocessing and 
     recycle.
       I also support termination on the grounds that the Integral 
     Fast Reactor has little commercial potential in the 
     marketplace. There is no foreseeable prospect that it would 
     be economically competitive with the next generation of light 
     water reactors currently being developed with Department of 
     Energy support. But, continuation of the program in FY 1995 
     and beyond would be extremely costly. We disagree with the 
     information contained in the letter mentioned before that a 
     savings would not be achieved if termination of the Integral 
     Fast Reactor began in FY 1995. The Department estimates that 
     it would cost $4.2 billion, including $1 billion of industry 
     cost-sharing to complete development of the Integral Fast 
     Reactor. The Department believes it makes little sense to 
     spend such a large sum.
       Termination of the program beginning FY 1995 would require 
     approximately $0.3 billion between FY 1995-1998. Thus, if the 
     program is terminated, with no follow on missions, $2.9 
     billion would be saved between FY 1995-2010.
       The Department supports redirecting the scientific, 
     personnel and technological assets of the laboratory 
     currently preforming research on the Integral Fast Reactor to 
     higher priority missions. These missions, which are fully 
     described in a budget amendment, submitted to Congress on 
     June 17, 1994, would cost $1.9 billion between FY 1995-2010. 
     Thus, redirecting the Laboratory to perform critical work 
     would save $1.3 billion between FY 1995-2010. This is totally 
     consistent with the legislation (S. 1859) introduced by you 
     and Senators Bumpers and Gregg, which urged that personnel 
     assigned to Integral Fast Reactor be reassigned to other 
     activities of the Department such as nuclear nonproliferation 
     and environmental cleanup.
       For these reasons, I believe that the Integral Fast Reactor 
     program, including actinide recycle and development of the 
     advanced liquid metal reactor, should be terminated in FY 
     1995. The Administration support redirecting the people and 
     facilities associated with the Integral Fast Reactor to 
     higher priority projects. Redirection is consistent with the 
     bill introduced by yourself and Senators Bumpers and Gregg. 
     These activities are proposed in the Administration's budget 
     amendment submitted by the President on June 17, 1994. We 
     would urge congressional support for this approach.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hazel R. O'Leary.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 1994.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: Thank you for your letter supporting our 
     decision to terminate the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
     advanced liquid metal reactor (ALMR) program, including the 
     Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project. I want to assure you 
     that this Administration does not support the IFR and will 
     oppose any efforts to continue the funding for this reactor 
     project. The IFR has no foreseeable commercial value and its 
     continuation would undercut our international nuclear weapons 
     nonproliferation efforts.
       In an effort to redirect the ALMR's dedicated and talented 
     workforce at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and 
     Idaho, the Department of Energy, at under Secretary O'Leary's 
     direction, recently completed a proposal to restructure its 
     nuclear research program and focus on areas that support the 
     Administration's nuclear policy goals. On June 17, 1994, I 
     asked Congress to consider an amendment to DOE's FY 1995 
     budget request, which implements this restructuring effort. 
     The new research areas include high priority energy projects, 
     such as the development of novel technology to address our 
     important nonproliferation objectives, research into the safe 
     decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and fuel cycle safety 
     studies. By shifting to these higher priority research 
     programs. DOE will be able to make productive use of the 
     technical staff at the Argonne National Laboratory to achieve 
     the Administration's policy goals.
       Thank you for your letter of support.
           Sincerely,
                                                             Bill.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the New York Times on Sunday wrote the 
following:

       Financing the integral fast reactor would send the wrong 
     signal to Japan and others who are planning to produce more 
     plutonium to fuel nuclear power plants. Besides sabotaging 
     U.S. nonproliferation policy, further research into the ALMR 
     will put information on plutonium separation into the public 
     domain.

  So, Mr. President, proponents will argue that the U.S. will be 
discriminating in sharing this technology, but I tell you, the record 
of that is not good. In the past, technology has spread to rogue 
nations. North Korea reportedly acquired its advanced European 
reprocessing technology that was used in a facility in Belgium, and its 
operating reactor is known to be a clone of a British production 
reactor.
  So here we are, staring in the face of the fact that we have the 
potential of war on the Korean peninsula over people pushing the 
envelope of nuclear reprocessing, and we know they got their technology 
from the British or Belgium, and here we are pursuing a technology 
which everybody knows will move across the pages of scientific 
publications and ultimately into the marketplace as people buy it and 
use it.
  Much of the ALMR reprocessing technology is going to be described in 
open scientific literature because the contract calls for it to be. At 
least one of the contracts on pyroprocessing establishes the right of 
the contractors to publish the detailed results of their R&D work. So 
here you have the R&D work that is going to be put out into the public 
domain as a matter of contractual right.
  Further, Mr. President, the ALMR facilities themselves are going to 
make plutonium more available to those wishing to acquire it for bonds.
  Here we get to one of the central arguments. Proponents say that it 
is more proliferation resistant to alternative reprocessing technology, 
but I would caution my colleagues that that is not the measurement, No. 
1. The meaningful comparison is to compare the ALMR technology with the 
current light water reactor technology, the once-through fuel 
technology which we currently use to produce electricity in our 
reactors. Under this comparison, the ALMR clearly increases 
proliferation risks.
  I have talked about a National Academy of Sciences study. I would 
like to quote from that study so my colleagues are aware of precisely 
what the National Academy of Sciences has said:

       Possession of such a facility would still offer a State the 
     technology needed to produce separated plutonium for weapons 
     should it choose to do so openly.

  I talked about new studies. Last year, we had this debate on the 
floor of the Senate and my colleague from Louisiana, and others, stood 
up and said, ``No, no, this is not a breeder; it can't do this, it 
can't do that.''
  There have been a series of new studies in the last year. I think it 
is three, to be precise. Three studies. Not one of those studies does 
anything except confirm what I said last year and refute what the 
Senator from Louisiana asserted.
  This technology will not recycle the spent fuel from nuclear reactors 
and the plutonium from weapons, and each of the independent studies has 
come out which refutes the notion that they might. It is almost 
shocking, if not hard to believe, that notwithstanding every 
independent study, there is not one independent study suggesting to the 
contrary.
  The National Academy of Sciences published a study saying that the 
ALMR is a bad idea for weapons plutonium disposition. My colleagues are 
going to try to assert that it is a good idea for disposition, but the 
neutral, independent National Academy of Sciences says, no, it is a bad 
idea.
  The GAO published a study saying that the ALMR is a bad idea for 
commercial spent fuel disposition, and the OTA has published a study 
agreeing with both of these studies and claiming that the ALMR could 
easily become a breeder reactor producing more plutonium than it 
consumes.
  These are the only--I repeat, the only--objective studies conducted 
in the last year, and they all came out against the technology. I think 
we would all be well served to heed the independent entities that are 
supposed to provide us with advice of this nature.
  Let me just point to this list. These are the independent studies. 
The DOE says no; GAO, no; OTA, no; NAS, no; Lawrence Livermore Labs, 
no; Rand Corp., no; the NRC Committee on International Security and 
Arms Control, no.
  This is a formidable array of independent studies suggesting that the 
Senate should not fund this program, that it is dangerous, that it is a 
waste, that it is a combination of the two, and even other reasons why 
we should not pursue this program.
  Now, further, on the question of weapons plutonium, the National 
Academy of Sciences did a very thorough study of just the weapons 
plutonium as distinguished from commercial waste, and they concluded 
unequivocally that the ALMR was far less desirable than two other 
technologies for disposal. And this is why I make the argument, Mr. 
President, that this is not necessary. Even if you were to accept the 
arguments of the proponents that this is somehow a terrific idea, you 
still have to weigh their notion of terrific against less expensive 
alternatives and currently available technology.
  The fact is that in a neutral analysis of that you come out and you 
say to yourself, well, we do not really need to do this because we can 
dispose of this fuel faster and safer using one of two other methods. 
And those two other methods are to mix the spent fuel, to mix the 
plutonium with the current fuels, uranium, et cetera, and when you mix 
it up adequately, the reprocessing is so complicated and expensive, as 
we found ourselves, that you have effectively eliminated it from use 
and danger.
  The second means is through vitrification, glassification, creating 
glass logs and then you put it in a repository. And every one of the 
independent entities that analyzed this have said those are the 
preferred routes. They are available today. They do not create more 
waste as does the IFR, and they are safe and they are cheaper.
  Now, the vitrification technology and the MOX technology as they are 
known, are not something that we have to spend another $8 billion to 
pursue. I might add, even if you wound up with this technology and you 
wanted to go ahead, you are talking about billions of dollars to be 
able to spend just to get this into place compared to the costs of the 
current disposition.
  Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences said to us that there 
is a clear and present danger from the presence of weapons plutonium 
and that therefore the most important quality in the solution of it is 
speed, the speed with which we can get rid of it, the speed with which 
you make that plutonium unusable. Well, the ALMR would in fact take a 
great deal longer than either vitrification or MOX, the two other 
technologies.
  The proposed ALMR system would not start the disposition campaign of 
plutonium until after the completion of the vitrification. In other 
words, if you have available plutonium, you can begin today immediately 
to do the glassification, and the period of time it takes in the 
predisposition would take you up until about the year 2005, and then 
you begin the actual disposition. And that is because of the handling 
and so forth.
  In terms of mixing with MOX, it would also take you to about the year 
2004, and then the period for disposition because of the time it takes 
to dispose and go through the half life, et cetera, would take you up 
to the year 2035. But you would not even begin the preparation for 
disposition on the current rate of the ALMR until about the year 2015, 
and it takes you way out to the year 2045, which is considerably longer 
to deal with the problem that the National Academy of Sciences said is 
a clear and present danger and one that you ought to deal with 
immediately.
  Now, Mr. President, there are other reasons why this is wasteful and 
dangerous, but I am going to wait until my colleagues have articulated 
some of their views as to why we ought to proceed forward. I would 
simply say to colleagues that if they will take a moment to peruse the 
literature which they have been given, the copies of the studies, the 
copies of the editorials, the President's letter, Hazel O'Leary's 
letters, and other sources, the conclusion is really inescapable, that 
there is no legitimate justification for proceeding forward with this.
  It is not a legitimate form of future research. It is not needed. It 
represents dangers. There are extraordinary costs attendant to it, far 
in excess of what is necessary to deal with the current waste. And 
perhaps most important of all, it is clearly making more plutonium 
available in the waste stream and in the production stream, which is 
always dangerous, in addition to the technology which can be 
transferred into breeder capacity, therefore representing an escalation 
of the potential for plutonium problems and proliferation problems in 
the future. This is not wise, and it is certainly not necessary 
measured against other available technologies and means of proceeding 
forward.
  So I will await further arguments, and at this point in time I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, my friend from Massachusetts makes a 
very good recitation of arguments on the people who are against the 
IFR. I will not engage in listing all the people who are for the IFR. 
We could go through the same litany of listing who is for. That should 
not determine what we do here.
  Suffice it to say, I will quote only from one editorial, which I 
think sums up the argument against IFR, from the Chicago Tribune. They 
said:

       The administration's rationale on the fast reactor is based 
     at best more on nuclear politics and fuzzy thinking than on 
     good science. At worst it's another sign of the 
     administration's hostility toward nuclear energy.

  Now, you can dismiss that editorial just as we dismissed the other 
editorials that have been talked about here. Today's debate is a pretty 
good indication of the fact that if you ask the wrong questions you 
will get the wrong answers.
  Now, this is a very simple, in my view a very clear, issue in which 
the overwhelming, the overwhelming side should say to complete the 
studies on the IFR.
  Therein lies the first question: What are we trying to do here? Are 
we trying to build an integral fast reactor? The answer is no. All we 
are trying to do is complete the studies while we make a decision among 
the many options, which I will deal with soon, about plutonium.
  The administration, Mr. President, has not made a decision on how to 
dispose of plutonium. They have not. All they have are a number of 
options as to which they have no decision, and so far as I know, they 
do not have even an inclination.
  Mr. President, my friend from Massachusetts put up a list of people 
who say they are all against the IFR, listing prominently the National 
Academy of Sciences. Not so, Mr. President. Not so. There are only two 
studies that I know of of the National Academy of Sciences. We not only 
have those studies but we have held hearings. We have the luxury on the 
Energy Committee of holding hearings and bringing forth the experts to 
testify about what their studies are and what their opinions are.
  One is the Panofsky study, a very distinguished scientist, Pefe 
Panofsky from Stanford, who was the chairman of the Management and 
Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium Study dated 1994. Dr. Panofsky 
came before our committee and testified. What he said was that there 
are short-term and long-term options for the disposal of plutonium. The 
short-term options are what we call the dirty option; that is, you mix 
it with reactor fuel, or with waste from Hanford and you store it away. 
I will deal with those options soon. As a short-term option, the IFR is 
not a particularly good--well, it is not good, and his report so 
states. As a long-term option, it is. The long-term option is to burn 
up the plutonium. Quoting from page 185 of the Panofsky study, the 
long-term disposition, he says:

       The ALMR, for example, is a pyro-processing approach 
     intended to significantly reduce the costs, wastes, and 
     proliferation risks of reprocessing. In this integrated 
     reprocessing approach, plutonium is never fully separated in 
     a form that could be used directly in nuclear weapons, 
     thereby reducing safeguards concerns.

  He goes on to say that:

       If operated in a once-through mold, however ALMR--

  Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor--

     could be used to transform weapons plutonium into spent fuel. 
     The capital costs of these ALMR concepts are generally higher 
     than those of the light water reactor, however, and they are 
     much less close to being licensed in the United States.

  What he is saying is that the ALMR, the Advanced Liquid Metal 
Reactor, or we call it the IFR, is not close to being licensed. It is a 
long-term solution. But it burns up the plutonium.
  The other National Academy of Sciences study on Nuclear Power 
Technical and Institutional Options for the future states this about 
the long-term ALMR. It says:

       The committee believes that the LMR should have the highest 
     priority for long-term nuclear technology development.

  The National Academy of Sciences said it should have the highest 
priority.
  Mr. President, this is a quotation. I have the studies here. I invite 
my colleagues to come see it.
  If you ask the National Academy of Sciences what is the best short-
term solution, they will tell you indeed that it is not the IFR. If you 
ask them what is the long-term solution, they will say the IFR has the 
highest priority.
  So what is the question here before us today? The question here is 
whether to preserve the option for the IFR. Should we build an IFR, Mr. 
President? I do not have the slightest idea. And nobody can until these 
studies are completed. At the completion of those studies, we can weigh 
it against the other options; not until we complete the studies.
  What does it cost us to complete the studies, Mr. President? These 
are the figures from the Department of Energy. The original DOE request 
was $83.8 million; an additional DOE request was $33.2 million, or a 
total of $117 million. We are talking fiscal year 1995. This is the DOE 
position of terminating the IFR.
  Under our option under what the committee has proposed, we have a 
total of $113.8 million, and indeed if you get the Japanese cost-
sharing, that is reduced further by $15 million, for a net cost of 
$98.8 million. So that you save some $18.2 million with the approach 
that the committee has taken in FY 1995.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. President. You save money in fiscal year 
1995, some $18.2 million; that is, assuming Japanese cost-sharing, and 
there is every indication that they will cost share. Without the cost-
sharing, you still have $3.2 million for fiscal year 1995. That is to 
complete the study phase.
  If you want the 4-year funding profile, this is a 4-year profile to 
complete the program, the immediate termination, the Kerry position, 
would cost you $344.3 million; the phased termination costs with the 
Japanese contribution would cost you $327.8 million; the bottom line is 
a cost savings of $16.5 million to complete the studies.
  Mr. President, that sounds counterintuitive. The reason that it costs 
more to terminate than to complete the studies is, first of all, that 
the termination costs involve continuing to operate the reactor and 
using this spent fuel in the reactor which adds additional costs. In 
addition to that, the Department of Energy had additional, I guess what 
you might call, pork to satisfy Illinois.
  So, Mr. President, let me make it clear, and I hope my colleague from 
Massachusetts will admit the fact that it costs less money to pursue 
the option we propose than to terminate the program now. Let me repeat 
that. It costs less money to pursue the option from the Appropriations 
Committee which will give us a look at the option than it does to 
immediately terminate the program.
  Mr. President, what is involved in plutonium? Why this special 
concern with plutonium? The reason is, Mr. President, of course 
plutonium is a poison and is long-lived. Frankly, that is not the 
biggest reason. Uranium is long-lived, as is arsenic, for example, 
which has no half life. It just goes on forever. The problem of dealing 
with and storing plutonium is not particularly a formidable scientific 
challenge. I mean it is a challenge, no doubt. But it is one where Dr. 
Panofsky said we are not so much worried about dealing with the 
plutonium on the short-term basis for example in the tanks at Hanford 
using known scientific technology. We can deal with that. The problem 
is that plutonium has a proliferation problem. It has a proliferation 
problem that uranium does not have.
  The reason is, first of all, that it takes less of it to make a bomb. 
Ten pounds of plutonium will make a bomb, whereas it takes some 30 
pounds of uranium 235. So a lesser quantity of it will make a bomb as, 
indeed, we are finding out in North Korea where small amounts of 
plutonium might give them one or two bombs right now according to 
published reports.
  Second, it is more easily separable than is uranium 235. You can 
blend uranium 235 with uranium 238 which occurs naturally and is not 
fissionable. And you cannot then separate that without going to an 
enormous amount of expense which no terrorist in the world and 
virtually no Third World country could do. Uranium enrichment 
requirements which you require for uranium are formidable indeed.
  On the other hand, Mr. President, plutonium can be chemically 
separated. There are some 26 countries in the world including North 
Korea that have what we call the PUREX process where you simply take 
the plutonium and spent fuel rods, mix it with acid and other things 
that will in effect leech out the pure plutonium, and you can have your 
plutonium for a bomb. A terrorist cannot do it. But Third World 
countries like North Korea presently have the ability to do that.
  So it is because of that that we look to a long-term solution. There 
are now in this country in plutonium bombs about 100 tons of plutonium. 
There are probably 250 tons of plutonium worldwide. Remember, only 10 
pounds can make a bomb. So if you have 250 tons of this stuff 
worldwide, it is a very big threat.

  It is also a big problem, Mr. President, because in its pure form--
and people say it is so highly reactive and poisonous--but the fact of 
the matter is, in its pure form, as in the bomb form, the pits, made 
out of pure plutonium, you can put it in your pocket and walk out of 
the factory with it. That is one of the big problems. It emits what 
they call alpha rays, which if you ingest it, it can kill you, and will 
kill you in sufficient amounts. You can hold it in your hand, and the 
alpha rays do not penetrate the skin or do not penetrate a piece of 
paper. So it is a material that can be handled like this glass of 
water. You can put it under your overcoat and walk out of the building 
and go make a bomb. That is the problem with plutonium.
  Mr. President, we have what we call short-term and long-term 
solutions. My friend from Massachusetts talked about one of the short-
term solutions. We have extensive hearing records on these solutions, 
Mr. President.
  The first is to take the plutonium and put it in existing light water 
reactors in Palo Verde, AZ. There are certain advantages to doing so. 
There are only three of these reactors in the country that can use 
this. What you do is take the plutonium and mix it with uranium fuel. 
The problem with using that reactor in Arizona is that it is a private 
company. It would assume significant licensing and security burdens. 
Frankly, the Department of Energy has not explored this with Palo 
Verde. It is an option, but they have not explored it, I think, for the 
very reasons I have said. There is a resistance to using private 
reactors to burn up fuel.
  The second is to use the uncompleted nuclear reactors in Washington, 
what we call the WPPSS reactor. This is the so-called Isaiah project, 
Mr. President. I do not see my friend from Oregon on the floor, but I 
can tell you that he is absolutely apoplectic about the idea of even 
considering completing the WPPSS project in the State of Washington and 
using that to burn up the fuel.
  That Isaiah project, Mr. President, is not even being pursued as an 
option by the Department of Energy. We had the Department of Energy up 
and asked them, ``What are the options you are going to pursue? Isaiah 
is one of them. Are you keeping the Isaiah reactor in shape where you 
can use it?'' They said, ``No.'' I said, ``Well, is it an option or 
not? Are you using it as an option?'' They said, ``Well, it is an 
option, but we are not going to fund the option.'' I am sure that met 
with great approval by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]. 
Nevertheless, it is one of the options, and you can treat it as 
seriously as you wish, but I can tell you that the Department of Energy 
is not funding that. They have not talked to them in Arizona.
  The third is to use the Candu reactor in Canada. We have not talked 
to Canada either, Mr. President. They have not agreed to use their 
reactors to burn weapons-grade plutonium. It would involve transporting 
large amounts of weapons plutonium or reactor plutonium out of the 
country. You can say, well, that is a great option, but the Canadians 
have not agreed to it. I do not know of anybody in this country that is 
pushing it. So treat that one as seriously as you like, Mr. President.
  The fourth is the modular helium reactor, which may be a very good 
option, again, in the long term. It can actually burn up the plutonium. 
These first three reactor options really just dirty up the plutonium, 
make it difficult to separate. But you could separate it by the Purex 
process. Again, 26 countries have that Purex process, including North 
Korea. It makes it proliferation-proof in the sense that you cannot put 
it in your pocket and carry it out of the building. It is not as good 
as the IFR, which can actually burn up the plutonium.
  The modular helium reactor is in the very early stages. There is $12 
million to pursue that option in this bill. That is not a lot. It is a 
long way down the line. There are some international interests in it. 
The Russians have some particular interest in the modular helium 
reactor as a long-term solution. But we are a long way away from that, 
and it would cost a lot of money.
  The next option is this option, the integral fast reactor. It has 
advantages that nothing else has. It will actually burn up the fuel. It 
will actually take the plutonium and not just dirty it up --which would 
require the Purex process to again separate it--it would actually 
consume the plutonium. That is the great advantage of IFR. It also has 
the great advantage of reducing the amount of waste, reducing the space 
you would need to dispose of the waste.
  There are still other options, Mr. President. You can indefinitely 
store the nuclear warheads. We store some of those down at Barksdale 
Field in my hometown. I do not think people indefinitely want to have 
these nuclear warheads where somebody could break in and cart off a 
nuclear warhead or a pit to a nuclear warhead. I do not think that is a 
serious option.
  Another is to vitrify with high-level waste and bury it in the 
repository. That is, mix it with glass. I saw a chart of my friend from 
Massachusetts that said we can start doing that in 1995. Not so, Mr. 
President. We do not have a single plant in this country that can 
vitrify. There are as yet tremendous problems in vitrifying using 
plutonium, because the science of where you get to a critical mass and 
the storage of plutonium in a vitrified form is not known; it is way 
down the line. Nevertheless, Mr. President, this is a short-term 
solution. We have not agreed or decided, as a country, which option to 
use. This is only a temporary option. It would still be possible to go 
in and retrieve those vitrified logs and extract the plutonium and make 
bombs out of those. Maybe that is the solution that the country will 
come to. The Department of Energy has not made that decision.
  You can see what the advantages and disadvantages are. You have to 
store it in a nuclear waste dump, and it can be reprocessed to extract 
the plutonium from it. Or you could drop it down in deep bore holes in 
the Earth's crust. If you cannot do that with fuel rods, you certainly 
could not do it with plutonium.
  You could dispose of it under the sea bed. Scientists tell us that is 
a serious solution and it could be done. I do not think the American 
people would put up with the idea of disposing of these things--what 
they do is they have these little screw things that would get down to 
the silt in the bottom of the ocean and screw themselves down into the 
silt. Scientists say it is serious. I do not think it is serious. I do 
not think anyone likes the idea of putting all that plutonium in the 
ocean.

  Or you could detonate the warheads underground. Again that is a 
nonstarter.
  Launch it into space. That is good except at what cost? And what 
happens if they fall back to Earth as too many of our rockets do.
  Or you could dilute it in the ocean, literally. Scientists tell us 
you can do that, just dilute it. The ocean is big. I do not think we 
want to take the chance of having all that plutonium in our oceans and 
fish ingesting it.
  As you can see, Mr. President, most of these options are not options 
at all. There are serious options here, some of which are not being 
seriously pursued by the Department of Energy. And clearly as a long-
term solution the integral fast reactor is really the best solution, if 
it works, if it can be done in a cost effective way. But we do not know 
that until we pursue the option.
  Now, what did the National Academy of Science say. They say the long-
term steps will be needed to reduce the proliferation risks posed by 
the entire global stock--that is about 250 tons--of plutonium 
particularly as the radioactivity of spent fuel decays.
  To further refine these concepts, research on fission options for the 
near total elimination of plutonium should continue at the conceptual 
level.
  (Mrs. MURRAY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Remember, Madam President, the IFR is the only one that 
eliminates the plutonium. All the others dilute it in poisonous fuel, 
which makes it more difficult to deal with it to be sure, but this is 
the only one that eliminates it.
  Research and development should be undertaken immediately to resolve 
the outstanding uncertainties facing each of the options. There are 
tremendous uncertainties as to the costs, as to the practicality. All 
of these things are uncertain--uncertainties. That is why at no cost to 
the taxpayer, using the Department of Energy's fission, we should 
complete the 4-year research program to ripen this option along with 
these other options.
  These options, Madam President, are not without risk. Each one has 
some risk. But this option, the IFR, the integral fast reactor, or the 
advanced liquid metal reactor, as others would call it, is the only one 
that eliminates the plutonium. Indeed it takes a long time to do so, 
but it does eliminate the plutonium. And in the process of burning the 
plutonium in the reactor it is never in a form that can be easily dealt 
with by terrorists. That is it will be in an irradiated form, just as 
the fuel rods from light water reactors can be chemically processed 
using that purex. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult during the 
process of burning these up to take them away.
  As the National Academy of Science says, plutonium is never fully 
separated--this is the IFR process--in a form that could be used 
directly in nuclear weapons thereby reducing safeguard concerns.
  The National Academy of Science is recognizing that using the IFR, 
and during this period in which you are burning up and eliminating the 
plutonium, that you never have the plutonium in a form where the 
terrorists can take it away. I mean they could not transport it, in 
effect.
  The Department of Energy says it is highly diversion resistant.
  The Office of Technology Assessment says compared with other older 
technologies that have been used to reprocess and separate spent 
reactor fuel and to separate plutonium, the ALMR system--that is this 
system--may offer more proliferation advantages because of technical 
barriers that could be designed into the system.
  The point of all these, and I think it is accepted, and I do not 
think this would be argued to the contrary, is that the IFR is 
proliferation resistant, more so than the other options.
  Now, Madam President, how does this thing work and how does it 
differ? This is a little bit of a complicated chart, but it compares 
light water reactor plants, the existing plants, with the ALWR in the 
light water plant.
  You mine uranium and fabricate fuel; you put it in the light water 
reactor. This is a traditional nuclear reactor. You generate your 
electricity. The spent fuel comes out and you store it in Yucca 
Mountain, or wherever, or in the spent fuel pools, in the meantime.
  With the advanced liquid metal reactor, you can actually take the 
spent fuel from the light water reactor and put it in a reprocessing 
plant. You can also take the plutonium from nuclear weapons. Remember 
we have about 100 tons in this country of plutonium from nuclear 
weapons, or 250 tons worldwide. You can take those and put it then in 
your advanced liquid metal reactor and generate electricity. Then you 
put it back in your IFR plant where it burns. Once-through, it burns up 
about 25 percent of the plutonium.
  You bring it back in your recycle plant where you remix the fuel, 
leaving it in a form that is not proliferation friendly, always being 
proliferation resistant. You put it right back into your advanced 
liquid metal reactor until all the plutonium is gone.
  The plutonium is gone, and that is why we call it a long-term 
solution.
  Now, Madam President, I am not here saying that we ought to build the 
IFR or the advanced liquid metal reactor. I am saying that we ought, at 
no cost to the taxpayer, look at this option and compare it to the 
other options because these other options, Madam President, have 
downsides, too.
  You know, it is very easy to say we do not want to do the IFR; we 
want to do something else. You say, what else do you want to do? They 
say, one of the options is the WPPSS reactor up in Washington. You say, 
good. What do you have to do to make that come about? First of all, we 
have to maintain that reactor by putting some money into it. Are you 
maintaining it? No. Do you lose that option by not maintaining it? Yes.
  So, they say anything but IFR. But when you ask them what is the 
solution they have none. That is why, at no cost to the taxpayer, we 
ought to get a look-see and complete the 4-year research term.
  Now, Madam President, let me deal quickly with one or two other red 
herrings here. First of all, that is the son of Clinch River, and this 
is a breeder reactor. Any reactor, Madam President, breeds a certain 
amount of plutonium. A regular light water reactor breeds plutonium or 
makes plutonium. I mean you start off with U-235 and U-238, and you end 
up with a lot of fission products and some plutonium which can be 
separated out using PUREX. To be sure it is not terribly efficient like 
with most light water reactors, but it can be done.
  Now, indeed, this reactor as well as most any other reactors can be 
reconfigured to breed plutonium. But according to the Department of 
Energy, in a question asked by Senator Bumpers in writing to the 
Department of Energy, they say it would take some $60 million and some 
3-plus years to convert this reactor to a breeder reactor.
  It is not now a breeder reactor. It is not a son of Clinch River. I 
mean, it is different from Clinch River. Clinch River used an oxide 
fuel. This uses a metal fuel. Clinch River was not passively safe. This 
is passively safe, proliferation resistant. Clinch River had primary 
components in multiple vaults. This uses a single vault. Clinch River 
breeds plutonium. This burns plutonium.
  Advanced nuclear physicist and Nobel Prize winner Hans Bethe said:

       Some members of your committee, I am told, believe that the 
     IFR is a repackaging of the defunct Clinch River breeder. 
     Nothing could be further from the truth.

