[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the 
conference report accompanying H.R. 4506, the Energy, Water 
appropriations bill; and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the conference report be adopted and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, with the above occurring without 
intervening action; provided further that upon adoption of the 
conference report, the Senate concur, en bloc, in the House amendments 
to the Senate amendments numbered 2, 4, 8, 28, 48 and 49.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee on 
conference on H.R. 4506 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The Legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4506) a bill making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of August 4, 1994.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the conference 
report on the fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Development 
appropriation bill. This conference report on the bill, H.R. 4506 
passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 393 yeas to 34 nays, 
on August 10, 1994.
  The conference on this bill held on August 4, 1994, and the 
conference report was printed in the Congressional Record of August 4, 
1994. Of course, the printed conference report has been available since 
that time also. Therefore, I will not undertake to elaborate on the 
disposition of all the items that were in conference.
  The conference agreement provides $20,662,402,000 in new budget 
obligational authority. This amount is $20,236,000 less than the 
President's budget request. It is $136,892,000 over the House passed 
bill, and $19,894,000 less than the Senate passed bill. The principal 
reason for this difference is that the 602(b) allocation was $140 
million higher for the Senate bill. The conference bill is within the 
602(b) allocation for both budget and outlays.
  Title I of the bill provides appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers' Civil Works Program. The conference agreement provides 
$3,408,919,000 which is $43,515,000 less than the House bill and 
$17,354,000 more than the Senate bill.
  For title II, the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the 
Interior, the conference agreement includes a total of $881,399,000. 
This is $2,221,000 less than the House passed bill and $11,985,000 more 
than the Senate passed bill.
  A total of $15,901,676,000 is provided in title III for the 
Department of Energy programs, projects, and activities. Of this 
amount, $10.3 billion is for atomic energy defense activities which is 
$367,000 below the House passed bill and $29,452,000 below the Senate 
passed bill.
  Mr. President, one of the major differences between the House and 
Senate bills was the integral fast reactor [IFR], also known as the 
advanced liquid metal reactor [ALMR]. The Senate position was to 
continue the research on actinide recycling while terminating the 
reactor program. The House position was to immediately terminate the 
program and shutdown EBR II without completing the research phase of 
the program. As Members will recall, we had an excellent debate in the 
Senate and our position to complete the research prevailed. However, 
the House voted three times to terminate the program as proposed by the 
President and the Department of Energy. In the face of the House's 
repeated votes against the program, the conferees have agreed to 
terminate the program. A total of $83,800,000 is provided for shutdown 
of EBR II and termination beginning this fall, as proposed by the 
House. In the termination process, the Department is to maximize the 
research on actinide recycle, and as proposed by the administration, 
should retain such facilities as necessary, especially the 
pyroprocessing facilities, to provide for alternative missions at 
Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho and Illinois. The Department is 
encouraged to identify alternate funding sources for the unfunded 
alternative missions at Argonne's facilities in Idaho and Illinois.
  Another of the major differences, concerns the magnetic fusion energy 
program and what we call the TPX construction line item. TPX is the 
Tohamak physics experiment at Princeton University, a new machine 
estimated to cost about $800 million to construct and about $1 billion 
to operate over its life. It is a part of the larger International 
Tohamak experimental reactor or ITER which will cost about $10 billion 
to construct and about $10 billion to operate. So in this program, we 
would be faced with a $22 to $25 billion dollar program to further 
develop magnetic fusion. I am determined that the Congress, the 
administration, and the White House, have an eyes-wide-open debate and 
decision in going forward with this program. I support it, and believe 
we should go forward. I am also determined to avoid another SSC debacle 
by doing what I can to see that we have a commitment to the program, 
especially because of the enormous sums involved, and to have an 
international process and agreements on the ITER project.
  The conferees have agreed that TPX will proceed with design activity 
only including industrial participation in the engineering design and 
research and development and includes $42,000,000 for this activity. 
The conferees recognize the very significant scientific accomplishments 
of the deuterium-tritium [D-T] experiments on the Tokamak fusion test 
reactor [TFTR] in support of the ITER design, and it is the intent of 
the conferees that these important experiments continue until 
construction of TPX is approved. Therefore, in fiscal year 1995, 
$65,000,000 is provided for continuation of TFTR experiments. 
$8,000,000 is included for the PBX-M program. With regard to TPX 
design, the Department of Energy is directed to use standard, phased 
industrial contracts for these design activities, with options for 
construction that would permit continuity and would allow the project 
to be completed in the most efficient and cost efficient and cost-
effective manner. $2,000,000 may be used for the purchase of long lead-
time superconducting material critical to maintaining the schedule of 
the project.
  The conferees also provide $52,000,000 for the DIII-D Tokamak 
facility and $8,700,000 for the Inertial Confinement Fusion program 
including an increase of $2,000,000 for the induction linac systems 
experiment [ILSE] to enable this program to proceed on a timely and 
cost-effective schedule.
  I recommend to the Senate that this conference report be approved 
promptly so as to complete action on this appropriation bill and clear 
it for the President's consideration and approval.
  Mr. President, I wish to express our appreciation and thanks to our 
House colleagues lead by the chairman of the House Subcommittee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the Ranking 
Minority Member, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Meyers]. 
I also want to thank again my friend and able colleague, the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]. It is always a happy experience to work 
with him. Also, I want to express my appreciation to all of the Senate 
conferees who are members of our subcommittee also.


