[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 HYDROGEN, FUSION, AND HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS RESEARCH ACT OF 
                                  1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 522 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4908.

                              {time}  1110


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4908) to authorize the hydrogen and fusion research, development, 
and demonstration programs, and the high energy physics and nuclear 
physics programs, of the Department of Energy, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Olver in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill, as will be spelled out in 
more detail. However, it is not a controversial bill. It was adopted by 
a unanimous voice vote in committee.
  Some of the problems that have arisen subsequently caused us to go to 
the Committee on Rules for a rule rather than taking it up on 
suspension. They were miscommunications more than anything else, for 
which I take full responsibility and gladly accept it.
  The miscommunications had to do with the question of whether or not 
to have caps with regard to the funding on the bill. This caused us 
some problems because the bill originally was two separate bills which 
went to two separate subcommittees.
  One subcommittee reported the bill with caps, the other one did not. 
In neither subcommittee was there any enthusiasm for the caps, but they 
were adopted nevertheless in the one subcommittee.
  At one point we thought we could agree upon a reasonable cap for the 
whole bill, but we were unable to do that.
  So we are bringing this to the floor in the condition that it was 
reported out of the full committee, with a cap on part of it and no cap 
on another part of it.
  While we were considering some amendments to extend the caps to the 
whole bill or to remove the caps from the whole bill, I think our 
current situation is that we will leave the bill the way it was 
reported out of the committee and hope that we can survive on that 
basis.
  I am going to leave more detailed explanation to the two subcommittee 
chairmen at this point and allow Mr. Walker to use such time as he 
wishes.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4908, the Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and 
Nuclear Physics Act of 1994, is, for a number of reasons, a very 
important bill--one that represents much more than a collection of 
random research programs.
  The first and most fundamental reason is that the bill represents a 
hopeful change in Congress' dismal record over the past 20 years in 
passing energy-related authorization bills. For example, the programs 
authorized in the high-energy physics and nuclear physics portions of 
this bill--programs which account for well over $1 billion in Federal 
spending--have not been fully authorized since 1981. The House did pass 
an authorization bill for the superconducting super collider in 1990, 
but it was not acted upon by the Senate. Further, although several of 
the programs in this bill--such as the hydrogen and fusion R&D 
programs--were in fact authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the 
bill before us today provides a higher level of policy guidance and 
program direction. I hope that this bill is a harbinger of things to 
come in terms of authorizing legislation on important energy programs.
  The bill is also important because the four titles in the bill 
aggressively address the long-term energy needs of our Nation and of 
mankind. By the year 2050, world population is expected to double; 
global energy needs will likely increase by threefold. These energy 
demands will be driven by increasing population and by the emerging 
economies of Asia, eastern Europe, and the remainder of what we 
currently refer to as the less-developed countries. If we fail to meet 
these needs for energy, we court a future of constant struggle between 
the haves and the have-nots. Such a struggle can only lead to political 
instability and ultimately military confrontation. While the bill will 
obviously not resolve all the issues associated with increasing 
population and energy demands, it will catalyze important scientific 
and technical steps toward abundant, clean energy supplies. Both the 
hydrogen and fusion energy R&D programs authorized in titles I and II 
hold the promise of fuels that are nonpolluting and essentially 
unlimited.
  Title I of H.R. 4908 provides for the development and demonstration 
of technologies to use hydrogen in transportation, industrial, 
residential, and utility applications. To encourage industry 
participation and the evolution of cost-competitive technologies, the 
bill call for cost-sharing with industry in the development and 
demonstration processes. This is vitally important because cost 
competitiveness is the key to the successful development of hydrogen 
technologies that will be competitive in the energy marketplace.
  The Fusion Energy Program authorized in title II is a research and 
development program that will only be undertaken by government. The 
technical obstacles are so great and the development time is of such 
length that only government will accept such a challenge. Likewise, the 
benefit can not and should not be claimed by an individual or even a 
single nation. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that the potential benefits 
from fusion are likewise of such magnitude to future generations that 
we cannot, in good conscience, walk away from this challenge.
  Provisions in title II mandate United States participation in an 
international cooperative development program to develop fusion energy 
with our European, Japanese, and Russian colleagues. The program, 
referred to as the international thermonuclear experimental reactor 
[ITER], will hopefully serve as a model for future international, 
cooperative scientific efforts. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that many 
improvements must be made in ITER's management and operational 
procedures if it is to be an effective model of international 
cooperation.
  The bill authorizes the Department of Energy to participate in 
engineering design and research activities for ITER; however, it 
reserves judgment on U.S. participation in construction until a later 
date, after considerable consolation involving all the parties to the 
agreement.
  Title II also authorizes construction of the tokamak physics 
experiment [TPX], a new experimental fusion machine. Research from the 
TPX will help to speed the development of future machines more suited 
to power production.

