[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]



                              {time}  1700
 
  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4506, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4506) making appropriations for energy 
and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardin). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.


      motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. myers of indiana

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Myers of Indiana moves that the managers on the part of 
     the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4506 be 
     instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in the 
     House bill under the heading ``General Science and Research 
     Activities'' that provide $279,399,000 for high energy 
     physics facility operating expenses.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] rise?
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] 
in opposition to the motion?
  Mr. BEVILL. No, Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will divide the time in thirds, 
each Member receiving 20 minutes, one-third of the time.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion I have offered on behalf of our committee is 
a rather simple motion to insist upon the House position on high energy 
physics. During the past several years we have seen that the research 
being done by our national labs around the country has been either 
frozen at the past level, or the effect has been a decrease in the 
effectiveness of our labs. What we have attempted to do here in our 
bill was to increase slightly this year the research which is so vital 
to the future energy needs for our country, so that this research will 
be done in our national labs.
  In the House version, we had $279,400,000 for operating these 
national labs. The Senate cut this back to $268 million, which was just 
about the same as last year. In fact, it might be just a bit less than 
we actually appropriated last year.
  The impact, because of cost of living, it means we are getting less 
research for the energy that our children and grandchildren are going 
to need, and for the ability for us to compete in the world markets 
today. We have to continually work to find cheaper, more efficient, 
more effective ways, not only of producing energy, but of transmitting 
energy from generation stations, as in the case of electricity.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just very vital research our Nation does need to 
continue to be competitive. What I am attempting to do here is to 
instruct our conferees to insist upon the House position, which is 
about $11.4 million more than the Senate had in their bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I and some of our colleagues are rising today to ask the 
House to vote in opposition to the previous question on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], so we can amend the 
motion. While we do not directly oppose what he is trying to do, we 
think it is very important for the House to confirm today its position 
that it has, on four specific occasions, voted to take, which was 
included in the energy and water appropriations of this bill, and that 
was to terminate the advanced liquid metal reactor.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to take our time of the 20 minutes to 
explain once again those arguments, and ask our colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. At that point we will offer a motion 
to instruct the conferees to stay with the position that it has in the 
House bill and that we support, in dealing with the Senate. The ALMR 
barely survived in the Senate, and while the House has overwhelmingly 
voted to eliminate this Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Alabama and the 
gentleman from Indiana. The Energy and Water Subcommittee has confirmed 
the will of the House and the request of the President and the 
Department of Energy to provide funding to terminate the Advanced 
Liquid Metal Reactor program.
  It is to support this decision that we come today to offer a motion 
to instruct the conferees to stand by the House position. In order to 
win the right to offer this motion to instruct, we must defeat the 
previous question on the motion which has been offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  I wish to assure that gentleman, the committee, and the House that we 
are not in opposition to the motion offered by Mr. Myers, but simply 
wish to win the right to offer our motion to uphold the House position.
  The House has voted four times to terminate this project: Once when 
it passed this bill; once when it passed the reinventing government 
bill last year, and twice when considering the energy and water 
appropriations bill last year.
  At that time we offered an amendment to cut funding for this project. 
It passed by 272 to 146 in the Committee of the Whole and later by a 
similar margin in the House.
  The Senate last year voted to continue funding the project by the 
narrow margin of 53 to 46. In spite of the narrow margin in the Senate, 
the conference report included funding for the ALMR.
  This year the committee decided to support the decision of the 
President and the position of the House and to terminate the program. 
The Senate, however, by the narrow margin of 52 to 46, voted to 
continue the program, calling that continuation phased termination.
  There are those in the Senate with a strong commitment to this 
program and they will be insistent. It is for this reason that we come 
to you today asking you to help strengthen the hand of our House 
negotiators by giving them a clear vote in support of the House 
position to terminate the ALMR. Let us bring this program to a halt 
once and for all.
  I also wish to make clear that this effort is not undertaken out of 
opposition to nuclear power or nuclear research programs. I have long 
supported other nuclear research programs, such as the Advanced Light 
Water Reactor Program, and continue to do so. There is funding within 
this legislation for other reactor programs. It is only the ALMR we 
seek to terminate here.
  How does the ALMR measure up as a method for high level nuclear waste 
disposal?
  Proponents have argued that the ALMR could be used to burn the 
actinides in high level nuclear waste, making it easier to dispose of. 
On the contrary, while plutonium is burned, more fission products are 
produced, that are more likely to leak.
  The ALMR can fission, or burn uranium and plutonium. However, it must 
be made clear that these elements are not the source of greatest 
concern in high level waste disposal. In fact, fission products, which 
are other very long-lived elements such as technicium, curium, and 
americium, iodine, and cesium are far more difficult to deal with. 
These elements are water soluble and would increase emissions from a 
repository, thus increasing the dosage to the public.
  Even if all the uranium and plutonium were burned out of the waste it 
would still have to be placed in a repository, and the content of 
elements most likely to leach out would be greater. In other words, the 
waste would be more dangerous to the public and would make a repository 
harder to license.
  On top of that, there would be more waste to dispose of with the ALMR 
as a waste disposal technique. The DOE has reported that there would be 
as much as 1.3 to 2.3 times a much waste for disposal with the ALMR as 
without it.
  In addition, it would cost more. The Edison Electric Institute 
concluded last year that the ALMR could increase the cost of the 
disposal program by as much as four times.
  The National Academy of Sciences estimates that it would take twenty 
1,000 megawatt reactors 100 years or more to destroy more than 90 
percent of the actinides. Each of these would have to be replaced 
during that 100 years at least once. That would require more reactors.
  So it would take over 100 years; would require construction of a 
massive new infrastructure; would leave more waste than you started 
with; the waste would be more difficult to control, creating a more 
serious threat to the environment, and it would cost more to burn the 
actinides.
  How does the ALMR measure up as a method for plutonium disposal and 
proliferation?
  As we enter the 21st century, few issues are more pressing than the 
spread of nuclear weapons to nations which do not currently have them. 
Recent and continuing headlines have featured the tense standoff 
between the United States and international inspectors with North Korea 
over their production of plutonium for bombs. Just 2 years ago we were 
at war with Iraq, with one of the justifications the stopping of Saddam 
Hussein's nuclear weapons development program. We can expect to see 
more stories about countries trying to gain nuclear weapons capability.
  There are two primary concerns for weapons proliferation. One is that 