                declassification productivity initiative

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Chairman of 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Johnston, as 
to the ultimate disposition of the Declassification Productivity 
Initiative [DPI] provision that was originally included as report 
language in the Senate appropriations bill. As you recall, during 
consideration of the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill, the 
Senate, and subsequently the defense conference, agreed to my amendment 
authorizing $3,000,000 from the account titled ``Materials Support and 
Other Defense Programs'' to fund the DPI effort.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his 
interest in this program. I am aware of his previous actions in the 
Armed Services Committee and greatly appreciate his ensuring that 
throughout the defense conference this program received the necessary 
attention.
  As to the outcome of the Declassification Productivity Initiative, I 
am pleased to inform my colleague that the original report language of 
the Senate was agreed to by the House conferees. The language states in 
part:

       * * * the Committee encourages the Department to proceed 
     quickly with its new declassification productivity initiative 
     to provide computer-based, expert systems to enhance the 
     productivity of the document declassification review process.

  The report language further states that up to $3,000,000 be allocated 
for this initiative. Though the conferees were unable to specifically 
earmark the $3,000,000 needed in fiscal year 1995, I want to assure the 
Senator from New Hampshire that I am committed to getting the 
Department of Energy to allocate the funds for this much-needed 
program. It should be fully understood by the Department of Energy that 
the report language submitted by the Senate in this appropriations 
conference report and the language Senator Smith secured in the defense 
authorization conference are still enforceable and should be adhered 
to.
  The Senate Energy and Water appropriations report also mentions that 
the Department of Energy is behind in processing both its Freedom of 
Information Act requests and the mandatory requests for information 
under Executive Order 12356. It is my understanding that these problems 
stem from the Department's inability to provide adequate financial, 
technical and personnel resources in the declassification review 
process because a significant portion of the information requested must 
be screened and sanitized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am in full agreement with the Senator's 
comments. In fact, declassification efforts, and the need to improve 
upon the productivity of these programs are an issue in numerous 
departments and agencies--not just the Department of Energy. I believe 
the DPI effort, with the strong commitment of the Chairman and with the 
direction the Congress has already provided the Department, will take 
the first critical step toward improving those deficiencies just 
mentioned by the Senator. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my speech to 
the Senate during my amendment's consideration on the defense bill, the 
DPI is a significant first step at redefining the boundaries of 
technology in high-speed optional scanning, imaging and computing. This 
type of technology will not only enhance government efficiency, but the 
information-intensive segments of private industry as well such as the 
banking, health care and petrochemical.
  Lastly, Mr. President, I believe the Department must step up its 
efforts not only to ensure the $3,000,000 in funding is available for 
the Declassification Productivity Initiative in fiscal year 1995, but 
also that adequate resources for this effort are included in the 
Department's future budget requests. I sincerely hope that the Chairman 
will encourage the Department along these lines, and I want to assure 
him that he will have my support.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator for his help in this matter. I will 
certainly do my best to help the funding along. I yield the floor.