  Titles III and IV of this bill address not only important basic 
research programs, but also the development and training of the future 
scientists and engineers who will be required to bring these 
technologies to fruition. Each of the programs in titles III and IV is 
facing difficult times and is in need of the kind of direction and 
stability for the near future that is provided by this authorization 
bill.
  Title III of H.R. 4908 authorizes the high-energy and nuclear physics 
activities of the Department of Energy through fiscal year 1999. After 
the termination of the SSC, the committee sought a smooth transition to 
a new and exciting future for high-energy and nuclear physics. Title 
III sets the course for high-energy and nuclear physics funding, 
international cooperation, and strategic planning.
  Title IV provides for the upgrading of more than 30 university 
reactors, located in 25 States, that are critical to the needs of 
students in fields such as materials sciences, chemistry, archaeology, 
medicinal research, geology, fluid mechanics, and biological sciences. 
These tools of research at our leading universities have been neglected 
too long.
  Finally, let me note the importance of the House responding 
effectively to fusion legislation that has been sent over from the 
Senate. H.R. 4908 is in part such a response. But the bill also 
provides the vision of the House on the policies and direction needed 
to guide these programs. Given the events of the past few years and the 
problems surrounding the SSC, it is essential that significant 
commitments, spending priorities, and program direction be discussed 
and debated by this Congress. It is only through such discussion and 
debate among our colleagues and with the Senate that sustainable long-
term commitments can be reached.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Brown in offering this legislation 
before the House. Our committee has spent considerable time working, in 
a bipartisan manner, on this bill and I want to thank him, Chairman 
Lloyd, and the other members of the committee for the bill we brought 
forward.
  This legislation focuses primarily on two forms of energy: hydrogen 
and fusion, while it also includes authorizations for the Department of 
Energy's high energy physics, nuclear physics, and some university 
education and nuclear programs.
  I would like to focus my remarks at the outset, however, on one of 
the forms of energy that are contained in this bill. I introduced 
legislation along with the chairman of our committee, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], earlier this year in an attempt to place 
hydrogen at the forefront of energy research and development at the 
Department of Energy. Hydrogen has shown itself to be a near-term 
replacement for our dependence on the fossil fuels that we now burn 
with abandon. Hydrogen as an energy carrier can be used for 
transportation, heating and cooling, power production through fuel cell 
technology, and any other use for which we now use fossil fuels. It has 
the added benefit of being nonpolluting and of being available from 
water. As an energy carrier it has few drawbacks that cannot be 
resolved by research.
  I would like to believe that the Science Committee has taken a bold 
step by including my hydrogen legislation as title I of this bill. Not 
just because it is mine, but because by establishing it as an energy 
research and development priority I think it speaks to a sense of hope 
in our Nations energy future. I also believe that by adopting this 
legislation the House will show itself to be on the cutting edge of 
supporting the energy research and development necessary to adapt this 
Nation's energy needs for the 21st century. Hydrogen will play a major 
role in the energy mix of the future and it is up to us to see that we 
now begin that integration wisely, economically, and efficiently.
  In this legislation the Science Committee has chosen priorities, but 
within the limits of the budget. By doing so the committee makes it 
clear that the standard policy of yearly increases, including an 
inflation factor, is over. The budget is too tight for that and the 
time for choices is now. The committee knows that some special 
interests will not be happy, but the committee also knows that 
authorized programs have gone through the process and have become its 
priorities. Some programs win and some programs lose, but when we make 
real budget choices, the taxpayer--the American public--always wins.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let me at this point thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for his contribution to the 
cause. As the gentleman stated, we have joined in offering the 
legislation, which constitutes title I. It is a very important 
initiative, and I compliment the gentleman for the work that he has put 
into it.
  Aside from straying once or twice into some areas like caps, the 
gentleman has been a very forceful, helpful proponent of the content of 
this entire bill, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd], who chairs the Subcommittee on Energy.
  (Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LLOYD. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise to speak on the bill, H.R. 4908, the Hydrogen 
Fusion High Energy and Nuclear Physics Act of 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, our hydrogen and fusion programs were authorized in the 
Energy Policy Act for fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1994, but H.R. 
4908 authorizes these important programs for fiscal year 1995, 1996, 
and 1997. Further, this bill provides significant program direction to 
expand these existing programs. The Hydrogen Research Program offers 
the potential to reach mid-term goals toward commercialization in 
possibly 20 years. The Fusion Research Program remains a long-term 
research effort and is not expected to yield fruit for nearly 50 years. 
I would point out, however, that significant progress has been made in 
the past year in fusion research.
  The world's energy demand is growing rapidly even today in developing 
countries. The predictions of the population growth over the next 50 
years coupled with economic aspirations indicate that we must start 
down a path of clean, abundant, and affordable energy supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, our Federal investment in energy supply has declined by 
two-thirds in the last 14 years, two-thirds.
  Two other key provisions of this bill provide the very foundation to 
continue our hydrogen and fusion efforts and our basic science 
research. The High Energy and Nuclear Physics Programs will have an 
authorization to continue these very important basic science programs.
  The University Radiation Science and Technology Program will support 
our Nation's human resource base for new students that we need going 
into these important fields while also providing for basic research in 
nuclear and environmental sciences. Further, the much-needed reactor 
upgrades at university campuses across the country will begin offering 
modern safety equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, these are very important programs which are needed to 
address our energy, our science and our research needs to prepare us 
for the 21st century and prepare for the needs of a growing world 
population.
  Despite the positive features of this bill, and there are many, I 
still have strong reservations about the cap on energy research that 
has been inserted into the bill. This cap, which reaches will beyond 
the scope of the bill, significantly impacts a number of programs that 
are not addressed in the bill. These impacts have consequences that 
were neither understood nor debated in our deliberations on the bill 
before it reached the floor.
  These caps, Mr. Chairman, will not reduce the deficit by limiting 
Federal spending. Anyone who understands anything about the budget 
process knows that these caps will have no impact on Federal spending. 
The budget agreement of 1993 controls discretionary Federal spending. 
The amendment simply limits the amount of that discretionary spending 
that can be used for the research and development programs covered by 
the proposed caps.
  I will also say it says something about us as a Nation if we make 
research and development a very low priority.
  Mr. Chairman, despite these reservations, I will support the bill, 
and I would hope that we can work them out in conference. However, in 
the future I think we should strongly oppose the use of thoughtless 
approaches, such as the caps, as we look at future legislation.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation that provides the resources to 
maintain U.S. world leadership, particularly in high energy physics.
  The Drell panel did some outstanding work in its report on the future 
of American high energy physics and provided the basis for that portion 
of this legislation before us today.
  In the wake of the cancellation of the superconducting super 
collider, Mr. Chairman, we simply must maintain our existing programs 
at world class level, along with joining the international scientific 
community in development of the large hadron collider in Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, let me stress that. I think that we must maintain our 
existing programs at a world class level, along with joining the 
international scientific community in development of the large hadron 
collider in Europe. Contrary to what the doomsayers were saying upon 
the demise of the superconducting super collider, the future of high 
energy physics in America is bright indeed because we are taking an 
enlightened approach to that future.
  The funding called for in the bill is an appropriate expenditure that 
totals barely 1 percent of what the SSC would have cost, but pays 
dividends far beyond the investment. Not only will important current 
work continue under the provisions of this bill, but the field will 
remain open to a new generation of young scientists who rely on 
continuing resources to complete their work. They can open up a new 
universe for us all if we only give them the tools.
  Thirty years ago Dr. Isidore Rabi displayed great wisdom when he 
said, ``Science is a great game. It is inspiring and refreshing. The 
playing field is the universe itself.''
  The Drell panel gave us a close-up view from the very edge of that 
playing field. This bill puts us in the game. Join me, join our 
bipartisan leadership, in supporting the science and the scientists who 
need the resources to carry on with their vital work.
  Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to the 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Science, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Boucher], for his leadership, chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], for his leadership, and the 
ranking member of the full committee, the Republican chairman of the 
full committee as we call him, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker]. Also I commend the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd] and 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell]. This has been a partnership 
in our Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  Now it has not always been the smoothest of sailing because along the 
way there have been occasional misunderstandings, but I think now the 
dialog has been opened, and now that we are having better communication 
I think we have fashioned a package that we can all be proud of, and I 
look forward to identifying with it and moving forward in this 
critical, important area of science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to take the time to also 
thank the gentleman for the work that he did. As the gentleman pointed 
out, there have been a series of, I think, misunderstandings about the 
intent of some of what we were attempting to do with regard to the cap 
issue that the chairman raised a few minutes ago, but the gentleman has 
been extremely helpful in trying to negotiate and trying to come up 
with some alternatives that would have helped.
  As it turns out, I think we have come to some understandings that 
will allow us to move forward with the bill without getting into a 
number of those discussions, and I think that is probably the best way 
to resolve it. But the gentleman has been extremely helpful, and I 
think the entire science community needs to know that his work in these 
areas has always exemplified, No. 1, his understanding of the issues 
and his feel for them, also his determination to see that this is all 
done within proper budget constraints, and I thank him very much.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for those kind 
words.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute for 
the purpose of adding some laudatory comments to the work done by the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] as well as other 
Members on that side, such as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], 
who has been a constructive and important influence on the development 
of this bill.
  Unfortunately there are times when we tend to lose our focus on the 
truly monumental significance of the content of the legislation and 
become sidetracked over important, but not nearly as significant, 
details with regard to how the programs are administered. As several 
people have pointed out here, the subject of energy development really 
is at the heart of the whole world's programs and problems.
  Over the next several years, Mr. Chairman, both the need for energy 
and the need for energy which will reduce the environmental impact have 
passed energy sources such as coal, oil, and nuclear, and we are moving 
in this bill to set the framework for solving some of these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], who chairs the 
Subcommittee on Science, which has jurisdiction over the high energy 
physics and the general science activities of the Department of Energy.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown], for yielding this time and also express my thanks and gratitude 
to the ranking Republican member of this subcommittee, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the ranking Republican on the full 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for their 
assistance as we have structured those provisions relating to high 
energy and nuclear physics and brought those to the floor. It is my 
pleasure this morning to rise in strong support of H.R. 4908.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill could become a landmark public law, since the 
multibillion-dollar Department of Energy R&D programs which are 
authorized by this legislation have not been authorized in well over a 
decade.
  Indifference toward the stewardship of these programs led, in part, 
to the tragedy of the superconducting super collider [SSC]. Now and in 
the future, Congress must exercise more effective oversight and policy 
direction for DOE R&D activities to avoid similar problems and to 
strengthen meritorious programs.
  I would like to emphasize the importance of Title III, High Energy 
and Nuclear Physics, which was crafted and reported by the Subcommittee 
on Science.
  There are three major reasons to invigorate these programs through 
authorizing legislation:
  First, the Federal Government deliberately underfunded the DOE's high 
energy and nuclear physics base programs for the past several years--to 
accommodate the funding of the SSC. The base programs now deserve 
restoration.
  Second, the next accelerator to be built is the large hadron collider 
[LHC] at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics. U.S. 
scientists use the CERN facilities presently and will undoubtedly use 
the LHC when it is constructed. The time has come for the United States 
to make a financial contribution to this international project, 
reflecting the value U.S. scientists now receive and will receive in 
future years. U.S. commitment to this international partnership will 
also establish the potential for construction in the United States of 
an advanced accelerator project after the turn of the century that will 
enjoy multinational participation.
  Finally, the Department of Energy now prepares neither a 
comprehensive, strategic plan--nor related budget projections--for its 
high energy and nuclear physics activities. The time has come to 
require that strategic planning is a matter of law.