bomb-ready materials can be stolen and made into bombs. The other is 
that nations will acquire the technology to manufacture their own 
materials for bombs. The ALMR fails on both counts.
  About 150 tons of plutonium will be left from the dismantling of 
American and Russian nuclear weapons. Some have said that the ALMR 
could be used to dispose of this plutonium by burning it as fuel.
  A quote from the fission working group of the DOE plutonium 
disposition task force goes directly to the point: ``It is interesting 
to note that the options with the greatest annihilation capability also 
have the greatest diversion risk.''
  Burning the plutonium would require the development, design, testing, 
construction, and deployment of a large number of reactors. The 
Department of Energy committee called for 27 160 megawatt reactors. 
That would take decades, just to get started disposing of this 
material.
  The NAS, in a study released earlier this year pointed to two 
alternatives as preferable for this purpose. One is the mixing of the 
plutonium with fuel for existing commercial light water reactors. The 
other is mixing the plutonium with existing high level waste for 
glassification and disposal. Both of these options use existing 
facilities, cost little, and could be started up almost immediately.
  Recent stories about a few ounces of plutonium found in a German 
garage are chilling. Evidently, the plutonium was stolen from the 
Russian weapons system. We need to get with whatever is the quickest 
way to render this material diversion-proof. The ALMR does not 
represent the quickest way, nor the cheapest way, nor the surest way.
  As to the other threat, that of foreign nations acquiring the 
technology to build weapons, no other system is as vulnerable. The ALMR 
is a breeder reactor which creates more plutonium than it consumes. It 
can be used to burn plutonium, but it is a breeder and in the wrong 
hands it will be used as such to manufacture weapons material.
  Our national policy is to discourage the use and spread of plutonium 
technologies. The ALMR system envisioned by its proponents would 
require the construction of a large infrastructure of reactors and 
reprocessing plants. It would keep plutonium cycling through the system 
for decades, or even in perpetuity.
  The urgent need to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is 
sufficient reason to terminate this program in and of itself. This is 
why the President has decided to request termination.
  The ALMR, then, does not provide as much protection against theft as 
other alternatives, does not provide it as quickly, would require the 
construction of a massive infrastructure and would cost more.
  The ALMR is in and of itself a breeder reactor and perpetuates the 
threat of proliferation by cycling plutonium through the system and by 
giving proliferation bent nations a technology for development of 
weapons materials.
  What are the consequences of using the ALMR as a breeder?
  Proponents of the program claim that it should be developed to create 
a system of breeder reactors which would provide an unlimited supply of 
fuel for the future.
  Enough has been said about the concerns over nuclear weapons 
proliferation to make this picture of a plutonium economy which cycles 
this most dangerous of bomb materials endlessly through our society 
that I think we should be able to dismiss that future entirely.
  If that is not enough, though, let me point to the study done by the 
Electric Power Research Institute which concluded that the ALMR is not 
commercially competitive with light water reactors and will not be for 
the foreseeable future.
  A more competitive electricity industry, new highly efficient 
generation technologies already on the market, and technologies on the 
verge of development, such as the hydrogen fuel cell, make pinning 
hopes of this technology highly speculative, at best.
  The ALMR is proliferation prone, increases nuclear waste, costs more 
than alternatives. The ALMR is not the technology of the future. We 
should not support deployment of the ALMR system.
  Should we terminate immediately as is the House position or pursue 
phased termination?
  There are two questions in any research program aimed at development 
of a project: First, should we develop the program?
  Second, how do we develop the program. If you answer the first 
question with a no, you never have to get to the second question. If 
you know you are not going to build a project, you don't have to figure 
out how to build it.
  The Secretary of Energy has stated in a letter to Chairman Bevill 
that the Department has decided not to proceed with this technology, 
primarily because of concerns about nuclear proliferation.
  Most of the defense of the ``phased termination'' option centers 
around the claim that finishing the research currently under way would 
cost less than immediate termination.
  Recent fact sheets circulated by the DOE should lay that question to 
rest.
  The argument for cost savings depends on a contribution from a 
Japanese consortium of $60 million over the life of the program.
  The Japanese contribution was negotiated--no contract was ever 
signed--as a contribution to a continuing program which would culminate 
in the construction of the integrated fast reactor. There has never 
been any discussion of a contribution to the ``phased termination'' 
proposal of the Senate bill.
  This contribution, then, is entirely speculative.
  Without Japanese participation the phased termination costs anywhere 
from $27.7 to $55 million more than the immediate termination in the 
House approach.
  For fiscal year 1995 the House has provided $83.8 million for 
termination. The Senate has provided $98.8 million and instructed the 
DOE to get $15 million from the Japanese. The House bill saves $15 
million over the Senate bill and is $30 million less than the program 
outlined in the Senate bill.
  Over the life of the project, assuming construction of the IFR, DOE 
estimates that immediate termination would save $3 billion.
  Should we instruct the conferees?
  One of the hardest things to do in the Congress is to terminate 
programs that no longer serve their function. We are castigated for 
that fact regularly in the press and by the public.
  We have here before us the opportunity to do that hardest thing. We 
can terminate this program, save money, prevent nuclear weapons 
proliferation, prevent making our nuclear waste disposal program worse 
and support our previous position all at once.
  We must terminate this program. It is the position of the President. 
It is the position of the Secretary of Energy. It is the position of 
the many outside groups, including the National Taxpayers Union, 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the League of Conservation Voters, 
the Sierra Club, the United Methodist Church, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Public Citizen, 
Environmental Action, the Nuclear Control Institute, Safe Energy 
Communications Council, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and 
on, and on. It is also the position of the New York Times, the 
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Oregonian, the Atlanta 
Journal and dozens of other newspapers across the country.
  Most important, it is the position of this body. The House has 
already decided to terminate the project and expressed that decision in 
four separate votes in the last 2 years.
  I urge you to strengthen the hand of the House conferees.
  I urge you to support the House position. I urge you to vote to 
instruct the conferees.
  Vote first to defeat the previous question on Mr. Myers' motion.
  Then to vote to instruct the conferees by adding the Sharp-
Coppersmith-Hamilton-21 motion as an amendment.
  Vote to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra said, I believe more than 
once, ``it's deja vu all over again.'' Members will recall that this 
House has faced the issue on the floor today several times before. Even 
without the benefit of repetition, the issue remains simple. It is 
about priorities. It is whether we can eliminate Federal programs that 
no longer make sense, so we can concentrate on the ones that do, and 
reduce the deficit we are leaving to our children.
  It should not be this hard, or take this long, to kill a program, but 
it is and it does. This House has voted overwhelmingly three times to 
terminate the advanced liquid metal reactor. With three overwhelming 
House votes, with the President and Department of Energy finally and 
firmly committed to termination, and with all the problems we face 
funding even the best programs, the ALMR program finally should end.
  But it is still going, because the game in Washington makes it far 
too easy to keep programs alive, no matter their merits. Last year, 
after the House vote, the other body actually increased ALMR funding, 
and this year it voted again by a narrow margin, to keep the ALMR 