            termination of the advanced liquid metal reactor

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate today is acting to accomplish 
the near-impossible: it will eliminate a Federal program.
  When we approve the Energy Appropriations bill conference report 
today, we will be approving the termination of the Advanced Liquid 
Metal Reactor [ALMR], a program that is a complete waste of taxpayer 
dollars and dangerous as well. This is a program that I have fought to 
kill over the past year and it is with great satisfaction that I mark 
its demise.
  Mr. President we have to-date spent close to $9 billion on this 
program. And we have nothing to show for it.
  If we had not terminated it, we would have spent an additional $3.2 
billion over the next 15 years just on ALMR research, design, 
development and prototyping. Termination will save $2.9 billion, 
according to Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary.
  But many of my colleagues felt that even though the program is 
expensive, we should have funded it because scientific research is a 
good long-term investment. However, in this case research is a very bad 
idea. It is a bad idea because the technology--even if successful--is 
not needed and because continuing the research is extremely dangerous 
from a nonproliferation perspective.
  I wish to make it clear that I do not feel that it is a bad idea 
simply because it is a nuclear program. I am a supporter of Light Water 
Reactors and of the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program at the 
Department of Energy. This is the technology supported by industry. I 
am opposed to the ALMR--which is not supported by industry and is not 
necessary to the continuation of the nuclear industry.


                           Non-proliferation

  The prime reason I am opposed to the ALMR is the same reason that 
prompted Secretary O'Leary to take her very brave stand against this 
technology and President Clinton to decide to oppose this project. It 
directly violates our nonproliferation policy and hurts our credibility 
in discouraging proliferation. As Secretary O'Leary said, ``We cannot 
credibly urge that others not use technologies for separating and using 
plutonium if we are pursuing those same technologies ourselves.''
  Let me make it clear to my colleagues: the Secretary of Energy and 
the President oppose this technology because it make it harder for the 
President to discourage rogue nations from acquiring the ability to 
build nuclear bombs. the New York Times said ``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 would have put information on plutonium separation into 
the public domain. Proponents argued that the U.S. would be 
discriminating in sharing this technology. Unfortunately, in the past, 
technology has spread to rogue nations. North Korea reportedly has 
acquired advanced European reprocessing technology used in a facility 
in Belgium and its operating reactor is well known to be a clone of a 
British production reactor. Much of the ALMR's reprocessing technology 
would have been described in the open scientific literature. At least 
one of the contracts on pyroprocessing establishes the right of the 
contractors to publish detailed results of the R&D work.
  Further, ALMR facilities themselves would have made plutonium more 
easily available to those wishing to acquire it for bombs. Proponents 
say that it is more proliferation-resistant than alternative 
reprocessing technology. But the meaningful comparison is with the 
once-through fuel cycle, which the U.S. currently uses to produce 
electricity from light-water reactors. Under this comparison, the ALMR 
clearly increases proliferation risks. The National Academy of Sciences 
[NAS] said in a recent study: ``Possession of such a facility, however, 
would still offer a state the technology needed to produce separated 
plutonium for weapons, should it choose to do so openly.''


                              new studies

  The proponents justified the technology by saying that it will 
``recycle'' the spent fuel from nuclear reactors and the plutonium from 
weapons. However, several objective, independent studies have come out 
in the past year which firmly refute these claims.
  The National Academy of Sciences has published a study saying that 
the ALMR is a bad idea for weapons plutonium disposition. The GAO has 
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 were 
the only objective studies conducted in the last year and they all came 
out against the technology.


                     disposal of weapons plutonium

  On the question of weapons plutonium, the NAS study concludes 
unequivocally that the ALMR was far less desirable than two other 
technologies for disposal: the vitrification technology and the MOX 
technology--where plutonium is run through light-water reactors and 
forms a mixed oxide fuel. NAS said ``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 or evolutionary reactor 
types.''

  The NAS said that there is clear and present danger from the presence 
of weapons plutonium and so the most important quality in a solution is 
the speed with which it makes the plutonium unusable. ALMR would take 
far longer than either vitrification or MOX. In fact, a vitrification 
campaign to dispose of plutonium could be finished before an ALMR 
campaign was even ready to begin. The head of the NAS panel said in 
testimony before the Energy Committee ``Considering the urgency of 
bringing the plutonium from nuclear weapons to the `spent fuel 
standard,' the development and construction of a new generation of 
nuclear reactors cannot be justified for the plutonium disposition 
mission.''