  The bill before us is a proper response to these widely acknowledged 
needs.
  First, as a means of reinvigorating the High Energy Physics Program 
in the wake of SSC cancellation, it authorizes a modest increase of $50 
million after inflation each year for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. 
After that 3-year period, the bill discontinues the $50 million annual 
addition to the program and authorizes funding for the program 
thereafter on the basis of current expenditures plus inflation. This 
level of funding was recommended by the most recent advisory panel 
commissioned by DOE and reflects the needs expressed by the high energy 
physics community.
  The funding increase for fiscal years 1996-98 would accommodate the 
completion of upgrades at current DOE facilities, finance a U.S. 
contribution to CERN, and provide an adequate base program of 
facilities operation and investigator grant awards.
  Second, the bill authorizes funding for the Nuclear Science Program 
for 4 years that is consistent with the fiscal year 1995 House- and 
Senate-approved appropriation and that includes allowances for 
inflation. This funding profile provides sufficient operating moneys 
for current DOE nuclear science facilities and for the construction of 
the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
  The authorization levels for high energy and nuclear physics are 
modest when viewed against the enormous budgetary savings which will 
result from the cancellation of the SSC. In essence, the bill would 
allow the Department of Energy to reinvest what amounts to 1 percent of 
the price tag for the SSC to sustain these physics programs and pursue 
new research opportunities.
  Third, the bill directs the Secretary of Energy to negotiate with 
CERN regarding U.S. participation in the LHC and to ensure that any 
agreement includes specific provisions to protect the U.S. investment.
  A successful international experience at CERN would enhance the 
prospects for a post-2000 liner collider project in the United States 
that enjoys multinational participation.
  Fourth, the bill provides that no construction project valued at $100 
million or higher may be undertaken without express authorization. We 
want to ensure, in the future, sufficient public and congressional 
support before commitments are made to large accelerator projects. If 
such a provision had been in place during the early consideration of 
the SCC, either the project would have received adequate support to 
survive or would not have received preliminary funding.
  Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation 
with the Director of the National Science Foundation, to submit to 
Congress a long-range plan every 3 years beginning with fiscal year 
1997.
  Industry, the administration, and the scientific community are united 
in support of the goals of H.R. 4908. It is my pleasure to commend the 
measure to the House for its favorable consideration.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has many positive features that I can readily 
support. These include the following: The provisions of title I, the 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1994, which makes certainly an important 
contribution in helping realize the many benefits of hydrogen; the 
provisions of title II, the Fusion Energy Research Act, in particular, 
which seeks to boost research of alternative fusion concepts; the 
provisions of title III, the Department of Energy High Energy and 
Nuclear Physics Authorization Act of 1994, about which we just heard, 
intended to reinvigorate the Department's Energy Physics Program, which 
is still struggling to regroup after the cancellation of the 
superconducting super collider; and finally, title IV, dealing with the 
University Radiation Science and Technology, which has the potential to 
reinvigorate a long-neglected area of university-based education.
  At the same time, however, I do have a number of concerns with the 
bill that I am not going to take time to elaborate on here, but I will 
provide material for the Record, and I am hopeful that a number of 
these areas can be addressed during today's floor consideration.
  There is one area, though, that I do want to center a little bit of 
my time on. There has been some reference made in regard to the caps on 
spending which pertains to the energy supply R&D account. I am 
certainly one who has been strongly in favor of caps on spending as 
long as I can be assured that it is fair to all parties. I have some 
concerns and ambivalence here.
  What we have in H.R. 4908 is an authorization of $3.302 billion for 
energy supply R&D for the years 1995 through 1998, and a statement that 
the authorization therein set forth shall not exceed the amount of 
$3.302 billion--in other words, a cap. But then, out of the many 
important activities of the energy supply R&D activities, which include 
solar and renewable energy, electric energy systems, energy storage, 
nuclear fission, hydrogen, fusion, biological and environmental 
research, basic energy sciences, which is so vital to so many 
universities, environmental restoration programs, et cetera, only 
hydrogen and fusion activities are given specific authorizations. 
Hydrogen activities are authorized for 1995 through 1998 and fusion 
activities for 1995 through 1997. As long as that is so, the ``cap'' 
only applies to those activities within Energy Supply R&D which do not 
have a specific authorization. That, Mr. Chairman, is not fair.
  Why should the hydrogen and fusion activities be given specific 
authorizations containing, by the way, some $245 million of increases? 
Under these circumstances, if the cap causes a shortfall of money in 
the Energy Supply R&D activities, the only activities to suffer will be 
those other than hydrogen and fusion. Hydrogen and fusion activities 
will be, in effect, sheltered from the effects of the cap if 
appropriators were to be guided by these authorizations.
  Nobody can really know, of course, what the appropriators will 
ultimately do, but from the viewpoint of the authorizing committee, 
under this type of authorization process we have an emphasis in two 
basic areas that are important, but with any shortfall caused by the 
cap falling on the rest of the Energy Supply R&D projects.
  This is a concern that I wanted to express. I think we should not use 
caps and then try to shelter favored programs from the cap. I think if 
the legislation has an Achilles heel, this is it. I hope that as things 
turn out, there will not be any undue burden put upon the budgets of 
all these other activities of energy supply R&D. That may, indeed, be 
ultimately the case.

                              {time}  1150

  I would close by commending certainly the efforts of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology, its chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown, the committee's ranking Republican member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy, the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd], 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher], and the ranking Republican member, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], for all of their hard work on 
this bill.
  I know that there are many, many more fine points than the ones I 
have concern about, and I appreciate this opportunity having the time 
given to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has many positive features that I can readily 
support. These include the following: Provisions of title I--the 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1994--which make an important contribution in 
helping us realize the many benefits of hydrogen; provisions of title 
II--fusion energy research--in particular, which seek to boost research 
of alternative fusion concepts; provisions of title III--the Department 
of Energy High Energy and Nuclear Physics Authorization Act of 1994--
intended to reinvigorate the DOE's High Energy Physics Program, which 
is still struggling to regroup after the cancellation of the 
superconducting super collider; and title IV--dealing with university 
radiation science and technology--which has the potential to 
reinvigorate a long-neglected area of university-based education.
  At the same time, however, I do have a number of concerns with the 
bill that I will not take time to elaborate here, but will provide for 
the Record. And, I am hopeful that a number of these can be addressed 
during today's floor consideration.


                  title I--hydrogen future act of 1994

  Section 110(b) of title I include a 4-year cap--fiscal year 1995-
1998--on authorizations of $3,302,170,000 for the DOE's energy supply 
research and development activities--which include solar and renewable 
energy, electric energy systems and energy storage, nuclear fission and 
fusion, biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences 
and environmental restoration programs--nearly $12.4 million below the 
level contained in the fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Conference 
Report approved by the House last week on August 10.
  During the period this overall authorization cap is imposed on Energy 
Supply R&D, titles I and II of the bill add an additional $244.874 
million for hydrogen and fusion energy research--$90 million and 
$154.874 million, respectively--for the period fiscal year 1996-1998. 
This results in increased budgetary pressures in other energy supply 
R&D accounts--amounting to $62.437 million in fiscal year 1996, 
$132.437 million in fiscal year 1997, and $50 million in fiscal year 
1999--which could result in additional across-the-board cuts of nearly 
2 percent in fiscal year 1996, 4 percent in fiscal year 1997, and 1.5 
percent in fiscal year 1998, and without any allowance for inflation.
  I have particular concerns about the impacts of this cap on DOE's 
basic energy sciences [BES] and biological and environmental research 
[BER] programs.
  The BES program annually supports 1,400 individual research projects 
at over 200 separate institutions--primarily at universities and DOE 
labs--with direct support for over 4,000 investigators and 2,300 
graduate students. The BER program funds important medical, life 
sciences, and environmental research, including global climate change, 
at DOE labs and universities.
  To me, this provision is the Achilles' heel of this bill.


                title ii--fusion energy research program

  On August 2, 1994, the day before the full committee markup, the 
Subcommittee on Energy received some 5 hours of testimony from 11 
witnesses on this title, including representatives of the Department of 
Energy, DOE labs, academia, environmental and taxpayer groups, and the 
former Director of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
project [ITER], Dr. Paul-Henri Rebut, who gave a sobering assessment of 
the ITER management difficulties. I believe that Dr. Rebut's testimony 
should be carefully studied by every Member, and I am attaching a copy 
of it to this statement.
  It was unfortunate that the committee did not have more time to 
absorb the vast quantity of information delivered at that hearing. In 
particular, I want to note that the DOE witness's testimony included 
five detailed pages of recommended changes to this title--none of which 
have been included in the bill.
  While the subcommittee received conflicting and sometimes 
contradictory testimony at the August 2 hearing, I believe that four 
principal themes were expressed:
  First, the DOE and the mainstream fusion community strongly support 
the TPX and ITER. However, DOE acknowledged that in a flat budget 
scenario, even building TPX was going to squeeze the program.
  Second, there was widespread acknowledgement of the need for advanced 
materials testing facilities, for, I believe, it is universally 
acknowledged that without the development of advanced materials, the 
mainline magnetic fusion concept, the tokamak, has limited potential of 
ever becoming an economic, environmentally safe power producer.
  Third, there was widespread support for more research on alternative 
fusion concepts, that is, on nontokamak magnetic fusion concepts, 
inertial confinement fusion energy concepts emphasizing heavy ions as a 
driver, and more exotic concepts, such as electrostatic concepts.
  And fourth, Dr. Rebut said, in so many words, is that ITER is doomed 
to failure without significant changes to its management structure. 
ITER is being run by committees, with all decisions requiring 
unanimity, and with a Director with no real decisionmaking authority 
and no budget. This is a recipe for guaranteed failure, and I was not 
comforted by DOE's recommended changes to ITER, which include a new 
Director and a division of the former Director's responsibilities among 
more people. It sounds like the rearranging of chairs on the deck of 
the Titanic.
  It is my opinion that the fusion title, title II, could be 
significantly improved if it included the following:
  First, highlighting the importance and role of advanced materials and 
advanced materials testing facilities. The title does briefly mention 
advanced materials and facilities, but it does not sufficiently 
highlight their importance. And, in fact, the language in section 
208(e) prohibiting the use of funds ``for the design, engineering, or 
construction of any magnetic fusion facility other than ITER, 
facilities related to ITER, and the tokamak physics experiment'' may 
well prohibit U.S. participation in the recently inaugurated 
International Energy Agency's International Fusion Materials 
Irradiation Facility Conceptual Design Activity.
  Second, addressing the ITER management problem. The title directs the 
Secretary to enter into an ITER agreement with international partners, 
but is silent on the preferred management structure. I believe that 
continued U.S. support of ITER should be made contingent on the 
establishment of: (First) ITER as a legal entity with its own budget 
accountable to the international partners; (second) a streamlined, 
efficient management structure, reporting to a single individual, the 
ITER Director, who is empowered to make decisions; and (third) an 
oversight body, such as the ITER Council, which includes individuals 
with knowledge of building large scientific and engineering projects 
and representatives from outside the fusion community. Failure to 
correct, and correct quickly, ITER's basic management flaws, will doom 
the project to failure.
  Third, clarifying what is meant by alternative fusion concepts and 
providing an adequate level of support for those concepts. The title 
limits alternative concepts to only nontoroidal magnetic fusion 
concepts, including heavy ion inertial fusion, aneutronic fusion, and 
electrostatic fusion. This excludes from consideration what most of the 
fusion community also perceives to be alternative concepts--namely, all 
nontokamak fusion concepts, some of which are toroidal, for example, 
the stellarator, reversed-field pinch, spheromak, etc. Furthermore, the 
portion of the budget to be devoted to alternatives is only about 7 
percent, and the bill almost totally earmarks this 7 percent set-aside 
for heavy ion fusion. This means that all alternatives other than heavy 
ion fusion are likely to end up with even loss support than before. I 
believe that a set-aside of the order of 10 percent or greater is more 
in line with the recommendations of broad segment of the fusion 
community, and is a level that should allow heavy ion fusion to proceed 
and other alternatives to be addressed.