  Madam President, my friend from Massachusetts and I can stay up here 
all day and say, ``Yes, it is,'' ``No, it isn't.'' The Nobel Prize 
winner Hans Bethe says, ``Nothing could be further from the truth'' 
that this is the son of Clinch River, that this is a breeder reactor. 
It is not.
  The Department of Energy, which, to be sure, opposes the IFR, says 3 
years and $60 million. As I said in the debate last time, Madam 
President, you could make an airplane out of a speedboat, and that is 
no reason not to say do not buy the speedboat to go fishing just 
because you can make an airplane out of it. Or you could make a silk 
purse out of a sow's ear, given enough time and enough money.
  But, Madam President, we are talking $60 million and 3 years plus. So 
the idea that somehow this will be regarded as the son of Clinch River 
and as a new breeder reactor is just not so. It is just not true. To be 
sure, it will have the capability, with modifications, as will any 
other reactor in the country, with greater or lesser efficiency, to 
breed plutonium. But it is neither intended nor capable of doing that. 
And, as the Nobel Prize winning laureate Hans Bethe says, ``Nothing 
could be further from the truth.''
  Madam President, I hope we will take a look at this; that we will 
complete this research program.
  If I could put up that 4-year cost just one more time. Really, the 
key to this argument is this: It is a research program to preserve the 
option to finish the design of this project which, in the finishing of 
the research, we will be able to answer these tough questions. It costs 
less money to finish the research program than to terminate it, using 
the Department of Energy's figures. Until the Department of Energy can 
give us some justification of what option they have chosen, they should 
not foreclose what the National Academy of Sciences says is the best 
long-term option.
  Is it likely that we would ever build the reactor? I do not know, 
Madam President. You cannot make that judgment until you finish the 
program. But to say we are going to shoot it into space, or we are 
going to dilute it in the ocean, or we are going to sink it on the 
ocean floor, or we are going to use some technology like vitrification, 
which we do not now have, to foreclose this option when we do not have 
that option, does not make any sense. Or to say we are going to send it 
to Canada when we have not even talked to the Canadians, or we are 
going to go to Palo Verde, when we have not even talked to the Arizona 
Public Service Co.
  You talk about the antinukes; they would come unglued if you tried to 
use a civilian reactor for the purpose of burning plutonium. And the 
WPPSS reactor, they are not even funding the possibility and they lose 
that possibility in the so-called WPPSS reactor, the so-called Isaiah 
project, by failing the funding. They say it is an option, on the one 
hand, and they foreclose the option, on the other hand.
  That is why, Madam President, this solution, at no cost to the 
taxpayer to finish a 4-year research program, is the only prudent thing 
for this country to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I strongly concur with my colleague from 
Louisiana, and I say this as one who has generally voted antinuclear. I 
voted against the Price-Anderson limit on liability because I do not 
think there should be this exemption from liability for the nuclear 
industry. Had there not been that limitation on liability, we would not 
have had the kind of developments that we had.
  I have also learned over the years that there is no Member of the 
U.S. Congress, House or Senate, who knows as much in the scientific 
area as Senator Bennett Johnston from Louisiana. If you want a good 
argument against term limits, Bennett Johnston of Louisiana is the 
argument, because it takes a huge amount of time to develop that kind 
of expertise.
  Now, it has been said that the President of the United States is 
opposed to it and the administration has gone on record against it.
  I could read you a letter from a year ago, where the President of the 
United States was for it. What happened in the meantime? Is there any 
scientific development in the meantime? None that I am aware of.
  I think what happened is a political decision was made, and I 
understand that. We all understand political decisions. A political 
decision was made because some of the people who are antinuclear, just 
as a reflex action, went to work on the White House and the decision 
was made that we are going to try and satisfy them.
  The Secretary of Energy has come out against it. But let me tell you 
that the personnel, the scientific personnel in the Department of 
Energy, are overwhelmingly for this development.
  Those of us who are interested in seeing that we have nuclear energy 
that does not have weapons-grade plutonium ought to be very, very much 
for this. The Presiding Officer right now, Senator Murray from the 
State of Washington--a fresh, new face who is adding luster to this 
body--has the second largest accumulation of weapons-grade plutonium in 
her State, 11 tons. Only Colorado, with 12.9 tons, has more. The people 
of Washington have a great stake in this.
  As my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, we are not talking about 
the Clinch River breeder reactor.
  Then what about the cost factor? You see the things here. You heard 
my colleague from Massachusetts read a letter from the Secretary of 
Energy, for whom I have a high regard, who said it is going to cost 
$2.7 billion if we carry this out to commercialization. That is the 
commercializing of it. That is a decision that will be made if this is 
successful. We do not know for sure if it is going to be successful. 
But, presumably, the commercialization is going to be paid by 
commercial interests.
  But let us listen to the same Secretary of Energy--this is on March 9 
of this year--over in the House Energy and Power Subcommittee. 
Representative Crapo asked:

       Also, it is my understanding that there is termination 
     money in the budget for this project. I have been advised 
     that the amount of money that it will take to terminate this 
     research exceeds, or at least equals, the amount of money it 
     will take to complete the research. Do you have an 
     understanding in that regard?

  Secretary O'Leary: ``That is correct.''
  Then, come over to the Senate. On March 23, the distinguished junior 
Senator from Idaho asked the Secretary: ``Is it true that the decision 
to terminate the IFR program is not based on budgetary savings?''
  Secretary O'Leary: ``Not in the near time; you're absolutely 
correct.''
  We are not talking about dollars being saved here. We are talking 
about whether we should proceed with research so we can develop nuclear 
energy that cannot be converted to nuclear weapons. That is what the 
fight is all about. And I think it just absolutely does not make sense 
at all for us not to move ahead on this.
  I ask unanimous consent to have an article from Business Week printed 
at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Business Week, Mar. 22, 1993]

         A Big-Science Cut that Could Drown Us in Nuclear Waste

       While the science community is feeling rather good, 
     overall, about President Clinton's technology agenda, there's 
     one curious slight: Funding for the Integral Fast Reactor 
     (IFR) has been dropped. Many scientists think the decision is 
     shortsighted. In fact, a recent study by the National Academy 
     of Sciences tagged the IFR as the No. 1 priority in nuclear-
     reactor science.
       The IFR program was originally launched by Argonne National 
     Laboratory to develop a safer nuclear-power plant. But it 
     evolved into something far more important. The reactor could 
     burn the spent nuclear fuel from traditional nuclear plants--
     waste that will otherwise pose a radioactive threat for 
     thousands of years. Moreover, the IFR should be able to burn 
     the radioactive plutonium recovered from dismantled nuclear 
     weapons. Tons of this nasty stuff have already piled up at a 
     remote site near Amarillo, Tex.--with lots more to come. 
     Without the IFR, this weapons-grade plutonium may have to be 
     guarded night and day for centuries.

  Mr. SIMON. Business Week: March 22, ``A Big-Science Cut That Could 
Drown Us in Nuclear Waste.''
  This says if we cut this, we have nuclear waste problems.

       While the science community is feeling rather good, 
     overall, about President Clinton's technology agenda, there's 
     one curious slight: Funding for the Integral Fast Reactor 
     (IFR) has been dropped. Many scientists think the decision is 
     shortsighted. In fact, a recent study by the National Academy 
     of Sciences tagged the IFR as the No. 1 priority in nuclear-
     reactor science.

  The Livermore National Labs have been quoted here. Listen to what 
they have to say.

       In summary, using IFR high transuranic plutonium would add 
     significant difficulties to a proliferation of the Nation's 
     nuclear weapons program as compared to using weapons grade or 
     reactor grade plutonium.

  The House Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water used this 
language in their report. It is not simply the Senate committee that 
unanimously, and I underscore unanimously, voted this out. Listen to 
what the House committee said:

       The committee has significant reservation over the 
     elimination of the advanced liquid metal reactor. The 
     committee considers the research conducted to be vital to 
     maintain a nuclear option for future generations.

  What do the scientists at Argonne say? What will happen? In terms of 
fuel, a thousand megawatt light water reactor uses 20 tons per year. 
The IFR, 1,000 megawatt, will use 1,500 pounds; less than 5 percent.
  Waste, nuclear waste--what are we talking about? Light water reactor, 
20 tons per year. IFR, if it works--and we cannot be sure--1,500 pounds 
per year.
  Plutonium waste: Light water reactor, 1,000 megawatts, 500 pounds per 
year; integral fast reactor, zero.
  If we are interested in doing what we can to reduce weapons 
proliferation and to solve this problem of nuclear waste, I think we 
ought to be moving ahead with the integral fast reactor. And I think 
the evidence is overwhelming.
  Candidly, I got into this because Argonne, an Illinois facility, was 
involved. And I went in, frankly, with no commitment to them to support 
it. I went in very, very reluctantly. I have become convinced this is 
something essential to the future of the Nation.
  Let me also mention that just this month the Department of Energy 
made a report. My colleague from Louisiana will be interested in this. 
Just this month the Department of Energy made a report on the Seawolf. 
What does it say we are going to do with the residue from the Seawolf? 
They have a little map in here. It shows it all going out to Idaho. 
They are going to use the integral fast reactor. The Department of 
Energy says that is the way we take care of the fuel from this.
  The evidence is just overwhelming that we ought to be moving in this 
direction. I hope we will do the right thing, the logical thing, and 
continue this program. If we do the political thing I, frankly--I do 
not know where the political side is on this for Members. But I know 
where the right thing is. If you look at how we stop the potential of 
producing weapons grade plutonium, there is no question on that. I 
think that is something that is important to our children, to the 
pages, to future generations.
  I strongly support the comments of Senator Johnston and urge that the 
Kerry amendment be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, we have been told here today on 
the floor, and in private conversations before today, that the decision 
the Senate is about to make is principally about nonproliferation, 
about technology options, and about our nuclear future. But that 
premise is wrong.
  Although the Senate has heard a thoughtful and well-presented set of 
arguments for terminating the IFR project operated by Argonne National 
Laboratory, these arguments are all based on the same faulty premise 
that the Senate is, today, deciding whether or not to commercialize the 
advanced liquid metal reactor/integral fast reactor technology. That is 
not the issue.
  Although a letter, Madam President, circulated by the administration 
and referred to by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, makes 
that case, the fact is the Senate is not deciding whether to build a 
commercial-type prototype for the period of fiscal years 1995-2010. 
Rather, the Senate has before it two much more limited questions. I 
would like for a moment to pick up the debate where the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] left off in that regard.
  The limited questions are, first, whether to complete ALMR/IFR 
technology research which has been underway since 1984 and has only 2 
more years to go before it is finished and the test reactor is shut 
down in any event; and, second, whether it is cheaper to finish the 
project now or to terminate it prematurely.
  As the administration's own figures state flatly and clearly, it is 
now less expensive to complete this research than it is to arbitrarily 
shut it down prematurely. Those are the only questions, the real 
questions before the Senate today.
  At this juncture, we must decide only whether to terminate research 
that is 80 percent complete, when doing so costs more money instead of 
saving money. Premature termination of this project will cost $344 
million between 1995 and 1998. Finishing research, on the other hand--
that is defeating this amendment and letting the IFR research program 
go forward--will cost $327 million over the same time period. So 
finishing the research, as Senator Johnston has eloquently pointed out 
with his charts, actually saves taxpayers $16.5 million over 4 years. A 
vote to kill this research program today is a vote to spend more money, 
not less.
  In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
on the 1st of March, the then-Acting Director of Nuclear Programs in 
DOE stated:

       Funding [for the ALMR/IFR program] comes out the same 
     either way, given the participation [from the Japanese] that 
     we are expecting.

  That has been confirmed by Secretary O'Leary before the House Energy 
and Power Subcommittee this year. It is now less costly to complete 
this experiment than it is to kill it. The Japanese want to help pay to 
complete the research. They have committed to provide some $60 million 
through fiscal year 1998 to do so. However, if we cancel the 
experiment, we will bear the total costs alone. In fact, if we do not 
do the research, not only would we wind up paying to prematurely shut 
this down by ourselves, but the Japanese will go forward with the 
technology on their own--with or without us. They make that point very 
clearly in a letter to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Power Reactor and Nuclear


                                       Fuel Development Corp.,

                                                    June 17, 1994.
     Hon. Bennett Johnston,
     Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston, In response to your inquiry, I would 
     be pleased to provide you with information on the status of 
     PNC's views about actinide recycling R&D activities. We have 
     three cooperative agreements with the Department of Energy 
     [DOE] in the areas of fast breeder reactors, waste management 
     activities, and safeguards. In general, we would like to 
     enhance our cooperative R&D activities with the DOE since we 
     believe that, through joint efforts in areas of mutual 
     interest, each country can further its own research agenda 
     and conserve limited budget resources as well.
       In this regard, we did make a specific offer earlier this 
     year to contribute to a multi-year, R&D program on actinide 
     recycling and the IFR directed by the Argonne National 
     Laboratory [ANL]. If realized, this would have marked the 
     first commitment by a corporation affiliated with the 
     Japanese Government such as our (although several Japanese 
     private entities have supported certain projects in this 
     area). We came very close to reaching a final agreement with 
     the DOE.
       Our tentative assumption for this cooperative project was 
     approximately $60 million over five years, subject of course 
     to the approval of the budgetary authorities in Japan. 
     However, the project was abruptly terminated by the DOE in 
     January of this year when funding wasn't identified in the 
     Administration's request for FY 1995 budget. We were 
     therefore forced to cease cooperative discussions with the 
     DOE and no longer secure financial resources for this 
     cooperative project in coming years.
       Meanwhile, we are starting on our own to carry out R&D in 
     the field of actinide recycling. A new long-term plan for 
     nuclear energy, under the auspices of the Atomic Energy 
     Commission of Japan, will include specific reference to the 
     importance of carrying out R&D on advanced reactors, 
     including those for recycling actinides. It requires 
     technologies which are still in the initial stage of 
     research, but we are committed to proceed with R&D in the 
     long-term in order to make tangible progress.
       We remain interested in working with the DOE in this field, 
     although its recent actions don't provide a stable, credible 
     basis on which to proceed at this point. If Congress were to 
     restore the program for the next fiscal year, we would 
     reconsider our options about participating in a joint 
     program.
       We appreciate your interest and leadership on these issues 
     and hope our two Governments can continue to cooperate on 
     nuclear energy and other advanced technologies in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Takao Ishiwatari,
                                                        President.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I will not read the letter. I believe Senator 
Johnston has already referenced the letter, talking about the lack of 
participation in the shutdown costs from the Japanese. But this is a 
serious budgetary mistake, for us to move in the direction the Senator 
from Massachusetts suggests.
  Madam President, I am surprised that at a time of real budget crisis, 
when we are having such difficulty finding money to meet important 
domestic priorities, such as more police on the streets, health care 
reform and welfare reform, we are contemplating dumping a billion 
dollars of tax money into the trash. Let there be no mistake about it 
at all, that is precisely what we would be doing if we vote to kill 
this program today.
  We have already spent roughly $800 million on this research. We will 
spend roughly another $330 million whether we terminate the research 
before it is finished, or whether we carry out research to its 
completion. Either way, we are going to spend a total of a billion 
dollars.
  Ending the ALMR/IFR Program now saves absolutely nothing. It simply 
wastes money and, worst still, it wastes a decade worth of research. We 
are here debating this on the floor now because, quite frankly, I think 
an artificial decision point has been created.
  The real decision on the ALMR/IFR is in 1998, consistent with the 
time-line outline in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That act directs 
the Secretary of Energy to assess ALMR/IFR technology when, and only 
when, adequate scientific data exists to make a well-informed 
conclusion.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a relative page of this 
act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Energy Policy Act of 1992

     SEC. 2122. PROGRAM, GOALS, AND PLAN.

       (a) Program Direction.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     program to encourage the deployment of advanced nuclear 
     reactor technologies that to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) are cost effective in comparison to alternative sources 
     of commercial electric power of comparable availability and 
     reliability, taking into consideration life cycle 
     environmental costs;
       (2) facilitate the design, licensing, construction, and 
     operation of a nuclear powerplant using a standardized 
     design;
       (3) exhibit enhanced safety features; and
       (4) incorporate features that advance the objectives of the 
     Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.
       (b) Program Goals.--The goals of the program established 
     under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) for the near-term--
       (A) to facilitate the completion, by September 30, 1996, 
     for certification by the Commission, of standardized advanced 
     light water reactor technology designs that the Secretary 
     determines have the characteristics described in subsection 
     (a) (1) through (4);
       (B) to facilitate the completion of submissions, by 
     September 30, 1996, for preliminary design approvals by the 
     Commission of standardized designs for the modular high-
     temperature gas-cooled reactor technology and the liquid 
     metal reactor technology; and
       (C) to evaluate by September 30, 1996, actinide burn 
     technology to determine if it can reduce the volume of long-
     lived fission byproducts;
       (2) for the mid-term--
       (A) to facilitate increased efficiency of enhanced safety, 
     advanced light water reactors to produce electric power at 
     the lowest cost to the customer;
       (B) to develop advanced reactor concepts that are passively 
     safe and environmentally acceptable; and
       (C) to complete necessary research and development on high-
     temperature gas-cooled reactor technology and liquid metal 
     reactor technology to support the selection, by September 30, 
     1998, of one or both of those technologies as appropriate for 
     prototype demonstration; and
       (3) for the long-term, to complete research and development 
     and demonstration to support the design of advanced reactor 
     technologies capable of providing electric power to a utility 
     grid as soon as practicable but no later than the year 2010.
       (c) Program Plan.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to the Congress a 5-year program plan to guide the activities 
     under this section. The program plan shall include schedule 
     milestones, Federal funding requirements, and non-Federal 
     cost sharing requirements. In preparing the program plan, the 
     Secretary shall take into consideration--
       (1) the need for, and the potential for future adoption by 
     electric utilities or other entities of, advanced nuclear 
     reactor technologies that are available, under development, 
     or have the potential for being developed, for the generation 
     of energy from nuclear fission;

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I am not going to hide the fact--
and Senator Simon, I think, has spoken eloquently about the fact that 
there are jobs involved. These are jobs of highly skilled scientists 
with hundreds of years of cumulative experience. Five hundred 
Illinoisans and 900-plus some Idahoans accepted the invitation of this 
Government to perform this research. These scientists have had to 
commit their entire careers to long-term, Government-sponsored research 
projects. They make those commitments for decades at a time, totally 
dependent on our orderly establishment of research priorities.
  But Government science policy has been far from orderly these days, 
Madam President. In fact, it has been chaotic and, I would suggest, 
disruptive. We are faced now with playing political games with people's 
careers and people's families.
  Look at the space station, for example; look at the SSC. When we make 
a commitment to these long-term projects, we ought to at least not move 
precipitously to end those commitments unless there are absolute, 
compelling budgetary reasons that force us to do otherwise.
  An article in last year's Washington Post written after the demise of 
the SSC makes the point very well and I want to quote from that:

       To one * * * family * * * and their two young daughters, 
     their news from Washington seemed a cruel twist * * *. They 
     cannot understand why * * * lawmakers were never committed to 
     the project.
       One scientist employed at the SSC said, ``They don't care 
     up there* * * they don't seem to understand how they've been 
     jerking around the citizens down here.''
       Another made the point that, ``* * * the Government asked 
     the scientists and computer experts and engineers to come 
     work on this * * *. We were invited * * *. Next time will 
     everybody come? Will anybody listen? The Government has 
     really blown its credibility.''

  Well, Madam President, we might just blow it again and, in this case, 
we do not have the compelling budgetary justification that drove the 
SSC decision. What must the American scientific community think of 
Congress? What must the American people think of the Congress, now that 
we have just spent $1 billion of their tax money for absolutely nothing 
if this amendment is successful?
  Such poor policy decisions end up discouraging scientists and eager 
students from entering Government research, and I think that is the 
real danger that is done here.
  At some point, we are going to have to stop such disruptive and 
herky-jerky turnaround science policy. The Government signed a 
contract, the Government made a commitment to Illinois and Idaho 
scientists and, Madam President, perhaps--just perhaps--it is time for 
the Government to keep its word.
  I have further concerns about the process in which this decision was 
made. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, which underwent intense debate and 
scrutiny, calls for final evaluation of the Actinide Recycle Program in 
1996 and for a final decision to proceed with prototype construction in 
1998.
  Instead, the administration made a major energy policy decision 
behind closed doors, slipped it into the budget without consulting 
Congress and without fully obtaining the views of the scientific 
community. That is one of the reasons, I submit, for the battle of the 
network editorials that we are seeing on the floor. We do not yet have 
the conclusive scientific evidence and data that the law originally 
contemplated for evaluating the efficacy of this program.
  Opponents of completing the IFR experiments cite a mosaic of reports 
conducted on the ALMR/IFR. They argue these reports appear to show 
consensus within the scientific community against this experiment. The 
problem is that the reports that are being referenced evaluate the 
ALMR/IFR technology solely for plutonium disposal, or solely for waste 
disposal, but not in the context of its primary purpose, which is to 
provide a future energy source.
  It is like the old story about the blindfolded men who confront an 
elephant from different prospectives. One guessed it was a tree, 
another guessed it was a snake. These reports come from the ALMR/IFR 
from different directions but do not address what it was fundamentally 
designed to do. We must look at this project as a sum of its parts.
  The ALMR/IFR was designed to produce energy. It just so happens it 
can burn plutonium and nuclear waste as well. A 1992 National Research 
Council report on future options looked at the ALMR/IFR in this context 
and concludes:

       The LMR should have the highest priority for long-term 
     nuclear technology deployment.

  A recent report from the Office of Technology Assessment also points 
out the following:

       The development of this technology needs to be considered 
     in the context of plutonium disposition policy objectives--as 
     well as overall policy objectives.

  Although the 1994 National Academy of Sciences report concludes the 
ALMR/IFR should not be deployed solely for plutonium disposition in the 
short-term, the report does, in fact, go on to say that in the context 
of future nuclear energy options, ALMR/IFR technology, and I quote, 
``offers the possibility of pursuing the elimination approach in the 
long term, not only for weapons plutonium, but also for the much larger 
quantities of civilian sector plutonium.''
  Further, the OTA report clearly emphasizes the need to complete this 
research, and I quote:

       Because of the nature of any research project in which both 
     problems and opportunities have yet to be discovered, it is 
     difficult to evaluate the suitability and potential [of the 
     ALMR/IFR] for any specific goal. Such a research project will 
     change and adapt in response to data gathered during its 
     development.

  I digress for a moment from the quote. That is precisely what 
research is about--change and adaptation.

       Thus, the OTA analysis reflects that uncertainty.

  And then the report goes on to say:

       OTA cannot provide conclusive results regarding its 
     potential for newly identified uses other than power 
     production.

  So, Madam President, if money then is not a factor, and as we have 
already demonstrated, we are going to lose money in the process, why 
not let us finish this research?
  IFR opponents go on to say that the 1994 National Academy of Sciences 
report rejects ALMR/IFR technology. But let us put that report in 
perspective. The premise of the report was to assess the quickest, 
cheapest way to deweaponize plutonium from dismantled weapons into a 
form useless for a proliferator, into a form like spent fuel.
  Given the dangers posed by that material, I certainly agree that we 
need to do that. And to do that, the NAS report recommends that: One, 
we use plutonium as fuel in existing reactors or, two, mix plutonium 
with radioactive waste, glassify it and bury it, and that will take 
care of it in the short-term. However, not only would burning plutonium 
through existing reactors in the U.S. require relicensing and expensive 
facility construction, but the denatured plutonium could still be 
reprocessed back into weapons-grade plutonium.
  Further, glassifying--the proposal that was discussed a moment ago--
glassifying plutonium would not only require a place for storage at a 
time when we are running out of storage room, but as its radioactivity 
decays over time, it, too, can be reprocessed back into bombs.
  The NAS report recognizes this fact, concluding that:

       While the spent fuel standard is the appropriate goal for 
     excess weapons plutonium disposition, further steps should be 
     taken to reduce the proliferation risks posed by all of the 
     world's plutonium stocks, including plutonium in spent fuel * 
     * * this broad question is beyond the scope of this study.

  The only way to destroy plutonium forever is by burning it in fast 
reactors like the IFR. As there is disagreement within the scientific 
community, there is disagreement within this administration as well. 
And there have been many flip-flops of position as, again, the senior 
Senator from Illinois pointed out, on this technology over the past 2 
years.
  This year, the administration says the ALMR/IFR is a proliferator, 
but last year, responding to a question posed by my colleague from 
Idaho, the Department of Energy stated:

       Because the ALMR/IFR pyroprocessing is incapable of 
     producing a pure plutonium product, subsequent reprocessing 
     using the aqueous process, is necessary.

  Therefore, we believe the risk of proliferation is not any greater 
than that associated with current power reactors.
  This fact, Madam President, has since been further confirmed by a 
recent Lawrence Livermore study, a summary of which I would like also 
to submit for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Fuel Cycle--Some Implications of Using 
IFR High-Transuranic Plutonium [``HITRU PU''] In a Proliferant Nuclear 
                             Weapon Program

   (By Donald L. Goldman, Defense Technologies Engineering Division, 
                Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)


                          Purpose of the study

       To assess the usefulness, relative to weapons-and reactor-
     grade plutonium, of Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) processed 
     metallic fissile material (``HITRU Pu'') in a nuclear 
     proliferant nation's program.


                     Definitions and Abbreviations

       Weapons-grade plutonium=``w-g Pu''.
       99+% pure plutonium.
       94% Pu239.
       May contain -1% gallium.
       Reactor-grade plutonium=``r-g Pu''.
       99+% pure plutonium.
       50-60% Pu239.
       From spent LWR fuel via aqueous processing after cooling 
     for 2 years or more.
       High Transuranic plutonium=``HITRU Pu''.
       65-70% plutonium plus a large fraction of mixed 
     transuranics
       30-40% Pu239.
       From (FR low-temperature pyro-processing.
       High Explosives=``HE''.