                 recycling commercial spent fuel waste

  The GAO study says that ``DOE's radioactive waste managers are not 
pursuing the transmutation of waste because they believe that it is too 
costly and unnecessary.'' GAO pointed out that there is no way ALMR's, 
even if they do everything their advocates say they can do, could 
reduce waste volume enough to substitute for a repository. Further, 
whether or not a second repository will be needed is impossible to 
predict at this point, because it depends on variables such as how much 
waste the first repository will hold, will more nuclear plants be 
built, how long will the current one run, et cetera.
  More important, using ALMR's even under the rosiest scenario would be 
less efficient, more costly, and involve more movement and above-ground 
storage of radioactive material than repository burial alone. Using the 
ALMR would take hundreds of years longer to get spent waste underground 
than just using the repository alone. Lawrence Livermore in a study 
wrote ``There remain no costs or safety incentives to introduce--
partitioning and transmutation--into the high-level waste management 
system.''
  Using the ALMR would add cost to the spent waste disposal method. 
This is why the Electric Power Research Institute said ``The policy 
would likely incur a large cost penalty, encounter major institutional 
difficulties, multiply licensing difficulties, and amplify political 
and public opposition to the nuclear power program as a whole.''
  Further, it would not reduce the danger. It might eat up some of the 
actinides--if it does what it claims--but it would leave other longer-
living fission products which are more water soluble and so more 
susceptible to leaks. But the DOE waste managers say that we should not 
even focus on the technology because our policy is to use a repository 
and we should focus on making that work well--not on an add-on 
technology.