  title iii--DOE high energy and nuclear physics authorization act of 
                                  1994

  Title III of the bill, the Department of Energy High Energy and 
Nuclear Physics Authorization Act of 1994, has noble purposes in that 
it attempts to reinvigorate the DOE's High Energy Physics Program 
following the less of the superconducting super collider. It provides 
the administration's fiscal year 1995 request, plus and annual 
inflationary allowances of 3.5 percent annually for 4 fiscal years, 
fiscal year 1996-99. It also provides an additional $50 million per 
year for the 3 fiscal years, fiscal year 1996-98. Finally, it 
authorizes construction of the Tevatron upgrade at the Fermi National 
Accelerator Laboratory, the construction of the B-factory at the 
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and preliminary research, 
development, and planning for the large hadron collider [LHC] at the 
CERN laboratory in Europe.
  The bill also provides a 4-year authorization for DOE's Nuclear 
Physics Program, including adjustments for inflation and the 
termination of Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility by fiscal year 1997, 
and authorizes the construction of the relativistic heavy ion collider 
[RHIC] at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
  However, the title is seriously flawed because it does not cap 
expenditures for the three U.S. construction projects--Tevatron 
Upgrade, B-Factory, and RHIC--and actually authorizes funding of the 
construction and operation of the LHC, without further congressional 
action, upon certification by the Secretary of Energy that there is a 
satisfactory international agreement.
  DOE currently estimates the total project cost [TPC] of the Tevatron 
Upgrade to be $259.3 million, with an additional $146.95 million 
required in fiscal year 1996-98; the TPC of the B-Factory at $293.2 
million, with an additional $168 million required in fiscal year 1996-
98; and the TPC of RHIC at $595.25 million, with an additional $260.436 
million required in fiscal year 1996-99. The cost of a U.S. share of 
the LHC is, of course, unknown at the present time. The failure of this 
title to cap the costs of the Tevatron Upgrade, the B-Factory, and the 
RHIC, as well as the unknown costs of the LHC means that we could be 
facing a situation where cost overruns on one or more of these projects 
would result in the diversion of facility operating funding, and 
require existing facilities to stand idle, clearly an unsatisfactory 
situation.
  A more prudent course would be to cap the costs of the Tevatron 
Upgrade, B-Factory, and RHIC at the current DOE estimates, and to not 
authorize construction or operation funding for the LHC until we know 
what the price tag will be, and what the impact of the LHC's cost will 
be on the operation of these new and other existing facilities. 
Otherwise, we may once again find ourselves in the situation of 
devoting all our scarce research dollars to building facilities that we 
cannot afford to operate.

     Statement of Paul-Henri Rebut, Former Director, International 
 Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER], San Diego Joint Work Site, 
                              La Jolla, CA

       I consider fusion a major source of energy because of the 
     quality of fusion fuel available and due to fusion's low 
     impact on the environment.
       Fusion must certainly play a major role with other sources 
     of energy in the future.
       The most advanced results in fusion have been provided by 
     tokamak reactors. Recent DT experiments, first at JET and 
     then at TFTR, have shown that thermonuclear plasma can be 
     controlled.
       These successful results demonstrate that the construction 
     of an experimental reactor based on the tokamak concept is 
     possible. ITER is such an experimental reactor.
       With ITER, we are at a turning point between plasma 
     research and the reactor. To make the transition, a change in 
     the way of working in the field of fusion is required.
       The four parties, the U.S., EC, Japan, and the Russian 
     federation, have decided to join together for the engineering 
     design activity of ITER and to create four home teams and a 
     joint central team, governed by the ITER Council which 
     operates with the rule of unanimity.
       The joint central team, which is responsible for design 
     integration and the coordination of R&D, is not a legal 
     entity, nor is any significant sum of money directly 
     allocated to it. In my view, this structure is inadequate to 
     organize the project and bring ITER to the point where it can 
     be constructed.
       The representatives of the parties of the ITER Council 
     include mainly the fusion program leaders and representatives 
     of the party at a nontechnical level, and appear to be more 
     interested in the consensus of the parties, resulting in 
     decisions based on the lowest common denominator, and to be 
     more concerned with the work awarded to each home team than 
     by the success of the engineering design activity.
       The ITER Council is mainly interested in political and 
     bureaucratic issues and does not have sufficient 
     comprehension of the requirements of such a large project in 
     terms of organization and technical and scientific 
     challenges. The structure of ITER must be improved and 
     progress towards a ``project oriented'' structure if it is to 
     succeed. Several recommended improvements are discussed in 
     the attached document, ``Evolution of the International 
     Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor Engineering Design 
     Activities,'' presented to the sixth meeting of the ITER 
     Council July 27-28, 1994, written by Paul-Henri Rebut, ITER 
     Director 20 July 1994).
       With such improvements, I am confident that the engineering 
     design activity will be successful and that ITER will 
     demonstrate the reality of fusion as a source of energy.
       I also consider that national experiments like TPX are 
     vital to the support of ITER.
                                  ____


   Evolution of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
                     Engineering Design Activities


                               background

       Until recently, thermonuclear fusion research has been 
     defined as fundamental research with the objective of 
     demonstrating the scientific feasibility of fusion. Steady 
     progress towards this objective has been achieved culminating 
     with the deuterium-tritium (DT) experiment at JET in Europe 
     and lately at TFTR at Princeton.
       The time has come to progress towards demonstrating fusion 
     as an energy source. This requires focusing on construction 
     of an experimental machine for the purpose of demonstrating 
     fusion reactor operation, i.e., controlled ignition and the 
     extended burn of DT plasmas. The machine developed during the 
     ITER Project will be comparable in size and performance to a 
     demonstration reactor, which is the first step in the 
     commercialization of fusion power. It must produce a thermal 
     power in excess of 2 GW for a preliminary construction cost 
     estimated at $8B.
       The size, the cost, and the advanced technologies involved 
     in such a project are beyond the present capabilities of the 
     fusion community at large.
       Succeeding in this endeavor requires an organization 
     allowing direct participation of the scientific fusion 
     community as well as industries and organizations experienced 
     in construction of large and advanced engineering projects.


                           the iter agreement

       The ITER EDA Agreement signed in July 1992 by the European 
     Atomic Energy Community, the Government of Japan, the 
     Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of 
     the United States of America, resulted from a political 
     determination to see the demonstration of fusion as ``a 
     potential source of energy for the benefit of all 
     humankind.'' This international agreement is unprecedented in 
     science and demonstrates the confidence and hope placed in 
     fusion as a source of economical and environmentally benign 
     energy.
       However, cooperation in ITER is limited by the terms of the 
     present Agreement. The Parties signatory to the Agreement 
     operate under the principle of equality and unanimity. These 
     principles lead to management at the minimum common position. 
     Furthermore, the ITER EDA Agreement does not provide for any 
     financial exchanges among Parties, and each Party retains the 
     control of its resources and spending.
       The ITER Project is financed from each Party's fusion 
     program budget; therefore, the existing fusion laboratories 
     see their own budget being reduced. Consequently, ITER is 
     perceived as disrupting the balance of the overall fusion 
     community. Even though the fusion community may support ITER, 
     it is natural that some resistance appears at the fusion 
     program level.
       This resistance is visible in the terms of the ITER 
     Agreement for the Engineering Design Phase. The project is 
     not a legal entity and is not provided with its own 
     independent human and financial resources that are necessary 
     to conduct the design as well as the research and development 
     (R&D) for a project of this magnitude.
       The challenge for ITER is to put in place a proper project 
     structure. This structure must have a defined legal status 
     and a budget for which the ITER Project would be accountable 
     to the Parties. The ITER Council should also enlarge its 
     competence by including individuals with knowledge of 
     building large scientific and engineering projects.


                     status of the iter eda project

       The ITER Project has fulfilled the initial objective of the 
     EDA Agreement by producing an outline design satisfying the 
     detailed technical and cost objectives. This outline design, 
     a supporting attachment to the Protocol 2, has also included 
     the development of a coherent plan of the main R&D activities 
     needed to support and validate the design.
       The Joint Central Team (JCT), established as a working 
     body, is geographically distributed over three Joint Work 
     Sites (JWSs) in Garching, Germany; Naka, Japan; and San 
     Diego, California. The JCT has succeeded in meeting the first 
     major milestone of the project schedule with the ITER Outline 
     Design.
       Some serious structural difficulties have emerged. 
     Primarily, there is the need for the Parties to recognize 
     that the main role of ITER is to be a fundamental step 
     towards achieving fusion. The Parties' fusion programs must 
     support ITER rather than ITER being designed to justify their 
     diverse programs.
       The demonstration of thermonuclear fusion as a viable 
     source of energy will be questionable until this community 
     provides ITER with the necessary resources in manpower and 
     funds to achieve the EDA objectives.


the council and its advisory bodies: technical advisory committee (tac) 
                and management advisory committee (mac)