 International nuclear fuel cycle evaluation definitions--IAEA, Vienna 
                                 (1980)

       Proliferation.--Misuse by a government of nuclear fuel 
     cycle facilities, know how, or materials to assist in the 
     acquisition, manufacture or storage of a nuclear weapon.
       Diversion.--All activities needed to implement a decision, 
     whether by national government or sub-national group, to 
     misuse nuclear fuel cycle facilities or nuclear materials in 
     order to attempt the manufacture of nuclear weapons or for 
     other purposes.
       Major fissile materials properties of concern to the 
     weapons engineer are:
       Thermal power (watts generated per unit mass).
       Radiation output (neutrons and photons leaving the fissile 
     material).
       Metallurgical stability (constancy of its dimensions and 
     properties).
       Chemical stability (constancy of its chemical makeup).
       A proliferant using HITRU Pu for nuclear weapons faces 
     issues and concerns that use of weapons- or reactor-grade Pu 
     would avoid:
       High heat output from the HITRU Pu means having to avoid 
     excessively high internal temperatures, making issues of HE 
     and pit material design and selection, and possibly limiting 
     allowed operational (i.e., air) temperatures.
       High radiation output from HITRU Pu can lead to: 
     Potentially lethal personnel exposures during manufacturing 
     and use, forcing development of remote capabilities and 
     hindering the weapon's usefulness; and potentially damaging 
     material and component exposures during the weapon's 
     stockpile life.
       Metal properties from 18 material scenarios were examined 
     for their impact on the heat and radiation design issues.
       Each material scenario is defined in terms of fuel 
     management processing and the cooling period prior to 
     processing.
       ANL calculated the output material properties assuming LWR 
     feed-stock:
       2 fuel management cases: Once-thru and recycled to 
     equilibrium.
       3 processing cases: the IFR baseline; 2 possible off-normal 
     uranium-removal approaches.
       3 cooling periods before pyro-processing: 1, 10, and 30 
     years.
       Heat: Temperatures reached by the pit and the HE are of 
     crucial concern to the weapon engineer.
       Pit: Dimensional and density stability.
       High explosive: melting and self-initiation (``cook-off'').
       These temperatures were calculated for some simple 
     geometries.
       Conclusion: heat output from HITRU Pu will be a major 
     problem for the proliferant designer.
       HITRU Pu heat output will complicate and may even preclude 
     the design of simple nuclear devices, due to its effect on HE 
     and Pu components.
       HITRU Pu self-heating will create density and dimensional 
     stability design issues.
       HITRU Pu heat can cause HE to self-detonate or melt, 
     severely impacting the design process. Allowable outside air 
     temperature will likely be limited.
       The HITRU Pu from the 2 off-normal processing cases studied 
     create more heat than the baseline process.
       Use of either weapons- or reactor-grade Pu would largely 
     avoid these problems.
       Radiation: the neutron and photon outputs from HITRU Pu 
     would create issues regarding: Personnel safety, materials 
     and components, weapon utility.
       Manually fabricating pits for a proliferant's stockpile 
     would result in unacceptable personnel exposures.
       For example, making a pit in the U.S. required about 22 
     hours of close-in body exposure (at--\1/2\ meter) and about 8 
     hours of hands-on contact by the principal workers.
       Using unshielded dose rates for the best-case HITRU Pu from 
     the IFR (30 year cooling), these times would result in: About 
     10\3\ Rem whole-body exposure (well above the 100% lethal 
     dose), about 10\4\-10\5\ Rem hand exposure (not shieldable).
       These levels are incapacitating and lethal. Designing 
     processes to deal with them would significantly complicate a 
     proliferant's development and development programs and 
     production activities.
       High radiation levels within a HITRU Pu nuclear weapon 
     could also affect and constrain other material selections and 
     components designs.
       Over time, high photon and neutron fluxes negatively impact 
     materials and electronics behaviors.
       Conclusion: Very high potential radiation exposures from 
     IFR HITRU Pu will add major complexities in developing a 
     proliferant weapons fabrication and handling capacity.
       HITRU Pu neutron outputs per gram are in general 3-4 orders 
     of magnitude higher than weapons-grade or reactor-grade Pu.
       The neutron multiplication of the weapons will raise this 
     even more.
       Gamma radiation is similarly higher.
       So, remote fabrication and assembly facilities will be 
     needed, from receipt of the metal ingot, through plutonium 
     part fabrication and pit assembly, to installation into a 
     weapon or storage container.
       And, very high radiation levels outside a weapon using 
     HITRU Pu will preclude close exposures for more than brief 
     periods.
       Final conclusions: Based on our assumptions regarding a 
     proliferant nation's nuclear program:
       To base a nuclear weapon stockpile on HITRU Pu, significant 
     additional and unique challenges would have to be overcome by 
     the proliferant's nuclear weapon R&D program:
       Design and use of remote fabrication and assembly 
     facilities.
       Selection and use of heat-insensitive materials and 
     components or invention of new, unproven design approaches.
       Selection and design of radiation-insensitive components.
       Constraints on the use of the nuclear weapons made with 
     HITRU Pu would include:
       Dealing with the need for either exposing personnel to high 
     radiation or remotely handling it.
       Limiting the outside temperatures that the warhead sees.
       In summary, using IFR HITRU Pu would add significant 
     difficulties to a proliferant nation's nuclear weapon 
     program, as compared to using weapons-grade or reactor-grade 
     plutonium.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. This year the administration says completing ALMR/
IFR research sends bad signals to the world, but last year they said:

       If the United States wished to play a major role in 
     deterring proliferation and enforcing the international 
     safeguard regime, it is important we maintain the technical 
     leadership in the development of nuclear power and continue 
     to make advances in proliferation-resistant technologies.

  Madam President, that is what this project is about.
  In one of the most remarkable moves of all, Madam President, 
Secretary O'Leary this year awarded the general manager--and this is 
almost a funny story--the general manager of the ALMR/IFR program a 
gold medal and $10,000 for his work on this technology, and the 
Secretary at the time described the ALMR/IFR as having ``improved 
safety, more efficient use of fuel, and less radioactive waste.'' So 
why would the administration award someone $10,000 and a gold medal for 
a program that they then turn around and want to kill, Madam President?
  Because there are those in the administration who believe this 
technology has promise, and there are those in the Senate who believe 
this technology has promise.
  There will be some today who will tell you this is an issue about 
nuclear proliferation. I submit that anyone with common sense who has 
watched the proliferation policy in this country over the past 15 years 
knows we are not going to influence other nations from aspiring to or 
rejecting reprocessing.
  For example, opposition by previous administrations had a minimal 
effect on reprocessing policies of major nuclear nations. France went 
ahead and did what it was going to do; England did what they were going 
to do; Japan did what they were going to do. Their argument is that 
they seek energy independence that we in the United States already 
enjoy. So the idea that we can whipsaw other nations by shutting down 
our research capacity really does not make a whole lot of sense and, 
frankly, borders on arrogance.
  I know the scare tactic and the specter of North Korea has been 
raised here, and that is a concern for every American. But regrettably, 
North Korea just may have chosen to reprocess its spent fuel into 
something more dangerous than new fuel.
  The IFR does not produce weapons-grade plutonium. That is a red 
herring in this whole debate. Proliferation, therefore, is not a 
problem that arises with IFR research or IFR technology. Proliferation, 
Madam President, is a problem with existing light water reactors and 
PUREX reprocessing. Today's reactors produce plutonium that then can be 
reprocessed into bombs. Plutonium proliferation is going to be a 
serious problem, and it is a serious problem whether we complete the 
ALMR/IFR research or not. Regrettably, this problem is not going to go 
away overnight. Therefore, if the moral high ground is to be taken 
here--and I wish to associate myself with Senator Simon's remarks in 
this regard--it ought to be taken by those willing to provide an 
alternative to PUREX reprocessing, for example. PUREX is readily 
accessible to other nations. They have it. They can get it. It is out 
there. PUREX can separate plutonium for civilian energy use or for 
bombs. ALMR/IFR technology, however, keeps power production completely 
separated from weapons production. That is kind of an important point 
here, that we are talking about power production and not weapons 
production. ALMR/IFR technologies, nations seeking to reprocess will in 
fact choose PUREX. With ALMR/IFR technology, there would be no 
legitimate excuse for nations to obtain PUREX capability.
  In closing, I would like to say this is a modest investment for a 
research project that holds great promise for the future. I know that 
many of my colleagues are intrigued by the promise of this technology. 
I know that many would like to see whether we can actually recycle 
nuclear waste into energy, or burn the plutonium from bombs. That is 
what we hope this research is going to give us the capacity to do. That 
is all we are asking for today, to take a look, to finish the research. 
And just think, Madam President, it is not going to cost us money. In 
fact, if anything, it is going to keep us from blowing an awful lot of 
money.
  I think it is worth investing 2 more years in an experiment that can 
solve a waste storage problem, a 100,000-year waste storage problem--in 
fact, someone made the comment earlier today that the only thing on the 
planet that is even remotely that old are the pyramids, and we could 
not even keep those from being robbed--especially since we are now at 
the point when carrying the experiment to its conclusion and 
terminating this project will cost the same amount.
  Madam President, is it not worth going forward rather than hoping 
that future generations will not have to worry about buried plutonium 
and nuclear waste escaping from some underground storage site into the 
environment? That is what is at issue here. Do we not have a 
responsibility to develop promising technology that may deal with the 
disposal of our nuclear waste and plutonium? Do we not have an 
obligation to go forward and finish this experiment, as authorized 
under the act, until we are absolutely sure that this is a dead end and 
that this research does not have the promise that we today think it 
does?
  Madam President, I think we do have an obligation to continue this 
project, to continue the ALMR/IFR research. I think that it holds great 
promise for the future.
  I wish to submit also for the Record--we were talking about 
editorials. There are a number of editorials that I would like to 
submit for the Record as well since we are going to battle over 
newspaper opinions: The Chicago Tribune: ``Fighting to Save Good 
Nuclear Science;'' the Wall Street Journal: ``Nuclear-Plant Design 
Nears Crucial Test;'' the Christian Science Monitor: ``Keep Funds for 
Nuclear Research;'' the Chicago Tribune again: ``Don't Foreclose This 
Nuclear Option;'' the Chicago Tribune again: ``Argonne Nuclear Research 
is Vital;'' Crains Business: ``Argonne Cuts Make No Sense.''
  There are others, Madam President. I will just submit them for the 
Record. I think there are 15 here, 15 different editorials. Science 
News, ``Nuclear Leftovers: Waste Not, Want Not.'' Here is another one 
from Madison, GA. ``Integral Fast Reactor Could Have Advantage.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have these editorials printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, June 24, 1994]

                 Fighting to Save Good Nuclear Science

       Sen. Paul Simon doesn't often square off with the Clinton 
     administration, but he's doing just that to try to prevent it 
     from prematurely and myopically closing off a possible source 
     of future energy.
       As he did last year, the Illinois Democrat is preparing to 
     lead a fight to restore funding for research on a new type of 
     nuclear reactor, after the House recently voted to kill it. 
     Unlike last year, however, Simon faces the opposition of the 
     administration and Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, who 
     decided this year to oppose work on the Integral Fast Reactor 
     at Argonne National Laboratory in suburban Lemont.
       While it is trying to discourage plutonium use around the 
     world and limit illicit nuclear arms production, O'Leary 
     argues, the United States shouldn't be doing anything to even 
     ``give the appearance of continuing the use of civilian 
     plutonium production.''
       While nonproliferation is a worthy goal, the 
     administration's rationale on the fast reactor is based, at 
     best, more on anti-nuclear politics and fuzzy thinking than 
     on good science. At worst, it's another sign of the 
     administration's hostility toward nuclear energy.
       Although nuclear reactors provide a fifth of America's 
     electricity, growth has been stymied by concerns over safety 
     and waste disposal. Each conventional reactor burns just 1 
     percent of its uranium fuel, leaving radioactive waste and 
     about 500 pounds of plutonium a year. Combined with plutonium 
     from dismantled nuclear weapons, the world's stockpile is 
     growing, and only a small amount in the wrong hands could be 
     used to build nuclear bombs.
       In contrast, Argonne's fast reactor is designed to consume 
     99 percent of its fuel, leaving virtually no plutonium 
     behind. Furthermore, it can burn waste from other nuclear 
     plants or from nuclear warheads, thus extending the uranium 
     supply for decades. And it can do so safely, without 
     polluting the air or producing material easily converted into 
     nuclear arms.
       Since other nations, like nuclear-dependent Japan and 
     France, aren't likely to shut down their reactors anytime 
     soon, the Clinton position is politically unrealistic and 
     Argonne's reactor may offer the best long-term solution to 
     reducing nuclear proliferation. The full system is ready to 
     be tested, and it will cost just as much to test and put on 
     the shelf as to shut down.
       So this isn't a budget problem. It's a chance to test 
     technology that may solve nuclear proliferation and waste 
     dilemmas. The Senate should follow Simon's leadership and 
     restore funds for the fast reactor.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993]

                Nuclear-Plant Design Nears Crucial Test

                         (By Michael W. Miller)

       Argonne, IL.--At their sprawling facility here southwest of 
     Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory researchers cluster 
     around a glass-walled ``glove box.''
       A technician pushes his hands into heavy rubber gloves 
     mounted in twin portholes and reaches through the walls of 
     the 12-foot-high chamber. Much as a fast-food worker readies 
     frozen french fries for a dip in the fryer, the technician 
     begins placing chopped-up pieces of metal rod into a mesh 
     basket.
       Uncle Sam has spent $700 million and nearly a decade on 
     this project, the integral fast reactor, and for many the 
     design represents the future of nuclear energy. But the 
     project's own future is now in doubt.
       The integral fast reactor is designed to recycle its own 
     nuclear fuel. That means it would produce drastically less 
     nuclear waste than the current generation of commercial nukes 
     churns out. In theory, it could even get rid of the most 
     dangerous elements from the nuclear waste of conventional 
     nuclear plants, helping ameliorate a growing waste-disposal 
     problem.
       It also appears to offer a potential means of disposing of 
     plutonium from dismantled nuclear bombs and missiles. Its 
     supports say tests have provided that the sodium-cooled 
     reactor is immune to the types of mishaps that befell 
     Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
       While all the parts have worked in engineering-scale 
     demonstrations, only the prototype reactor being built by 
     about 300 workers in Idaho can prove if the integral concept 
     is practical.
       Yet the technical hurdles may be far less difficult to 
     clear than the political ones. President Clinton initially 
     sought to halt all funding for the project. Only after 
     generating some heat of their own did local politicians 
     manage to win $22 million in fiscal 1994 funds for limited 
     further research. Deleted, though, from next year's proposed 
     budget are outlays to operate the prototype plant, and 
     without its completion, researchers won't know if the reactor 
     actually works.


                               A Tragedy

       ``For this nation's energy future, termination of this 
     project just before it will be proved or disproved is a 
     tragedy,'' contends Charles E. Till, associate director for 
     engineering research at Argonne National Laboratory and head 
     of the project.
       Still, skeptics abound. It has been nearly two decades 
     since ground was broken for a new U.S. nuclear plant. ``Are 
     they talking about turning seawater into gold, too?'' says 
     Robert Pollard, a nuclear safety engineer who quit the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 years ago and is now with 
     the Union of Concerned Scientists. With the integral fast 
     reactor, ``you've got a bunch of people who haven't produced 
     anything useful in 30 years trying to save their jobs.'' he 
     adds.
       Despite the budget setback, jittery Argonne scientists and 
     engineers continue preparing for what they have imagined 
     would be the payoff for the years of design studies and lab 
     work performed on small-scale demonstration devices. Even as 
     the fine-tuning experiments continue, a test reactor is being 
     transformed into the prototype reactor, mainly by converting 
     a fuel-recycling facility.
       The Idaho site should be operable as an integral fast 
     reactor late this year. But because the Energy Department is 
     moving to shut the test reactor, it appears there will be 
     funds enough just to try the recycling process as an 
     experimental method to eliminate the nuclear waste left in 
     the plant, rather than as an integrated operation.
       Meanwhile, at the lab here, researchers begin yet another 
     experimental run-through of the electrorefining technique 
     central to the integral fast reactor's recycling process.
       The basket of metal rods, in its chamber filled with inert 
     gases, holds morsels of uranium-zirconium allow, about to be 
     immersed in a vessel of salts and heated to 930 degrees 
     Fahrenheit. Suspended at the end of a positively charged 
     anode and hit with a heavy surge of electricity, the 10 
     kilograms of metal chunks in the basket will dissolve. The 
     metal ions will migrate through the molten salts, then 
     collect in a foot-long cylinder of spidery strands at the 
     base of a negatively charged electrical pole known as a 
     cathode.


                            Nuclear ``Ash''

       If this were ``hot'' fuel taken from a working plant, the 
     pieces of rod would also contain fission material. Such 
     material is the nuclear ``ash'' of unwanted isotopes that 
     build up in the fuel rods and impede the reaction, eventually 
     requiring the fuel to be replaced. The electrorefining would 
     leave that unwanted fission material either on the anode or 
     in the salts.
       However, in this experiment, the researchers are using 
     nonradioactive depleted uranium to permit easier handling. 
     ``The chemistry is the same,'' says chemical engineer Eddie 
     Gay, gazing through the glass like a proud father outside a 
     hospital nursery. ``This works.'' In the recycling system, 
     the metallic mixture that emerges from the electrorefining 
     procedure is further purified by high-tech crucibles known as 
     cathode processors, leaving ingots of pure nuclear fuel that 
     can be cast into new fuel rods.
       Conventional nuclear power plants have to pull their fuel 
     rods periodically because of the buildup of fission material. 
     Even though 95% of the potential energy is left inside such 
     rods, however, the absence of a reprocessing facility for 
     existing fuel rods in the U.S., or even a place to bury them, 
     means that the highly radioactive spent rods have been 
     sitting for decades in holding pools near nuclear power 
     plants around the country.
       But the integral fast reactor has drawn fire because it is 
     a ``breeder'' reactor, which creates more fuel than it burns. 
     The fuel created is deadly plutonium, and the U.S. decided a 
     decade ago not to pursue the design.


                            other countries

       Other countries have fewer qualms about using breeder 
     reactors or about reprocessing fuel. In France and the United 
     Kingdom, for instance, chemical reprocessing of nuclear waste 
     strips out the fission material, allowing the fuel to be 
     reused. But the process isolates the plutonium that also 
     forms during nuclear fission, creating a hazard that's very 
     hard to dispose of and, because plutonium is easily 
     convertible to weapons material, poses proliferation hazards.
       In the integral fast reactor's recycling process, the 
     plutonium and other long-lived ``actinides'' that form during 
     the reaction aren't stripped out during reprocessing. 
     Instead, those elements accompany the uranium through the 
     various steps and back into the recycled fuel rods, to be 
     burned up in the reactor.
       Nevertheless, the reactor's foes see the project as just a 
     repackaged version of the breeder technology, dubbed the 
     Clinch River program, discarded a decade ago. ``Given the 
     absence of economic justification for the (reactor) as a 
     generation technology, proponents of the project are now 
     advancing a waste-management mission'' for it, wrote 22 
     members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee 
     recently to Chairman George E. Brown. But that mission 
     ``poses the same economic, environmental and nuclear 
     proliferation problems that killed the original breeder 
     reactor program,'' the lawmakers contend.
       Its designers, understandably, think differently. Dr. 
     Robert Holtz, standing next to a full-scale processor whose 
     design and construction he has overseen for several years, 
     declares it ``a terrible waste'' if the project is allowed to 
     die. ``To throw this option away seems,'' he begins before 
     pausing to search for a scientist's malediction, ``not very 
     intelligent.''
                                  ____


           [From the Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 1, 1993]

                    Keep Funds for Nuclear Research

       An audible gasp filled the chamber when President Clinton 
     announced in his address to a joint session of Congress that 
     ``we're eliminating programs that are no longer needed, such 
     as nuclear-power research and development.''
       His judgment may be premature. Today, Charles Till of 
     Argonne National Laboratory testifies before a House 
     Appropriations subcommittee. His team is developing the 
     advanced Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), a design that 
     proponents say will solve many of the problems associated 
     with commercial nuclear reactors.
       Japanese utilities have committed $46 million to the 
     project through 1996. Southern California Edison will also 
     put up $2 million next year, and other West Coast utilities 
     are interested.
       Advocates say the design is superior to current reactors in 
     several respects. Among them:
       Safety: The fuel is engineered so that if it overheats, its 
     swelling alone stops the chain reaction. This ``passively 
     safe'' approach was validated in a 1986 test that tried to 
     force an IFR prototype to undergo a Three-Mile-Island-type 
     accident.
       Efficiency: The IFR's fuel can be reprocessed. Light-water 
     reactors supplying half the world's energy needs would 
     exhaust uranium reserves in just 30 years; IFRs would extend 
     them to 2,000 years.
       Security: The fuel reprocessing system is simple, compact, 
     and can be used on site; it cannot isolate bomb-grade 
     materials.
       Environmental impact: By reprocessing fuel, the IFR 
     eliminates the most dangerous, long-lived part of nuclear 
     waste. Its only discards would be nuclear ``ash,'' which 
     after 300 years would be no more radioactive than the 
     original ore.
       The Energy Department has invested $700 million in the IFR 
     since 1984. All facets of the technology have been 
     demonstrated individually. Till's team needs $120 million a 
     year for a three-year, full-scale demonstration. Having come 
     this far, it is a waste not to move to full-scale testing. If 
     the technology fails to prove itself, eliminate the program. 
     If it succeeds, however, the potential payoff is too great to 
     ignore.
                                  ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 27, 1993]

                  Don't Foreclose This Nuclear Option

       President Clinton's economic program, as he conceded this 
     week, can be improved significantly by including more cuts in 
     government spending. To do that, every federal program and 
     expenditure must be put on the budget-cutters' block, 
     including those for basic scientific research.
       Before any of those hit the floor, however, the White House 
     and Congress, with the help of scientific leaders, need to 
     agree on rational, national priorities. Money ought to go to 
     projects that serve the national interest and have been 
     judged through peer review to be the most worthy.
       The goal must be to invest in research that will expand the 
     frontiers of knowledge and keep the nation on the edge of 
     technological innovation, while shunning port-barrel projects 
     aimed at creating jobs in favored congressional districts of 
     subsidizing clout-heavy industries.
       But it is not evident that Clinton has followed these 
     principles in proposing to phase out funding for research on 
     advanced nuclear reactors.
       The proposed cancellation would wipe out 500 high-wage 
     jobs--about a third of the total--at Argonne National 
     Laboratory near Lemont and another 1,000 in Idaho. More 
     troubling than that, however, is that it would kill a project 
     that is developing revolutionary technology that could 
     produce safe, environmentally sound nuclear power for the 
     21st Century and beyond.
       America needs to pursue greater energy efficiency and the 
     potential of renewable fuels, but it is folly to believe that 
     giant windmill farms or fields of solar panels will power the 
     U.S. economy in the foreseeable future.
       Nuclear energy now generates about a fifth of the nation's 
     electrical power, and most analysts believe it can play a 
     significant role in the energy mix for decades to come, if 
     some problems are solved.
       Commercial reactor companies have designed advanced light-
     water reactors, which will be safer than today's models and 
     could be available before the end of the decade. But they 
     still will burn a small percentage of uranium as fuel and 
     leave the bulk as highly radioactive waste that must be 
     safely stored.
       After $700 million and seven years of work, Argonne 
     researchers are close to demonstrating a safe reactor that 
     burns nearly all of its fuel. Furthermore, it can recycle and 
     burn most of the nuclear wastes, or those from existing 
     commercial plants or weapons facilities. And it does this 
     without polluting the air.
       A National Academy of Sciences study last year said it 
     should be the nation's top long-term nuclear research 
     priority. The Japanese, apparently in agreement, have pledged 
     $46 million over seven years to the project.
       With the end of the Cold War, there are major savings to be 
     made in the government's nuclear programs, especially for 
     weapons and uranium enrichment. But it would be shortsighted 
     and foolish to abandon a promising investment in a viable 
     future energy technology.
                                  ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 19, 1993]

                   Argonne Nuclear Research Is Vital

       With an eye more on deficit reduction and antinuclear 
     sentiment than on the future, the U.S. House voted 
     overwhelmingly last June to kill funding for research on a 
     new type of nuclear reactor.
       The decision to end work on the Integral Fast Reactor at 
     Argonne National Laboratory was more than penny wise and 
     pound foolish; it was totally irresponsible. Scientists have 
     spent $700 million since 1984 developing the revolutionary 
     technology, and they had hoped to show next month that it 
     works.
       The Senate soon will have a chance to intervene. Rather 
     than toss out a promising technology just before it can be 
     tested, it should restore funding. The cost to taxpayers 
     would be small compared with the potential benefits they and 
     their children can reap later from a secure abundant energy 
     source.
       Today's commercial reactors are cooled by water and use 
     uranium as their primary fuel. By contrast, Argonne's sodium-
     cooled reactor burns either spent fuel from existing nuclear 
     plants or plutonium to produce electricity. It can be set up 
     to burn more radioactive material than it produces or to 
     produce waste that can be reprocessed and recycled as fuel.
       Despite its potential to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, 
     burn plutonium from dismantled warheads and provide an 
     inexhaustible energy source, House opponents argue that the 
     new reactor would be too expensive.
       Utilities, they say, are more interested in a new 
     generation of light-water reactors being developed for use by 
     the end of the decade, In addition, they warn, the greater 
     use of plutonium would increase the risk of nuclear arms 
     proliferation.
       True, utilities want a near-term nuclear option of new, 
     smaller light-water reactors. But in the next 15-50 years, 
     perhaps sooner, the nation might want to have another nuclear 
     choice--one that can produce electricity safely for centuries 
     with less and more manageable waste than current technology.
       To shut down the Argonne program now without completing 
     tests, as the House has voted, would take five years and cost 
     $406 million. To demonstrate that it works and have it 
     available for possible future use would take five years and 
     cost $445 million a $39 million difference.
       Actually, the Integral Fast Reactor could come in handy 
     fairly quickly. It could be used to reduce spent fuel that is 
     accumulating at nuclear plants. It could provide a market for 
     plutonium being released from weapons in Russia and the 
     United States. As for a proliferation threat, the reactor's 
     fuel reprocessing doesn't produce weapons-grad plutonium.
       Some lawmakers may not believe that nuclear power will play 
     a role in America's energy future, but few scientists agree. 
     For $39 million, a new technology can be demonstrated and 
     preserved as a long term option. It's a small price to pay: 
     the Senate should ante up.
                                  ____


             [From Crain's Chicago Business, Mar. 8, 1993]

                       Argonne Cuts Make No Sense

       In the spirit of shared sacrifice, we're not of a mind to 
     get parochial by nit-picking every Clinton budget cut that 
     might hurt Illinois. But the administration's proposal to end 
     funding for a critical nuclear research project at Argonne 
     National Laboratory makes no sense for the nation, much less 
     Illinois.
       Argonne's integral fast reactor program (IFR) holds the 
     promise of providing centuries of safe, reliable nuclear 
     power. The program is developing a meltdown-proof reactor 
     that burns its own waste, and experiments are under way to 
     see if it can burn wastes from existing commercial reactors 
     and weapons programs. What's more, since IFR burns all the 
     energy in natural uranium, it can provide electricity for 
     centuries; existing reactors use less than 1% of uranium's 
     energy.
       While commercial application is still about 20 years away, 
     a full demonstration of IFR's technology will take place this 
     year. But the Clinton administration wants to cut $200 
     million out of IFR's fiscal 1994 funding and wants to zero 
     out the program by 1998. That would save $1.2 billion, but 
     what's really at work here is this administration's 
     disturbingly simplistic anti-nuclear power mentality. Does 
     the Clinton-Gore crowd really believe the nation's future 
     power needs can be met--and concerns over global warming 
     dealt with--only through conservation and solar windmills?
       We're concerned about the 500 local Argonne jobs that would 
     be cut here. But the shame would be to kill this promising 
     technology.
                                  ____


              [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 24, 1993]

                       Save Argonne Nuke Research

       No sooner do we say that innovation has a partner in 
     Washington than the Clinton administration goes and cancels 
     research at Argonne National Laboratory that could lead to 
     the next generation of safe nuclear reactors.
       Yes, we'll be accused of favoring government spending cuts, 
     as long as they don't affect the Chicago area. And we'll 
     plead guilty to not wanting to see 500 Chicago area Argonne 
     workers laid off.
       But our concern isn't pork barrel politics. Argonne 
     researchers are on the trail of a technology that addresses 
     the major knock put on nuclear power--safety. After an 
     investment of seven years and $700 million, the results are 
     encouraging.
       Abandoning the effort would delight those who, as an 
     article of faith, dislike nuclear power. But slamming the 
     door on discovery, especially at a place like Argonne, where 
     commercialization of new technologies is a way of life, is 
     unreasonable.
                                  ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, May 31, 1993]

                 Facts, Not Polemics, In Nuclear Debate

       Barrington.--Once again, the high-pitched whining of a 
     special interest group with an ax to grind is heard. This 
     time it was Dr. Michael McCally (Voice, May 11), of 
     Physicians for Social Responsibility, knocking a nuclear 
     power generating technology that holds great promise for 
     reducing stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium.
       I'm talking about the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) that is 
     being developed by Argonne National Laboratory. At best, his 
     rebuttal to a prior letter by George Martin on the subject 
     is, as Dr. McCally put it, ``misleading.'' At worst, his 
     remarks are a gross misinterpretation of the facts as they 
     relate to IFR technology.
       He says this type of reactor will produce ``vast'' 
     quantities of waste. According to Argonne National 
     Laboratory, this reactor reduces the amount of waste 
     drastically. The waste from a 1,000-MW IFR plant operated for 
     an entire year would not quite fill a common file cabinet.
       Moreover, the waste that is produced has radioactive 
     components that have half-lives of hundreds of years, instead 
     of tens of thousands of years. It also will burn the spent 
     fuel from our current generation of nuclear plants. Is that 
     so undesirable? Furthermore, plutonium and uranium from 
     dismantled nuclear weapons can fuel this reactor, perhaps its 
     greatest benefit.
       While it is true that the IFR has the ability to make more 
     fuel than it consumes, and hence the ``breeder'' reactor 
     label, it will not produce more pollution or more plutonium 
     for weapons. First of all, the IFR will incorporate a fuel 
     recycling/processing technique called pyroprocessing, which 
     is much different than the process Dr. McCally so caustically 
     refers to in his letter. The new process is much more 
     economical, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.
       The plutonium the process produces is also not the pure 
     stock required for weapons production. Yes, it is possible to 
     make something that explodes from fuel-grade plutonium, but 
     it has been proven to be more theoretical than practical. If 
     a country wanted to start a clandestine nuclear weapons 
     program, the risk of its plans being exposed by stealing or 
     diverting fuel-grade plutonium would preclude any attempt.
       Anti-plutonium polemics begin to sound like gibberish when 
     a few facts like these come to light. It takes a wealthy, 
     technically adept country to produce any kind of mass-
     destruction weapon. It is beyond reason to think even the 
     most evil, demented government would apply the vast resources 
     it would require to an unproven theoretical bomb-making 
     process. One needs only to look at Iraq's recently destroyed 
     weapons program to see the validity of that statement.
       It is unfortunate that Dr. McCally has so little grasp of 
     the facts or an understanding of the technology. The bankrupt 
     logic of the anti-nuclear crowd's rhetoric is getting very 
     tiresome. It would be refreshing to see such groups expending 
     some energy developing solutions to the world's problems 
     rather than tearing down the efforts of those who are really 
     trying. The IFR has the potential to actually do something 
     constructive with the most destructive devices ever built. It 
     can reduce the amount of nuclear waste already here while 
     producing energy to power industry, provide light where there 
     is darkness, and promote peaceful economic development 
     throughout the country and the world. Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, heal thyselves first.
                                  ____