program alive.
  The evidence for terminating the ALMR has gotten only stronger since 
last year. Both the Office of Technology assessment and the National 
Academy of Sciences have criticized the idea that the ALMR could 
dispose of weapons plutonium. The nuclear concerns in North Korea and 
elsewhere have made the proliferation problems caused by the ALMR even 
more urgent, a point the Secretary of Energy and the distinguished 
chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs 
Committee all have made.
  From a budget perspective, the case against the ALMR has become 
stronger as well. DOE has spent nearly $9 billion on liquid metal 
reactors since 1948, but the technology still has no economic 
prospects. DOE estimates taxpayers will have to pay well over $3 
billion more to finish the ALMR Program, and completing just the 
current phase would cost the taxpayers over $27 million more than 
terminating it now.
  Proponents will try to claim, in what the Washington Post called a 
classic congressional dodge, that it is cheaper to continue for another 
several years, but DOE's own number show savings from immediate 
termination, and the Congressional Budget Office last year scored 
immediate termination as savings $318 million over 5 years.
  But you do not have to trust DOE or CBO. Trust your common sense. 
Imagine explaining to your constituents that you think keeping a 
Federal program going for at least another 4 years is less expensive 
than shutting it down now.
  We have had this debate before. We decided to kill the ALMR. The 
budget is even tighter now; the scientific evidence is even stronger; 
and the President and Department of Energy finally agree. The ALMR is 
not a priority, and it must go. Let us not waste another year of 
taxpayer funding by not eliminating this unnecessary program. To quote 
Mr. Berra again, it will not be over until it is over. Well, today it 
is time again to make our votes stick, to stand up to the other body, 
and to insist on setting at least one priority straight.
  I urge my colleagues: Vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. 
Vote for the Sharp-Coppersmith-Klug-Hamilton motion to instruct.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], who has worked very hard on some of these 
programs.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Myers motion to 
instruct conferees and in support of the Senate position with regard to 
the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor/Integral Fast Reactor [ALMR/IFR] 
Program.
  I want to make two points.
  First, the House's 4-year plan to shut down the program at the end of 
fiscal year 1998 would cost $332 million. The Senate's plan, which 
would also shut-down the program at the end of fiscal year 1998, would 
provide for $60 million in Japanese cost-sharing and would allow 
completion of the authorized research at a cost of $327.8 million, a 
savings of $4.2 million, including a savings of $5.9 million in fiscal 
year 1995. Thus, the House's plan makes no economic or fiscal sense.
  Second, the Senate's plan is sound science and sound nuclear 
nonproliferation policy. There is an expanding amount of plutonium in 
the world today. The United States and Russia alone plan to retire 
thousands of nuclear weapons over the next decade, making available 100 
metric tons or more of pure weapons plutonium metal. By the year 2000 
over 1,000 tons of LWR-produced plutonium will exist in spent LWR fuel 
over and above some 900 tons of LWR-produced plutonium in spent fuel 
which exists today.
  And the world inventory of reactor plutonium will continue to 
escalate at an ever-increasing rate as the use of nuclear power 
inevitably expands in many countries world-wide. This is so even if 
this Nation never builds another nuclear power plant.
  The ALMR/IFR is the only nuclear technology under research today that 
offers the world the prospect of totally destroying plutonium while 
safely and efficiently producing electricity. Indeed, I know of no 
technology of any sort which promises to fully destroy plutonium.
  The ALMR/IFR's fuel cycle is also strongly proliferation resistant 
because first, it efficiently recycles and burns highly radioactive 
wastes, including plutonium, on-site and second, because the plutonium 
in the system never exists in its pure form and is recycled as a fuel 
and ultimately destroyed on site.
  In contrast, conventional LWR's use an off-site Purex reprocessing to 
separate plutonium from spent fuel waste where diversion of pure 
plutonium is a proliferation concern.
  More important, the ALMR/IFR is good science because, while 
destroying plutonium, it can generate electricity and cut the volume of 
nuclear waste to one-fourth of that produced by the current 
conventional LWR. In addition, what low-level waste is left will decay 
in 100 years rather than many thousands of years, and this low-level-
low-volume waste could be stored at the reactor site. Also, the ALMR/
IFR reactor, unlike the conventional LWR, will be passively safe; that 
is, if an accident were to occur and a nuclear chain reaction were to 
start, as at Chernobyl, it would shut itself off without any human 
intervention.
  Thus, the ALMR/IFR Program is both a sound U.S. energy policy as well 
as a sound nonproliferation policy. Yet opponents condemn the ALMR/IFR 
because one of the fuels it uses is plutonium, while ignoring all of 
the sound scientific principles just referred to.
  There are, of course, other options to dispose of plutonium that are 
under review. These include: indefinitely storing nuclear warheads; 
cycling plutonium once through a reactor and burying the highly 
radioactive spent fuel in a repository; vitrifying plutonium with high-
level waste and burying it in a repository; dropping canisters of 
plutonium in deep boreholes in the Earth's crust; burying it under the 
seabed; detonating nuclear warheads underground; launching it into 
space; diluting it in the ocean, and so forth. All of these options 
have their own set of difficulties and none have the long-term promise 
of the ALMR/IFR.
  Vote ``yes'' on the motion on the previous question and vote ``yes'' 
on the Myers motion to instruct conferees. Let us not turn our backs on 
this long-term technology. It is fiscally sound as well as being 
significant energy and nonproliferation policy. I urge support of the 
motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], 
and a ``yes'' vote for the previous question.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], chairman of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the unmistakable will of the 
House on this issue has been frustrated for too long. Since the House 
voted overwhelmingly to discontinue the ALMR project twice last year, 
the case against continued funding has only become stronger. Both the 
NAS and the OTA have released reports that are highly critical of the 
idea of using the ALMR Program for plutonium disposition or other 
nuclear waste disposal.
  In addition, our current difficulties with North Korea amply 
demonstrate the folly of advancing a new reactor technology that is 
based on a plutonium fuel cycle. Much argument has been heard about 
whether or not the ALMR is a breeder reactor. The clear fact is that it 
was originally conceived as a breeder reactor, and can easily be turned 
back into one. Particularly since the world is glutted with uranium, 
there is no reason to bear either the economic or proliferation costs 
of a plutonium fuel cycle.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who serves on the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, this is another one of these situations 
where the killing off of research and development is a serious matter, 
and it will preclude in this particular case much of the nuclear option 
for this Nation's future. In fact, in this particular case, I am not 
certain that this ill-advised crusade even makes much sense.
  First of all, the conferees should be given a chance to work out the 
best deal for the taxpayers. It is a complicated issue before us. The 
administration has raised its cost estimate to terminate and the 
Japanese are now offering to cost-share the program. Let us at least 
have some work by the conferees. Let us not prejudge them and allow 
them to work out something here.
  Second, in spite of all the protestations to the contrary, it is both 
cheaper in 1995 and over the next 4 years to complete the program than 
to break the contracts and pay termination liability. We should not be 
charging the taxpayers even more money to grandstand on an empty, 
symbolic gesture, and that is exactly what we have been doing if we 
terminate this program at this point.
  Third, the program is fully authorized in Public Law 102-486, the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. This was the bill of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Sharp]. Section 2122 of that particular authorization 
reads and I quote:

       The Secretary shall conduct a program to encourage the 
     deployment of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The 
     goals of the program established under subsection (a) shall 
     include for the near term to facilitate the completion of 
     submissions by September 30, 1996 for the preliminary design 
     approvals by the commission of standardized designs for the 
     modular high temperature gas cooled reactor technology and 
     the liquid metal reactor technology.

  So this is fully authorized by the bill of the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Sharp] and ought not be brought out here with some idea that there 
is not an appropriate authorization.
  Fourth, the termination of this program would leave some of our top 
research facilities as nothing but empty shells without any mission and 
would backtrack from this Nation's need to have advanced research. If 
we are going to be an advanced nation, we need every energy option for 
our future economic growth, and this amendment throws one away 
completely. The one they are throwing away happens to represent 22 
percent of the energy that this country consumers today.
  To throw away that unnecessarily on this floor and to do so in total 
violation of the authorization bill that we put in effect less than 2 
years ago seems to me to be beyond penny wise and pound foolish. In my 
view, it is just plain dumb.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. LaRocco].
  (Mr. LaROCCO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the motion 
for the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about her is a research program 
referred to as the integral fast reactor, or IFR.
  The question is whether we should conclude the program in a 
thoughtful, fiscally prudent manner, or whether we should toss the baby 
out with the bathwater.
  About $800 million have been spent on the development of the IFR 
since 1986. The initial money was used to conduct small-scale research 
and then, later, to conduct confirmation experiments in larger sized 
equipment.
  Much of the recent funding has gone to building and installing 
engineering-scale equipment at the Argonne West facilities in Idaho. 
This scaled-up equipment is designed to carry out the crucial and final 
proof-of-concept experiments for the IFR technology. These experiments 
are scheduled to begin in September.
  If the research on the IFR is abandoned at this time, essentially all 
of the investment to date will be a total waste.
  To date the IFR has proceeded on budget, and on schedule. There is no 
reason to expect that will not continue to be the case.
  In other words, we can say with great confidence that if we continue 
to collect data during through the concluding years of the project, we 
will reach the goal of knowing whether the technology can be integrated 
and scaled up.
  Answering this question--the original question--can take place at the 
same time that we continue systematic, cost-effective shutdown 
procedures.
  We will apply for the necessary permits for termination, and we will 
begin to redirect the activities of the staff as appropriate, in 
productive, useful alternate directions.
  I contrast this careful, thoughtful, fiscally prudent approach, which 
embraces cost sharing by industry and allied governments, with the 
panic-driven, irrational stampede of some opponents to abandon the IFR 
technology.
  Your vote today is more about how we explore new ideas than about 
your final position on the IFR. I happen to agree with scientists at 
Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories that the IFR is 
less of a proliferation threat than the existing technology which it is 
designed to replace. But you need not have reached that conclusion.
  Today, let us simply acknowledge that it does not make sense to say, 
in essence, that scientists cannot continue to collect data as we bring 
the program to a close.
  If we accept the Senate provision, we will complete the experiments 
that define the boundaries of the technology.
  If we accept the Senate provision, we will complete the research for 
less money than it takes to shut down immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, the AFL-CIO; the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers; and the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, among many others, are 
correct.
  Southern California Edison, Duke Power, Boston Edison, Commonwealth 
Edison, and literally dozens of other utilities are correct.
  The National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of 
Regulatory Utility Commissioners are correct.
  They all say: Completion of the IFR is the prudent choice. I urge my 
colleagues to resist the effort to terminate this program prematurely.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of this country want to know what it takes 
to kill a pork barrel program.
  The House has voted four times to terminate the Advanced Liquid Metal 
Reactor Program. Yet, once again, the ALMR has a chance to get 
funding--unless we vote for a fifth time to kill it.
  Let us be clear. If we terminate the ALMR, American taxpayers will 
save at least $2.9 billion.
  With a $4.6 trillion national debt, this body must have the courage 
to say no to wasteful spending programs. The ALMR is such a program.
  It is not a cost effective or efficient way to deal with nuclear 
waste.
  It is not an economical resource for generation of electricity.
  It does threaten our environment and increase the risk of nuclear 
proliferation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join the National Taxpayers 
Union, Citizens Against Government Waste and a number of environmental 
organizations and vote to terminate the ALMR.
  Vote against the previous question so that this body gets a chance to 
instruct our conferees to hold firm to the House position to kill the 
ALMR.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Moorhead].
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in favor of Mr. 
Myers' motion to instruct the energy and water appropriations 
conferees. Continued support for high energy physics is necessary to 
keep the United States at the forefront of the global marketplace. 
Research in high energy physics allows this country to continue to be a 
world leader in medical research and manufacturing technology.
  In addition, I oppose any attempt to instruct conferees regarding 
funding for the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program. The goal of the 
Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program is to develop a technology 
capable of burning high-level nuclear waste from commercial reactors 
and plutonium from our weapons stockpile. This program is very close to 
producing a reactor that will provide a domestic source of clean, 
cheap, and safe energy, while providing a nuclear waste treatment 
alternative.

  While both the House and Senate bills reduce spending for the ALMR 
Program below current levels, the phased shutdown provided for in the 
Senate bill would allow the completion of the research mandated in by 
the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  The Senate level of funding would allow the Liquid Metal Reactor 
Program to be phased out in a logical manner and would actually cost 
less. The House proposal for immediate termination would spend $444.6 
million on termination costs over the next 4 years. With the commitment 
of the Japanese to contribute $60 million to the project, the costs for 
a phased termination of the IFR would be $4.2 million less than 
immediate termination.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Myers' motion to instruct the 
House conferees regarding funding for high energy physics and vote for 
the previous question.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], chairman of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and I 
will oppose the effort to provide instructions to terminate the 
advanced liquid metal reactor project.
  I am in a somewhat difficult position here, because the position that 
I am taking today is different from what I took last year. Of course, 
the administration's position today is different from what they took 
last year too. So I hope that the two will offset each other.
  I have in the past opposed liquid metal reactors. I think some of my 
colleagues have been here long enough to recall that I waged a tough 
fight to end the Clinch River reactor 10 or 15 years ago, in 
cooperation with the National Taxpayers Union. I wish that I could be 
on their side again.
  Unfortunately, the situation is much more muddy than it appears here. 
There are a lot of difficult politics at work here. Some of the people 
who want to close this project are opposed to all nuclear programs, for 
example, and do not want to see us even have an insurance policy 
against the possibility that we will not have an adequate energy supply 
20 or 30 years down the road.