       The principle of unanimity is common among international 
     organizations but has been applied differently in each case. 
     Flexibility in applying this principle is needed to allow the 
     Council to adapt to evolving circumstances, to protect the 
     interest of the project and to maintain a broad view of 
     fusion research.
       Unanimity must be limited to strategic decisions and not be 
     used to serve each Party's domestic fusion interests. The 
     Parties' view must also incorporate views from outside the 
     fusion community. In practice, those views would be best 
     presented if representatives from outside the fusion 
     community were to sit on the ITER Council.
       Managerial, scientific and technical aspects of the project 
     have generally not been discussed in the Council and the 
     wishes of the TAC and MAC have been directly imposed on the 
     Joint Central Team.
       TAC members are nominated ad personam, but by the Parties. 
     The representation at TAC is too focused on points of physics 
     and not enough on engineering and system integration. 
     Furthermore, the absence of a true project structure tends to 
     favor nationalistic objectives of the TAC members and not the 
     peer review process that the nomination ad personam members 
     was intended to achieve.
       Members of TAC should have direct experience in the 
     construction and/or the exploitation of large fusion 
     projects.
       MAC advises the ITER Council on management issues including 
     R&D managment; the MAC members are representatives of the 
     Parties. The four Home Team Leaders are representatives of 
     the Parties' fusion program devoted to ITER as well as 
     members of MAC. In addition, the Home Team Leaders are 
     responsible to the ITER Director for the execution of ITER 
     R&D Tasks. This dual position of ``judge and judged'' leads 
     to potential conflicts of interest.
       The Home Team Leaders should be responsible to the Director 
     and not members of MAC, which judges the JCT work. Home Team 
     Leaders should sit together with the Joint Central Team at 
     MAC meetings.


         the iter joint central team organization and staffing

       The Parties asked to make the best use of the resources of 
     the Joint Central Team and the Home Teams, but were unable to 
     provide a single site for the Joint Central Team.
       The overall ITER organization is made too complex because 
     the Joint Central Team is spread over the three Joint Work 
     Sites (JWS). For a project of such intrinsic complexity as 
     ITER, these arrangements mitigate against integrating the 
     development of conceptual and engineering design, as well as 
     building an independent team.
       In practice, each JWS develops its own identity at the 
     expense of the project. This leads to duplication of work, 
     increased difficulty integrating the design, a narrow focus 
     on specific systems, and a fragmentation of the project 
     management.
       Centrifugal forces are also at work when considering the 
     pressure exerted by the Parties on the definition and 
     coordination of the R&D programs conducted over three 
     continents.
       With the three sites decision, it was recognized that the 
     authority of the Director had to be increased--this has not 
     been done.
       To remedy these difficulties, the Parties must consider 
     bringing together the Joint Central Team at one site. This 
     arrangement would integrate the ITER JCT into a single Team 
     and facilitate an agreed upon single management approach. In 
     addition, more direct authority must be given to the 
     director.


                    the jct staff and support staff

       The majority of the ITER staff originates from fusion 
     laboratories and universities, while most ITER personnel have 
     not worked on large projects. To form an effective team with 
     the ITER personnel requires time and effort.
       The fact that the JCT personnel are employed by their own 
     Party, not the Project, has made the EDA phase difficult to 
     manage.
       By the end of Protocol 1 only half of the planned resources 
     had been used to achieve the Outline Design. For this first 
     phase, the Parties agreed to provide 150 
     professionals at the three JWSs. As of 1 June 1994, the JCT 
     was understaffed by 40 professionals.
       The Parties must meet their staffing commitments to ITER if 
     the Project is to fulfil the EDA objectives.
       Associated with delays in recruiting personnel is the lack 
     of support staff, which is a serious problem. At the second 
     ITER Council, the Project projected that the design effort of 
     1500 CAD staff years split between the JCT and 
     the Home Teams would be necessary. The present level of 
     designers (i.e., 7 to 8 at each JWS) makes the objective of 
     the EDA impossible to reach.
       No support staff is provided in the JCT for management 
     systems maintenance and control. Professionals are 
     responsible for these burdens in addition to their normal 
     duties. A total of 20 support staff should be provided for 
     this work.
       No support has been provided for the administrative tasks 
     of the Project, nor have support personnel been provided for 
     Quality Assurance and the integration of the R&D program.
       Possible ways to improve these staffing conditions include: 
     (1) providing 1 to 1 direct support per JCT professional; 
     (ii) to provide an estimated budget of $25M per year to the 
     Project, through the Joint Fund, to hire the additional 
     support personnel required with the necessary computer 
     hardware and software.


  the conceptual design activities (cda) heritage and special working 
                            group #1 (SWG1)

       The ITER CDA Final Report as well as the progress of the 
     research and development in controlled thermonuclear fusion 
     served as the basis for beginning the EDA.
       The ITER CDA Design was the sum of different conceptual 
     studies and did not constitute a coherent project. This 
     prompted the establishment of the Special Working Group 1 to 
     define the detailed technical objectives of ITER.
       A more detailed study of the CDA Final Report did not 
     provide convincing solutions in the most difficult areas, for 
     example, the elements facing the plasma. The overall cost of 
     $4.9B (1989 value) underestimated the cost of superconductor 
     magnets by a factor of 1.6 which in practice brings the CDA 
     cost around $5.6B (89).
       Therefore, the EDA was started on the understanding that 
     the Project would continue the activities initiated during 
     the CDA. But the incorporation of the Detailed Technical 
     Objectives and the focus on a single integrated design 
     resulted in a redefinition of the machine.


                          the iter eda design

       It is fundamental to realize that the design requirements 
     for an experiment of such novelty and technical challenge 
     result from an iterative process and cannot be defined a 
     priori. The definition of the requirements for each element 
     or subsystem of the machine and its auxiliaries represents at 
     least a major part of the work. This work is taking place 
     essentially within the Joint Central Team and through 
     interactions with the House Teams.
       To that end, the outline design presented to the ITER 
     Council fulfils the detailed objectives for a cost of ($5.6B 
     (89) equivalent to the CDA costing.
       The general choice of the proposed parameters results from 
     engineering and physics constraints. The overall machine 
     (dimensions, magnetic field, shielding) is at the minimum 
     size when realistic operating conditions are taken into 
     account. This includes the presence of helium ash, 
     impurities, divertor, pumping, etc., as well as the 
     requirement to work inside the maximum operating limits to 
     avoid instabilities and disruptions that are observed in 
     operating tokamaks.
       The cost of the machine depends strongly on the quality of 
     the design. Equally, construction costs depend upon future 
     agreement between the Parties on the nature of the 
     procurement process.
       The present design is already optimized and little or no 
     cost saving can be expected by adopting changes to the 
     machine while still maintaining the Detailed Technical 
     Objective.


                             the r&d issue

       In the initial period of Protocol 1, with the absence of a 
     design and with the limitation of staff, a comprehensive ITER 
     R&D program could not be defined. This has caused friction 
     between the JCT and the Home Teams and led to the development 
     of procedures, '93 Emergency Task Agreements, to slowly 
     modify the R&D efforts of each party, and limit the 
     duplication of tasks.
       Nevertheless, of the $750M (1989) of the technical R&D 
     budget, $200M were committed as of January 1994 and another 
     $100M has been defined.
       The focused R&D program which is needed for ITER will be 
     achieved only if a minimum of 20% of the R&D budget is put 
     directly at the disposal of the ITER project 
     ($25M/yr.). This will also allow the financing of 
     the R&D that no Party is willing to undertake without 
     external payment as a part of their national program.


                              conclusions

       The outline design proposed in time for the signature of 
     Protocol 2 represents a major achievement of the Joint 
     Central Team and the Home Teams. It establishes the basis for 
     a successful ITER Project.
       Only one reactor of the ITER class is planned to be built 
     in the world. A true international collaboration must permit 
     an increase of the technical margins required for the reactor 
     as well as provide savings for each Party. This can be 
     achieved by sharing the construction and R&D costs and 
     avoiding duplications of effort at the world fusion community 
     level.
       A slight increase in machine size would provide a higher 
     degree of confidence that this machine will fulfil its 
     technical objectives.
       The project will only reach a state where it could be 
     financed for construction if the Parties improve the EDA 
     structure and provide the proper resources and environment to 
     fulfil the EDA tasks.