                  [From Business Week, Mar. 22, 1993]

         A Big-Science Cut That Could Drown Us In Nuclear Waste

       While the science community is feeling rather good, 
     overall, about President Clinton's technology agenda, there's 
     one curious slight: Funding for the Integral Fast Reactor 
     (IFR) has been dropped. Many scientists think the decision is 
     shortsighted. In fact, a recent study by the National Academy 
     of Sciences tagged the IFR as the No. 1 priority in nuclear-
     reactor science.
       The IFR program was originally launched by Argonne National 
     Laboratory to develop a safer nuclear-power plant. But it 
     evolved into something far more important: The reactor could 
     burn the spent nuclear fuel from traditional nuclear plants--
     waste that will otherwise pose a radioactive threat for 
     thousands of years. Moreover, the IFR should be able to burn 
     the radioactive plutonium recovered from dismantled nuclear 
     weapons. Tons of this nasty stuff have already piled up at a 
     remote site near Amarillo, Tex.--with lots more to come. 
     Without the IFR, this weapons-grade plutonium may have to be 
     guarded night and day for centuries.
                                  ____


                 Nuclear Leftovers: Waste Not, Want Not

       Legal and safety disputes have logjammed federal programs 
     to create repositories for the permanent internment of long-
     lived radioactive wastes. What's a nuclear power plant owner 
     or bomb maker to do while debate over the placement of these 
     ``hot'' discards drags on?
       Consider squashing or `'burning'' wastes, suggest 
     researchers at two Department of Energy (DOE) facilities.
       On Feb. 22, technicians began flattening wastes at DOE's 
     Rocky Flats plant, a former nuclear-weapons facility outside 
     Golden, Colo. Conceptually similar to a kitchen compactor, 
     Rocky Flats' 44-ton trash smasher drives a piston with 2,200 
     tons of compaction force down upon 35-gallon drums containing 
     plastic, glass, and metal wastes. Resulting ``pucks'' may 
     take up as little as one-fifth of the waste's initial volume. 
     That's a dramatic reduction for a plant like Rocky Flats, 
     which has enough plutonium-laced wastes to fill 3,000 55-
     gallon drums.
       ``[This] supercompactor could save the taxpayers millions 
     of dollars in future disposal costs by reducing the total 
     volume of waste,'' notes Bob Nelson, who manages DOE's Rocky 
     Flats Office.
       Argonne (Ill.) National Laboratory is exploring a higher 
     tech solution: recycling long-lived wastes as fuel for a new 
     breed of ``inherently safe'' reactors (SN: 1/26/85, p.60). In 
     a reactor, some neutrons liberated by fissioning uranium are 
     absorbed by other uranium atoms, transmuting them into 
     heavier elements known as actinides. Because today's 
     commercial reactors cannot ``burn'' actinides efficiently, 
     these heavy elements accumulate as long-lived wastes--
     isotopes with half-lives measured in thousands to millions of 
     years. But in Argonne's experimental Integral Fast Reactor 
     (IFR), ``we can effectively destroy them,'' notes IFR project 
     manager Yoon I. Chang.
       Having demonstrated a technology for extracting actinides 
     from IFR wastes, Chang says, his team must not prove that 
     recycled actinides will fission efficiently. Late last month, 
     they launched a two-year experiment to test just that by 
     placing a small quantity of the actinides americium and 
     neptunium into a fuel bundle that they inserted in an IFR-
     type reactor core.
       If successful, says Charles E. Till, also at Argonne, this 
     experiment ``will be the equivalent of burning nuclear 
     garbage.'' Though his team has thus far demonstrated the 
     ability to recycle actinides from IFR fuels only, Chang says 
     a spin-off program is under way to adapt this technology to 
     the efficient extraction of actinides from commercial reactor 
     wastes.
                                  ____


                    [From Burrelle's, Apr. 8, 1993]

               Integral Fast Reactor Could Have Advantage

       When he made his address to Congress President Clinton 
     caused considerable consternation when he announced that he 
     planned to eliminate programs that are no longer needed, 
     ``such as nuclear-power research and development.''
       In testimony before a House Appropriations Committee 
     Charles Till of Argonne National Laboratory, said that his 
     team is developing the advanced integral Fast Reactor, a 
     design that proponents say will solve many of the problems 
     associated with commercial nuclear reactors.
       Japanese utilities have committed $446 million to the 
     project through 1996. Southern California Edison will also 
     put up $2 million next year, and other West Coast utilities 
     are interested.
       The president's judgment, then, sounds premature.
       Advocates say the design is superior to current reactors in 
     several respects. Among them:
       Safety: The fuel is engineered so that if it overheats, its 
     swelling alone stops the chain reaction. This ``passively 
     safe'' approach was validated in a 1986 test that tried to 
     force an IFR prototype to undergo a Three-Mile Island type 
     accident.
       Efficiency: The IFR's fuel can be reprocessed. Light-water 
     reactors supplying half the world's energy needs would 
     exhaust uranium reserves in just 90 years; IFR's would extend 
     them to 2,000 years.
       Security: The fuel reprocessing system is simple, compact, 
     and can be used on site, it cannot isolate bomb-grade 
     materials.
       Environmental impact: By reprocessing fuel, the IFR 
     eliminates the most dangerous, long lived part of nuclear 
     waste. Its only discards would be nuclear ``ash'', which 
     after 300 years would be no more radioactive than the 
     original ore.
       The Energy Department has invested $700 million in the IFR 
     since 1984. All facets of the technology have been 
     demonstrated individually. Till's team needs $120 million a 
     year for a three-year, full-scale demonstration. Having come 
     this far, it is a waste not to move to full-scale testing. If 
     the technology fails to prove itself, eliminate the program. 
     If it succeeds, however, the potential payoff is too great to 
     ignore.
                                  ____


                [From the Naperville Sun, Apr. 30, 1993]

                       A Different Nuclear Threat

       The Department of Energy (DOE) is apparently expending very 
     little energy thinking about the nation's future in terms of 
     energy, environment or national security.
       It is DOE's serious proposal to slash the advanced nuclear 
     reactor research at Argonne National Laboratory; eliminating 
     160 jobs at the Lemont lab and another 750 at Argonne's Idaho 
     facility.
       If this were only about jobs, we would have a complaint 
     because the economic impact could reach some 1,200 jobs in 
     this area. And this after the feds saw fit to curtail the 
     future of Batavia's Fermi Lab in a highly political decision 
     several years ago to build the Superconducting Super Collider 
     in Texas.
       But this is not about jobs, this is about the future. 
     Advanced nuclear research at Argonne is developing an 
     Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program as a highest priority.
       In simplest terms, the IFR burns its own nuclear waste to 
     the nth degree. This produces cheaper power and eliminates 
     most of the waste that poses a major disposal problem. 
     Further, the waste that is left needs far less storage time 
     to become as safe as the original fuel.
       It has been tested and found far more efficient than 
     today's reactors, far safer, and no hazard in terms of air 
     pollution. Argonne is in fact, now working to develop a 
     reactor at its Idaho facility that would burn waste from both 
     the present commercial reactors and from weapons programs. 
     The reactor is scheduled to be ready for commercial 
     development in five years.
       About 20 percent of the nation's power is currently 
     generated by nuclear plants. There is currently no other 
     long-term option to supply energy the nation needs to grow.
       The Argonne IFR program promises an approach to that growth 
     in a way that is safe, sane and eliminates our addiction to 
     foreign oil--which has proved an obstacle to a safe and sane 
     foreign policy.
       And make no mistake, the proposed DOE cutback is not a 
     budget-cutting priority. Overall the department is planning 
     to spend more on civilian programs by 16 percent than it has 
     appropriated this year. Argonne is seeking $128 million of 
     that $8.04 billion budget, only $2 million more than it takes 
     to carry on the helium reserves storage in Texas, a program 
     that outlived its mission years ago.
       Argonne's program has been endorsed by the National Academy 
     of Science, supported with funding by a California utility 
     through the Electric Power Research Institute, and by the 
     Japanese utility companies to a promised $46 million.
       It has not been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Energy 
     for reasons that appear in a class with helium reserves--
     lighter than air, but smack of an anti-nuclear policy by the 
     current administration.
                                  ____


                 [From the Regional News, Apr. 8, 1993]

                            Cut Consequences

       The proposed funding elimination for research on the 
     Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) at Argonne National Laboratory is 
     a step in the wrong direction. The loss of 500 direct and 
     1,250 other jobs related to Argonne National Laboratory's 
     largest research project would have a negative impact on the 
     communities surrounding the laboratory. In addition, the $700 
     million already spent on research for this project during the 
     past 10 years would be lost. But this proposed cut is 
     puzzling for other reasons as well.
       The IFR addresses each of what has been described as the 
     three ``Es'' of funding criteria for federal research: 
     energy, environment and economic development. These issues 
     are important to our nation's future and have been touted by 
     the Clinton administration as being high on the list of our 
     national agenda. A closer examination of these issues 
     illustrates why the ``ripple effects'' of discontinued IFR 
     research would be felt beyond Cook, DuPage and Will counties 
     in the immediate future--it would be felt by our entire 
     nation for possibly generations to come.
       Energy: Nuclear reactors generate 80 percent of northern 
     Illinois' electricity. Nuclear power reduces our dependence 
     on foreign oil and mitigates costly pollution controls for 
     power generated by fossil fuels. One IFR would supply 
     electricity to 750,000 people while greatly reducing the 
     volume of raw materials. The IFR system would use virtually 
     all of the uranium's energy, as opposed to less than 1 
     percent used with current technology. The greater efficiency 
     alone is worth investing in IFR research. The IFR would be 
     ready for commercial operations by the year 2010.
       Environment: The IFR has been successfully tested against 
     conditions simulating the Chernobyl and Three Mile 
     situations. The IFR would reduce the life of hazardous 
     nuclear waste from hundreds of thousands of years to 200 to 
     300 years. The volume and hazardous waste would also be 
     reduced to about the size of a filing cabinet per year. Its 
     ability to dispose of existing nuclear waste and the 
     plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons is being tested. 
     Our nation's concern for the environment suggests that the 
     ability to safely recycle hazardous nuclear waste should be 
     among our highest research priorities.
       Economic development: Futurists are unanimous on the 
     subject of technology--the nations with it will be the haves, 
     while those without it will be the have-nots. Our ability to 
     compete globally will depend on commercial applications of 
     technology such as the IFR. Japan has invested heavily in IFR 
     technology and will be positioned to take over should the 
     United States abandon this effort.
       Failing to invest in IFR technology would relegate the 
     United States to ``second fiddle'' status in yet another 
     international market sector. Purchasing IFR technology that 
     was once within our grasp from other countries would be a 
     bitter pill to swallow indeed.
       Heading into the 21st century, the United States can be 
     either a leader or laggard in the ownership and application 
     of IFR technology and the resultant energy, environmental and 
     economic development benefits it would provide. Let us hope 
     the current administration chooses to keep us technologically 
     competitive by continuing to fund IFR research.
                                  ____


                [From the Palos Citizen, Apr. 29, 1993]

              Importance of Research Funds for Argonne Lab

       ``This country, as well as the world-at-large, is in danger 
     of losing an extremely important project if funding is not 
     restored to Argonne National Labs for its Integral Fast 
     Reactor (IFR) program,'' said Congressman William O. 
     Lipinski.
       The IFR program uses revolutionary technology which offers 
     safe, economically promising and environmentally sound 
     solutions to many of the concerns raised about nuclear power.
       The IFR's advantages include:
       Passive, Walk-Away Safety. The IFR technology is much safer 
     than current reactor designs. Its inherent passive safety 
     characteristics were demonstrated in 1986 in a landmark 
     series of tests at Argonne's IFR prototype reactor in Idaho, 
     where simulations of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyltype 
     accidents resulted in immediate and harmless system shutdown 
     without any damage to the reactor or the environment and with 
     no risk of radioactive release.
       Dramatically Reduced Waste-Disposal Problems. The IFR 
     technology permits radioactive recycling, which reduces the 
     lifetime of high-level nuclear waste from millions of years 
     to a few hundred years. The IFR can recycle its own 
     radioactive by-products as well as waste generated by current 
     reactors or even excess plutonium available due to nuclear 
     disarmament, providing solutions for the long-term high-level 
     nuclear waste disposal program.
       Nearly Inexhaustible Fuel Supply. The IFR has the 
     capability to generate more fuel than it consumes, thereby 
     providing a nearly inexhaustible fuel supply and allowing 
     nuclear power to supply America's energy needs for centuries.
       Argonne National Labs is the only place in the world where 
     this type of research is being performed. This is 
     significant. Even if the U.S. were to decide not to increase 
     its source of energy from nuclear power, other countries do 
     rely substantially on it. Thus, creating a good deal of 
     waste. France derives 80 percent of its electricity from 
     nuclear power, Japan 45 percent, European countries 40-50 
     percent and increasing. They need our technology. Better that 
     we sell it to them than find ourselves buying the technology 
     from them in the future.
       ``The citizens of Illinois, America, and the world need to 
     rally around this project to ensure a safer future in nuclear 
     power,'' declared Lipinski.
                                  ____


                    [From Burrelle's, Apr. 29, 1993]

             Argonne Produces Fuel Rods Using Nuclear Waste

       An experiment now underway at Argonne National Laboratory's 
     Idaho site is likely to show that the volume of waste from 
     commercial nuclear power plants can be reduced three-fold, 
     and the length of time the waste must be stored can be 
     reduced from 10,000 years to no more than 200 or 300 years.
       Argonne scientists have produced fuel rods for the Integral 
     Fast Reactor using long-lived radioactive elements found in 
     nuclear waste, said Yoon Chang, manager for Argonne's 
     Integral Fast Reactor project, speaking to a meeting of the 
     American Chemical Society in Denver.
       ``The experiment is the equivalent of burning nuclear 
     garbage,'' Chang said. ``In the Integral Fast Reactor, we can 
     turn that garbage into energy.''
       The conversion of waste to fuel is part of Argonne's 
     Integral Fast Reactor project. The Integral Fast Reactor can 
     be designed not only to consume its own fuel but also to be 
     inherently safe--it can shut itself off if it malfunctions. 
     In a report last year, the National Academy of Sciences said 
     the Integral Fast Reactor should have the nation's highest 
     priority for technology development.
       The new fuel rods are made of uranium, zirconium and 
     plutonium and contain americium and neptunium, two of the 
     radioactive elements left after nuclear fuel is burned.
       The elements used in the experiments are some of the 
     longer-lived elements in nuclear waste--they retain high 
     levels of radioactivity for thousands of years. Separating 
     these elements from the shorter-lived fission products may 
     simplify the waste disposal process.
       The elements, called actinides, are separated from the fuel 
     rods in a recycling process developed at Argonne. First, 
     bundles of fuel rods are chopped into small pieces. These 
     pieces go into an electrorefiner, where most of the uranium, 
     plutonium and other long-lived transuranic materials are 
     separated from the short-lived fission products, which cannot 
     be reused as fuel. Next, a cathode processor further 
     separates the metal. A casting furnace then forms the 
     recycled materials into new fuel rods.
       Argonne is located in Illinois 25 miles southwest of 
     Chicago. Argonne-West, the laboratory's satellite research 
     facility, is located 35 miles west of Idaho Falls, Idaho. 
     Argonne is operated by the University of Chicago for the U.S. 
     Department of Energy.
                                  ____


                    The Danger Is Not Going Nuclear

       If President Clinton intends to lift this nation out of 
     economic depression and guarantee a better standard of living 
     for future generations, then he has to go nuclear. This is 
     not a question of ``opinion''; it is a matter of scientific 
     fact. It is a fact that economic prosperity is inextricably 
     linked to the use of the most advanced, most energydense 
     technologies, for only such technologies can increase overall 
     economic productivity and thus foster the process of economic 
     growth.
       Specifically, this means that U.S. economic growth requires 
     the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors: 
     (1) standardized, ``inherently safe'' designs for light water 
     reactors that are preapproved and can be built and operating 
     within 5 or 6 years; (2) modular reactor designs that can be 
     mass produced, such as the HTGR (high-temperature gas-cooled 
     reactor), which is ideal for export and which has the 
     advantage of higher heat available for industrial processing; 
     (3) reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) at Argonne 
     National Laboratory, which will burn spent fuel, including 
     actinides, thus reducing the amount of high level nuclear 
     waste; and (4) a well-funded program to achieve controlled 
     thermonuclear fusion, which includes funding all alternative 
     concept fusion methods (plasma focus, light ion beams, and so 
     on) plus research in the new field of solid-state fusion.
       The President's ``Vision of Change for America,'' released 
     Feb. 17, 1993, ignores this basic reality of physical economy 
     and instead proposes the elimination of ``research and 
     development funding support and related facility funding for 
     nuclear reactors that have no commercial or other identified 
     application.'' His State of the Union address was even more 
     blunt; there the President said that his budget would 
     eliminate ``programs that are no longer needed, such as 
     nuclear power research and development.''
       Whatever is the President's intention, the proposed cuts in 
     the budget include the HTGR and the IFR, both of which have 
     commercial and other applications in a sane world. The 
     problem is indeed one of vision: Does the administration 
     foresee a nation taking the technological lead and 
     developing a second Atoms for Peace program, by pioneering 
     the next-generation nuclear technology for worldwide 
     export? Or is its vision one of a postindustrial society?


                    inherently malthusian renewables

       Windmills, solar panels, geothermal sources, and biomass 
     are energy sources alluring only to those who never had to 
     struggle (or even think about struggling) through life 100 or 
     more years ago--or life today in a Third World country. Would 
     any woman who has to spend several hours a day collecting 
     twigs to light a fire to cook diner--or who has to watch a 
     child die because there is no refrigeration to preserve 
     medicines and vaccines--reject the advantages of modern 
     electricity?
       The energy deficit worldwide staggers the imagination. In 
     the United States, the lack of investment in nuclear and coal 
     power plant construction for baseload electricity supply has 
     left the Eastern third of the nation on the edge of power 
     shortages. By the turn of the century, the nation will be 
     about 100 GW (gigawatts, or 100 billion watts) short of 
     electric-generating capacity, the equivalent of 100 
     conventional nuclear power plants.
       The situation is worse in the rest of the world, where lack 
     of investment has led to electricity availability only during 
     a few short hours per day in countries like Argentina and 
     Colombia. In Eastern Europe, about 100 GW of electric-
     generating capacity is needed to rescue a situation where 
     economic catastrophe threatens war and chaos. For the poorest 
     nations of Africa and Asia, there is not even enough energy 
     for the barest necessities, never mind development.
       The universal form of energy that can be used for heating, 
     cooling, cooking, lighting, industry, agriculture, and 
     transportation is electricity. The most efficient, clean way 
     to produce electric power today is with nuclear technology. 
     The amount of energy produced per unit land area and per man-
     hour of labor by nuclear power cannot be matched by any other 
     technology, including coal, which requires enormous resources 
     for mining and transportation. To bring the poor nations up 
     to a standard of living and life expectancy equivalent to 
     that of Western Europe requires the availability of minimally 
     1 GW of electricial-generating capacity per million 
     population.
       The so-called renewables are inherently diffuse energy 
     sources with limited uses. Even with enormous improvements in 
     efficienty, they will always, by nature, be too inefficient 
     to power an industrial society and support a growing world 
     population at a standard of living appropriate for human 
     beings in the 21st century. The leaders of the 
     environmentalist lobby who attack nuclear power and 
     propagandize for ``renewables'' know this limitation and are 
     pleased with it. They want a return to a smaller, 
     postindustrial world, even if that means reducing the world 
     population by starvation and disease.
       The danger of not going nuclear is that the proliferation 
     of inherently Malthusian energy sources will bring certain 
     death to millions of people.

  And so, Madam President, I just submit that premature termination of 
this experiment is wrong-headed. The administration is just wrong on 
this one. And I believe that we have made an investment. It does not 
make sense for us to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, although I 
daresay I do not think we are being penny-wise here. This is promising 
technology. We will lose money by terminating it prematurely. Let us 
see it to its conclusion, its natural conclusion, and then decide where 
this technology takes us as we go into the next century.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership 
on this issue and for his understanding of this issue. I would also 
like to acknowledge and thank our partners, the Senators from Illinois, 
Senator Simon and Senator Moseley-Braun, along with my colleague from 
Idaho. We formed a good, bipartisan team on this whole issue.
  I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Massachusetts, 
but I have to say that I take strong exception, and I am very 
disappointed with his characterization of this as being an 
irresponsible effort.
  There is a problem here that has to be solved, and to label those who 
are trying to find a solution as irresponsible I think is 
irresponsible.
  It has been referenced the number of States that have spent nuclear 
fuel that is stored in those States, 39 States, whether it is 
commercial or naval fuel or fuel from university projects.
  Madam President, I do not have to remind you about this problem.
  You have over 2,300 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel that is parked 
in your State. You have 11 metric tons in addition to that that is 
weapons-grade plutonium; Connecticut, over 2,000 metric tons parked in 
their State; New Hampshire. It is all over the country. Perhaps if some 
of your weapons-grade plutonium were parked in Massachusetts, then 
there would be a different attitude and approach on this issue.
  But I say to the Senator from Massachusetts it is his problem, too. 
It is every Senator's problem to deal with this. It has been referenced 
that it is ironic and it is unbelievable that in the midst of this 
North Korean crisis we would even consider dealing with this thing 
called the integral fast reactor. Where are they getting their 
plutonium, Madam President? You probably received the same briefing I 
have: The assertion being that country which wants to become a nuclear 
threat to the Free World is getting it from the spent fuel of the 
graphite reactor, and they are using the PUREX process. It is already 
in place. That is where the plutonium would come from.
  So why in the world do they continue this argument that the IFR is 
simply designed to create more plutonium? Ladies and gentleman, we have 
more plutonium than we know what to do with. We have a surplus of 
weapons-grade plutonium throughout the world. While it is surplus, do 
not ever forget that it is lethal.
  Last month I had the opportunity, as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, to go with Senator Sam Nunn and other Members to Russia to 
meet with our counterparts as they begin to put together democracy in 
that nation that we hope will succeed. In those meetings we talked 
about things such as the START treaties, and the fact that as a result 
of the START treaties each country will have over 50 metric tons of 
weapons-grade plutonium that will come about as we dismantle our 
nuclear warheads.
  Is that not a positive step forward, the dismantling of nuclear 
warheads? Of course it is. But what are you going to do with the 
weapons-grade plutonium? Because in these meetings we also talked about 
the organized crime that is now running rampant in Russia. We talked 
about the fact that our Federal Bureau of Investigation wants to set up 
an office now in Russia because of this security problem. You know the 
terrorists would love to have this weapons-grade plutonium.
  Senator Exon--who was a part of this delegation--and I met with the 
minister of atomic energy for Russia, Viktor Mikhailov. We had a 
wonderful discussion with this man who is in charge of the spent fuel 
in Russia. He said they are pursuing solutions to this. But he said, 
``It is a real problem. It is a real problem with the weapons-grade 
plutonium because we do not know what to do with it. Sure, we are going 
to try to store it. But it is a security problem.'' As he said, in a 
matter of weeks you can retrieve that from storage and you can 
reassemble a bomb, a nuclear bomb. Remember, both countries will now 
have a surplus of 100 metric tons. It only takes 15 pounds to make an 
atomic bomb; 15 pounds, and we have 100 metric tons between the United 
States and Russia.
  So I asked Viktor Mikhailov, ``Are you pursuing the fast reactor 
technology?'' He said, ``Of course we are because that is part of the 
solution.'' He said, ``But it is very sad that the United States is 
turning its back on this technology.'' He said, ``We are working with 
Japan and France because this is part of the solution.'' I said, ``May 
I quote you on the floor of the U.S. Senate that you would encourage 
this Government, this administration, this Congress to continue our 
efforts on the fast reactor, and then to share that technology so that 
we can make it a safer world?'' And with great enthusiasm he said, 
``Yes, definitely.'' So we are irresponsible for pursuing this type of 
technology?
  If I were a citizen listening to this debate today, watching it on C-
SPAN, I would think that we were talking about two different things. 
Because those that are trying to support this amendment are saying one 
thing, and they are quoting the National Academy of Sciences. And those 
that are against this amendment are saying another thing, and they are 
quoting the National Academy of Sciences. It is as though we are not 
engaging in a real dialog in talking about this issue; the National 
Academy of Sciences.
  I spoke to Dr. Panofsky, the author of the National Academy of 
Sciences study, yesterday on the telephone. I was not speaking to an 
antagonist. He is not against the IFR. Yet that is how it would be 
characterized.
  I also spoke to Dr. Michael May, who is a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences, the team that dealt with this whole question that 
is being pointed to as saying IFR is bad. That is not what he said. 
Here is a letter that he sent to me.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Center for International Security and Arms Control, 
           Stanford University,
                                       Stanford, CA, May 16, 1994.
     Senator Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: Thank you for your phone call and 
     your interest in the report of the Committee on International 
     Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences 
     on the management and disposition of excess weapons 
     plutonium. This letter is to clarify the position taken by 
     the report with regards to the integral Fast Reactor (IFR) 
     project.
       The Committee did not recommend termination of the IFR 
     project. In fact, the report did not mention the project by 
     name. It did refer to the integral reprocessing approach, 
     noting in part that, in that approach, ``plutonium is never 
     fully separated in a form that could be used directly in 
     nuclear weapons, thereby reducing safeguards concerns.'' (p. 
     185). The Committee did not recommend this approach or any 
     other approach involving new or advanced reactors for long-
     term disposition of excess weapons plutonium, because putting 
     the plutonium into a form as resistant to theft or diversion 
     as plutonium in spent fuel can be done more cheaply and 
     expeditiously by other methods, while eliminating the excess 
     weapons plutonium entirely makes little sense unless all the 
     plutonium in the world is also eliminated, an extremely 
     costly and time-consuming endeavor, and one not compatible 
     with the continuation of nuclear power.
       With regards to total plutonium inventories, while the 
     Committee was not charged with and did not conduct a 
     comprehensive examination of the proliferation risks of 
     civilian nuclear fuel cycles, it recommended that ``further 
     steps . . . be taken to reduce the proliferation risks posed 
     by all of the world's plutonium stocks, military and 
     civilian, separated and unseparated. . . . Studies [of the 
     future of nuclear electricity generation] should have as one 
     important focus minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation, 
     and should consider nuclear systems as a whole, from the 
     mining of uranium through to the disposal of waste . . .'' 
     (p. 228-9) The IFR approach, while not mentioned specifically 
     fits within such systems.
       While I am not personally an expert on nuclear reactor 
     systems, I have been favorably impressed by the IFR approach 
     and, based on what I know, believe the program should be 
     continued.
       I hope this letter answers your question and would be glad 
     to be further help in the matter as needed.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Michael M. May,
                                                      Co-Director.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. He said:

       The committee did not recommend termination of the IFR 
     project. In fact, the report did not mention the project by 
     name. It did refer to the integral reprocessing approach, 
     noting in part that, in that approach, ``plutonium is never 
     fully separated in a form that could be used directory in 
     nuclear weapons, thereby reducing safeguards concerns.''

  Then this member of the National Academy of Sciences team went on to 
say:

       I have been favorably impressed by the IFR approach and, 
     based on what I know, believe the program should be 
     continued.