  I look on this program first of all as being sound research. I have 
visited the labs, I have talked to the researcher, I know that they are 
going good work. They are trying to keep up with the work that some of 
our allies are doing, incidentally, in this area. The Japanese and the 
Europeans are both ahead of us in many ways.
  I think that it is a prudent insurance policy to bring this 
technology as far as we can and then phase it out in a prudent way as 
the legislation requires. I do not think the argument that we will save 
money by abolishing this holds much water, as some of my colleagues 
have already mentioned. Actually what will happen is this money will go 
to another project, and the people opposing this may like what else it 
goes to even less.
  So I urge that we proceed on the path that the committee has set 
here.
  The funding provided to the ALMR program in the Senate bill will 
allow for a sensible and orderly phaseout of this project and will 
provide the opportunity to record and document substantial research and 
development findings. This Senate funding will permit us to revisit 
this technology at a future date, should it prove valuable or 
necessary.
  I am particularly concerned that we retain an understanding of any 
technology that may be useful in this disposal or burnup of plutonium. 
Given the huge quantities of plutonium that will be recovered from the 
retirement of the strategic nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union 
and the United States, it behooves us to keep open all our options for 
disposal. Clearly the ALMR is one of those technologies, and we should 
carefully weigh its strengths and weaknesses in this role on a sound 
scientific basis.
  I urge Members to support efforts to bring the ALMR program to an 
orderly, thoughtful conclusion, and to vote against efforts to instruct 
the conferees on this issue.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, let us one more time pull out our Washington 
dictionaries, and let us figure out the definitions of some words, 
where investments now replace spending, where contributions is now a 
new word for taxes, and finally where termination means we will spend 
another $2 million on the project.
  I think it is clear from what a number of my colleagues have repeated 
over the last 15 minutes of this debate that this program has been 
harder to kill than the hockey mask-wearing Jason of the Friday the 
13th series. The Bush administration listed this as 21 out of 23 
priorities based on energy contribution, economic, technical and 
environmental factors.
  Last year on June 24 the House voted 270 to 146 to pass the 
Coopersmith amendment, and I was involved in that debate again last 
year as well to terminate the Department of Energy's civilian funding 
for the ALMR. Last year the House voted again to terminate this 
program. DOE supported termination of IFR, and now President Clinton, 
not President Bush, called for termination. The House committee itself 
agreed to terminate the program, and now one more time we find 
ourselves where for two cycles in a row it has been the conference 
committee and the other body in particular which has come back to save 
the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program, and all of this, frankly, 
all of this idea that we can somehow save money by agreeing to the 
Senate provisions of the conference agreement simply does not stand up, 
because it is a giant roll of the dice based on that fact that 
somewhere down the line the Japanese may, and the operative word is may 
here, may decide to get back into the project.
  Termination of this program, as Members already heard from my 
colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] is supported by a wide range of 
groups, including the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against 
Government Waste and other taxpayer organizations, as well as 
environmental groups such as the Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club 
and the scientific community, such as the National Academy of Sciences 
as well.
  A number of studies have taken a look at this argument, which 
essentially said it will help destroy plutonium all you have left over 
is cold water. But keep in mind that we have already spent $1.3 billion 
on the ALMR program, and now we have finally found a mission for the 
technology that has no commercial application whatsoever.
  The fact of the matter is that because the reprocessing costs of 
reproducing plutonium as a fuel is higher than processing uranium fuel, 
in fact uranium fuel is so cheap and abundant that U.S. uranium 
manufacturers are going out of business, so we are going to give money 
to a technology that may not be available for the next 40 or 60 years 
when there is already a technology in place. We are trying to convince 
other countries to back off from plutonium proliferation, and now here 
we are trying to talk North Korea out of plutonium, and we are going to 
fund a scientific project that will create more plutonium.
  A number of studies of ALMR say it would not be the safest, most 
effective way to convert plutonium. Studies from the General Accounting 
office, the Office of Technology Assessment, Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory, Electric Power Research institute in California, 
and DOE's own study own plutonium disposition.
  Let me finally sum up with what editorial pages have said across the 
country that have objectively stood back and taken a look at this 
program based on the scientific research. The Washington Post called it 
the wrong reactor. A paper in Oregon called it a giant research 
boondoggle. A paper in South Carolina called it radioactive pork, and 
finally my colleagues in this House, let us take the advice of a paper 
in South Carolina that said put the breeder reactor to sleep.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the attempt to defeat the 
previous question and offer a motion to instruct conferees to terminate 
the advanced liquid metal reactor, also known as the integral fast 
reactor [IFR]. Termination of the IFR at this point would not only be 
irresponsible and short-sighted, but would also cost more money than 
actually completing the program over the next 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, the IFR is now 80 percent complete and shutdown of the 
reactor has already begun. If we continue IFR research, in 2 years we 
will have the science we need to make energy out or reprocessed 
plutonium. If we terminate the program early, we will have gained 
nothing from our years of research and will have lost hundreds of 
millions of dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, the scientists at Argonne National Labs are developing 
an amazing technology, called actinide recycling, which will enable the 
IFR to burn used fuel from existing plants and nuclear waste sites as 
well as consume plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons. Last 
Congress, we made a commitment to test actinide recycling as a way to 
reduce nuclear waste in the omnibus energy bill of 1992. We should not 
back down on that commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, the IFR is a revolutionary technology that has the 
potential to offer the country a safe and lasting means of generating 
electricity while reducing the stockpile of existing nuclear waste and 
weapons-grade plutonium. The IFR addresses the public's concern about 
the safety and security of nuclear power--it is far, far safer than 
technology employed in current nuclear power plants. The IFR is 
inherently safe and will shut down automatically without human or 
mechanical intervention if the reactor should overheat. These safety 
features have been demonstrated in actual tests of a prototype reactor.