  I would close by commending the efforts of the chairman of the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Brown, the committee's 
ranking Republican member, Mr. Walker, the chairman of the Energy 
Subcommittee, Mrs. Lloyd, the chairman of the Science Subcommittee, Mr. 
Boucher, and the Science Subcommittee's ranking Republican member, Mr. 
Boehlert, for all their hard work on this bill. I look forward to the 
debate and to supporting efforts to improving the bill's provisions.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the hard work he 
has put in on this bill and for his articulation of a number of the 
issues that arose during this time. I understand completely his 
concerns about the cap, and I know that that is a concern to the 
gentleman, because obviously he has a deep interest in some of the 
things that are involved in those other programs.
  As the gentleman well knows, however, the effort here was aimed at 
insuring the prioritization of programs along the lines of the 
committee, and it is not the intent of the committee that this will 
undermine or destroy other programs. We simply want the department to 
refocus on that.
  I think maybe it might be well if I, hopefully along with the 
chairman of the committee, could do a letter to DOE explaining the 
intent of the caps is that, and is not aimed at in any way undermining 
other valuable efforts that are underway. This might help alleviate 
some of the concerns the gentleman has expressed.
  I think to some extent there has been a misunderstanding within some 
of the scientific community about the nature of the caps, because 
actually the caps are well above any kind of anticipated appropriation 
levels. So it is simply an ensuring that there is some flexibility 
within the appropriations process for all of the programs included 
under the accounts.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
guess perhaps what we ought to be thinking about is having 
authorizations fully covering all of the activities of the Energy 
Supply R&D account, rather than just one or two. This is when we fall 
into a problem, when we have a cap upon the whole account.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, I think the 
gentleman is absolutely right, and I think the chairman would agree 
with me what we would prefer to have is all of these programs fully 
authorized and get it through the entire process so the whole range of 
energy programs are operating under priorities established by the 
authorizing committees in the Congress.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this preceding dialogue has well illustrated the nature 
of the divisions that we had within the committee with regard to the 
cap issue. On each side of the aisle, there are those who support and 
those who do not support the idea of caps. In this particular 
situation, on this legislation, it is more complex than normal, because 
we have some capped programs and some uncapped programs within the same 
area, and we also have, of course, the restrictions placed upon us, as 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] pointed out, by the Budget 
Act of 2 years ago, and similarly by the President's budget which sets 
its own caps, by the House and Senate resolutions which set caps. It is 
a little difficult to analyze the impact of this combination of 
different sorts of caps applied to different kinds of situations.
  Now, the additional point that I wish to make is that this problem is 
even more complicated by the lack of adequate authorization for the 
full scope of programs within the civilian R&D activities of the 
Department of Energy. We have pointed this out in the package. We have 
tried to point out some of the reasons for it.
  This area of the Department of Energy, civilian research and 
development, represents one of the largest areas which consistently 
over the years has not had an authorization. We have seen the impacts 
of this on such things as the superconducting super collider, and we 
are now beginning to understand as we move forward with other 
potentially very large programs, such as the construction of a fusion 
power plant, that that lack of an adequate authorization may lead to 
the same kinds of difficulties that faced us on the superconducting 
super collider. We want to avoid that.
  Another problem that arises out of this lack of authorization is the 
tendency of our friends in the appropriations committees in both the 
House and the Senate to look upon this as kind of a little piggy bank 
which they can reach into, since there is no authorized legislation on 
it, for those things that seem important to them. This can include all 
sorts of wonderful things, which we are well aware of: financing of 
projects in the districts of members of the Committee on 
Appropriations, or friends of members of the Committee on 
Appropriations, which really do not directly relate to the functions of 
the Department of Energy.
  Now, I do not want to get involved in a long discussion of earmarks 
at this point, but I do want to indicate that what we are doing here is 
a part of the efforts that our committee has been making for a number 
of years to follow orderly process in the Congress of the United 
States, to authorize where authorizations were necessary, to try and 
avoid undue use of earmarks for funding scientific research programs 
and facilities. This bill moves us a long way forward and is important 
for that reason alone, aside from the content of the bill.
  We are at a circumstance in which we seem to have, and I applaud our 
colleagues in the other body, we seem to have a movement on the part of 
the Senate to recognize the importance of moving toward a fully 
authorized civilian research and development program in the Department 
of Energy.
  Mr. WALKER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend you for those remarks, 
and also for the leadership you provide in that way. I know the use of 
that orderly process has meant that we can also use an orderly process 
within the House that allows us to come to the floor today under a open 
rule and consider these matters under the regular order within the 
House of Representatives as well. Hopefully this is the kind of pattern 
that we would see replicated, because I think your leadership has 
allowed us to, within the committee, set some standards, but also then 
bring bills to the floor that also meet the standard rules of process 
here. Really that is the way we ought to be proceeding with a lot of 
the legislation in the House.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4908, the hydrogen and fusion research and development authorization 
bill.
  The world will need increased energy supplies for central station 
electricity by the year 2050. It is essential that these sources have 
favorable environmental and safety features as well as an abundant fuel 
supply. The diminishing supply of fossil fuels, currently providing the 
main energy source for the Nation, are polluting our environment. In 
order to meet the demand without environmental degradation, nonfossil 
energy technologies must be developed. We must establish fundamental 
knowledge in developing energy sources and to institute the scientific 
and technological base required for achieving hydrogen and fusion 
energy.
  H.R. 4908 would provide for the development and demonstration of the 
processes needed to produce, store, transport and utilize hydrogen and 
to foster industry participation in all aspects of the current Federal 
program. Passage of this bill would guarantee funding for research and 
development of this much needed energy technology. This bill would also 
provide program direction for the Department of Energy's Fusion Energy 
Research Program. The initiative would see that alternative fusion 
concepts receive adequate funding and would accelerate the U.S. 
commitment to participation in ITER and work on helping to select a 
sight for the project.
  The development of fusion energy will help the Nation's energy 
security and enable the U.S. to supply a practical energy technology to 
markets around the world. TPX, the facility at the Princeton Plasma 
Physics Laboratory, has been identified as the next major step in the 
National Fusion Program. TPX is a unique facility among international 
fusion programs. It will enable U.S. industry to gain experience in the 
design and fabrication of fusion components for the first time in over 
a decade, a period during which our ITER partners have been building 
new devices and major upgrades to facilities. The United States has 
already made significant contributions to the tokamak and the global 
efforts to develop fusion energy. It is the path to commercialization 
and the right choice for our country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4908, and oppose any amendments 
to cap spending on energy supply and general science research and 
development [R&D] programs at the Department of Energy.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on my 
side, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to elaborate on some of the remarks made by the 
gentleman from New Jersey having to do with TPX.
  I think all of us understand, and this bill fully lays out a path for 
the future of the development of fusion energy in this country, which 
is currently the subject of probably the most extensive international 
cooperation in science that we have, the so-called ITER project, which 
involves scientists from the United States, from Europe, from Japan, 
and from Russia.
  Teams from each of these countries are currently in the final stages 
of developing the engineering design for the first prototype power 
plant, using fusion energy, which should be under construction within 
the next 4 or 5 years and be completed. perhaps, by 2005.
  During that rather lengthy period of time, 10 years or more, we need 
to continue with the research necessary to improve the processes of 
fusion energy. This is the purpose of the program which the gentleman 
from New Jersey referred to, the TPX, which will allow the fusion 
scientists and that community of scientists to continue to work on the 
improvements in the fusion process itself that will finally lead to 
improvements in the design beyond the first prototype power plant to 
the fully commercial power plants which will be begin to construct and 
deploy in the years probably after 2010.
  All of these things come together in a comprehensive, long-term 
program, of which the TPX is an absolutely essential ingredient. I 
thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing that up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the measure 
before us today, and wish to communicate my great respect for Chairman 
Brown and Chairman Lloyd for their hard work in crafting this 
legislation.
  Fusion is a critical and necessary component of the world's future 
energy supply, and this Nation must not surrender our lead in this 
scientific field as we did in particle physics when we killed the 
supercollider.
  Mr. Chairman, the world petroleum supply may expire in as little as 
60 years. Where will the world energy supply from then? How will our 
children and grandchildren continue to maintain our quality of life?
  The world is growing and maturing. But in order for our quality and 
standards of living to continue, our levels of energy production must 
continue to grow. In order for Third World countries to evolve, they 
must have a number of things: modern medicine, improved transportation, 
and simple things that they do not now have, such as clean water. You 
can have none of these things, but even pure drinking water, without 
energy.
  And in order to have that energy supply for much of the world, we 
need a plentiful, inexpensive source. Fusion seems to be the answer. 
With commercialization just a few decades away, this scientific 
investment in our future is one of the most critical efforts we can 
conduct for future generations. Fusion fuel is as plentiful as 
seawater, and fusion reactors will be safe and productive.
  Japan, Europe, and the Russians are poised to seize the lead in 
fusion from this country. Fusion is quality science, and its potential 
is something we must not abandon. Otherwise, in just a few decades, we 
will be purchasing our electricity from abroad.
  We must invest in those steps that will take us to commercial fusion 
energy production. The administration strongly supports the fusion 
program and the international thermonuclear energy reactor, or ITER, 
which is based on the tokamak concept. In order to produce the ITER, we 
must continue work on the tokamak physics experiment, or TPX, at 
Princeton University.
  The TPX will be an advanced fusion reactor that will be the first 
major fusion machine to operate continuously. For this country to 
maintain its global position in the fusion market, the tokamak physics 
experiment must continue.
  Fusion is the same process that powers our sun and the stars. One out 
of every 6,500 atoms of hydrogen in ordinary water is the fusion fuel 
deuterium, also called heavy hydrogen, giving each gallon of water the 
energy content of 300 gallons of gasoline.
  Mr. Chairman, this makes the fusion fuel supply virtually 
inexhaustible. Fusion produces no high-level radioactive waste, and 
will eventually cost about the same as modern-day electricity. 
Commercial application is expected in less than 30 years: the petroleum 
supply is expected to run out in less than 60 years.
  Because the Department of Energy estimates that world energy needs 
will be about four times the current demand in the year 2050, we must 
begin building now for those huge future energy needs.
  This legislation is a strong step forward in that direction, and I am 
pleased to support it here today.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4908, the 
Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and Nuclear Physics Research Act of 
1994. I want to congratulate Chairman Brown, the committee, and the 
subcommittee members for bringing to the floor an excellent bill.
  Mr. Chairman, by the year 2050, the world will need to supply between 
two and three times as much energy as is presently produced to meet 
minimum requirements for food, shelter, transportation, and economic 
security. Meeting the increased energy demands of the year 2050 cannot 
be achieved without substantial environmental degradation unless there 
is a massive shift from dependence on fossil fuels which today provide 
more than three-quarters of all energy supply. Fossil fuels, the main 
energy source of the present, have provided this country with 
tremendous supply but are limited and polluting.
  Hydrogen is one solution to our long-term energy needs. Hydrogen 
holds tremendous promise as a new and better energy source because it 
secures a practically infinite supply from water and combusts purely to 
water. This bill provides for the development and demonstration of the 
processes and technologies needed to produce, store, transport, and 
utilize hydrogen for transportation, industrial, residential, and 
utility applications.
  Fusion energy is one of the nonfossil fuel technologies which could 
potentially provide safe, abundant, environmentally sound, secure, and 
affordable energy supplies in the future. This bill provides direction 
for a broadly based fusion energy research, development, and 
demonstration program. It also ensures that alternative fusion concepts 
receive adequate funding and management attention from the Department 
of Energy.
  National and international energy experts agree that high energy 
physics is important to our efforts to understand the nuclear and 
subnuclear building blocks of energy and matter. Nationally, we have a 
whole generation of young scientists that are threatened with the 
prospect of not being able to find work in their chosen profession.
  This year, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee made a 
difficult decision to put more money into high energy physics to partly 
restore the operating time young physicists need to conduct their 
experiments. This bill sends a message to the scientific community that 
the Federal Government will not renege on its investment in scientific 
research.
  Mr. Chairman, advanced technologies such as fusion, geothermal, wind, 
and solar energy should all be part of a federally funded effort to rid 
our Nation of its dependence on foreign oil. Our national security 
demands no less. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered under the 5-minute rule 
by title. Each title is considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4908