  So I am not characterizing what the National Academy of Sciences 
report is all about. I am simply reading a letter from a member that 
helped write that report who says he is favorably impressed with the 
IFR and he thinks it should continue.
  This idea that because the IFR, which is a plutonium burner, can be 
converted to a breeder, therefore we should not pursue this, you have 
heard different analogies. But Madam President, that is like saying 
that we should not build airplanes because they can be used for war, 
they can be equipped with an arsenal ignoring the fact of what 
commercial aviation means to the world, ignoring the fact that those 
airplanes transport patients that need medical help.
  So let us not just focus on the fact that, yes, if you want to spend 
the money, if you want to spend all of that time, you could probably 
convert this to become breeders. But you do not need to, Madam 
President. We have more plutonium than we know what to do with.
  Then it was stated by the Senator from Massachusetts ``we don't need 
it.'' I just talked about the START treaties. The State of Texas is 
concerned about this. Pantex has entered into an agreement with the 
Department of Energy that says that they will only receive the weapons-
grade plutonium from the dismantling of these nuclear warheads for 3 
more years. That is it, 3 more years. Yet, we are going to have a 
supply as a result of the START treaties through the end of the 
century. Where are you going to put it?
  At a recent Armed Services Committee hearing, Madam President, I 
spoke with the Secretary of Energy. I said, ``We talk about spent fuel 
at Savannah River, spent fuel at Hanford, spent fuel at Idaho, surplus 
plutonium at Pantex, the fact that we have 50 metric tons of weapons-
grade plutonium that will be surplus as a result of the START treaties. 
Where are we going to put all of this?'' The Secretary of Energy said, 
and I quote: ``Well, sir. I am not certain where I am going to put it 
yet.''
  I saw a report that was just released last week on all of the DOE 
spent fuel and suggested options of what they might do with it. You 
probably cannot see that Madam President, but that shows different 
States. One of the solutions is just to dump it in these different 
States. It is not a solution.
  Madam President, the idea that we are just going to dump it in these 
States is not a solution.
  I do not believe that the solution is just to stick it in the sand. I 
do not believe the solution is to bury it under the feet of our 
children and our grandchildren, because that is not the American way. 
We meet our challenges head on. That solution is sticking our head in 
the sand. Is it the responsible thing to do to simply say that because 
we cannot come up with a solution, we are going to leave it for future 
generations, for the young people of this Nation to deal with it and, 
hopefully, they will have a little more courage? I do not think so.
  The American way is to use our technology and our means to find a 
solution. That is what the integral fast reactor is. Why should we turn 
our back when we are 2 years from the answer as to whether or not this 
is a viable option that allows us to, finally, for the first time as a 
nation, begin having a solution to the nuclear waste problem.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, this is an issue I became involved in 
when I first came to the Senate, and that has now been almost 20 years 
ago.
  In 1978, I began my efforts to kill the Clinch River breeder reactor 
down in Tennessee. I started off with a few votes, and each year I got 
a few more votes. As I began to get closer to winning, and as the costs 
had gone from $300 million to $8 billion, the Department of Energy 
began to frantically dig a big hole in the ground. That is what they 
always do. They get bulldozers out and start digging big holes in the 
ground. When they think they are about to lose, then they say: ``Oh, we 
have gone too far now; you cannot stop this project now. We have 
already invested too much money in it.''
  I remarked to some of my friends in the Cloakroom a while ago that 
the American people have a 14 percent confidence level in the U.S. 
Congress. That is tragic. It is tragic for us as individuals, and it is 
tragic for the political process and the country. Much of what they are 
upset about is not legitimate, and some of the things they ought to be 
upset about, they are not.
  One of the things they ought to be upset about is the advanced liquid 
metal reactor. Congress reminds me of Charlie Brown. Every fall when 
the football season starts, Lucy says, ``Charlie, I am going to hold 
the ball for you, and I want you to kick it.'' Charlie says, ``No, I am 
not going to do it, because you will do just like you did last year; 
you will pull the ball out just as I get there, and I will take a 
terrible spill.'' And Lucy reassures Charlie that, no, this year she is 
not going to do that. This year she is really going to hold the ball so 
he can kick it. And every year, old Charlie falls for it, and every 
year he takes a spill, as she pulls the ball away from him just as he 
gets there.
  The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush continued to 
pull the ball away from Congress on the super collider, and the space 
station, the B-1 bomber, the B-2 bomber, and Congress just kept falling 
for it. Every year there was a new rationale for each and every 
boondoggle. We have a $4 trillion debt to prove it. I could not believe 
the House voted yesterday to continue the space station program. The 
President, to his credit, has done a very effective job in lobbying 
Congress on the space station. President Clinton was committed to the 
super collider, but he could not save it last year. And this year, I 
have a whole host of things which I will be offering in the 
appropriations process to try to cut spending.
  Congress simply cannot bring itself to deal with these issues, except 
on a parochial basis--the promise of jobs in States where jobs would be 
lost. So the Clinch River breeder, even with Howard Baker as the 
majority leader, from Tennessee, where it was going to be built, went 
down to defeat, but not before spending over $1 billion.
  Now we are back at the same old stand with a slightly different kind 
of reactor called a liquid metal reactor. I wish I were as well versed 
technically on this issue as the proponent of the liquid metal reactor, 
Senator Johnston of Louisiana. I never even had high school chemistry. 
But not having high school chemistry does not keep me from 
understanding Economics 103A. And Economics 103A says we are headed for 
an expenditure, which over the next 35 years, if you compound the 
interest on the cost, is going to run close to $6.5 billion.
  What is another one of those ``Lucy'' promises this year? Well, now 
you are told the international community is going to contribute; the 
private sector is going to contribute; and if we do not go forward with 
this, our word is no good. How will we ever convince our partners in 
other countries--the Japanese, notably--and the domestic power 
industry, that our word is good if we stop now? Well, we would be doing 
them a big favor if we stop now, because, despite what you hear to the 
contrary, there are no foreign or private contributions. Nobody is 
committed. You could not pick a better time to keep your word.
  I have heard figures all over the place this morning about what it is 
going to cost to terminate this project, and what it would cost to go 
ahead with it. These figures are not something I conjured up in the 
middle of the night. I do not know where you get better figures than 
the Department of Energy. Neither they nor the President want the 
project. But here is what it is going to cost in constant dollars--$3.4 
billion--if we go ahead with the liquid metal reactor program. Here is 
what it would cost to terminate, if the Senate does its duty today. 
Three hundred million dollars; less than 10 percent of what the total 
cost of it will be if we complete this project.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. SIMON. If I can just quote from Secretary O'Leary's testimony in 
the House Energy and Power Subcommittee. Representative Crapo says:

       I have been advised that the amount of money that it will 
     take to terminate this research exceeds, or at least equals, 
     the amount of money it will take to complete the research. Do 
     you have an understanding in that regard?

  Secretary O'Leary: ``That is correct.''
  I just point out to my friend from Arkansas that I think the more 
recent letter just does not make sense, because it counts 
commercialization.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I will read a letter that Senator Kerry 
and I received from Hazel O'Leary about 30 minutes ago.
  It reads as follows:

       Dear Senator Kerrey: In response to your request, the 
     Department of Energy has not signed any new agreement with 
     the government of Japan or the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel 
     Development Corporation of Japan that provides for financial 
     contributions to the Integral Fast Reactor program. 
     Therefore, based on Department of Energy budgetary evidence 
     from fiscal year 1995 to 1998, the cost to terminate the 
     Integral Fast Reactor program will be $27 million less than 
     continuing the program.

  This letter is 30 minutes old.
  Madam President, we are not just talking about what it is going to 
take to continue this program. Admittedly, the difference in cost of 
termination and continuing over the next 4 years is small. We are 
talking about what it is going to cost over the 35-year life of the 
project, and that difference is: $300 million versus $6\1/2\ billion, 
counting the interest on the money we will borrow.
  There is another thing that I might point out, and that is we have 
not built a nuclear power plant in this country since 1976, 18 long 
years. And do you know why we have not? Because the American people do 
not want them. We have 109 nuclear power plants in this country right 
now, which, incidentally, could burn up this 100 tons of plutonium we 
are trying to deal with. I am going to come back to that in just a 
moment. But the people in this country, particularly after Chernobyl, 
but even before that, said no more nuclear power until you can convince 
us that our children are safe.
  We have not been able to come up with a light water reactor or any 
other kind of reactor design that would assure the people of this 
country that they are not in danger. So we have not built them.
  Back to the double whammy which I started out to talk about a while 
ago. You get a chance to once again say to the American people we are 
serious about cutting the deficit; we are not going to go forward with 
a highly questionable project and take $6\1/2\ billion of your money to 
do it. How could you benefit more politically, because that is the name 
of the game around here, than to go home and say not only are we going 
to not breed more plutonium and make the world less safe, we are not 
going to breed plutonium and we are going to save you $6\1/2\ billion 
at the same time.
  Third, why is it we want to go against the Department of Energy and 
the President's foreign policy. It is all wrong.
  (Mr. PRYOR assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am one of the 42 percent of the people 
of this country who do not disapprove of the President's foreign 
policy. Oh, I know it is very difficult for people in this country to 
approve a foreign policy of the President unless he is willing to send 
troops everywhere there happens to be a dispute to show that we are the 
big man on the block.
  I was as concerned and I remain as concerned about Korea as any spot 
on the face of the Earth. But I will say this: Things are looking a lot 
better in Korea. And do you know why? Not because we bombed their 
nuclear facilities but because we talked to them, and now they say, 
``We are going to let you inspect our facilities.'' And there is 
something else that nobody ever dreamed would happen, a summit between 
the North and South Korean leaders scheduled for July 27.
  So once again a little patience and a little talking, at least for 
the time being, appears to have been a good approach on the part of the 
President.
  Why does not someone write that story that that is turning out as a 
very successful policy of this President?
  We debated Haiti all day yesterday. I voted against the amendment of 
the Senator from New Hampshire because I do not think the Congress 
generally has any business telling the President what he can do and 
cannot do in implementing foreign policy. But some people will never be 
happy until we send troops to Haiti. The same people who are clamoring 
to send troops to Haiti, will, when it bogs down and American bodies 
start coming back in body bags, say he messed it up; he is not doing 
what I intended. He did it all wrong.
  I have been here 20 years and I have seen that happen time and time 
again.
  You have another crowd around here that wants to go into Bosnia, 
whether the United Nations and our partners in the United Nations like 
it or not. Do you know where Bosnia is? It is in Europe. It is not on 
our border north or south.
  We have an interest. We have an interest in solving the problems 
there and stopping that war. But I can tell you even though I voted 
against going to Iraq, at that particular time, I consistently 
applauded George Bush for getting the United Nations to approve it and 
only going when we had the United Nations on board, and they all went 
and they all fought. That is the way it ought to be done.
  When Bill Clinton was trying to get all of our United Nations 
neighbors to start bombing the Serb positions around Sarajevo, every 
one of them said no thank you.
  It is in their backyards, not ours.
  But now the guns are fairly silent in what used to be Yugoslavia. It 
just may be that a little patience has paid off.
  With regard to Korea, I would have been prepared at some point 
because that is a renegade society, to consider military action. And 
even though things are looking good there, Kim Il-song is the same old 
Kim Il-song that we have been dealing with now for over 40 years. I 
just hold my breath and hope things turn out right.
  All I am saying is that in Bosnia and in Korea, so far, patience and 
talking has paid off.
  If you start down the road building this liquid metal reactor and 
processing and reprocessing plutonium, of which we have 100 tons, 
instead of disposing of it right now, either by vitrification or 
burning it up in light water reactors, which can be done, what do you 
say to the Koreans? What do you say to the rest of the world? We have 
the moral high ground. When you vote against the Kerry-Gregg-Bumpers 
amendment, you are saying: We do not like the high ground. We like 
plutonium, lots of it. Why? Why would you want to give up a very strong 
moral position that we now occupy by saying we are going to flood this 
world with more plutonium and just hope to God someone does not steal 
it and make a bomb out of it?
  Mr. President, I was able to kill the Clinch River breeder reactor in 
1983 but since 1986, we have already spent $1.4 billion and are headed 
for $6.5 billion over 35 years on an LMR.
  Last year, the House, to its eternal credit, voted overwhelmingly to 
kill this project, 272 to 146. The Senate voted the other way--53 to 45 
against the Kerry-Bumpers-Gregg amendment last year. So what happened 
when we went to conference with the House? Well, the House committee 
receded to the Senate and $100 million more went down the tube.
  Mr. President, I do not deny that we may be able to build this 
reactor. I do not know that we can, but I think it may be possible to 
build the integral fast reactor. But I do not think it is going to be 
feasible economically to use these reactors, because they are not going 
to be competitive, for 40 to 60 years given expected uranium prices.
  The National Academy of Sciences, on whom we depend for our most 
really reliable scientific information, says that the liquid metal 
reactor cannot possibly be economical until 2025, at the earliest. That 
is 31 years from now.
  When it comes to breeding, I have heard so many claims this morning, 
let me quote some other scientists.
  The Senator from Louisiana says this is going to eat up plutonium; we 
are going to get rid of the plutonium by using it to fuel an integral 
fast reactor. And, again, I am not going to deny that that might be 
possible, Mr. President. But I do know one thing. If you wrap a uranium 
blanket around an IFR reactor, you can breed up to 20 to 30 percent 
more plutonium than you will consume.
  Now, my friend from Idaho and other supporters of this will say, 
``Yeah, that's fine, but to turn an IFR into a breeder is very 
difficult and time-consuming.''
  Well, even your own Dr. Charles Till, of Argonne Laboratories, said 
before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ``It is not a 
tremendous change to make it a breeder and it would probably only take 
a few weeks to do it.''
  We always change the missions of government programs to keep them 
going. Do you remember when we were going to build the B-2--and they 
were going to cost $500 million each--because it was stealthy and it 
could evade Russian radar and drop its bombs in a nuclear war? And now 
the Russians are becoming a part of NATO, they are becoming a part of 
the space station, they have dropped communism. They represent no 
threat to this Nation right now. The B-2 was intended to drop bombs on 
the Russians and we are going to have a debate later today or tomorrow 
about building an additional 20 B-2 bombers to drop bombs, not nuclear 
bombs, just drop bombs anywhere, not just on Russia. It is now touted 
as a conventional bomber.
  We can think up more reasons to continue wasteful programs than 
anybody in the world. Every time one falls flat, somebody comes up with 
another rationale to spend the taxpayers' money. And the liquid metal 
reactor is no different.
  Everybody here knows that the reason we started building the liquid 
metal reactor to begin with was for military purposes, to make 
plutonium so we could build more bombs. But now, now that we are 
dismantling thousands of nuclear warheads, we say, ``Well, we are going 
to use it to generate electricity.''
  We have not even found a way to permanently store spent fuel rods 
from light water reactors but we want to make more plutonium. In a 
General Electric advertisement--and they are hot for this thing--they 
promote the fact in their advertising that the LMR is a potential 
breeder of plutonium. And, according to the Office of Technology 
Assessment--which, along with the National Academy of Sciences, are the 
two scientific groups we depend on most in the U.S. Senate--``It would 
be difficult or impossible to design a reactor core that could be 
guaranteed to not work as a plutonium breeder.''
  Let me say that in ordinary English. The Office of Technology 
Assessment says it would be impossible, virtually impossible, to design 
a reactor core that did not breed plutonium. What more does anybody 
want?
  IFR fuel is less pure than the fuel that would have been generated by 
the Clinch River breeder. But the plutonium from an integral fast 
reactor is much closer to weapons grade material than spent fuel from 
light water reactors by a margin of 20 to 1.
  One of the first international trips I took after I came to the U.S. 
Senate was to visit the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. I 
spent 2 days with them briefing me about how they monitor nuclear 
plants and determine whether there has been any theft or diversion of 
material.
  They have cameras in these plants, and they have an accounting 
procedure: How much did you have? How much do you have now? And what is 
the difference and what happened to it? It is not all that complicated.
  But there was some fuel missing in Korea and that is what we were 
concerned about. Many scientists believe there is enough material in 
Korea's nuclear complex that has probably been diverted to make one or 
two bombs. That is the IAEA's sole purpose for existing, to track 
fissionable material.
  We have 100 tons of plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons. 100 
tons is a lot. One way of getting rid of it is to vitrify it, that is 
make a glass rod of it. And, you can use it in a light water reactor.
  Second, if we decide to use it in the existing 109 nuclear 
powerplants of this country, it would take 25 years to dispose of the 
entire amount. But if you stored it until you can build an LMR, 30 to 
40 years hence, you would have 30 to 40 years in which the possibility, 
indeed the threat, of diversion and theft grows. And, in addition to 
that, how do we say to France and Japan that we wish you would quit 
processing plutonium, when we are doing it?
  The Office of Technology Assessment, again, says that advanced liquid 
metal reactor technology is less appropriate than near-term technology.
  Let me say one more time, the Department of Energy says, if you want 
to get rid of this plutonium, you can mix it with uranium and dispose 
of it within 25 years in light water reactors. Why would we not do 
that?
  Now if I may, in closing, address a question to my good friend and 
distinguished colleague, the chairman of my committee, the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, Mr. President.
  (Mr. ROBB assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, on a separate matter, I discovered this 
morning that this bill takes $65 million from funds we had appropriated 
last year for closing down the superconducting super collider in Texas 
and put it into what was described in the bill as a one-time 
contribution to some remnant of the SSC.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Department of Energy has had ongoing 
negotiations with the State of Texas about the termination costs of the 
SSC. The State of Texas has huge claims, as you can imagine, because 
they have floated some one-half billion dollar's worth of bonds and 
there are claims under a memorandum of understanding which are quite 
ambiguous, but also the claims resulting from that are quite huge with 
respect to what they are claiming for termination costs.
  Along the line, there had been extensive negotiations with the 
Department of Energy as to how they might settle that. And, really, the 
State of Texas--the principal thing they would like is to be able to 
make something useful out of the site down there. So as part of a 
settlement, and as to minimize the loss and to maximize the use of the 
facilities down there, they have proposed that you take what we call 
the LINAC, the linear accelerator, which is the first step of speeding 
up protons that were going to be injected into that big ring--the LINAC 
is mostly complete--they want to convert that LINAC into a medical 
facility which will have the ability to treat cancer. What the protons 
can actually do, the ions, is go through the skin into the body where 
you do not have to cut open the body but you can actually go in and 
excise a tumor without ever opening the skin. We have one of these 
facilities in Loma Linda, CA. It is, they tell me, the preferred way to 
treat prostrate cancer. I suggest, if any of my colleagues gets this, 
they should explore particularly the one at Loma Linda.
  In any event, they want to do that using money already appropriated 
that is a carryover from prior years. It is a one-time expense 
recommended by the Department of Energy and as part of a settlement 
with the State of Texas. I think it is prudent to do so. It maximizes 
the utility of the LINAC, which is already in place. Texas will share 
the cost of building the facility and will bear the full cost of 
operation of the facility. I think it is a prudent thing to do. It 
involves no additional spending authority. If we did not do this, we 
might have to settle this thing in court, which would take some years 
and could be much more expensive.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say to my colleague, on April 12 of this year, 
the Department of Energy said that the remaining termination costs on 
the superconducting super collider were $568 million. Are we proposing 
to take $65 million of that?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No, no. The $65 million previously appropriated to SSC 
remains with SSC. It is being transferred over to convert the LINAC, 
the linear accelerator. It has nothing to do with IFR. The linear 
accelerator, which is the first step of starting the protons, you 
know--we were going to put them around the ring in the SSC. The first 
step is the linear accelerator, and we are going to convert that for 
medical purposes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with IFR.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask this simple question, if the Senator can give 
me a bottom-line figure. If the Kerry amendment fails, how much money 
is in the bill to continue the liquid metal reactor research?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I have a chart on that. It is $98 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. As I understand it, funds provided for SSC termination 
and LINAC have nothing to do with funds provided for the LMR.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No. The IFR and the LINAC, in Texas, are totally 
separate. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
  Here is what the Department of Energy wants to do. They want the 
original request of $83.8 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will my colleague turn that chart around just a little?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. The Department of Energy's original request is 
$83.8 million. They have an additional request of $33.2 million, which 
is for--I would call it sort of pork, to help the people in the area 
and keep them employed. So they have asked for $117 million.
  Our phased termination option, which is 4 years, is $113.8 million. 
If the Japanese cost share--and that is not for sure. I have a lot of 
correspondence here from the Japanese where they would indicate--they 
were ready to close the deal earlier. Now they said they would 
reconsider. But they would contribute $15 million. The net cost this 
year would be $98.8. That is for fiscal year 1995.
  So this is the comparison in cost of what the DOE was requesting and 
what we want to do with the Japanese contribution. In other words, it 
costs $18.2 million less to do what we wanted to do than what the 
Department of Energy wanted to do. Or, over a 4-year period it will 
cost $344.3 million under the Kerry amendment, and with our phased 
termination cost it will cost $327.8 million. That includes the 
Japanese contribution.
  Again, that may not come in, but we think it will. This is really not 
a question of cost between the Kerry amendment and our amendment. It is 
a question of whether you complete the research.
  If I may, it sounds counter-intuitive that you can do the two for 
virtually the same amount of money. The reason is that EBR-II, which is 
the experimental breeder reactor II, which is being operated at the 
present time, has liquid sodium in it, and under the immediate 
termination, as under the Kerry amendment, you must continue to operate 
that. You cannot shut it down or turn it off as you can with a regular 
light water reactor; otherwise the liquid sodium would freeze up. So 
you have to continue to operate it under the Kerry termination. The 
real difference is under both of these, you continue to operate EBR-II. 
Under ours you continue to do the experiments during the 4-year 
termination phase. Under the Kerry amendment you do not do the 
experiments.
  All we are asking is that we complete the scientific program while 
you continue to operate for the 4 years of the phased-down termination 
under our option. It is not a question of cost. We show that we save 
$16.5 million over the life of this thing if we get the Japanese 
contribution. If you say the Japanese do not contribute, it may cost--I 
think the figure is $25 million. In either event, it is not a question 
of cost. We are not asking you do this to save the $16 million, and I 
do not believe Senator Kerry is saying to stop it because it costs $25 
million because the Japanese may not contribute. That is not the 
question.
  The question is whether you want the research. I believe, if I 
interpret Senator Kerry correctly, he is saying you would be tempted to 
build the reactor if you finish the research.
  Not so. What we are saying is let us find the research, let us 
complete the research to explore the option because we have not yet 
picked another option. And if I may ask on the question of options, my 
friend from Arkansas did, in fact, talk about one of the options, which 
is to take plutonium from weapons and burn it in civilian reactors. Is 
my friend from Arkansas saying he would prefer that option? 
Understanding you are taking weapons grade plutonium and putting it in 
civilian reactors, which do not have the safeguards and do not have all 
the guards around it that you do at EBR-II or that you would at the 
single integral fast reactor, has the Senator from Arkansas settled on 
that option?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I did not say that. I am just quoting from the 
Department of Energy and the Office of Technology Assessment.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KERRY. I believe what the Senator was referring to--and it is the 
same option we discussed earlier--it is the MOX option. It is the 
combination of mixing the plutonium and uranium, and that gives you the 
potential, at that point, to burn. It is different from using pure 
plutonium in some form. There has never been a discussion of that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, it depends on what kind of 
mix oxide. If you are poisoning it, in effect, with spent fuel or with 
waste from Hanford, that is one kind of fuel that you could conceivably 
use. That makes it awfully difficult to transport and handle. The other 
kind is a mix oxide where you have uranium and plutonium which can be 
easily handled and is not proliferation proof, and that is the problem.
  Mr. KERRY. It is not really the problem, if I could just say, because 
in point of fact the Senate has now been presented with a sort of 
cloudy image of these different fuels and what the choices really are 
and whether or not we have made an option.
  The fact is the National Academy of Sciences, as the Senator from 
Louisiana well knows, has given a very clear direction and is 
absolutely firm about these options. And in fact, Dr. Panofsky, who was 
quoted earlier by the Senator as somehow leaving the door open for this 
technology, does not leave the door open for this, only in terms of 
operational choices.
  I think the Senator has a chart there, and in the chart, he has a 
quote about the research that was advocated from the National Academy 
of Sciences. Maybe he could go back to that chart, because I thought 
there was a very important distinction that that draws which the 
Senator did not draw, and of which the Senate ought to be aware.
  Mr. BUMPERS. While the Senator is looking for that chart, if I can 
get back into this debate to answer the question that was just asked--
``Am I suggesting that we use this plutonium in light water 
reactors?''--I did not suggest any specific remedy. But the National 
Academy of Sciences listed this as an option for the disposition of 
weapons-grade plutonium.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It can be done.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me continue:

       According to a recent report prepared by the National 
     Academy of Sciences, the two most promising alternatives for 
     plutonium disposition are, No. 1, fabrication and use as fuel 
     in existing light water reactors and, No. 2, vitrification.

  The Department of Energy follows that by saying that you can take the 
100 metric tons of warhead plutonium and mix it with uranium and burn 
the full amount--that is, the 100 tons--in existing light water 
reactors in 25 years.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, there are two problems with 
that. First, you can surely burn it in existing reactors. They have to 
be reconfigured. Earlier I pointed out where these reactors might be. 
The problem is a MOX fuel mixing plutonium and uranium is not 
proliferationproof. It is when it comes out the other end but not when 
it goes in.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, storing 100 tons for more than 30 years 
is even more dangerous. You can start to burn this plutonium now. You 
cannot start burning this plutonium under the Senator's plan until this 
design and capability is proven, and that could be 30 to 35 years from 
now, if ever.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator points out properly that this is not a 
quick solution and, indeed, none--see, the Department of Energy has not 
settled on a solution either. This business of using----
  Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Vitrification--if I can finish--we do not have a 
vitrification facility in this country, nor do we know the limits of 
critical mass using the vitrification with plutonium--a real problem on 
disposal of fuels. If I may just point out on this quotation--you can 
prove most anything with quotations--if you look at that quotation, the 
sentence before and the sentence after puts it in quite a different 
context. The sentence before says, as part of that future referring to 
IFR:

       They may offer the possibility of pursuing the elimination 
     approach in the long-term, not only for weapons plutonium but 
     also for the much larger quantities of civilian sector 
     plutonium.

  They go on to say--and they quote this--then they say:

       In saying this, the committee does not intend to recommend 
     either for or against the development and deployment of 
     advanced reactors for commercial electricity production which 
     is beyond the scope of its charge.

  And the other National Academy of Sciences study, by a different 
panel which includes the present head of the Nuclear Energy Office in 
the Department of Energy, the present one says:

       The committee believes that the LMR should have the highest 
     priority for long-term nuclear technology development.

  Should have the highest priority.
  Again I quote:

       The problems of proliferation and physical security posed 
     by the various technologies----

  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me interrupt. Is the Senator on page 2?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I am on page 197.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry, we are reading from different reports.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. This is the Nuclear Power Technical and Institutional 
Options for the Future by the Research Council of the National Academy 
of Sciences:

       The problems of proliferation and physical security posed 
     by the various technologies are different and require 
     continued attention. Special attention will need to be paid 
     to the LMR.

  None of these talks about being an early option. I am not saying when 
you finish this 4-year study that you will be able to deal with the 
problem of plutonium proliferation. Unquestionably, that is not true. 
Nor is it true that you would be able to pursue any of these other 
options.
  But we have not decided on any of these other options, and I would 
like to know what anybody proposes as an option, because each one of 
these options, using the CANDU reactors in Canada, using Palo Verde in 
Arizona, using the WPPSS reactor in Washington, all have proliferation 
problems that the IFR does not have, and they have practical problems, 
like how do you keep this plutonium safeguarded as it is going in its 
MOX state?
  Mr. KERRY. I would----
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, may I say to Senator Kerry, I want to 
yield the floor, and I want to terminate my part of this debate, if you 
will allow me to make some final observations.
  First, I want to make the observation that the Senator from Louisiana 
is reading from a report that is older than the most current.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. 1992. I read from both, one is 1994, the Panofsky 
report, where we had the hearing--I think the Senator was there for at 
least part of the time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may just read from the 1994 report which is about 
as hot off the press as anything you will get from the National Academy 
of Sciences on this subject, here is what they say:

       Safeguarded storage. First, we recommend the United States 
     and Russia pursue a reciprocal regime of secured, 
     internationally monitored, storage of fissile material with 
     the aim of insuring that the inventory in storage can be 
     withdrawn only for nonweapons purposes.

  No. 3, and I am reading from page 2 of the executive summary:

       Long-term plutonium disposition.

  That is what brought us to this colloquy and this debate right now.

       We recommend that the United States and Russia pursue long-
     term plutonium disposition options that, one, minimize the 
     time during which the plutonium is stored in forms readily 
     usable for nuclear weapons; two, preserve material safeguards 
     and security during the disposition process, seeking to 
     maintain the same high standards of security and accounting 
     applied to stored nuclear weapons.

  The report proceeds to discuss other matters. But No. 1 on their list 
is to minimize the time during which this 100 tons of plutonium in the 
world today is stored in forms readily usable for nuclear weapons.
  Now, just to pursue that a moment, they go on to say that the two 
most promising things that we ought to be doing to dispose of plutonium 
is either to vitrify it and store it or burn it in light water 
reactors. The NAS does not recommend the use of liquid metal reactors 
for the disposition of weapons-grade plutonium.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Louisiana [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Just briefly to respond to that, that is clearly what 
they said at the National Academy of Sciences. Speaking of the short-
term problem, what they are saying is that you need on a short-term 
basis to get this plutonium out of the form that can be put in 
someone's pocket and spirited out of the factory or out of the 
safeguard place. Clearly that is so.
  What the National Academy of Sciences said in the same report 
speaking of the long-term steps is that:

       Long-term steps will be needed to reduce the proliferation 
     risks posed by the entire global stock of plutonium, 
     particularly as the radioactivity of spent fuel decays.
       To further refine these concepts, research on fission 
     options for the near-total elimination of plutonium should 
     continue at the conceptual level.