  To those who contend that the IFR is a breeder reactor with the 
capacity to transform uranium into plutonium for nuclear weapons, I 
argue that the purpose of the IFR is exactly the opposite: The IFR 
burns plutonium and other actinides to generate power. Contrary to what 
opponents of the IFR say, the IFR does not produce pure plutonium. A 
highly sophisticated reprocessing technology would be needed to use the 
plutonium output for any other purpose than refueling the reactor 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, as America pursues greater energy efficiency and as 
nuclear weapons are increasingly being dismantled, we cannot afford to 
abandon this vitally important program. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the attempt to defeat the previous question and support the Myers 
motion to instruct.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, at any point in this debate I am prepared to 
yield to any of my colleagues opposed to this project who feel they are 
so well versed in nuclear physics that they want to speak to the theory 
behind this IFR and why they do not support it. I am not going to 
address that point, because I do not have a background in nuclear 
physics.
  What I have found is that the scientific community is split. some say 
this is a good investment in research. Some say it is not. In fact, 
these scientific groups, we could line them up on both sides of this 
Chamber, and we would probably get a pretty balanced debate on where 
this should go and how much we should invest. I know the Japanese 
Government and their scientific community think this is a pretty good 
idea, take this spent nuclear fuel and turn it into something 
productive, eliminate a problem that will be around for centuries. It 
makes sense where I am standing, too. But I cannot make this argument 
on scientific grounds. I just do not have the background for it. Some 
of my colleagues may feel they do.
  Let us talk about budgetary grounds. Some people say we are out to 
save money. If we go along with the idea of eliminating this integral 
fast reactor, it is not going to save the American taxpayers one 
nickel. In fact, it will cost them more money to shut down this project 
which is near completion. It makes more sense from where I am standing 
for us to go along with the idea of completing the research to see if 
it does have some productive potential for us and to save money for 
taxpayers as opposed to trying to put another notch on our pistol and 
saying we just cut out another project. The bad news for taxpayers is, 
having cut it out, we sent you an additional bill for anywhere from $5 
million to $18 million. That sort of thing is not good news for 
taxpayers.
  What I would ask my colleagues to do is to stick with the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] on his motion to 
instruct and to resist those efforts that are going to be put forth on 
this floor to eliminate this project. I think it has good scientific 
value. From a budgetary viewpoint, it should be brought forward to 
conclusion.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Members to stand firmly 
behind the House position to terminate the Advanced Liquid Metal 
Reactor. That means defeat the previous question. We have a massive 
Federal deficit, and we have got to eliminate unnecessary Government 
spending. The Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor is precisely the kind of 
program we should be putting a stop to.
  Breeder reactors are simply not cost effective. It is unlikely that 
ALMR's could compete with light-water reactors for 40 to 60 years, if 
ever. By then, current ALMR technology would be obsolete. Meanwhile, 
taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for billions more in ALMR 
funding. Terminating the ALMR now would save at least 2.9 billion 
dollars.
  We should not be spending our research dollars on new nuclear 
reactors. We should be spending the limited amount that we do have on 
energy efficiency and conservation, and alternate and renewable energy.
  Federal research on the ALMR is a dangerous and costly boondoggle 
that we should stop immediately. The Clinton administration has 
determined that the ALMR no longer deserves Federal funding. Congress 
should come to the same conclusion.
  One of the problems with this institution, as everyone knows, is that 
we never seem to be able to kill programs once they get started. This 
has got to stop. It is time to get serious about stopping unnecessary 
science programs, improving deficit reduction, and stopping wasteful 
spending wherever we find it. Let us shut down the ALMR before it 
demands billions more taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to stand 
firm behind the House and administration position to terminate funding 
for the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we clarify some 
of the issues brought up here.
  One of the key issues that has been brought up is this reactor is a 
reactor that will generate more proliferation, notwithstanding the 
studies at Oak Ridge and Lawrence Livermore that say this technology 
reduces the risk of proliferation. It does not address the fact either 
that we have 250 tons of weapons-grade plutonium is this world right 
now, and this reactor can consume that very kind of weapons-grade 
plutonium.
  They talk about studies and say a lot of studies have shown this 
reactor is not going to be able to solve the proliferation problems. 
But, frankly, you can get the answers from studies by the questions you 
ask, and those studies that they quote say that the short-term answers, 
in the short term, that this reactor has not proven out, because the 
research has not been finished. That is obvious.
  What do the same scientists say about the long term? This very 
Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to study all nuclear 
options and to tell them which nuclear options we should focus on for 
our future, and that same study that has been quoted here says on page 
12, ``The committee believes the liquid metal reactor should have the 
highest priority for long-term nuclear technology development.'' We are 
not fighting here over what to do in the short term. We are fighting 
over whether this country should keep involved in nuclear testing and 
in nuclear research and development or whether we should shift out of 
it.
  Everybody in this Congress has received a letter from the heads of 
nuclear programs at universities across this country pleading with us 
to save this technology and to keep this research alive.
  Secretary O'Leary in testimony before the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce this year acknowledged that this is not a battle over money, 
it is a battle over a shift in priorities in this administration away 
from nuclear research into wind and solar and other renewable research.
  The question here is whether we should keep nuclear research alive. I 
have in my hands another report, the report of the U.S. utility 
industry on advanced reactor corporation, and this study concludes that 
given the administration's recent decision to recommend termination of 
funding for some advanced reactor designs, and that is the liquid metal 
reactor, ``We believe that an updated report providing utilities 
perspective is timely and critical.'' Going on, it says they believe 
there is no future funding for nuclear research of any meaningful sense 
beyond 1998 if this decision to terminate this reactor is made.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about cost. They say that 
it will cost $2.7 billion or $2.3 billion in the future if we keep this 
project going. The only way that those costs would be incurred is if 
the technology proves out, and society and this Congress make the 
policy decision to build the reactor. That is a decision for a future 
time.
  What we are fighting over right now is whether to go ahead and finish 
the research or terminate the research in a way that actually saves 
more money, to finish it. And, by the way, if we do make that policy 
decision in the future, then there is going to be electrical generation 
that will pay for that two-point-whatever billion dollars which is not 
even being brought into consideration in this debate.
  There have been a lot of editorials that talked about it. I have a 
stack of editorials myself. The Washington Post, after the one that has 
been referred to, published a followup that says, ``The right reactor 
after all.''