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hydrogen, Fusion, and High 
     Energy and Nuclear Physics Research Act of 1994''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2. The text of section 2 is 
as follows:

     SEC. 2. GENERAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) by the year 2050, the world will need to supply between 
     2 and 3 times as much energy as is presently produced to meet 
     minimum requirements for food, shelter, transportation, and 
     economic security;
       (2) meeting the increased energy demands of the year 2050 
     cannot be achieved without substantial environmental 
     degradation unless there is a massive shift from dependence 
     on fossil fuels which today provide more than three-quarters 
     of all energy supply;
       (3) a wide variety of nonfossil fuel energy technologies 
     must be developed to meet the expected demand of the year 
     2050;
       (4) the Federal Government has a responsibility to fund 
     research in energy technologies to help meet future expected 
     energy demand where the technical or economic risks of 
     development are too high, or the development time is too 
     long, to be borne solely by the private sector, or where the 
     benefits accrue to all and cannot be recouped by a private 
     investor; and
       (5) despite the urgent need to develop a wide variety of 
     nonfossil energy technologies, the Federal Government's 
     investment in all energy supply research and development 
     (including fossil fuels) has declined in real terms by more 
     than two-thirds in the last 14 years.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 3. The text of section 3 is 
as follows:

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``alternative fusion concepts'' means any 
     concepts for the production of energy based on the fusing of 
     atomic nuclei other than toriodal magnetic fusion concepts, 
     including heavy ion inertial fusion, aneutronic fusion, and 
     electrostatic fusion;
       (2) the term ``demonstration'' means a demonstration to 
     determine technological and economic feasibility;
       (3) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
       (4) the term ``Fusion Energy Research Program'' means the 
     program described in section 203;
       (5) the term ``host country'' means the country selected by 
     the international partners as the site for the ITER facility;
       (6) the term ``international partners'' means the United 
     States, the European Atomic Energy Community, Japan, and the 
     Russian Federation;
       (7) the term ``ITER'' means the International Thermonuclear 
     Experimental Reactor;
       (8) the term ``magnetic fusion'' means fusion based on 
     toroidal confinement concepts;
       (9) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy; 
     and
       (10) the term ``Tokamak Physics Experiment'' means a 
     facility to replace the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor which is 
     designed to be capable of conducting experiments on reactions 
     with a pulse length of at least 15 minutes and demonstrating 
     a more compact and efficient magnetic fusion reactor design.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3.
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
               TITLE I--HYDROGEN ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Hydrogen Future Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) fossil fuels, the main energy source of the present, 
     have provided this country with tremendous supply but are 
     limited and polluting, and their production and utilization 
     technologies are mature;
       (2) the basic scientific fundamentals are needed for 
     private sector investment and development of new and better 
     energy sources and enabling technologies;
       (3) hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a new and better 
     energy source because it secures a practically infinite 
     supply from water and combusts purely to water;
       (4) hydrogen production efficiency is a major technical 
     barrier to society collectively benefitting from one of the 
     great energy sources of the future;
       (5) an aggressive, results-oriented, multiyear research 
     initiative on efficient hydrogen fuel production and use 
     should continue; and
       (6) the current Federal effort to develop hydrogen as a 
     fuel is inadequate.

     SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to provide for the development and demonstration of the 
     processes and technologies needed to produce, store, 
     transport, and utilize hydrogen for transportation, 
     industrial, residential, and utility applications; and
       (2) to foster industry participation during each stage of 
     the Department of Energy hydrogen research, development, and 
     demonstration program to ensure that technology transfer to 
     the private sector occurs to develop viable, marketable 
     products.

     SEC. 104. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Program Goal.--The goal of the program described in 
     this section is the demonstration, by the year 2000, of the 
     practicability of utilizing hydrogen for transportation, 
     industrial, residential and utility applications on a broad 
     scale.
       (b) Production.--The Secretary shall support hydrogen 
     energy production research, development, and demonstration in 
     the following areas, including funding for at least 1 
     technical demonstration in each such area:
       (1) Photoconversion.
       (2) Bioconversion.
       (3) Electrolysis of water.
       (c) Storage.--The Secretary shall support research, 
     development, and demonstration of safe and economical storage 
     of hydrogen, both for onboard vehicle and stationary use. 
     Such research, development, and demonstration should be aimed 
     at improving existing methods and developing new approaches 
     in each of the following areas, including funding for at 
     least 1 technical demonstration in each such area:
       (1) Hydrides and porous materials.
       (2) Liquefaction and cryogenics.
       (3) Compressed gas, especially low-temperature dense gas.
       (4) Advanced methods, such as iron oxide, microspheres, and 
     phase change materials.
       (d) Use.--The Secretary shall support hydrogen energy 
     research, development, and demonstration for each of the 
     following uses, including funding for at least 1 technical 
     demonstration in each such area:
       (1) Fuel cell systems for stationary applications.
       (2) Fuel cell systems for mobile applications.
       (3) Electricity generation using hydrogen as a fuel source 
     for utility and industrial applications.
       (4) Heating and cooling using hydrogen.
       (e) Transportation.--The Secretary shall support research, 
     development, and demonstration of safe, efficient, and 
     nonpolluting hydrogen-based transportation vehicles of the 
     following types, including funding for at least 1 technical 
     demonstration of each such type:
       (1) An economically feasible, low emission motor vehicle 
     using hydrogen as a combustible power supply, either in pure 
     form or mixed with other fuels, in a hybrid electric vehicle 
     using a hydrogen fuel cell.
       (2) An economically feasible, zero emission or low emission 
     engine using hydrogen.
       (f) Schedule.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall solicit proposals for 
     carrying out the research and development activities 
     authorized under this section. Awards of financial assistance 
     shall be made within 1 year after such date of enactment.
       (g) Cost Sharing.--(1) Except as otherwise provided in 
     section 105, for research and development programs carried 
     out under this title, the Secretary shall require a 
     commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of 
     the cost of the project. The Secretary may reduce or 
     eliminate the non-Federal requirement under this paragraph if 
     the Secretary determines that the research and development is 
     of a basic or fundamental nature.
       (2) The Secretary shall require at least 50 percent of the 
     costs directly and specifically related to any demonstration 
     project under this title to be provided from non-Federal 
     sources. The Secretary may reduce the non-Federal requirement 
     under this paragraph if the Secretary determines that the 
     reduction is necessary and appropriate considering the 
     technological risks involved in the project and is necessary 
     to serve the purposes and goals of this title.
       (3) In calculating the amount of the non-Federal commitment 
     under paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary shall include cash, 
     personnel, services, equipment, and other resources.
       (h) Duplication of Programs.--Nothing in this title shall 
     require the duplication of activities carried out under 
     otherwise authorized programs of the Department of Energy.

     SEC. 105. HIGHLY INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

       Of the amounts made available for carrying out section 104, 
     up to 5 percent may be used to support research on highly 
     innovative energy technologies. Such amounts shall not be 
     subject to the cost sharing requirements in section 104(g).

     SEC. 106. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

       The Secretary shall foster the exchange of generic, 
     nonproprietary information and technology developed pursuant 
     to section 104, or other similiar Federal programs, among 
     industry, academia, and the Federal Government with regard to 
     production and use of hydrogen.

     SEC. 107. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Congress a detailed report on the status and progress of the 
     Department of Energy's hydrogen research, development, and 
     demonstration programs. Such report shall include an analysis 
     of the effectiveness of such programs, to be prepared and 
     submitted by the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel 
     established under section 108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga 
     Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 
     1990. Such Panel shall also make recommendations for 
     improvements to such programs if needed, including 
     recommendations for additional legislation.

     SEC. 108. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.

       (a) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--The 
     Secretary shall coordinate all hydrogen research, 
     development, and demonstration activities with other Federal 
     agencies involved in similar research, development, and 
     demonstration, including the Department of Defense and the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel established under section 
     108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, 
     and Demonstration Act of 1990 as necessary in carrying out 
     this title.

     SEC. 109. REPEAL.

       Sections 104 and 105 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen 
     Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990 are 
     repealed.