  Now, this is what the IFR is continuing--total elimination. The IFR, 
or the LMR--they call it by either thing--is the only one that totally 
eliminates plutonium. It is true that MOX fuel mixing uranium and 
plutonium will irradiate the fuel and it makes it difficult to handle 
then and on the short-term basis is relatively proliferation proof.
  However, using the PUREX process, which is a chemical process, using 
hydrochloric acid--you can separate it. North Korea has the PUREX 
process. You can take it out of these fuel rods. You can take it out of 
the vitrified or glassified rods and get your plutonium again. You 
cannot do that with spent fuel from uranium mines. That is a much more 
complicated process.
  That is why the National Academy of Sciences, while saying exactly 
what the Senator said, also said that you need to refine these 
concepts. ``Research on fission options for the near-total elimination 
of plutonium should continue at the conceptual level,'' which is 
precisely what we are saying--continue the research for the 4 years.
  You see, our program is a termination program for EBR-II, which is 
the reactor. We say terminate it in 4 years. The Senator says terminate 
it in 4 years. The difference is he says do not do the research which 
gives you conceptual research on options for the near-total 
elimination. He says do not do that, no cost. Now, that escapes me--why 
you would not want to do the research to find the answer to this in the 
same length of time. You end up with EBR-II, the reactor, terminated in 
4 years and it does not cost any money and why would you not want to 
find the answer to that question? The National Academy of Sciences says 
you ought to do it.
  Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. KERRY. I am sure he would agree with me, because he said it 
previously, that it is only at no cost if the Japanese agree.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Japanese agree, I think we make--we save $15 
million. If the Japanese do not agree, I think it costs $26 million 
over 4 years.
  Mr. KERRY. Let us come back and phrase the question the way I did. It 
is only at no cost on two counts: First, if your expected expenditures 
pan out, which I will show momentarily has never happened and even now 
is not, and, second, if the Japanese contribute. If the Japanese do not 
contribute, the taxpayers are out the money. Is that not accurate?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Japanese what?
  Mr. KERRY. If the Japanese do not contribute, the American taxpayer 
is going to have to ante up.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe that is correct. And I think the figure is--
--
  Mr. KERRY. Here is a letter hot off the press as of 30 minutes ago, 
as the Senator from Arkansas said, saying that we have not signed any 
new agreement with the Government of Japan.

       Therefore, based on Department of Energy budgetary 
     estimates from fiscal year 1995 to 1999, the cost to 
     terminate the integral fast reactor will be $20 million less 
     than continuing the program.

  So for hours now all of you folks have been saying here it is less 
expensive to continue, and here straight off the press from the 
Department of Energy is, No. 1, a statement the Japanese are not 
contributing and, No. 2, a very clear statement that it is more 
expensive to continue the program.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Not for fiscal year 1995. For fiscal year 1995, without 
the Japanese cost sharing, you save $3.2 million.
  Mr. KERRY. That is not for termination, that 33.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Both of these are terminations. Our program is a 
termination of what we call EBR----
  Mr. KERRY. The $33 million is for other projects that Argonne is 
going to pursue. The $33 million is for other projects Argonne will 
pursue.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Twelve of the 33 I am advised are for additional 
projects.
  Mr. KERRY. No, the whole $33 million is for other projects that 
Argonne will pursue. But you see, all of this is skirting around what 
is really at issue here. It really does not come to grips with the 
choice. And I wish to go back, if I may, if I could ask the Senator 
respectfully to go back to the quote he had a moment ago about 
conceptual. He was quoting from the report. Let me just take--this is 
the 1994 report. The 1994 report says point blank:

       Advanced reactors should not be specifically developed or 
     deployed for transforming weapons plutonium into spent fuel 
     because that aim can be achieved more rapidly, less 
     expensively, and more surely using existing revolutionary 
     reactor types.

  So here is the Academy saying point blank----
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. KERRY. Let me just finish. Point blank, do not do this for the 
very reason that all of you have asserted is a good rationale for doing 
this.
  Now, you go further than that and the next page----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Wait.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me just finish. On page 161 of the report--I mean we 
have had very little time to rebut about four or five speakers. I just 
want to put a little bit of this information into perspective.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Wait a minute. The Senator was asking me a question, 
did they say the quoted language, and the answer to that, if that is a 
question, is yes. But I say to the Senator, respectfully, if you put it 
in context, it comes to a different conclusion because the sentence 
before says, ``As part of that future''----
  Mr. KERRY. I am willing to read the whole paragraph in because it 
goes to this question of conceptual. They are, indeed, advocating 
conceptual research. But what you have and what is being funded goes 
way beyond conceptual research. It is operational funding.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No, no, it is not.
  Mr. KERRY. It absolutely is. It is moving toward the construction of 
a prototype.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. It absolutely is not.
  Mr. KERRY. This is where----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, let me make this clear because about 
this there is no doubt and no question. It is our bill. I would not 
mislead the Senate or I would not mislead my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. What we propose is the completion of a 4-year research 
program at the end of which you will have terminated EBR-II, which is 
the experimental breeder reactor up in Idaho. We are testing the fuel 
and we are doing the design work. There is no new start. There is no 
construction. There is no leading to--it is in effect conceptual work.
  Mr. KERRY. I agree with the Senator there is no new start 
construction, but there is a huge gap here and I am going to wait. I 
know the Senator from Idaho has not spoken yet. I wish to come back. 
But I intend to show how in fact this argument about civilian 
plutonium, military plutonium disposition, et cetera, simply does not 
stand up. And I am happy to wait to do that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. All right. I wish to yield to my friend from Idaho, but 
I wish to say, first of all, with respect to the National Academy of 
Sciences, what they are saying is you should not specifically develop 
or deploy. That means the building of a reactor specifically for the 
purpose of elimination of weapons plutonium. They go on to say that it 
has attractive options for the elimination of plutonium but that should 
be pursued only as part of a program that might generate electricity as 
well and that it is too soon to tell whether that is the proper option.
  Mr. KERRY. If I could say to my friend--and this is a good dialog and 
it is important-- if we turn to the next page, page 161, of the very 
same report, it says the following:

       Commercial reactors of the types currently operating in the 
     United States, known as light water reactors, offer the 
     technical possibility of transforming excess weapons 
     plutonium into spent fuel within a few decades. Such a 
     plutonium disposition campaign could probably begin within 
     roughly a decade paced by the need to provide a plutonium 
     fuel fabrication capability and a variety of institutional 
     issues, including licensing and public acceptance. Once 
     started, the campaign could be completed within 20 to 40 
     years paced by the number of reactors participating * * *.

  and so forth.
  As the Senator well knows, we are on a light water reactor 
development program--advanced reactor. That is the current technology 
in the United States. There is no reason given that capacity within 
light water technology to do any of this in the liquid metal technology 
except for the rationale that has been proposed by Senators, which is 
to use up weapons-grade plutonium. Having shown that you do not need to 
do that, let me just point out one very quickly----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will----
  Mr. KERRY. Let me finish this one point.
  Dr. Panofsky, who has been quoted here, said very clearly at the 
press conference releasing the report, he described the results of the 
study saying that the panel had started with a horse race of more than 
a dozen horses, and it shot all but three of them: vitrifaction, MOX, 
and deep bore holes. In other words, Dr. Panofsky himself said at the 
press conference announcing this report that as far as an option for 
plutonium disposition, ALMR was not even in the horse race.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an inquiry?


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. President, the Senator is inquiring about a 
time agreement. I was just getting ready to see if we could get a time 
agreement with maybe an hour equally divided.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, this amendment has already been debated 
for more than 3 hours. We are entering the fourth hour of debate on 
this amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I will agree to whatever time agreement the Senator 
from Massachusetts will. I think the Senator from Idaho has not spoken 
yet. What would the Senator from Massachusetts suggest?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have a couple of other Senators who have 
asked for time, I am told. So I think we would need to reserve 45 
minutes on this side.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Could we not do it in an hour?
  Mr. KERRY. If I may say, there are a lot of debates that take place 
on the floor. We spent hours on Haiti yesterday. I am happy to 
accommodate. But if I have a couple of Senators who tell me they need 
10 or 15 minutes, I think asking for 45 minutes, given the money at 
stake and the nature of the issue measured against a lot of other hours 
in the Senate, is not that tough.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, one thing I have learned in the Senate 
is every Senator believes that his issue is the most important and his 
words are the most important. I know other Senators feel that way on 
other issues. It is something we have to contend with.
  I feel we are now entering the fourth hour of debate trying very hard 
to complete action on this bill. Would the Senator from Louisiana be 
agreeable to having an hour with 40 minutes for Senator Kerry?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. We have other speakers as well. I would be willing to 
cut our side short as well.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished majority 
leader, I know he wants to move on. We all want to move on. I do not 
think I have ever delayed the Senate. I would like to try to come to an 
agreement. I do not have a problem. I am just trying to protect a 
couple of Senators who are not here. I can do it in less time. I am 
certainly not asserting that my words are going to make that kind of 
difference here. But I want to protect those who are not here.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would agree to whatever equal division 
the Senator from Massachusetts agree to, if an hour and a half is the 
best he can do.
  Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to try to yield it back if we can get 
some word they are not coming to the floor. All I want to is do is make 
sure they have that ability. I will yield it back. I will make that 
statement.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Let us make an attempt to yield back. If the 
distinguished majority leader will accept it, we will go with 1\1/2\ 
hours. I think we can yield back.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Could we have the amendment offered? I think that would 
be a useful step. Then if the best we can do is an hour, let us take 
1\1/2\ hours. But every Senator here knows that come about 6 or 7 
o'clock this evening, I am going to be besieged by requests from 
Senators about when we can leave, and when are we going to be through 
with the evening, when are we going to be through with the week? We 
have to make some progress here and get this bill passed.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I say to the distinguished majority leader I have been 
asking for a time agreement since shortly after 9 o'clock this morning.
  Mr. MITCHELL. An hour and half, after offering the amendment?
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to do that.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Kerry amendment is offered, there be 1\1/2\ hours of debate after which 
there would be a vote on or in relation to the Kerry amendment, and 
further request there be no second-degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendments be set aside for the purpose of offering an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2127

 (Purpose: To provide for the termination of the Advanced Liquid Metal 
           Reactor/Integral Fast Reactor [ALMR/IFR] Program)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachussetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2127.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  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:

     SEC. 502. TERMINATION OF ADVANCED LIQUID METAL REACTOR 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Termination.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     funds appropriated under this Act may not be obligated or 
     expended for purposes of the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor/
     Integral Fast Reactor (ALM/IFR) program.
       (b) Termination Costs.--Funds appropriated under this Act 
     for the advanced Liquid Metal Reactor/Integral Fast reactor 
     (ALMR/IFR) program may be obligated and expended for that 
     program only for payment of the costs associated with the 
     immediate termination of the program, beginning in FY 1995.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho seeks 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Who yields time on the amendment? 
Does the Senator from Louisiana yield time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you.
  Let me also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for propounding his 
amendment. We have an amendment on the floor to debate.
  Let me say to both the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator 
from Arkansas, who have debated their position most clearly this 
morning, that frankly not much has changed, not much has changed from a 
year ago when this Senate engaged in a very similar debate on this 
issue.
  The Senator from Massachusetts will cite new scientific evidence that 
would cause this issue to be debated differently. But I would suggest 
that there is every bit the countering evidence scientifically as 
presented by the Senator from Louisiana that, in my opinion, holds 
sway, and, if not that, at least balance in this argument.
  But let me tell you that while the arguments of the Senator from 
Louisiana or this Senator from Idaho or the Senator from Massachusetts 
have probably not changed from a year ago, Mr. President, something has 
changed, that is, the position of the Department of Energy and this 
administration on the issue of funding for the completion of the 
scientific project known as IFR.
  That is why we are here today in large part, because a year ago when 
the Department of Energy was asked the profound questions which the 
Senator from Massachusetts put before us this morning--they being, risk 
of major proliferation, technology has no use, and that this was a 
major deficit increase--here is what the Secretary of Energy said a 
year ago.
  She says: ``It has strong economic potential'' and ``could save 
billions of dollars over 60 years by recycling actinides, which are 
isotopes of uranium.
  The Secretary of Energy said: ``Offers major environmental health and 
waste management benefits.'' And there she was talking about the 
question of the ongoing storage of spent nuclear fuels of this country 
and no method by which to effectively reduce their radioactivity long 
term.
  She also said at that time: ``Would use a process that is 
proliferation resistant.''
  Might I suggest, Mr. President, that the old statement ``what a 
difference a year makes,'' in this debate has made the difference, with 
the Secretary of Energy. How can this be a nonproliferator last year, 
and yet the Senator from Massachusetts stands on the floor today and 
says that it is a proliferator this year? I do not blame Senators for 
being frustrated or confused because of the bantering back and forth as 
to which is good science or which is bad science, which report says 
this and which report says that. Those arguments have not changed, but 
Secretary O'Leary has changed her position. Why?
  Well, the Senator from Massachusetts said that it is a deficit issue. 
Doggone it, it is not a deficit issue anymore, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts knows that. We are terminating the EBR terminator reactor 
in Idaho right now. That is going to cost hundreds of millions of 
dollars to terminate. But in the process of doing that, we are 
completing a research program as to how to establish an integral fast 
reactor that burns plutonium.
  That is what we are talking about today. Will the Japanese 
participate? Has the Senator from Massachusetts found a slight window 
in which he can argue some kind of deficit reduction? And is that based 
on whether the Japanese will or will not participate in this project? 
Because I will tell you, the Secretary of Energy has worked overtime 
trying to get them out of the project. Yet, they still hang on. I want 
to quote from a letter and then add it by unanimous consent to the 
Record, Mr. President. It is dated June 17, 1994. This is from the 
president of the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation 
of Japan. This is what he writes to our chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, Bennett Johnston:

       We remain interested in working with DOE in this field, 
     although its recent actions don't provide a stable, credible 
     base on which to proceed at this point.

  And that is what we are about today.
  If Congress were to restore the program for the next fiscal year, we 
would consider our options about participating in the joint program.

  I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel


                                      Development Corporation,

                                      Tokyo, Japan, June 17, 1994.
     Hon. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: In response to your inquiry, I would 
     be pleased to provide you with information on the status of 
     PNC's views about actinide recycling R&D activities. We have 
     three cooperative agreements with the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) in the areas of fast breeder reactors, waste management 
     activities, and safeguards. In general, we would like to 
     enhance our cooperative R&D activities with the DOE since we 
     believe that, through joint efforts in areas of mutual 
     interest, each country can further its own research agenda 
     and conserve limited budget resources as well.
       In this regard, we did make a specific offer earlier this 
     year to contribute to a multi-year, R&D program on actinide 
     recycling and the IFR directed by the Argonne National 
     Laboratory (ANL). If realized, this would have marked the 
     first commitment by a corporation affiliated with the 
     Japanese Government such as ours (although several Japanese 
     private entities have supported certain projects in this 
     area). We cam very close to reaching a final agreement with 
     the DOE.
       Our tentative assumption for this cooperative project was 
     approximately $60 million over five years, subject of course 
     to the approval of the budgetary authorities in Japan. 
     However, the project was abruptly terminated by the DOE in 
     January of this year when funding wasn't identified in the 
     Administration's request for FY 1995 budget. We were 
     therefore forced to cease cooperative discussions with the 
     DOE and no longer secure financial resources for this 
     cooperative project in coming years.
       Meanwhile, we are starting on our own to carry out R&D in 
     the field of actinide recycling. A new long-term plan for 
     nuclear energy, under the auspices of the Atomic Energy 
     Commission of Japan, will include specific reference to the 
     importance of carrying out R&D on advanced reactors, 
     including those for recycling actinides. It requires 
     technologies which are still in the initial stage of 
     research, but we are committed to proceed with R&D in the 
     long term in order to make tangible progress.
       We remain interested in working with the DOE in this field, 
     although its recent actions don't provide a stable, credible 
     basis on which to proceed at this point. If congress were to 
     restore the program for the next fiscal year, we would 
     reconsider our options about participating in a joint 
     program.
       We appreciate your interest and leadership on these issues 
     and hope our two Governments can continue to cooperate on 
     nuclear energy and other advanced technologies in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Takao Ishiwatari,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CRAIG. Why would Japan be interested? Why do they want to 
continue to work with all of us in the development of this program? 
Well, Mr. President, it is obvious why they want to do it. They, like a 
lot of other countries around the world, are frustrated. They are 
frustrated over their light water reactor program because it produces 
plutonium. And they must recycle that through the processes of PUREX, 
as has been described today. And they, like France and like England and 
like the United States and like Russia, would like to operate a reactor 
that does not produce plutonium. The IFR is that reactor design. You 
cannot deny it. That is what our scientists tell us. That is reality. 
That is what we are here debating today.
  So you see, I am about as frustrated as these Japanese are that we 
have a Secretary that one year says that this is a good idea and this 
is an economically right idea and an environmentally sound idea and 
this is a nonproliferating idea, and all of a sudden, she finally fills 
her offices with assistant secretaries that are profoundly antinuclear, 
and her mind changes. Doggone it, that is what has happened. The 
economics have not changed, the science has not changed, but the 
politics have changed.
  The 900 employees in Idaho and 500 employees in Illinois who have 
done their level best to make this one of the finest science programs 
we have, that have always stayed in budget, that are on time and on 
line, cannot understand why, if the science was good a year ago, why it 
is not good today. But the politics have changed. The politics have 
changed.
  Business Week magazine is not a very political publication. While 
they are willing to credit this President with some of his technology 
agendas, they are saying: Mr. President, on this one you are making a 
mistake, and your Secretary is profoundly wrong. They are suggesting--
and the Senator from Illinois has put this quote in the Record, so I 
will not ask that it be printed--that we do not now have a long-term 
proposal for the shortening of the radioactive life of our nuclear 
waste materials in this country.
  The Senator from Massachusetts today talks about time and money, and 
that is what we should be talking about. Today, thanks to this Senate, 
we are working to establish a long-term solution to spent commercial 
nuclear fuel. We have said to the State of Nevada that we do not care 
what your politics are, we are going to store it there if we can. That 
is a Government position, a Government policy. And we have chosen Yucca 
Mountain, and we are going to spend well over $6 billion to get a piece 
of paper that says that this area is geologically sound enough to store 
nuclear waste or it is not. That is only a piece of paper, Mr. 
President. And then once we have the paper, and if it says yes, we will 
build a facility that may cost $4 or $5 billion, and we can fill that 
facility overnight.
  Here is why we can fill the facility. It is because the Senator from 
Massachusetts, in his State today, has 2,021 casks of spent nuclear 
waste fuel. He has 431 metric tons. Fifteen percent of the power that 
lights the lights of Massachusetts is generated by nuclear power. Every 
day when you throw a light switch, you generate a little waste. That is 
in Massachusetts.
  In Arkansas, 33 percent of their power is generated through nuclear, 
and they have 1,188 casks. It goes on and on. When a Senator stands on 
this floor, as did my colleague from Arkansas, and talks about 
morality, long term and short term, the moral thing to do is to fund 
the IFR, because that is the long-term solution. The Senator from 
Massachusetts is absolutely right--this will not be built tomorrow if 
the science and research proves out. It cannot be built tomorrow, and 
we are not prepared to do that.
  For this Secretary to suggest that this is a $2.7 billion project, 
just is flat wrong, and she knows it. She is playing politics.
  This Senate and this Congress have never said they are going to fund 
the development of this reactor design. No. The Senator, who is the 
chairman of the Energy Committee and the chairman of the appropriations 
portion, is right when he says that this will be terminated in about 
2\1/2\ years and he states the costs--and they are accurate.
  Nobody has said anything, nobody has told the 900 people in Idaho 
they are going to stay on to the year 2000 and build a new reactor if 
it were to be built there. They know once their work is done, EBR-II 
comes down, based on the policy established by this Congress a year 
ago.
  That is the reality of this debate. You should be debating it on 
politics. There is nothing wrong with that debate. But do not debate it 
on economics. Do not debate it on science, and do not debate it on the 
deficit.
  The Senator from Illinois and I stood on this floor many times 
debating balanced budgets, and I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
made reference to the balance budget and line-item veto today. That did 
not pass me by. I knew what he was saying.
  When we debate balanced budgets, we talk about reducing the deficit. 
We talk about saving money. But one thing that we do when we save money 
is we also learn not to waste money.
  We have spent $800 million on this project. We are a few million away 
from the design completion that sets this on the shelf and gives these 
young people an option for their future to know that we can produce 
electricity, that we can burn spent nuclear fuels, and that we will not 
proliferate.
  The Ambassador from Russia wants this program and hopes we will 
continue it. The Japanese want it. The French want it. The British want 
it.
  Why do we not want it? Why should we not be the world leader in this 
technology? We always have been.
  I know this President is struggling with his foreign policy. This is 
good foreign policy. This is the best there is. When the world turns to 
the United States and looks at our science and says, ``That is the 
right science and you are leading us into the future, and that is what 
we want,'' that is good foreign policy.
  Hazel O'Leary should not be practicing foreign policy down at DOE. A 
lot of the nations of our world want this now, because they do not want 
to proliferate. They do not want to have to go through the PUREX 
process of the light water reactor. They want something that will burn 
it. Why do we not work with them and finish this project and give it to 
them?
  That is good politics. It is good economics. It is sound. That has 
been the argument in the past. That is the argument today.
  That is why I think clearly the committee of authorization did the 
appropriate thing when they recommended funding of this project.
  We have heard a debate about how do you get rid of the spent 
materials now? How do you get rid of weapons-grade plutonium now? Mix 
it with uranium? Make a MOX-fuel burn in light water reactors, and you 
have solved the problem.
  How can you solve a problem when the light water reactor of average 
size produces 500 pounds of plutonium every year and creates a very 
large waste stream?
  I suggest to the Senator from Massachusetts that that is only the 
short-term problem about getting the weapons-grade plutonium off the 
street and getting it mixed so that it cannot be reconfigured, but it 
does not solve that problem.
  Short term and long term--this Nation has been known for its 
farsightedness. I would not like to think that we are shortsighted on 
our future.
  We must handle our nuclear waste or the lights will go out in 
Massachusetts because the American people will simply say, ``Congress 
of the United States, you have not been responsible in handling nuclear 
waste. We do not want any more reactors. We ask you to shut down the 
ones you have.''
  That would be a tragic day because we know that nuclear energy is 
clean. We know that it does not pollute the air. We know that it does 
not damage the ozone. We know that it is a tremendous producer of 
energy in a clean sense, and our only problem is that we cannot come to 
political terms on how to handle the waste stream. So we in a very 
unpolitical way are letting it build up around the Nation because what 
we are talking about in Massachusetts is dry storage and it is sitting 
on top of the ground out there.
  Idaho does not generate, but we are willing to help you solve the 
problem because we have the experts who know how to do it, and we want 
to help the rest of these States, this Nation, and the world bring 
about the science that will produce the reactor ultimately that will 
get to where we want to get.
  That is why this quote from Business Week is accurate. That is why 
the Secretary of Energy is just simply wrong.
  While I do not agree with her on a lot of things, I disagree with her 
politics on this. She can play politics, and that is what is going on 
because economics and science do not fit at this moment. I think those 
arguments have been well placed on the floor today and very clearly 
understood.
  So let us not waste money. Let us analyze this in a deficit neutral 
way. Let us get to the Japanese and encourage them to come back on 
board as they are standing waiting to go at this moment and not 
discourage them but give them the green light that we will go through 
to the completion of this research project.
  That is what this debate is all about today. It is not about really 
anything else. It cannot be about proliferation. It is a nonstarter 
false argument, and we all know that today. That is the basis of the 
new concept, which is to get away from proliferation, to get to a safer 
reactor, a walk away, a hands-free reactor, that is cool in its 
operation and safe to the society around it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I, at the conclusion of this vote--the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], has been asking for 8 minutes to 
make a statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized after this vote to make 
a statement on an unrelated matter for 8 minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank Senator Johnston.
  Mr. President, first, a clarification. We have been hearing about the 
National Academy of Sciences on both sides of this. The National 
Academy of Sciences says if you want to do this solely to get rid of 
plutonium, this does not make sense. No one wants to do this solely to 
get rid of plutonium. It is an energy creator.
  Second, we have problems in almost every State. Someone just handed 
me an Associated Press story from Newport News, VA. Let me just read a 
few sentences.

       The Navy and the Department of Energy have decided that the 
     Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company will not keep a 
     nuclear waste from warships after June 1995. However, it is 
     still not clear where the spent radioactive fuel will go 
     after then, Navy and DOE officials said. A recently released 
     4,200-page Department of Energy report listed 10 places, 
     including the Government-owned Norfolk Naval Shipyards in 
     Portsmouth where nuclear waste from warships weapons 
     factories and research reactors may be stored between 1995 
     and 2035. The Navy wants all its nuclear wastes to go to the 
     Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