                              {time}  1740

  Business Week, ``A big science cut that could drown us in nuclear 
waste.'' Chicago Tribune, ``Don't foreclose this nuclear option.'' 
Christian Science Monitor, ``Keep funds for nuclear research.'' The 
list goes on.
  Mr. Speaker, we are facing a decision today as to whether we will 
have any long-term nuclear research dollars left in our budget. This is 
a shortsighted decision if this country makes the decision to eliminate 
the ability of the United States to continue being the leader in 
nuclear research.
  We must support and vote for the previous question.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Advanced 
Liquid Metal Reactor Program and to urge my colleagues to vote for the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, countries around the world recognize the important role 
nuclear power must play in the production of clean, safe, economical 
and abundant electricity. These countries continue to look to America 
for leadership in nuclear power technology.
  Global markets for United States industry are rapidly opening up in 
countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and Indonesia. The nuclear 
powerplant market potential in the Pacific rim nations during the next 
15 years is estimated to be over $175 billion. This represents well 
over 100,000 U.S. jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, a strong U.S. nuclear industry can and must be a major 
contributor to the world's need for clean, safe, and low-cost 
electricity.
  As a nation we have invested more than $700 million on research and 
development of the ALMR concept. It simply makes no sense to abandon 
the work that has been done just when our efforts are ready to bear 
fruit.
  I urge my colleagues to continue funding for the Advanced Liquid 
Metal Reactor Program and to vote for the previous question.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the 4 minutes I 
have remaining in order to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] has the right to close.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut.]
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to rise in support of the efforts of my 
colleagues who are seeking to defeat the previous question in order to 
offer a motion to instruct with respect to killing the ALMR. I am not 
sure, frankly, why it is that we are debating the merits of this 
project again. It seems to me clear we had a debate on this question 
before in the House, and the verdict of this House was clear.
  The question now before us is whether or not we ought to maintain our 
position in the conference committee with the Senate. There are plenty 
of spending priority debates that we have disagreements on in this 
House. Sometimes we are split almost evenly down the middle on whether 
or not a project is worth funding. But in this case, the split is not 
close, the House is overwhelmingly in support of the motion to kill 
this project. So the debate today is simply whether or not we should 
stand our ground. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we should stand our 
ground, defeat the previous question and we should ask that the final 
provision kill this bill.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding this 
time to me.
  At this point I think we on the opponents' side of this project wish 
to respond to a couple of points that have been raised.
  First of all, the Department of Energy did a thorough analysis of the 
cost of termination as opposed to continuing the program.
  DOE analysis is that the savings for termination are about $28 
million. The numbers on the other side, assuming keeping the program 
going saves money, assumes a Japanese contribution of $60 million. 
However, there is no contract from the Japanese, there is nothing in 
writing. And the $60 million from the Japanese, as indicated, would 
only come through if the United States commits to build a $3 billion 
demonstration reactor.
  My colleague from Idaho mentioned there would be revenues from 
electrical generation. However, I am not sure he would agree that the 
U.S. Government should be in the business of selling electric power on 
that scale.
  Second, there is a strawman argument--or a straw person argument, 
these days--that voting against this program means you are against 
nuclear power. That is absolutely not correct. I represent part of the 
service area of Arizona Public Service, which is one of the foremost, I 
believe, nuclear investor-owned utilities in this country. In this 
House, in this Congress, we are funding at least four other advanced 
light-water reactors. Those programs have support from industry, they 
have commercial feasibility. Voting against one program for which there 
is no commercial interest, for which the numbers simply do not add up, 
is in no way opposing the nuclear option; it is making good and valid 
distinction this House has been able to make before.
  Too many times in politics you approach science as a black box, 
assume the scientists are split, then let us decide on the politics: 
What district is the project located in? What committee is it on? Who 
do I owe a favor to? We can make the principal and valid distinction 
here between which science programs are good and which are good enough.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. SPEAKER, I oppose any motion that would instruct the House 
conferees to insist on the House position on terminating the integral 
fast reactor project. First of all, when this bill was put together by 
the House, there was no House position as such, there was no budget for 
termination, simply a placeholder from the Department of Energy. Since 
that time, the DOE has submitted an amended appropriations request, for 
an additional $33.2 million. So when this issue was brought before the 
House last month, we did not really know what we were dealing with.
  And what we are dealing with is simply this. The DOE has said that at 
least $104.7 million would be required for fiscal year 1995 to 
terminate the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor/IRF Program immediately and 
to tell the Japanese Government and the American utility industry that 
we do not want their money.
  The Senate, which had the benefit of seeing this proposal in total, 
rejected it, preferring instead to accept the cost-sharing, complete 
the research and shut the project down in an orderly way. Their funding 
proposal to accomplish this in fiscal year 1995 is $98.8 million, $5.9 
million less than would be required for immediate shutdown. I say, let 
us join them. It is not often that we get a chance to complete a 
project and save money at the same time.
  I would like to add in closing that the cost sharing for the ALMR/IFR 
Program comes from organizations who believe in the long-term potential 
of this technology. These organizations are putting their money where 
their mouth is, and we should listen to their endorsement and complete 
the research with the phased shutdown as called for in the Senate 
version of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will oppose the motion which 
the gentlemen from Arizona and others propose. We cannot afford their 
proposal, and it is wrong on the merits.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and urge the Members to vote ``yes'' 
on the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question and vote to terminate the Advanced Liquid Metal 
Reactor Program. The House has already voted three times to terminate 
the ALMR. This program is expensive, dangerous, and simply bad policy.
  The ALMR is bad fiscal policy. The Clinch River breeder reactor 
started off with a price tag of $700 million and wound up costing $8 
billion in taxpayers' money--which was all lost. Even in the most 
optimistic estimates, the ALMR is at least 20 years and countless 
billions from completion.
  Second, this is bad energy policy. There has not been a new nuclear 
powerplant ordered in the United States--which has been constructed--
for many years. But at the same time, the electric utility industry is 
saying that the breeder reactor program might be a good idea. If they 
feel that this is such a good idea, then they should fund it, not the 
taxpayers of our country.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the breeder reactor program is bad 
national security policy. This is a proposed proliferation solution 
that in reality is creating a new problem. Last year, at my urging, the 
Department of Energy released a secret report on the ALMR program. This 
report, which had previously been kept classified, revealed that in 
fact, the unsolved problems with this technology include safeguards, 
plant inspectability, and material accountability for the purposes of 
verification. This means that this program would be creating a 
plutonium economy across the planet, which is even more dangerous than 
ever in today's international environment.
  And even if this reactor could be used to dispose of plutonium 
stockpiles, dozens of these reactors would have to operate for hundreds 
of years in order to consume all of the plutonium in all of the nuclear 
weapons in the Soviet Union or the United States, if that was the 
ALMR's purpose. We are talking dozens of reactors for hundreds of 
years.
  But we have no way of guaranteeing that the plutonium would not be 
diverted into nuclear weapons programs in countries that do not already 
have them. This program's safeguards simply do not work.
  Nuclear proliferation is perhaps the single greatest potential risk 
to global peace and security today. There is no need to subsidize this 
risk with taxpayers' money.
  Again, this House has overwhelmingly supported the ALMR's 
termination. Now it is time for us to follow through. Vote to defeat 
the previous question.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question 
so we can instruct the conferees to do, as the House has done on four 
occasions already, to vote to terminate the advanced liquid metal 
reactor, Mr. Speaker, this is not about whether my colleagues are for 
or against nuclear power. Nuclear power, as we know it in the United 
States, is fundamentally based on the uranium light water reactor. We 
are going forward with that reactor with advanced designs, I support 
that. Many of the people that are voting with us are supporting this. I 
say, ``This is not whether you're for or against nuclear power. This is 
whether we ought to go on to a high-cost, high-risk plutonium kind of 
nuclear power that is closer to the nuclear bomb.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have some studies of this specific project, of the 
various technologies engaged, and increasingly over the years they have 
come to the conclusion this is not the smart place to put our money.
  First, the proponents of this program often argue: ``Use it as a way 
to dispose of the nuclear waste that we are looking for a place to put 
today, that is produced out of our light water reactors.''
  My colleagues, this is not the technology to accomplish this goal. 
The studies of the Department of Energy indicate that we end up with 
more, more volume of nuclear waste, to be gotten rid of, and it is 
highly radioactive, and it will take just as long, if not longer, than 
the current wastes we have to deal with. This is not a way to dispose 
of the nuclear waste that we have now to take care of in our country 
for years and years to come.
  Second of all, the argument is made that we should use this kind of 
technology to burn up the bomb grade weapons material that is now in 
the Soviet arsenal and in the United States arsenal because we know we 
must get rid of that.
  But, my colleagues, before this technology could even be ready, it 
will be decades, and then, to complete that activity, it will be 
decades and billions and billions of dollars later. We have to take 
actions on that now, and again the studies are showing that there are 
several faster and cheaper options that are available to us right now, 
so that we can begin in this country to get rid of that material.