                           breeder technology

  The OTA study states that ``Even if the system were designed to be a 
plutonium consumer, it would not be mechanically difficult for an owner 
with technical expertise to convert it to a ``breeder'' * * * it would 
be difficult or impossible to design a reactor that could be guaranteed 
to not work as a plutonium breeder.'' Far from removing dangerous 
plutonium from the planet, the ALMR has the potential to increase the 
amount of plutonium. The OTA makes clear that this has always been the 
principal purpose of the technology.
  The only explanation I can find for why this project persisted for as 
long as it did in the face of all the objective evidence is the fact 
that its mission changed so many times to suit the current political 
winds. First, it was a plutonium breeder. Then the developers began to 
promote the project as a method to reprocess and transform spent 
nuclear fuel from commercial LWRs to solve the Yucca mountain problems. 
After 1991, when arms reduction agreements between the United States 
and the former Soviet Union appeared likely to produce significant 
quantities of surplus plutonium, developers emphasized its potential to 
eliminate this plutonium by consuming it as a nuclear fuel to make 
electricity. Most recently proponents claimed it would prevent spent 
fuel from becoming a proliferation risk.
  Mr. President, the ALMR was a project in search of a mission. Now it 
need no longer search.
  The President of the United States opposes this project. The 
Secretary of Energy opposes this project. The House of Representatives 
opposes this project. The Nuclear Control Institute opposes this 
project. The National Taxpayers Union opposes it. Citizens Against 
Government Waste opposes it. Public Citizen. U.S. PIRG. Safe Energy 
Communications Coalition. Sierra Club. National Resources Defense 
Council. GreenPeace. Physicians for Social Responsibility. Union of 
Concerned Scientists.
  And finally, today, the Senate will go on record as opposing this 
project as well.
  Two of my colleagues have dedicated a great deal of time and energy 
to the termination of the ALMR on behalf of the American taxpayer. They 
are the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the Senator from 
Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers.
  The Secretary of Energy was also enormously helpful in calling on 
members of Congress to express the Administration's position that the 
ALMR violates our nonproliferation policy.
  Those who fought to terminate the project in the House, 
Representative Coppersmith, Representative Sharp and others, deserve a 
great share of the credit for their work over the past year to 
eliminate this dangerous program.
  I commend my colleagues for saving the taxpayers billions of dollars 
and for eliminating a danger to our nonproliferation efforts. I look 
forward to sending this bill to the President for his signature.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I join chairman Johnston in recommending 
final approval of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Conference Report to the full Senate. This conference report provides 
funds for important projects and activities in every State, and 
concerns every Member of this body. I am pleased to be associated with 
this effort, and I especially want to thank Senator Byrd, chairman of 
the full Appropriations Committee, for his assistance throughout our 
process.
  I also want to thank Senator Johnston for the outstanding leadership 
he has provided in developing this package. Considering the many 
difficulties the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee encountered 
this year, especially with regard to a 602(b) allocation that is 
approximately $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 1994 enacted level, 
Senator Johnston's efforts have been over and beyond the call of duty.
  The conference report is especially important to our efforts in the 
Pacific Northwest to rebuild the threatened and endangered salmon runs 
in the Columbia River Basin. We have provided funding for the Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to continue their important 
efforts to protect and enhance the salmon stocks at risk. These 
activities will complement the regional efforts implemented according 
to the Northwest Power Planning Council's ``Strategy for Salmon'' which 
are funded by the region's electrical ratepayers through the Bonneville 
Power Administration.
  I want to mention a specific provision included by the conferees in 
the joint explanatory statement concerning the administration's 
agreement to assume costs of the additional measures to protect 
endangered and threatened stocks of salmon in 1994 which go beyond the 
current biological opinion governing the operation of the Federal 
Columbia River Power System. The conferees have no objection to the 
administration's decision to provide this financial assistance, but 
believe that the proposal to fund these costs by crediting the 
Bonneville Power Administration's repayment to the Treasury may have 
broader financial and policy implications. Accordingly, the conferees 
expect the Bonneville Power Administration to work with the Office of 
Management and Budget and the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees to outline the budgetary principles and financing mechanisms 
to be applied if it appears there will be a continuing need for this 
assistance beyond 1994. The administration has been most helpful to the 
region, and I look forward to any further discussions which may be 
necessary.
  Once again, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Johnston, for his efforts and hard work in developing and shepherding 
this important conference report through the Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not object to the unanimous consent 
request to take up the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995. However, I want to make clear there is one item 
in this bill to which I strongly object.
  My objection is to the conferees decision to terminate the advanced 
reactor research on the Integral Fast Reactor/Advanced Liquid Metal 
Reactor [IFR/ALMR]. This is not a cost-saving measure nor is it a good 
science decision. Termination will lead to more not less plutonium 
proliferation in the world. The technology that was being developed 
actually consumed plutonium. This was the only technology being 
developed that could actually burn up plutonium. I strongly believe 
history will show this termination decision to be a wrong and short-
sighted one.
  However, the conferees have decided to provide only $83.8 million for 
the shutdown of the experimental reactor EBR II and the termination of 
the IFR program. I am very concerned that this is not sufficient money 
to even allow for a safe and orderly shutdown.
  The two Senators from Illinois, my colleague from Idaho and I are all 
currently working with the Secretary of Energy to salvage a program 
that will retain a portion of this important science and to retain the 
brain trust that has developed around the IFR research. This is 
consistent with the direction of the conferees to maximize the research 
on actinide recycle and retain such facilities as necessary, especially 
the pyroprocessing facilities, to provide for alternative missions at 
the Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho and Illinois and for the 
Department of Energy to identify alternative funding sources for 
alternative missions at these facilities. It is my hope and intention 
that we will be successful in this undertaking.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I want to bring to the attention of the chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations subcommittee, Senator 
Johnson, an important project in the State of Texas which, 
unfortunately, was not included in the conference agreement. The 
project is of concern to both Senator Gramm and Senator Hutchison, and 
I believe merits special attention by the Bureau of Reclamation over 
the course of fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I would be pleased to hear the Senator's concerns.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The project I want to highlight is the Lake Meredith 
Salinity Control Project. The project currently is being conducted by 
the Bureau of Reclamation under its construction program. Knowing of 
the importance of the project to our colleagues from Texas, I would ask 
the distinguished chairman if he would be willing to join me in asking 
the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure that adequate 
funds will be provided for the Lake Meredith project over the course of 
fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I am aware of the interest in this project by Senator 
Gramm and Senator Hutchison, and agree with the Senator from Oregon 
that this is an important project which should not be slowed or stopped 
due to a lack of available funds. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
informed the subcommittee that funds appropriated for the current 
fiscal year will be carried over into fiscal year 1995, and work on the 
project will proceed. I also want to note that the Senate conferees had 
tentatively agreed to provide $500,000 for Lake Meredith. 
Unfortunately, one of the House conferees offered an amendment which 
transferred the funds to another Texas project.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the distinguished chairman for his assurance. I 
also would ask whether the chairman would urge the Bureau of 
Reclamation to reprogram funds in fiscal year 1995 for the Lake 
Meredith project should additional funds be required to keep the 
project on schedule.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I share the distinguished ranking member's concern and 
agree that the subcommittee expects the Bureau of Reclamation to use 
carry-over funds and initiate any reprogrammings that are necessary to 
ensure that the Lake Meredith project is kept on track during the next 
fiscal year.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance 
in this matter.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will not ask for a roll call vote 
but I want the Record to show that I would have voted ``no'' on the 
conference report now before the Senate.
  The fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Development Conference Report 
directs the termination of the Integral Fast Reactor [IFR] Program. I 
believe that this decision is a mistake and I truly believe that our 
Nation will one day regret the Congress' decision to turn its back on 
this promising technology.
  I supported the IFR Program as a important technology to help this 
Nation deal with the problem of surplus weapons grade plutonium and 
spent reactor fuel. Now that the IFR Program will be terminated, I look 
forward to seeing how the critics of the IFR propose to deal these 
problems.
  In my 2 years in the Senate, I have worked long and hard to complete 
the research on the IFR Program. Despite strong opposition, last year 
and this year the Senate supported the continuation of the IFR Program. 
Last year, the House agreed to support the Senate position but this 
year the House conferees refused to accept the Senate position.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues in the Senate who supported my 
fight for the IFR. I know this was a tough vote but I will not forget 
your help on this very important issue.
  I also want to pay a special thanks to my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, and the two Senators from 
Illinois, Senator Simon and Senator Moseley-Braun. Together, we formed 
the Idaho and Illinois coalition and I do not think there is a more 
effective bi-partisan team in the U.S. Senate.
  In addition, I want to thank the senior Senator from Louisiana, 
Chairman Johnston, for his generous support and strong commitment to 
the IFR Program. Senator Johnston is the recognized expert on energy 
matters in the Senate and his support in committee, on the Senate floor 
and in conference was invaluable.
  The Idaho-Illinois coalition will once again be tested as we work 
with the Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, to put together a program 
to preserve the scientific and technical expertise at Argonne East and 
West. The limited funding for the termination of the IFR Program that 
was provided by the conference report would result in an inefficient 
shut down of the IFR Program and the loss of hundreds of skilled 
scientists and engineers. While certain aspects of the IFR Program were 
controversial in some quarters, no one disputes the fact that the 
scientists, engineers, and facilities at Argonne East and West are a 
national asset that must be preserved. In the days ahead, the Idaho and 
Illinois Senators are committed to working with Secretary O'Leary to 
develop a plan to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, the human 
and physical assets at Argonne East and West.
  When President Clinton signs this bill, he will signal the end of the 
Integral Fast Reactor Program. At the same time, Secretary O'Leary has 
committed to work with the Idaho and Illinois Senators to develop 
alternative missions for Argonne East and West. While I strongly 
support the effort to develop the alternative missions, and I ask my 
colleagues in the Senate to support me in this effort, I want the 
Record to show that I be recorded as voting ``no'' on the passage of 
the energy and water conference report.
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The Senate concurred in the amendments of the House; as follows:

       In the House of Representatives, Resolved, That the House 
     agree to the report of the committee on conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 4506) entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for energy and water development for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes.''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendments of the Senate numbered 6, 9, 15, 16, 21, 35, 
     and 39 to the aforesaid bill, and concur therein.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 2 to the aforesaid bill, 
     and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said 
     amendment, insert:
       Red River Navigation Study, Arkansas, $300,000;
       Los Angeles County Water Conservation and Supply, 
     California, $500,000;
       Norco Bluffs, California, $200,000;
       Indianapolis, White River, Central Waterfront, Indiana, 
     $4,000,000;
       Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, $200,000;
       Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, 
     $150,000;
       Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, $500,000;
       Hazard, Kentucky, $500,000;
       Kentucky Lock and Dam, Kentucky, $2,000,000;
       Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania, $100,000;
       Hartsville, Trousdale County, Tennessee, $95,000;
       West Virginia Comprehensive, West Virginia, $350,000; and
       West Virginia Port Development, West Virginia, $800,000.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 4 to the aforesaid bill, 
     and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said 
     amendment, insert:
       Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
     Louisiana, $6,000,000;
       Red River below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization, 
     Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas, $2,100,000;
       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, $8,624,000;
       Kissimmee River, Florida, $4,000,000;
       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, 
     $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;
       Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, $4,500,000;
       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;
       Allendale Dam, Rhode Island, $67,500;
       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 Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River), West Virginia, $500,000; 
     and
       Upper Mingo County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River), West Virginia, $250,000.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 to the aforesaid bill, 
     and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said 
     amendment, insert:
       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;
       Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, $5,330,000; and
       John H. Kerr Reservoir (Mosquito Control), Virginia and 
     North Carolina, $40,000
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 28 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert: : 
     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: Provided 
     further, That fees set by the Secretary for the sale of 
     isotopes and related services shall hereafter be determined 
     without regard to the provisions of Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act (P.L. 101-101): Provided 
     further, That amounts provided for isotope production and 
     distribution in previous Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act shall be treated as direct appropriations 
     and shall be merged with funds appropriated under this head
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 48 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum stricken and inserted by said amendment, 
     insert: $520,501,000
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 49 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum stricken and inserted by said amendment, 
     insert: $498,501,000

                          ____________________