  That is just brand new.
  In your State, Mr. President, in Nebraska, 34 percent of the energy 
in Nebraska comes from nuclear energy. You have right now in Nebraska 
351 tons of spent fuel in storage. If we do not find an answer, it is 
going to just build up and build up and build up, totally aside from 
the arms problem that is involved here.
  We have letters from academics all over the country saying it is 
really important to move ahead on this. I would like to put in the 
Record a letter from the head of the nuclear engineering department of 
MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and 11 professors 
there, and I ask unanimous consent to print that in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   March 17, 1993.
     Subject: Advanced Nuclear Power Technologies in the Clinton/
         Gore Era.
     Letters to the Editor,
     The Washington Post,
     Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: The proposed federal budget would eliminate the 
     program to develop the two most innovative of the advanced 
     nuclear energy technologies, for a potential savings of $200 
     million in the next budget, and $1 billion over five years. 
     These programs, for the liquid metal-cooled and gas-cooled 
     reactor concepts, were started during the 1980s in an effort 
     to improve nuclear power plant safety.
       We write, concerned that this decision may prove very 
     harmful to the country. We urge that a decision as important 
     as this one should be taken only after deliberate debate of 
     its full implications. This has not occurred. Instead, the 
     decision announced ignores the technological benefit of these 
     programs, such as were pointed out in the 1992 National 
     Academy of Sciences/National Research Council report 
     concerning our national advanced reactor development 
     strategy. That report has not been rebutted in formulation of 
     the announced policy. Instead, it has so far been ignored.
       Much time is needed for developing new technological 
     options. The progress made to-date in the advanced nuclear 
     energy will be difficult to replicate if it is discarded. 
     Such a decision should only be made following an open 
     exhaustive discussion.
       The technologies of the current DOE Program include Light 
     Water Reactors (LWRs), Modular Gas-Cooled Reactors (MGR) and 
     Liquid Metal-cooled Reactors (LMR). Each has a different role 
     and rationale in the overall national energy strategy adopted 
     by the Congress last fall. The LWR program is concerned with 
     making significant safety and economic improvements upon the 
     power plants in current use, both through evolutionary 
     improvements and improved safety concepts. The MGR has been 
     cited by its proponents as the concept offering possibly the 
     greatest potential for improved safety, and has provided the 
     inspiration for efforts to develop a new generation of 
     advanced reactors. The LMR is most important for its 
     capability to convert the very large non-fuel portion of 
     natural uranium into plutonium, which can be used as reactor 
     fuel. If nuclear energy is to play any important role in 
     mitigating global warming (should that phenomenon turn out to 
     be a serious problem), this capability will be essential as 
     terrestrial uranium resources appear to be small enough that 
     they would otherwise limit the contributions of nuclear 
     energy technologies. Conceivably the LMR can also be useful 
     for consuming long-lived nuclear wastes. All three reactor 
     types can also be used to consume plutonium from surplus 
     nuclear weapons.
       The rationale offered by the White House for the announced 
     policy is that the LWR program should continue, as it offers 
     near-term payoffs; the MGR program should be ended because it 
     is not needed and will not provide benefits during this 
     decade, and the LMR program should be terminated because it 
     is of no interest to electric utilities and its promise for 
     alleviating nuclear waste disposal problems are too uncertain 
     and far into the future.
       We have each worked on different aspects of advanced 
     nuclear power concepts throughout our careers. We believe 
     that the threatened reactor development programs have good 
     chances for success, and can provide valuable technological 
     options for the nation. Should these programs be ended, it 
     would be so expensive to revive them later that we might 
     never receive their benefits.
       Beyond the implications for technological advancement, the 
     announced decision is important for the existing nuclear 
     power plants, which produce about 20% of the nation's 
     electricity. Experience has shown that nuclear technology can 
     be very valuable when used properly, but very unforgiving 
     when used carelessly. This effort demands the involvement of 
     our most capable people. The ability to attract individuals 
     of the highest quality into this field will be greatly 
     impaired if it comes to be viewed as having stagnated. The 
     announced decision implicitly makes that statement.
       Thus, we argue that the advanced reactor development 
     programs should be improved, not shutdown. We suggest that 
     arguments to the contrary be examined carefully, and rejected 
     when they are found to reduce the nation's range of promising 
     energy options. This is the case with the proposed halt in 
     developing a new generation of advanced reactor technology, 
     and it should be reconsidered.
           Sincerely,
         Ronald G. Ballinger, Professor of Nuclear Engineering; 
           Elias P. Gyftopoaios, Professor of Nuclear Engineering; 
           John A. Bernard, Jr., Director, Reactor Operations 
           Nuclear Reactor Laboratory; Michael W. Golay, Professor 
           of Nuclear Engineering; Allan F. Henry, Professor of 
           Nuclear Engineering; Michael J.Driscoll, Professor 
           Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering; Otto K. Hariing, 
           Director, Nuclear Reactor Lab., Professor of Nuclear 
           Engineering; Mujid S. Kazimi, Professor and Head, 
           Nuclear Engineering Department; John E. Meyer, 
           Professor Nuclear Engineering.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is a point where it simply is not 
prudent to stop a project.
  When I was a Member of the House, I say with some reluctance to my 
friends who have offices in the Hart Building, I voted against the Hart 
Building. But once you had the building under construction, I then 
voted to complete the building so we would not just waste the money.
  We are in that situation here. We are in a situation where we can 
either complete the project and learn something, or devastate the 
project at the same cost. That just does not make sense.
  I hear a great deal from citizens in Illinois when I go out that we 
ought to be less partisan in this body. I agree on that completely. 
Here is a case where the two Senators from Idaho, who are Republicans, 
are working with the two Senators from Illinois, who are Democrats. 
Congressman Hastert and Congressman Fawell, Republican Members of the 
House are strongly in support of this.
  I have heard from Gov. Cecil Andrus and Attorney General Larry 
Echohawk, Democrats from Idaho who are on this.
  I have a hard time believing that anyone who is reasonably objective 
can look at this and not say the prudent thing for us to do, whether 
from a fiscal viewpoint or from an arms proliferation viewpoint, is not 
to go ahead.
  Among others are the National Association of Regulated Utility 
Commissioners, the AFL-CIO, the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers, and most of the major utilities of our country.
  On the question of Japan, in the first 5 months of fiscal year 1994, 
Japan gave us $9 million. They were ready to give us another payment 
for $10 million when, in the words of the Japanese leader, he says, it 
was ``abruptly''--that was his word, ``abruptly''--``canceled by the 
Department of Energy.'' The total commitment of Japan was for $60 
million. Japan does not do these things lightly. And the indication 
from them is if we stop, they are going to try and go ahead in this 
field. If they go ahead, guess who profits all around the world from 
the technology we are looking for?
  Mr. President, I think it would be a great mistake for the future of 
this country to adopt the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.
  Mr. President, there have been some extraordinary, broad, grabbing 
comments about why this is necessary. And, frankly, they are just plain 
incorrect; incorrect on the science as well as on the facts. Let me 
discuss that.
  The Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Illinois a moment ago 
were saying, we are just going to have this waste build up and build up 
and build up. And we just heard how plutonium is coming out of the 
plant in Massachusetts and Arkansas and elsewhere, and we have to deal 
with it.
  The fact is that usable plutonium does not come out of the plan in 
Massachusetts or in Arkansas. There are two kinds of waste that come 
out of our current technology of nuclear plant. They are called 
actinides, with a nuclear number of 89 or higher, which includes 
plutonium, and then fission waste, fission waste which cannot be split 
into further use of energy. That is what you get, plutonium mixed with 
other components. And it is precisely because you have to reprocess it 
that this cannot be used as a bomb material.
  So the plutonium that the Senator from Idaho tries to scare everybody 
about the build up of is already mixed in fuel and it is an 
extraordinarily expensive and complicated process to get that plutonium 
out in order to use it.
  But the reactor that they are talking about building will build quite 
near weapons grade plutonium, so you have a whole tracking process, not 
exactly weapons grade plutonium, but much closer to weapons grade 
plutonium than what you have in the present system. And that is a 
matter of fact.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I will yield on your time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. On my time.
  I would like to deny categorically and completely the Senator's last 
statement. Our reactor does not use weapons grade plutonium.
  Mr. KERRY. I said ``near.''
  The Senator from Louisiana knows that the plutonium that is created 
through the process and extracted because it has to be reused is nearer 
to weapons grade fuel than the fuel of any mixed plutonium in a light 
water reactor. Now you cannot deny that as a matter of scientific 
evidence.
  So you are creating a closer to weapons grade form of fuel and you 
have a whole problem of trying to keep track of it.
  But here is the reason. The Senator says, ``Why has the Secretary of 
Energy changed her mind?''
  Well, first of all, the Secretary of Energy came to me and said she 
wishes she had paid more attention to this and been able to make this 
decision last year, so they would not use her quotes this year. But she 
did not have that time and now she has and she has reviewed it. And the 
Secretary of Energy has written a letter which says point blank, ``Here 
is the reason, my colleagues, that we do not need this.''
  Quoting the Secretary of Energy:

       No further testing of the Integral Fast Reactor concept is 
     required to prove the technical feasibility of actinide 
     recycle and burning.

  There you go. We do not need to do it because it is not necessary in 
terms of the science. She goes on further and says:

       The basic physics and chemistry of this technology are 
     established.

  Now, what is really going on here is an effort to try to--I mean, if 
this is going to have all the great business technology aspects that 
have been talked about and the future that the people are talking 
about, that means you are going to use it. And the fact is that the 
President of the United States has said we do not want to use it 
because it has an affect on proliferation in the world and a host of 
other entities have agreed with that.
  Now we have had heard about the jobs issue. My good friend from 
Illinois mentioned it earlier, something about little games with 
careers. This is not a little game with anybody's career. There is no 
game being played with people as far as the choice we face.
  In fact, in the letter from the President of the United States, he 
says:

       In an effort to redirect the ALMR's dedicated and talented 
     workforce at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and 
     Idaho, the Department of Energy, under Secretary O'Leary's 
     direction, recently completed a proposal to restructure its 
     nuclear research program and focus on areas that support the 
     administration's nuclear policy goals.

  So there is a specific effort to keep people working.
  Mr. President, I do not want these people put out of work. There is 
plenty of research for them to do. But they do not need to do research 
which the Secretary of Energy herself has said is already complete. We 
do not need this in order to understand the basic physics and where we 
are going.
  Now, we have heard again and again, as a fundamental rationale for 
trying to go down this road, that the ALMR will solve our plutonium 
disposition problem and even deal with the question of waste.
  Mr. President, that is not true. As a matter of scientific fact, it 
is known that this reactor creates new kinds of waste. You cannot just 
dispose of an element. You can change an element. Basic physics taught 
us that.
  And what happens when you burn the plutonium is you wind up with 
other kinds of waste, some of which has a half-life much longer than 
the plutonium itself. In fact, if you look at the cost of pursuing the 
plutonium proposal put on the table versus the repository alone, which 
is the current alternative, you are talking about the difference of $33 
billion and $117 billion. You are talking about $4 billion per ALMR 
reactor if you go down that road, not to mention the licensing 
problems, the citing problems, and all of the public problems you are 
going to have in trying to do that. You have not only done that, but 
you have created a whole new form of waste.
  As I mentioned earlier, you have two kinds of waste coming out of a 
nuclear plant today. Supporters of this program have come to the floor 
today and they are suggesting that you are going to solve the waste 
problem by turning actinides into fuel.
  But, Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that does absolutely 
nothing to reduce disposal costs or risk. You still will have to have 
the repository. In fact, DOE's own waste managers are not purchasing 
the ALMR technology because they believe it is too costly and 
unnecessary.
  The Senator from Illinois a while ago talked about all the people in 
the Energy Department that support this. The people in the Energy 
Department do not support this technology and they are not even 
pursuing it is because it is too costly and unnecessary.
  Moreover, it does not reduce the volume of fissioned products. And, 
as I just mentioned, the ALMR process itself, when you take the 
plutonium and burn it, creates a whole new set of waste and that 
continues as a result of the additives that are needed. And, according 
to Argonne National Lab technical documents themselves, they 
acknowledge it will create this new waste.
  Now the reprocessing step alone, Mr. President, would increase the 
amount of high-level waste by 30-percent. When you burn the plutonium, 
you turn it into high- and low-level waste and you will create a 30 
percent increase in waste that then still needs to go to a repository.
  Moreover, those fission products that are left behind are both 
intensely radioactive and water soluble, which means that they can be 
much more dangerous to the environment. They will require a long-term 
deposit in a repository and they will dominate the long-term risks of 
that depository.
  Let me give you a specific example. Iodine 129 has a half-life of 17 
million years. Cesium 135, a 3-million-year half-life. Technetium, a 
212,000 year life.

  By comparison the half-life of plutonium 239 is 24,000 years.
  So I respectfully suggest if you really examine what is at stake 
here, on the issue of whether it is more expensive or less, we have 
disposed of that. It is more expensive to continue. I ask any one of my 
colleagues just to go back and remind themselves about this program 
through the years. Go back to when Senator Bumpers said he started 
trying to get rid of it in 1978. After hundreds of millions of dollars, 
$8 billion, and you have nothing to show for it, and now a tough 
President and others saying do not do it.
  My colleagues have said not much has changed in the last year. That 
is not true. Since last year you have a President who is specifically 
saying I do not want this because it is a threat to proliferation 
issues in the world. You have a National Academy of Science report that 
says, ``The advanced reactors are not competitive for this mission 
because of cost and delay of their development, licensing and 
construction.'' You have an OTA report. Let me read from the OTA 
report. Incidentally, all of these are neutral. We have heard from the 
Chicago Tribune. We have heard from the attorney general and the 
Governor of Idaho. But here are neutral students of this very issue. 
The report of the OTA says:

       A number of studies have examined the use of nuclear 
     reactors including the ALMR/IFR to dispose of plutonium from 
     dismantled U.S. and former Soviet nuclear weapons. These 
     studies were carried out by the Office of Technology 
     Assessment, the National Research Council Committee on 
     International Security and Control, the General Accounting 
     Office, the Rand Corporation and the Department of Energy. 
     Although each study approached the issue from a unique 
     perspective, they reached many similar conclusions.

  Then I skip down:

       Although all options involve some unresolved options and 
     risks of uncertain magnitude, these studies concluded that 
     the development of advanced reactors for plutonium 
     disposition would involve the highest costs and the greatest 
     uncertainties.

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, sometimes I wonder how our colleagues 
can possibly make sense of this debate. Both sides are quoting the 
National Academy of Sciences. Both sides are talking about editorials, 
one side saying it will and the other saying it will not. I really 
think a couple of things are fairly clear. One is that this is not 
about money. The Secretary of Energy testified before our committee. In 
answer to a direct question, ``Is this about money?'' she said, ``No.''
  The reason is we save money if the Japanese contribute, and we have 
letters indicating, I think, a good possibility that will happen. I ask 
unanimous consent that these letters, a whole series of letters here, 
be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Power Reactor and Nuclear


                                       Fuel Development Corp.,

                                                    June 17, 1994.
     Hon. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: In response to your inquiry, I would 
     be pleased to provide you with information on the status of 
     PNC's views about actinide recycling R&D activities. We have 
     three cooperative agreements with the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) in the areas of fast breeder reactors, waste management 
     activities, and safeguards. In general, we would like to 
     enhance our cooperative R&D activities with the DOE since we 
     believe that, through joint efforts in areas of mutual 
     interest, each country can further its own research agenda 
     and conserve limited budget resources as well.
       In this regard, we did make a specific offer earlier this 
     year to contribute to a multi-year, R&D program on actinide 
     recycling and the IFR directed by the Argonne National 
     Laboratory (ANL). If realized, this would have marked the 
     first commitment by a corporation affiliated with the 
     Japanese Government such as ours (although several Japanese 
     private entities have supported certain projects in this 
     area). We came very close to reaching a final agreement with 
     the DOE.
       Our tentative assumption for this cooperative project was 
     approximately $60 million over five years, subject of course 
     to the approval of the budgetary authorities in Japan. 
     However, the project was abruptly terminated by the DOE in 
     January of this year when funding wasn't identified in the 
     Administration's request for FY 1995 budget. We were 
     therefore forced to cease cooperative discussions with the 
     DOE and no longer secure financial resources for this 
     cooperative project in coming years.
       Meanwhile, we are starting on our own to carry out R&D in 
     the field of actinide recycling. A new long-term plan for 
     nuclear energy, under the auspices of the Atomic Energy 
     Commission of Japan, will include specific reference to the 
     importance of carrying out R&D on advanced reactors, 
     including those for recycling actinides. It requires 
     technologies which are still in the initial stage of 
     research, but we are committed to proceed with R&D in the 
     long-term in order to make tangible progress.
       We remain interested in working with the DOE in this field, 
     although its recent actions don't provide a stable, credible 
     basis on which to proceed at this point. If Congress were to 
     restore the program for the next fiscal year, we would 
     reconsider our options about participating in a joint 
     program.
       We appreciate your interest and leadership on these issues 
     and hope our two Governments can continue to cooperate on 
     nuclear energy and other advanced technologies in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Takao Ishiwatari,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                            Federation of Electric


                                              Power Companies,

                                       Tokyo, Japan, May 10, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         D.C.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: On behalf of the Federation of 
     Electric Power Companies (FEPC) comprising of all nine 
     utilities in Japan, I wish to express our concerns over the 
     Department of Energy's decision to propose in its FY 1995 
     Congressional Budget Request the termination of the Integral 
     Fast Reactor (IFR) Program conducted at Argonne National 
     Laboratory.
       In Japan, nuclear power is contributing over 25 percent of 
     electricity generation today and will have to expand its role 
     to meet the increasing electricity demand in the future, yet 
     protect our environment. A goal of a future nuclear 
     development in Japan is to establish a fast reactor 
     technology, combined with a fuel recycle technology, while 
     taking into consideration nonproliferation. More than 95 
     percent of the spent nuclear fuels are Uranium and Plutonium. 
     By reprocessing the spent nuclear fuels and recycling Uranium 
     and Plutonium to the nuclear power plants, we can extract 
     residual energy from the spent fuel to generate renewable 
     electric energy. Also it can reduce the volume of the high-
     level radioactive waste and the radioactive toxic lifetime, 
     as compared with a case of the direct disposal of the spent 
     fuel.
       Japanese utilities have two concerns regarding the future 
     development of fast reactors: economics and nonproliferation. 
     The IFR technology being developed in the U.S. has potential 
     in addressing both of these concerns. This is why FEPC 
     decided to participate in the U.S. IFR fuel cycle 
     demonstration program as a cost-sharing partner. The 
     conventional PUREX reprocessing in use in Europe and planned 
     in Japan is a mature technology. However, the IFR 
     pyroprocessing is a totally new technology that requires a 
     pilot-scale demonstration before we can make an independent 
     assessment for its feasibility and practicality.
       Terminating this demonstration at this juncture, especially 
     when it is on the brink of a pilotscale operation in EBR-II 
     and Fuel Cycle Facility (FCF), is simply unconscionable for 
     the future of nuclear development. IFR pyroprocessing is the 
     only technology that has potential of solving the 
     proliferation concerns associated with fast reactors in the 
     long term. The U.S. has historically played a preeminent role 
     in developing the civilian nuclear power, and the IFR 
     demonstration will be a significant step in advancing a safe, 
     proliferation-resistant nuclear technology for future 
     generations.
       For these reasons and to promote further U.S.-Japan 
     cooperation in the field of nuclear power development, we 
     strongly recommend that the funding for the IFR Program be 
     continued to the point that a meaningful assessment of this 
     new technology can be made with respect to its economics 
     potential and its role in achieving nonproliferation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ryo Ikegame,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

                                     Central Research Institute of


                                       Electric Power Industry

                                   Tokyo 100, Japan, May 12, 1994.
     Hon. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriation Subcommittee on Energy and 
         Water Development, Washington, DC.
       Dear Hon. Johnston; There is an urgent worldwide need to 
     control the release of carbon dioxide so as to avoid the 
     possibility of a global warming disaster. Given the need to 
     take action promptly, and the growing energy demand due to 
     the population and economic growth of the developing nations, 
     use of nuclear energy, which emits no carbon dioxide or other 
     greenhouse gases, assumes critical importance.
       The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) under development in the 
     U.S. is an extremely promising technology for the future 
     nuclear energy. It simplifies the fuel cycle. It solves the 
     waste problem through actinide recycling. Moreover, it 
     contributes positively toward achieving the non-proliferation 
     goal. Hence, Central Research Institute of Electric Power 
     Industry (CRIEPI) of Japan has been participating in the 
     program since 1989 both in funding and in joint research 
     undertakings. Japan has strong interest in the pyroprocessing 
     technology because of its highly proliferation-resistant 
     characteristics. This is one of the most important factors in 
     the long-term nuclear energy utilization planning process, 
     which is currently under consideration in Japan.
       Termination of the IFR Program in the U.S. will prevent a 
     major breakthrough in nuclear power. This, in turn will 
     impede the resolution of the environmental problem on a 
     global scale through effective utilization of uranium. It may 
     seem that we have considerable time to prepare for the 
     commercialization of fast reactor in succession to today's 
     commercial reactors. However, if we are to follow a course in 
     which we do our best to solve the environmental problem 
     (CO2 counter measure), in fact we have no time to spare 
     at all. Moreover, commercialization of an innovative 
     technology generally requires a long time. It, therefore is 
     of extreme importance for the future of mankind that the U.S. 
     continues positive efforts to complete the IFR technology 
     development and demonstration.
       In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, and to 
     promote further U.S.-Japan cooperation in the nuclear energy 
     field, I should be grateful if you would kindly take 
     appropriate measures which will allow the continuation of the 
     IFR Program along with the operation of EBR-II and the 
     related facilities at Argonne National Laboratory, so that 
     the IFR fuel cycle demonstration could proceed to completion 
     as planned.
           Very truly yours,
                                                      Susumu Yoda,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                  Nuclear Systems Association,

                                      Tokyo, Japan, June 15, 1994.
     The Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: This is to remind you of our deep 
     concern about the possible discontinuation of the development 
     of innovative nuclear energy technology, Integral Fast 
     Reactor (IFR) program in particular, expressed in our letter 
     to President Clinton dated June 1, 1993, which was sent to 
     you by carbon copy. We believe that you are a prominent 
     politician having a profound knowledge on energy problems. 
     Hence we are writing this letter to you.
       As you know, various studies by experts have predicted that 
     the continued emission of carbon dioxide at present level 
     will cause unprecedented rate and level of global warming of 
     which ultimate potential impacts could be catastrophic. We 
     believe that the increased use of nuclear energy that 
     involves essentially no release of carbon dioxide and other 
     greenhouse effect gases is one of the most practical steps we 
     developed countries should especially pursue, considering 
     steady increase in energy demand in the world and in the 
     developing countries in particular.
       We believe that further sophistication of nuclear fuel 
     cycle technology in parallel with commercialization of fast 
     reactor is necessary and effective for wider use of nuclear 
     energy in future. The closure of nuclear fuel cycle through 
     reprocessing of spent fuel and fast reactors extremely 
     enhances the supply potential of nuclear energy and provide 
     us with a technological scheme fundamentally different from 
     the current once-through use of nuclear fuel since most of 
     the nuclear material is to be disposed of as waste in the 
     latter system.
       We recognize that the pyroprocess technology the US has 
     successfully studied for more than ten years at Argonne 
     National Laboratory (ANL) is quite promising for the above 
     mentioned scheme. It makes it possible not only to close the 
     fuel cycle but to do so in simpler and far more proliferation 
     resistant way, producing lessor amount of waste. We therefore 
     have a great interest in demonstrating the feasibility of the 
     technology at ANL. This is the reason why Japanese electric 
     utilities entered the cooperative agreement with ANL in 1989 
     and provided fair amount of resources for the Fuel Cycle 
     Demonstration Test Program. Indeed it was our pleasure that 
     the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program was endorsed by the 
     Energy Policy Act '92 approved by an overwhelming majority 
     ``Yes'' in both Houses.
       Japanese Atomic Energy Commission will continue to support 
     the development of fast reactor in the revised version of its 
     long term plan, recognizing that it is necessary and feasible 
     to commercialize the technology within fifty years through 
     continued research and development of enabling and innovative 
     technologies relevant to fast reactor. It is needless to say 
     that the pyroprocessing technology will be included in this 
     category of technology.
       We are afraid that the discontinuation of the development 
     of this forward looking technology in the US would suggest 
     the loss of interest in the waste reduction and recycling 
     which nuclear business should take through the implementation 
     of this new thinking. Furthermore, subsequent delay in the 
     commercialization of such proliferation resistant technology 
     for recycled use of nuclear fuel would narrow the technology 
     option for future humankind to cope with the increased energy 
     demand in future. Theoretically speaking, the US can restart 
     the program when the real necessity will come into sight. 
     However, it would be very difficult in practice to do so if 
     the relevant resources and expertise have been depleted. We 
     believe that it is beneficial to the world as well as to the 
     US to finish the demonstration of the feasibility of this 
     innovative pyroprocessing technology, at least. We would do 
     our best asking the Japanese concerned authorities and 
     industries to contribute to this activity if continued as 
     planned.
           Very truly yours,
     Takashi Mukaibo,
       Chairman of Japan Atomic Industrial Forum.
                                                     June 8, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: I, as one of staffs in Japanese 
     universities, is deeply concerned about the proposed phase-
     out of advanced nuclear reactor research and development 
     programs on the U.S., in particular the Integral Fast Reactor 
     (IFR) Program including the shutdown of EBR-II from a long-
     term viewpoint, namely, how we can keep a potential for 
     sustainable developments in the world.
       I believe the IFR Program (metallic fuel and 
     pyroprocessing) for which R&D efforts are currently in 
     progress in the U.S. is a very valuable research program for 
     mankind not only as a technological project but as a landmark 
     to keep the potential solving our future issues.
       Technologically it has a potential of simplifying nuclear 
     waste disposal, it viewpoint of resource utilization, and it 
     strives to realize a technology which contributes 
     significantly to the nonproliferation goal. We, therefore, 
     recognize the IFR metallic fuel cycle as an option in the 
     future generation of nuclear power, and have a strong 
     interest in the feasibility demonstration of the IFR 
     technology.
       Furthermore, we are firmly convinced that to successfully 
     accomplish the program, we need databases concerning 
     pyroprocessing of the spent fuel, and safety verification. 
     Form this viewpoint, we believe the continued operation of 
     EBR-II and the related facilities is a decisive factor which 
     determines the feasibility demonstration.
       In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, and to 
     further promote U.S.-Japan cooperation in the nuclear power 
     field, we would like to ask you to take appropriate measures 
     to enable continuation of the IFR Program to a successful 
     demonstration in EBR-II. We have a profound respect for the 
     preeminent role that the U.S. played in advancing the nuclear 
     technology, and we believe the IFR technology will benefit 
     mankind for generations to come. Hence we are sure that if 
     the U.S. continues to positively promote the demonstration of 
     the IFR Program, a greater cooperation from Japan will be 
     extended to the Program, not only as a partner of a project 
     but as one of colleagues to solve current problems in our 
     modern society.
           Very truly yours,
                                                         S. Iwata,
                                                        Professor.
                                  ____

                                      Nuclear Engineering Research


                            Laboratory Faculty of Engineering,

                                       Tokyo, Japan, June 5, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnson,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: We, as nuclear enginering 
     specialists in Japanese universities, are deeply concerned 
     about the proposed phase-out of advanced nuclear reactor 
     research and development programs in the U.S., in particular 
     the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Program including the 
     shutdown of EBR-II.
       We believe that the IFR Program (metallic fuel and 
     pyroprocessing) for which R&D efforts are currently in 
     progress in the U.S. is a very valuable research program for 
     the mankind. This is because it has a potential to simplify 
     nuclear waste disposal, it includes actinide recycling 
     technology to contribute to the nonproliferation goal. We, 
     therefore, recognize the IFR metallic fuel cycle as an option 
     in the future generation of nuclear power, and have a strong 
     interest in the feasibility demonstration of the IFR 
     technology. That is why the Japanese electric utilities, with 
     the support given by various research organizations promoting 
     LMR development have been contributing funds to participate 
     in the IFR fuel cycle demonstration, as part of U.S.-Japan 
     cooperation in the LMR development.
       Furthermore, we are firmly convinced that to successfully 
     accomplish the program, we need databases concerning 
     pyroprocessing of the spent fuel, and safety verification. 
     From this viewpoint, we believe the continued operation of 
     EBR-II and the related facilities is a decisive factor which 
     determines the feasibility demonstration.
       In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, and to 
     further promote U.S.-Japan cooperation in the nuclear power 
     field, we would like to ask you to take appropriate measures 
     to enable continuation of the IFR Program to a successful 
     demonstration in EBR-II. We have a profound respect for the 
     preeminent role that the U.S. has played in advancing the 
     nuclear technology, and we believe the IFR technology will 
     benefit the mankind for the generations to come. Hence we are 
     sure that if the U.S. continues to positively promote the 
     demonstration of the IFR Program, a greater cooperation from 
     Japan will be extended to the Program.
           Very truly yours,
                                                      M. Jamawaki,
                                                        Professor.
                                  ____

                          Nuclear Engineering Research Laboratory,


                                       Faculty of Engineering,

                                       Tokyo, Japan, June 9, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: I am a Professor of The University 
     of Tokyo and currently serving as the head of Nuclear 
     Engineering Research Laboratory, The University of Tokyo 
     operating a fast research reactor and two accelerators.
       I am deeply concerned about the proposed phase-out of 
     advanced nuclear reactor research and development programs in 
     the U.S., in particular the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) 
     Program including the shutdown of EBR-II.
       We believe the IFR Program (metallic fuel and 
     pyroprocessing) for which R&D efforts are currently in 
     progress in the U.S. is a very valuable research program for 
     mankind because it has potential of simplifying nuclear fuel 
     reprocessing and improving the economy of electricity 
     generation in the future. We, recognize the IFR metallic fuel 
     cycle as an option in the future generation of nuclear power, 
     and have a strong interest in the feasibility demonstration 
     of the IFR technology. That is why the Japanese electric 
     utilities, with the support given by various research 
     organizations promoting LMR development have been 
     contributing funds to participate in the IFR fuel cycle 
     demonstration, as a part of U.S.-Japan cooperation in the LMR 
     development.
       Furthermore, we are firmly convinced that to successfully 
     accomplish the program, we need databases concerning 
     pyroprocessing of the spent fuel, and safety verification. 
     From this viewpoint, we believe the continued operation of 
     EBR-II and the related facilities is a decisive factor which 
     determines the feasibility demonstration.
       In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, and to 
     further promote U.S.-Japan cooperation in the nuclear power 
     field, we would like to ask you to take appropriate measures 
     to enable continuation of the IFR Program to a successful 
     demonstration in EBR-II. We have a profound respect for the 
     pre-eminent role that the U.S. played in advancing the 
     nuclear technology.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Yoshiaki Oka,
                                                        Professor.
                                  ____

                                             Department of Quantum


                              Engineering and Systems Science,

                                       Tokyo, Japan, June 3, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: I am a Japanese scientist in 
     nuclear engineering. I am heartly concerned on the 
     proposition of phase-out of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Research 
     and Development Program in the United States, hearing from 
     both of my colleagues and the news papers.
       I am working also as the Japanese contact person of the US-
     Japan student exchange program for these six years. Many 
     young post-graduates researchers in the nuclear engineering 
     have visited mutually. Many of Japanese visitors have 
     obtained so many important experiences in your dreamful 
     Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program and through experiments 
     and analysis of EBR-IL. In this period, about sixteen US 
     students have stayed in Japanese universities from Illinois, 
     MIT, Stanford, Missouri, Purdue, Iowa Sate, Michigan, North 
     Carolina State, Santa Barbara, Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
     Maryland and Wisconsin. We have discussed them on the future 
     cooperative plan in the global nuclear engineering.
       Therefore, I am sure that the U.S. continues to make 
     successive important efforts for the US and global 
     generations to come. I sincerely expect a greater cooperation 
     in nuclear engineering among your students and us.
           Very truly yours.
                                                      M. Nakazawa,
                                                        Professor.
                                  ____