  So, Mr. Speaker, let us not take the high-cost option. Let us not buy 
into something that is a hundred years away.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the question is really whether we want to 
move on to this other plutonium cycle when we have technology that is 
more efficient and more cheap, if it really works the way the 
proponents want it to, to produce plutonium which puts us at risk that 
North Korea, Qadhafi, or somebody else can turn into bombs.
  Now that is part of what this argument is about. This costs 
unnecessary money. It will not solve the nuclear waste problem. It gets 
us to a plutonium policy, if we really want to go that direction, which 
I doubt that this country will ever agree to go anyway.
  Now, my colleagues, the Department of Energy, the Office of 
Management and Budget, agree that, if we will vote to terminate this 
program now, we will save money. It will not cost us more money. So, 
this is a matter of saving money; this is a matter of stopping an 
unnecessary project. This is not about whether my colleagues are for or 
against nuclear power.
  My colleagues, vote no on the previous question so that we can amend 
the motion and get directly to the issue itself.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion here this afternoon, 
some factual, a lot nonfactual. The issue today is:

       If you vote no on the previous question and defeat the 
     previous question, you're taking $11.4 million out of the 
     research for our children's future energy needs.

  Mr. Speaker, my instructions are to put that $11.4 million in high-
energy physics, to look for new energy for our children's and 
grandchildren's future, so my colleagues would first be taking away 
that $11.4 million, spend it on something else, but not on needed 
research.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue of whether we are 
terminating or not. Both the Senate version, which I think is the right 
way to go, and the House version terminate this program. But if my 
colleagues follow the House version, we get absolutely nothing for the 
investment we have already made and for the termination costs that it 
will take. To the contrary, the House version would cost more money. I 
think everyone is agreed to that, but there has been thrown out this 
idea that, if we went the full route with the IFR, and built all the 
prototypes, it would get up around a couple billion dollars.

  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] talked about Clinch 
River costing $8 billion wasted. Now I do not know who spent the $8 
million, but I have been on that committee for a good many years. We 
had $1.7 billion in Clinch River at the time it was terminated by Mr. 
Carter and Congress. We had $300 million termination costs. That is $2 
billion the way I add it up to it. But anyway it was foolish to do 
that. We had absolutely done nothing for Clinch River except a lot of 
scar where it was going to be built, so it is not talking about 
termination, terminating both ways to go, what do we get for the money 
we have invested, and, if we go ahead and finish the way the Senate has 
suggested, we save dollars to the American Taxpayers, and the National 
Taxpayers Union, I have never seen an appropriation they did like in 
the first place, and they are just wrong on this issue. They have not 
added it up and do not know what they are going to get for the 
dollars.I say to my colleagues, You get nothing, if you follow their 
instructions. They're right, and it's not a matter of nuclear 
proliferation.
  Russia, France, and Japan are continuing this actinide research with 
or without us. Discussion about the--up to $60 million that Japan was 
going to put into it. I have a letter dated June 17 this year from the 
president of the Power Reactor Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. out of 
Tokyo. The president says, he states in the letter, that the only 
reason they withdrew their $60 million is because the Department of 
Energy has withdrawn its support for this. But the president goes on:

       Meanwhile we are starting in our own to carry out R&D in 
     the field of actinide recycling.

  So, Japan is going to go ahead without us. We will not have the 
advantage of the research.
  The last paragraph of the president's letter:

       We remain interested in working with the Department of 
     Energy 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 consider our option about participating 
     in a joint program.

  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues:

       If you're interested in saving the American taxpayers what 
     we have already invested in providing for the needed energy, 
     meaning for the research and the future of our Nation, you 
     will vote for the previous question, and don't go down this 
     route that we have gone down so many times. When we get close 
     to finding out something, we destroy it, so please vote for 
     the previous question.

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I stand in favor of Mr. Myers' motion to 
instruct the conferees to support the House position on funding for the 
Department of Energy's high-energy physics program. The United States 
has long dominated the field of high-energy physics, primarily due to 
the diligent research efforts of our top scientists working to make new 
discoveries about the fundamental makeup of the universe.
  For example, Fermi National Laboratory, which is located in my 
district, is the premier laboratory for high-energy physics in the 
United States. In fact, Fermilab is home to the largest and most 
powerful particle accelerator in the world. Scientists at Fermilab have 
dedicated themselves to investigating the nature of matter and 
pioneering ways to approach the challenges our country faces in the 
fields of medical research, manufacturing technology, and educational 
enhancement.
  Recently, physicists at Fermilab found evidence of the top quark, a 
subatomic particle that is the last undiscovered quark of the six 
predicted by current scientific theory. Scientists worldwide have 
sought experimental evidence for the top quark since the discovery of 
the bottom quark at Fermilab in 1977.
  In short, if the United States is to meet the technological 
challenges of the 21st century, and improve U.S. global, industrial 
competitiveness, Congress should promote, not discourage, research and 
development in high-energy physics. Indeed, it is imperative that we 
fund these laboratories at a level that will allow us to remain among 
the world leaders in high-energy physics.
  Mr. Myers' motion is a step in the right direction. I urge my 
colleagues to support the gentleman's motion.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 171, 
nays 209, not voting 54, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               YEAS--171

     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mazzoli
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mica
     Michel
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Rush
     Sangmeister
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--209

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hughes
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--54

     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Becerra
     Boehlert
     Carr
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Gallo
     Glickman
     Grams
     Hamburg
     Hunter
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Knollenberg
     Laughlin
     Machtley
     Mann
     McMillan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Portman
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Schroeder
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Stupak
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1823

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Sanders against.
       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Jefferson against.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr. FLAKE, Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. HEFLEY, 
STOKES, COLLINS of Georgia, BONIOR, and COYNE changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BLACKWELL, EWING, and WISE, Ms. MOLINARI, and Mr. BILBRAY 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was not ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


amendment offered by mr. sharp to the motion to instruct offered by mr. 
                            myers of indiana

  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to 
instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp to the motion to instruct 
     offered by Mr. Myers of Indiana: Insert before the period at 
     the end of the following: and to insist upon the provisions 
     contained in the House bill that provide funds for the 
     Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor, the Integral Fast Reactor, and 
     the Actinide Recycle Program only for purposes of program 
     termination

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for Members of the House, we 
do not plan to take any more time on the debate of the issue. We had an 
hour debate on this. The distinguished chairman of the committee and 
the ranking minority member agrees that we will not further debate the 
issue this evening, but proceed to the vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the motion to instruct that the House stay with 
its position to terminate the advanced liquid metal reactor that it 
adopted in the regular order of business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] to the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All those in favor of taking the vote by the 
yeas and nays will rise and remain standing.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for the yeas and nays.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], as amended.
  The motion to instruct as amended was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Bevill, Fazio, Chapman, Peterson of 
Florida, and Pastor, Mrs. Meek of Florida, and Messrs. Obey, Myers of 
Indiana, Gallo, Rogers, and McDade.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________