                                       Faculty of Engineering,

                                 Sapparo 060, Japan, June 2, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Johnston: We, Japanese Universities, are 
     deeply concerned about the proposed phase-out of advanced 
     nuclear reactor research and development programs in the 
     U.S., in particular the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Program 
     including the shutdown of EBR-II.
       We believe the IFR Program (metallic fuel and pyro-
     processing) for which R&D efforts are currently in progress 
     in the U.S. is very valuable research program for mankind 
     because it has a potential of simplifying nuclear waste 
     disposal, it includes actinide recycling technology which is 
     important from the viewpoint of resource utilization. We, 
     therefore recognize the IFR metallic fuel cycle as an option 
     in the future generation of nuclear power, and have a strong 
     interest in the feasibility demonstration of IFR technology.
       We have deep respect for the preeminent role that U.S. 
     played in advancing the nuclear technology, and we believe 
     the IFR technology will benefit mankind for generations to 
     come. Hence we are certain that if U.S. continues to 
     positively promote the demonstration of the IFR Program, a 
     greater cooperation from Japan will be extended to the 
     Program.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Meisaki Katayama.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I believe, in fact, they will 
contribute. If so, we actually save money by our 4-year termination. If 
not, I believe the figure is $26 million over 4 years. Considering that 
which has already been invested, that is not the issue here.
  The issue is whether you terminate what we call EBR-II, which is the 
experimental breeder reactor which is being used to do this research. 
Under our proposal we would terminate EBR-II in 4 years, doing the 
research along the way essentially without cost to the taxpayer. Or, 
under the Kerry proposal, you terminate EBR-II in 4 years, not doing 
the research.
  There are a lot of antinukes who say, ``Do not possibly find out the 
answer to these questions.'' I think the preferred scientific reaction 
is just as the National Academy of Sciences says. They said, ``Do not 
develop and deploy this reactor at this time. But research on fission 
options for the near total elimination of plutonium should continue at 
the conceptual level.''
  That is what we proposed. We are not proposing the development or 
deployment of a reactor at this time. Once we have settled among these 
various options, then we can decide which option to do. Should we send 
it to Canada and burn it in the CANDU reactors? Our weapons grade 
plutonium going to Canada? Maybe so. If so, we ought to start talking 
to the Canadians.
  Should we use it in the WPPSS reactor, which is in Washington, which 
is one of the proposals? Maybe so. If so, they better not lose that 
option which they are going to lose soon.
  Should we use it in the Palo Verde reactor in Arizona? Perhaps so. 
But that is a civilian reactor and that has not been looked into.
  One thing that is very clear is that we are not going to go to just 
any reactor in the United States, even though technically, and I guess 
theoretically, you could use any reactor to burn plutonium. You would 
not do that because they are really not designed for it. That is why 
you want to finish building the WPPSS reactors, which could be designed 
for it, the Palo Verde reactor which could be redesigned for it, the 
CANDU reactors in Canada, which could be used for it, or as Dr. 
Panofsky said, build a new one at Savannah River. That technology is 
now owned by ABB. But until we decide which of these options we want to 
use, we ought to pursue this, as the National Academy of Sciences says.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this 
point a letter signed by the heads of the nuclear engineering 
departments of the most distinguished universities of the country, 
saying we ought to pursue this, including the University of Michigan, 
Pennsylvania State, MIT, University of Arizona, Florida, UC Berkeley, 
UC Santa Barbara, University of Illinois, Cornell, University of 
Missouri, Georgia Institute of Technology, North Carolina, Iowa--the 
list goes on for another couple of pages, of the most distinguished 
heads of university nuclear programs in the country.
  I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Nuclear Engineering Department


                                           Heads Organization,

                                                     May 11, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and 
         Water Development, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: We are academic department and 
     program heads in the field of nuclear engineering. The 
     faculty in our institutions and the graduate students who 
     have worked on research in our departments have many years of 
     experience studying today's generation of nuclear power 
     plants, and many of us are involved in analyses of next 
     generation light water reactors and advanced nuclear reactors 
     that include the liquid metal-cooled reactors and the gas-
     cooled reactors. In this letter we wish to express our 
     thoughts and concerns with respect to the FY 1995 budget as 
     it relates to nuclear power research.
       We were pleased to see that the importance of the advanced 
     light water reactor program was recognized and funded. 
     Without such funding we would limit the opportunity to retain 
     the nuclear power option, an option we believe will become 
     increasingly important early in the next century. Lack of 
     funding would also inhibit our ability to compete in the 
     international arena in countries where nuclear power is 
     expanding in use.
       However, we believe it is a serious error in policy to 
     eliminate the longer term advanced reactor programs, 
     specifically the liquid metal reactor (LMR) program and the 
     gas cooled reactor (GCR) program. We do not believe that 
     adequate consideration has been given to the benefits and 
     importance of these programs. These include:
       Both reactor concepts offer unique safety features that are 
     not available in the present generation of light water 
     reactors.
       The LMR is capable of destroying the longest lived elements 
     in radioactive waste, thus offering the potential to reduce 
     the burden of disposal of high level waste.
       Both concepts represent potential methods for utilizing 
     bomb-grade plutonium as a safe fuel for electricity 
     generation.
       The LMR has the capability, through actinide recycling, to 
     extend the nuclear fuel supply for centuries beyond that 
     available with the conventional light water reactor fuel 
     cycle utilizing uranium 235 as the fuel.
       The LMR program is pioneering the Intergral Fast Reactor 
     (IFR) concept which involves the reprocessing and recycling 
     of fuel and long-lived radioactive waste in a closed-cycle, 
     proliferation-resistant system. Crucial tests of this 
     important technology will begin this year if funding 
     continues.
       The IFR concept supports the Administration's non-
     proliferation goals by providing a non-proliferation 
     alternative technology to the current commercial PUREX 
     reprocessing and by eliminating plutonium stockpiling.
       The EBR-II liquid metal reactor in Idaho is the only rest 
     reactor of its kind in the United States. It is being used to 
     develop and test metallic fuel which increases the safety and 
     reduces the cost of such reactors. It is playing an important 
     international role for the Japanese, who are providing 
     financial support for the program, and is being used to test 
     new diagnostic and control technologies that are important to 
     the light water program.
       We note that the Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorizes the 
     continuation of research and development of advanced reactor 
     technologies, including GCR and LMR designs, in order to 
     encourage the commercialization and deployment of advanced 
     reactor technologies by the year 2010. In addition, the Act 
     includes as a goal the evaluation of actinide burner 
     technologies to reduce the volume of high level nuclear 
     waste. It is clear that the elimination of the LMR, GCR, and 
     testing programs is counter to the provisions of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992.
       The sudden cutoff of these advanced reactor programs 
     represents a serious loss of technology development that has 
     occurred over several decades. We are pleased that your long 
     term development policy includes research and development in 
     controlled fusion. But while fusion is a high risk technology 
     requiring the solution to many scientific, technology and 
     economic problems, the advanced reactor programs are much 
     nearer to demonstrated success.
       Eliminating these programs will jeopardize the goal of 
     maintaining nuclear power as a viable energy option for this 
     nation into the next century, a consequence which could be 
     especially damaging to our country if acceptable 
     (environmentally and economically) alternative sources of 
     electricity cannot be developed to replace nuclear power for 
     electricity generation. In addition, this decision will deter 
     many of our brightest students in science and engineering 
     from entering this field, which will be perceived as at best 
     a stagnated field. Such students are needed for the safe 
     operation of this generation of plants, and to maintain and 
     develop the technical expertise for future uses of nuclear 
     energy. This will further exacerbate a manpower shortage for 
     the nuclear industry that is projected for this decade and 
     well into the next century.\1\ When and if this country 
     decides that nuclear power is needed, there will no longer be 
     the expertise or technology to provide it, except for foreign 
     corporations, which stand to benefit substantially as the 
     U.S. abandons its once-leading role in nuclear reactor 
     technology.\2\ The irony here is that U.S. light water 
     technology, licensed to foreign countries, may be 
     successfully marketed by these very countries as our nation 
     abdicates its leadership role in developing and utilizing 
     nuclear energy. Indeed, we may become purchasers of our own--
     new and imrpoved--technology (once again!).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Moreover, if the U.S. wishes to play a major role in 
     deterring proliferation and enforcing IAEA safeguards with 
     respect to diversion of nuclear fuel for weapons use, this 
     nation must maintain a strong role in the development and use 
     of nuclear power, in particular to continue to make advances 
     in the development and use of nuclear power, in particular to 
     continue to make advances in the development of advanced 
     reactors (improved safety, economic fuel cycles, 
     proliferation-resistance, waste disposal, etc.). Otherwise we 
     run the clear risk of becoming a third-world country with 
     respect to nuclear power and have minimal impact on world 
     policy in this area.
       Finally, not only do we feel strongly that the decision to 
     stop advanced reactor research and development is not in the 
     best interests of our country, we are concerned with the 
     process by which this decision was made. This decision, a 
     major energy policy decision which affects current and future 
     generations of Americans, has been made without the benefit 
     of informed public debate. The decision has been made behind 
     closed doors, without consideration of opposing viewpoints, 
     and is being presented to the nation as a fait accompli, 
     buried in the complex budget package for FY 1995. The manner 
     in which this decision was made is inappropriate for an issue 
     of such overriding national importance as the long-term 
     energy and environmental policy for our nation.
       There is ample evidence to suggest that a broad segment of 
     the engineering and scientific community is not in agreement 
     with this decision. For example, two recent National Academy 
     of Science (NAS) reports have examined the issue of nuclear 
     power in different contexts. The first NAS report\3\ was 
     based on the premise that nuclear power would be maintained 
     as an important energy option as part of a balanced energy 
     policy. Given this premise, the report recommends actions 
     necessary to retain nuclear power as a viable energy option 
     in the next century, including strong support for investments 
     in advanced reactor research and development.
       The second NAS report \4\ contains several recommendations 
     which address the need to maintain the nuclear option as a 
     substitute for fossil fuels to mitigate greenhouse warming. 
     However, it is recognized that current concerns (safety, 
     economics, waste disposal) need to be addressed and 
     alternative reactor concepts need to be examined. In 
     particular, investments in advanced reactor research and 
     development are strongly recommended.
       These recommendations from prestigious national scientific 
     panels substantiate our remarks regarding the importance of 
     nuclear power for meeting the future energy needs of this 
     country, in an environmentally acceptable way. Moreover, they 
     give credence to our conclusion that the decision process did 
     not represent a balanced consideration of the scientific 
     merits of research and development for advanced reactor 
     concepts.
       We, therefore, strongly recommend that the advanced nuclear 
     reactor research and development be continued in accordance 
     with the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This 
     would be a prudent investment in the future energy security, 
     environmental health, and innovative technology 
     competitiveness of the nation. We urge you to restore the 
     funding for the advanced reactor R&D as you consider the FY 
     1995 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
           Respectfully yours,
         William R. Martin, Department of Nuclear Engineering, 
           University of Michigan; Edward H. Klevans, Nuclear 
           Engineering Department, Pennsylvania State University; 
           Edward N. Lambremont, Nuclear Science Center, Louisiana 
           State University; Gary A. Pertmer, Materials and 
           Nuclear Engineering, University of Maryland; John W. 
           Poston, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M 
           University; Victor H. Ransom, School of Nuclear 
           Engineering, Purdue University; Gilbert A. Emmert, 
           Nuclear Engineering and Eng. Physics, University of 
           Wisconsin, Madison; Bernard W. Wehring, Nuclear 
           Engineering Program, University of Texas at Austin; N. 
           Dean Eckhoff, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kansas 
           State University; Michael Z. Podowski, Nuclear 
           Engineering and Eng. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic 
           Institute; Gary M. Sandquist, Nuclear Engineering 
           Program, University of Utah; Varada Charyulu, Nuclear 
           Science and Engineering, Idaho State University; Kirk 
           A. Matthews, Nuclear Engineering Curriculum, Air Force 
           Institute of Technology; Ronald D. Flack, Mech., 
           Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering, University of 
           Virginia.
         Mujid S. Kazimi, Department of Nuclear Engineering, 
           Massachusetts Institute of Technology; James S. 
           Tulenko, Dept. of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, 
           University of Florida; Glenn E. Lucas, Chemical and 
           Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Santa 
           Barbara; Barclay G. Jones, Department of Nuclear 
           Engineering, University of Illinois; William H. Miller, 
           Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Missouri, 
           Columbia; Donald J. Dudziak, Department of Nuclear 
           Engineering, North Carolina State University; Morris 
           Farr, Nuclear and Energy Engineering, University of 
           Arizona; T. Kenneth Fowler, Department of Nuclear 
           Engineering, University of California, Berkeley; Don W. 
           Miller, Nuclear Engineering Program, Ohio State 
           University; David D. Clark, Nuclear Science and 
           Engineering Program, Cornell University; Ward O. Winer, 
           Nuclear Engineering and Health Physics, Georgia 
           Institute of Technology; Daniel B. Bullen, Nuclear 
           Engineering Program, Iowa State University; Thomas W. 
           Kerlin; Nuclear Engineering Department, University of 
           Tennessee; David Woodall, Program in Nuclear 
           Engineering, University of Idaho; Gilbert J. Brown, 
           Chemical and Nuclear Engineering, University of 
           Massachusetts, Lowell; Roy Eckart, Mech., Industrial, 
           and Nuclear Eng., University of Cincinnati; Alan H. 
           Robinson, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Oregon 
           State University; Arvind Kumar, Department of Nuclear 
           Engineering, University of Missouri, Rolla.

                               footnotes

     \1\U.S. Nuclear Engineering Education: Status and Prospects, 
     National Research Council, National Academy Press (1990).
     \2\C.W. Forsberg, et al., The Changing Structure of the 
     International Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor Industry, 
     ORNL/TM-12284, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1992).
     \3\Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the 
     Future, National Research Council, National Academy Press 
     (1992).
     \4\Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, 
     Adaptation, and the Science Base, National Research Council, 
     National Academy Press (1992).
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I will yield for a brief time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts a moment ago 
basically said the waste stream flowing from a light water reactor----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will withhold that and let me make this 
point, I will then yield to him.
  Mr. CRAIG. Go right ahead.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The most telling recommendation of all comes from 
another section of the Department of Energy. It is in a report dated 
June 1994--I remind my colleagues that this is June 1994. ``Department 
of Energy, Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratories Environmental Restoration and Waste 
Management Program, Draft Environment Impact Statement.'' This is over 
at Tom Grumbly's shop, who is in the Department of Energy. They list 
the alternatives for disposition of the spent fuel at Idaho National 
Lab, which is where this is located.
  In each of their alternatives, the 10-year plan, the minimum 
treatment storage and disposal plan, and maximum treatment storage and 
disposal--each one of those alternatives includes demonstrating of the 
actinide recycle. That is what we are talking about, the demonstration 
of the actinide recycle.
  So while one part of the Department of Energy has said, ``shut her 
down, boys, do not possibly find out the information,'' the other part 
that is charged with the cleanup, that has the dirty, hands-on job of 
cleaning up Idaho National Lab, says, ``demonstrate the program.''
  I guess the internal signals in behalf of the Department of Energy--
they have not gotten the political signals yet that tell them what to 
do--but I am telling you, Mr. President, those who are charged with the 
cleanup say we have to demonstrate this actinide recycle under any of 
the alternatives.
  All we want to do is to demonstrate at essentially no cost to the 
taxpayer.
  Mr. President, let me yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the environmental impact statement he just 
referred to is the result of a lawsuit in Idaho that basically said, if 
you are going to send us your Navy nuclear waste, give us a solution to 
your problem or do not send us your waste. And we are offering that 
solution today.
  But there was a statement by the Senator from Massachusetts that 
cannot be allowed to stand on the Record, and that is that the waste 
stream coming from the light water reactor or an IFR configuration were 
similar, very similar, I believe was his exact statements, hardly any 
difference.
  This is radioactivity life----
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Similar to what?
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator was talking about the radioactivity and the 
plutonium, the actinides involved in these waste streams, as I read the 
Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. No.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what did he say?
  Mr. KERRY. I said fuel----
  Mr. CRAIG. In one-half minute or less.
  Mr. KERRY. Fuel in a once-fuel cycle within a light water reactor 
comes out in spent fuel form which has both fissionable and the 
actinide. The actinide is what contains the plutonium. You have to 
separate the plutonium if you are going to use it in weapons-grade 
fuel. That is what I said. You do not have, as the Senator seems to 
imply, this pot of plutonium that is a threat.
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not mean to give that impression. What is implied in 
the Senator's statement is that they are very similar. They are not at 
all similar. We are worried about life, radioactivity exposure to our 
public, the availability to handle this waste stream. IFR waste streams 
lose their radioactivity to background level in about 800 years; light 
water reactor in nearly 10,000. And, of course, we are also talking 
about volume. The Senator mentioned volumes. Substantially less volume 
comes from an IFR versus a light water. His statements cannot be 
allowed to stand on the Record. That is the science we are dealing 
with, and we know that to be accurate science.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would like to 
have a further agreement to maybe sum up.
  Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted to do that. There is another Senator 
who is tied up and is not able to get here. I will yield back time. I 
will keep that promise.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-three minutes left. The Senator from 
Louisiana has 12 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator from Louisiana agree to sum up and then I 
will sum up? Whatever is agreeable to the Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Whatever time the Senator agrees to, I will agree to. 
Two minutes? Five minutes?
  Mr. KERRY. Why do we not take 5 minutes each, and I will yield back 
the difference of time on my 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
shortened to 10 minutes equally divided between myself and the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I may not take the full 5 minutes 
because the issue has been stated and is simple. This is not about 
money; it is not about the termination of the EBR-II or the reactor 
program. The path of the Senator from Massachusetts and our path 
terminates the EBR-II program. It is about doing the research along the 
way which completes a 4-year program of research which is substantially 
without cost to the taxpayer.
  If the Japanese contribute, as the correspondence I have put in the 
Record indicates, we save money; if not, we spend about $26 million out 
of--I guess $800 million has already been spent on this program. So $26 
million, if it would come to that over a period of 4 years, is 
virtually without cost and the Secretary of Energy has so stated.
  Mr. President, it is about options. Until the United States decides 
on a short-term option, which I think will undoubtedly mean some kind 
of treatment of the plutonium so as to make it proliferation proof, 
that is the short-term option, and I think that will probably be 
pursued. The National Academy of Sciences says we ought to have a long-
term option as well, and that is ridding ourselves of the plutonium, 
which the IFR gives you the capacity to do. It is the only option that 
rids you of the plutonium other than to shoot it into space.
  Other options, such as dilution in the ocean or sinking it in the 
ocean floor, I believe, are not options.
  I think the scientists in the country, as indicated by that letter I 
just put in, support this option. The National Academy of Sciences, as 
I pointed out, also support it. I have read previously, but let me 
reread, the one sentence from the National Academy of Sciences' 1992 
report where they say:

       The committee believes that the LMR should have the highest 
     priority for long-term nuclear technology development.

  And then again they say: ``Special attention needs to be paid to the 
LMR''. In the 1994 report, they say that you should pursue not the 
development, not the deployment, but the conceptual design, which is 
what we propose, of the IFR.
  So we can do it virtually without cost. It ought to be done. There is 
no reason not to do it. It is an option the United States needs.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Let me correct something quickly for the Senator from Idaho, if I 
can. Lawrence Livermore Labs has estimated that reprocessing high-level 
wastes could generate up to a 30-percent greater volume of low-level 
waste than direct disposal of comparable light water reactor waste.
  So Lawrence Livermore and other independent labs have determined, 
indeed, this process will create more waste. But that is arguing at the 
margins of this.
  We keep hearing this notion that it is really not going to cost more, 
but, in point of fact, we all understand from experience around here 
that this is not just about sort of a phaseout or a termination. This 
is about the years and years and years this program has been going on 
and those who get it going now have one intention, which is to get it 
up to a demonstrated capacity and then to implement it.
  The fact is that you have a choice today. You can pay operating costs 
for 4 more years and termination costs, too, or you can save the 
operating costs and pay only the termination cost. That is a difference 
of some money and that has been established to be several millions of 
dollars.
  But more important is the question of whether or not we are going to 
go against the expressed desire of the President of the United States 
not to have this program, to go against his statement that he believes 
this jeopardizes our status vis-a-vis other countries in arguing 
proliferation and, most important, that contrary to the expressed 
statement of this year--not last year which is what the proponents keep 
going to--but this year the Secretary of Energy has said:

       No further testing is required to prove the technical 
     feasibility. The basic physics and chemistry of this 
     technology are established.

  Mr. President, the National Taxpayers Union lists this as one of the 
10 great boondoggle programs of the country. They say point blank: 
Myth, the ALMR is a budget-neutral program.
  The National Taxpayers Union points out, as Secretary O'Leary has 
pointed out, that it is really going to cost you $4.2 billion, 
including $1 billion of industry cost-sharing to complete the 
development. That is what we keep hearing about here, the development 
of the integral fast reactor.
  In addition, we have heard it asserted that this really is not a 
budget issue, it is a termination issue. Again, the National Taxpayers 
Union, Secretary O'Leary and others disagree with that. And in her June 
27 letter, she says point blank:

       The principal concerns that led me to withdraw my support 
     for this program are the high costs of further development. 
     Continuation of the program will be extremely costly and 
     termination of the program would require approximately $.3 
     billion instead of the $3.1 billion.

  So you have a $2.9 billion difference.
  Finally, Mr. President, I really believe that--and I just quote the 
National Taxpayers Union--this is the old issue we face around here.
  To continue to throw money at a project that has been rejected by 
experts from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory, Rand Corp., Office of Technology Assessment, General 
Accounting Office, and the National Academy of Sciences is perpetuating 
a myth that taxpayers will no longer tolerate and that the Senate 
should not either.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken 4 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to 
terminate funding for the advanced liquid metal reactor [ALMR].
  Mr. President, last year I stood on the Senate floor to oppose 
continued funding of the ALMR. Since that time the arguments against 
continued funding of this project have only grown stronger. This 
project raises serious safety and environmental concerns, economic 
questions, and the threat of nuclear materials proliferation.
  I was very encouraged when President Clinton's budget request 
proposed terminating the ALMR based on concerns about proliferation 
risks, and I certainly agree with Department of Energy's, Hazel 
O'Leary's assessment that:

       We cannot credibly urge that others not use technologies 
     for separating and using plutonium if we are pursuing those 
     same technologies ourselves. Such actions could provide an 
     excuse for rogue nations to oppose international efforts to 
     end their separation efforts.

  Mr. President, at a time when events in Korea are highlighting 
worldwide concerns about availability of weapons-grade plutonium, the 
United States should be striving to lead by example, not pursing 
technologies that leave our own policies open to question.
  Last year on the Senate floor, many of my colleagues raised concerns 
that the ALMR could easily be converted into a breeder. My friend and 
colleague from Massachusetts has done an excellent job explaining that 
new evidence only reinforces those fears.
  The Office of Technology Assessment's report which states that 
operating the ALMR to breed plutonium ``would probably not be 
difficult,'' and which further states, ``it would, however, be 
difficult to design an ALMR reactor core that could not be converted to 
breeder operation * * *'' should alone give us pause.
  The dangers this technology would present in the wrong hands are 
alarming. That it should be developed by the U.S. Government at the 
same time we wish to halt the pursuit of similar technologies in other 
countries is incongruous and sets precisely the wrong example.
  Nor do I believe switching from a uranium-based nuclear power system 
to one based on plutonium makes economic sense when we have a readily 
available and inexpensive supply of uranium that does not raise the 
same proliferation concerns.
  These concerns, in my mind, are alone sufficient to warrant 
termination of the ALMR project. However, these reasons are reinforced 
by budget concerns.
  Mr. President, at a time when every item in the Federal budget is 
being subjected to close scrutiny, this project does not even warrant a 
second glance.
  I understand that the committee has made the argument that completion 
costs for the ALMR are actually somewhat less than early termination 
costs.
  Mr. President, even if one accepts the assumptions of the committee 
in making that determination through fiscal year 1988, and I believe 
there is room for discussion there, we as a body must consider the life 
costs of the project. The Department of Energy's cost estimates for 
construction of the power reactor and facility to recycle its fuel 
exceeds $3 billion. Early termination costs would be about a tenth of 
that amount.
  Also with early termination, the ALMR facility will not have been 
contaminated with radioactive material eliminating cleanup and 
decommissioning concerns proponents may not have considered.
  Proponents of the ALMR argue that it can be used to recycle other 
nuclear waste. Given the long-term problems associated with nuclear 
waste disposal this is certainly an enticing argument. However, the 
recent GAO report, ``nuclear science: developing technology to reduce 
radioactive waste may take decades and be costly'' found that the 
Department of Energy's own waste managers believe other technologies 
are more feasible.
  Second, GAO also reported that it would take 20 ALMR systems 100 
years or more to handle 90 percent of the light water reactor waste 
inventory expected in the year 2010, raising even further budget 
implications of construction, operation, and decommissioning of 20 ALMR 
systems for radioactive waste disposal.
  The National Academy of Sciences and independent scientists at 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have questioned the economic 
viability of using ALMR technology for waste disposal estimating that 
it could quadruple the cost of high-level waste disposal. Further, the 
technology would not be commercially viable for 30 years.
  And another more recent National Academy of Sciences report which 
specifically explores the issues of disposition of excess weapons 
plutonium states, ``advanced reactors should not be specifically 
developed or built for transforming weapons plutonium into spent fuel, 
because that aim can be achieved more rapidly, less expensively, and 
more surely by using existing or evolutionary reactor types.''
  Mr. President, last year the Senate voted unsuccessfully to terminate 
funding for the ALMR. Given all of the new information which only 
reinforces the arguments against continuing this technology, I hope 
some of my colleagues will reconsider last year's vote.
  We have a soaring Federal debt that has now well exceeded $4 
trillion. In the past year and a half we have put up a good-sized down 
payment on that following the President's deficit reduction plan. 
Canceling funding for ALMR, an unnecessary and potentially dangerous 
project will be another small monthly payment on that enormous debt.
  Mr. President, as elected officials we are often called upon to make 
tough funding choices. To me, this vote is not a tough choice at all, 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting to terminate the ALMR 
project.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. I 
move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment (No. 2127) of the Senator from Massachusetts. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] is absent 
because of attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bryan
     Riegle
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2127) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  (Later, the following occurred:)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on roll call 175 I voted ``aye.'' It was 
my intention to vote ``nay.''
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my 
vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, until the Chamber clears, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 statement on the fiscal year 1995 energy and water appropriations bill

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, The Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4506, the Energy and Water appropriations bill and has found that 
the bill is under its 602(B) budget authority allocation by $107,000 
and under its 602(B) outlay allocation by $59 million.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill Senator Johnston, 
and the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, Senator Hatfield, on all their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the Energy and Water appropriations bill 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at the 
appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4506--FISCAL YEAR 1995 ENERGY 
             AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL             
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                   Bill summary                     authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                   
    New spending in bill..........................    $20,513    $12,083
    Outlays from prior year appropriations........  .........      8,916
    Permanent/advance appropriations..............          0          0
    Supplementals.................................          0       -115
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary spending............     20,513     20,884
Mandatory totals..................................          0          0
    Bill total....................................     20,513     20,884
    Senate 602(b) allocation......................     20,513     20,943
                                                   ---------------------
      Difference..................................          0        -59
                                                   =====================
Discretionary totals above (+) or below) (-):                           
    President's request...........................          0        -56
    House-passed bill.............................        157         31
    Senate-reported bill..........................  .........  .........
    Senate-passed bill............................  .........  .........
                                                   =====================
      Defense.....................................     10,348     10,472
      International affairs.......................          0          0
                                                   =====================
      Domestic discretionary......................     10,165     10,412
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                            BILL HISTORY--H.R. 4506--FISCAL YEAR 1995 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS                                                           
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]                                                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        President's request                House-passed                   Senate-reported                  Senate-passed                    Conference          
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Bill summary                Budget                          Budget                          Budget                          Budget                          Budget                    
                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                                                                                                                                           
    New spending in bill........      20,512,750      12,139,076      20,355,622      12,052,033      20,512,893      12,082,930  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Permanents/advances.........               0               0               0               0               0               0  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Outlays from prior years....  ..............       8,916,272  ..............       8,916,272  ..............       8,916,272  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Supplemental................               0        -115,305               0        -115,305               0        -115,305  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary...      20,512,750      20,940,043      20,355,622      20,853,000      20,512,893      20,883,897  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mandatory totals:                                                                                                                                                                               
    Mandatory spending in bill..               0               0               0               0               0               0  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Budget resolution adjustment               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, mandatory.......               0               0               0               0               0               0  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                 ===============================================================================================================================================================
Bill totals.....................      20,512,750      20,940,043      20,355,622      20,853,000      20,512,893      20,883,897               0               0               0               0
602(b) allocation...............      20,513,000      20,943,000      20,513,000      20,943,000      20,513,000      20,943,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Difference..................            -250          -2,957        -157,378         -90,000            -107         -59,103               0               0               0               0
                                 ===============================================================================================================================================================
    Defense.....................      10,541,065      10,584,521      10,319,147      10,442,422      10,348,232      10,471,685               0               0               0               0
    International Affairs.......               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0
    Domestic Discretionary......       9,971,685      10,355,522      10,036,475      10,410,578      10,164,661      10,412,212               0               0               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I wonder if, while we are waiting for 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to begin his 8-minute 
statement, we might find out from Senators who has amendments, if there 
is anyone new, or anybody who indicated he has an amendment and is not 
going to bring up an amendment. I am told Senator Wellstone has two 
relevant amendments. Senator Lautenberg has two, which I believe have 
been cleared, or one that has been cleared. I understand that Senator 
Harkin has two amendments. I understand that Senator Stevens may have 
an amendment. Other than that, I know of no other amendments. We have a 
small package of agreed-to amendments.
  I ask Senators, if they have amendments, to please let us know about 
it. Otherwise, we will proceed as soon as these others are done to 
final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arkansas 
[Mr. Pryor].

                          ____________________