     SEC. 110. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) General Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this title, in 
     addition to any amounts made available for such purposes 
     under other Acts--
       (1) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
       (2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
       (4) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       (b) Related Authorizations.--For each fiscal year from 1995 
     through 1998, the total amount authorized to be appropriated 
     for Energy Supply Research and Development Activities shall 
     not exceed $3,302,170,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 10, line 16, after 
     the period add: The Panel shall also report on the financial 
     participation of foreign participants.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that the way this is 
drafted that it would, in fact, be applicable to the entire bill.
  I would like to know if I can have leave from the chairman and the 
ranking member to preserve and protect my right to offer the amendment 
that would cover the entire bill.
  Let me just say this, before I yield to the chairman, I have not 
brought any specific language relative to any even suggestions for 
American-made products covered under this bill because of the foreign 
participation element. And I believe they have crafted a fine bill, and 
I will honor that.
  Let this amendment is more specifically dedicated to the fact that we 
went through a fiasco on the collider, and I supported the collider, 
supported the committee, but we had a foreign participation program.
  One of the bad raps, when it came down, and Members started falling 
on their swords around here, was that the foreign participation that 
was boasted about in the construct of the bill never came about when 
the dollars were supported to be commingled with American taxpayers, 
dollars.
  My amendment simply says in any reporting apparatus subject to this 
bill, as it relates to foreign participation, there shall be specific 
financial participation of these foreign participants into the project 
as it is, in fact, designed, promulgated, and constructed.
  But with that, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is drafted to title I. I 
do not know if that would require unanimous consent that the amendment 
be applicable to the entire bill.
  If not, I would redraft it and like to have the opportunity to 
protect such and offer it in the future. But if a unanimous consent 
would be applicable, I would like that this amendment be applicable to 
all titles and elements of the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is 
attempting to do, but his amendment is drafted in such a way that it 
would totally wipe out section 107 of the bill now before us, 
substitute this section and then the language in the gentleman's 
amendment makes no sense, if the rest of the section 107 is not there 
and the amendment would not apply to the entire bill. Because the way 
the amendment is drafted, it refers to a panel that exists in section 
107 that would then be wiped out by the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is now, in fact, 
reflecting that as a sentence, an add-on is sentence to 107; 107 would 
remain.
  Mr. WALKER. That is, in fact, I think the gentleman's intent. But the 
amendment is not drafted in that fashion. It is offered as a separate 
section 107, and it does not state where this sentence would come.
  If the gentleman intends to have this say that at the end of section 
107, the following sentence would be added, that, in fact, would 
resolve some of the technical problems. But in its present form, that 
is not the case.
  I would also suggest to the gentleman that the amendment in its 
present form does not relate to the entire bill because now it 
specifically refers to a panel. I assume he means the Matsunaga 
Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act Technical 
Advisory Panel. That would have no application to the rest of the bill.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Let me say this. I have already discussed this with 
the Parliamentarian. It would be an additional sentence to 107, and 
that this technical language would in fact be modified to effect that 
goal, and the gentleman is correct.
  In addition to that, I would want to then offer a similar amendment, 
of a similar nature, in an appropriate spot that would handle that in 
all items covered elsewhere in the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I 
would simply say to the gentleman if that is his intention, we are 
operating here under the open rule. He needs no permission from us to 
do that. When we get to title 4 of the bill, which is a general 
provision, a miscellaneous provisions section, he can certainly draft 
an amendment that would require reports on foreign participation in 
these various programs, and that would be far more appropriate in that 
vein than it is in the way that it is drafted in this particular 
section.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I have no objection to the gentleman's 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, if it is drafted in proper form and applied to 
the correct section of the bill. If the gentleman will take the time to 
do that and offer it at a later stage, the Chair would be glad to 
accept it at that point.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would take the advice of the ranking 
member, would appreciate that, and would confer with both, and would in 
fact fashion the language and it would require no further debate here.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I have no 
problem with the gentleman offering language that identifies who the 
foreign participants are in these various programs. That is no problem.
  I just think we ought to do it in a way here that reflects the bill 
and does not perhaps put it in section where it would not appropriately 
reflect what he is trying to do.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate the advice and counsel. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title I?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bills that have been 
proposed by my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  I come to the well today to speak in favor of this legislation, as 
someone who has spent 10 years in the energy business before I came to 
the Congress, and has some understanding of the tremendous benefits 
that our Nation currently gains from the use of hydrocarbons, and coal, 
and oil, and gas, and the tremendous amount of productivity that our 
society has gained from those fuels.
  I also rise with a keen awareness of the terrible downside risks that 
have occurred as a result of the pollutants that those fuels have 
dumped in our atmosphere, on our rivers and in our streams, and they 
are in our roadways. The fact is that our air is becoming more and more 
dirty, whether we walk around Washington, DC, Boston, MA, or Los 
Angeles. If we walk in the gentleman's own State of Pennsylvania and 
see the tremendous amount of pollution that the coal mills used to 
crank out in that State, it does not take a genius to recognize that we 
have to come up with some other alternative.
  The Nation, then, turned in the mid 1960's to the notion that nuclear 
fission could be the answer, that this was going to be a cheap and easy 
way for our energy needs to be met through high technology. What we did 
not understand at the time was the tremendous downside risks of nuclear 
fission. We saw the possibilities of disaster at Three Mile Island, we 
saw the disasters, the potential disasters and the tremendous amount of 
cost associated with dealing with nuclear waste.
  It seems to me if we really analyze where out energy future lies, our 
energy future lies in nuclear fusion. If we look at the array of 
opportunities that are provided in this bill, from fusion to hydrogen 
energy to high energy nuclear physics, which happens to be a program 
that has been advanced at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
these are all three the fundamental building blocks of how the United 
States, and I hope the rest of the world, can solve the tremendous 
energy problems that we are facing as we enter the 21st century.
  If the United States puts the necessary resources into the research 
and development of these three energy sources at this time, then I 
think that the huge worries and concerns that many of us have in our 
guts about where our kids are going to be able to find the fuels that 
they need to run this world when they become our Congressmen and 
Senators, when they become the leaders of not only the United States 
but people all over the world, when they have to deal with the 
fundamental problems of the environment, it will be the vision that is 
provided by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and others by providing the support and 
funding that is necessary in this bill, that are going to make the 
difference.
  When we talk about research and development and the Clinton 
administration's commitment to putting an 80-percent increase in the 
research and development in this country, nothing could be more 
important than putting the funding into this particular piece of 
legislation. Once again, nuclear fusion, hydrogen energy, and high 
energy nuclear physics, I believe are going to be the future of not 
only the United States but the energy problems that the world is 
facing.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much want to congratulate the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] on the tremendous work he and his committee have 
done. This, again, is the key to our Nation's future energy supplies, 
which will be, again, the future of our solving the horrific problems 
of the pollution and the environmental hazards we face as a nation. I 
just wanted to come over and, again, thank all those Members who worked 
hard on this bill, and look forward to supporting it in a few minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the chairman, for the kind 
consideration he has shown to me regarding my efforts with regard to 
the fusion debate in the Congress of the United States. It is a 
pleasure to serve on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
under his leadership, and I think that what he and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] have accomplished on the committee has been 
formidable and impressive, and I congratulate the two of them for their 
work.
  I would like to make a few comments about the fusion energy research 
title of this bill. I believe that fusion research represents an 
important national development, and I strongly support fusion research 
and development. However, I have some concerns about the direction of 
the current fusion program, and I would like to discuss them on the 
record.
  Mr. Chairman, in this bill, the fusion program would remain focused 
almost exclusively on funding for the takamak concept, despite the fact 
that important questions remain unsolved about the ultimate commercial 
viability of the takamak reactor because of problems with cost, 
complexity, realiabiity, and radioactive waste.
  I also remain concerned about plans for construction of the takamak 
physics experiment and construction of the ITER project, the 
international takamak fusion effort in which the United States is a 
partner.
  This bill does, however, Mr. Chairman, take some small steps in the 
right direction. It calls for the Secretary of Energy to make various 
certifications to the Congress regarding the takamak physics 
experiment. It also specifically states that no funds are authorized 
for the construction of the ITER project.
  The bill also calls for a review of the fusion program. This is 
similar to a provision in legislation which I introduced earlier this 
year, the Fusion Energy Research Accountability Act.
  A review of the fusion program is also called for in the fiscal year 
1995 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This much-needed review of 
the fusion program should help shape the future direction of our 
Nation's effort in this critical area.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill recently passed by this body 
also calls for the design activity only on the takamak physics 
experiment, which I believe is a wise step in light of the uncertainty 
in the fusion program, uncertainties which should hopefully be cleared 
up during the upcoming year.
  I am sure that my colleagues would agree about the importance of 
fusion in our Nation's energy future, which was so eloquently stated by 
my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] just 
previously. I am also confident that my colleagues would agree that we 
need to ensure that the funds which are being spent on fusion are used 
as wisely as possible.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman of the 
committee. I applaud his efforts in this regard. I have confidence that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will ensure that every dollar 
that taxpayers put into the fusion program will be wisely spent and 
will have an effective output that will ultimately solve or help solve 
the energy problems that this country is facing and will continue to 
face in the years ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues on the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology continue this important effort, keep the 
vigilance going, and make sure that we provide the best fusion 
technology that this country can get.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a vital step in securing a safe and 
sustainable energy future for the 21st century. Rarely do we have the 
opportunity to engage in policymaking that is so forward looking. I 
want to thank Chairman Brown and the ranking member, Mr. Walker, as 
well as Energy Subcommittee Chairman Marilyn Lloyd and Science 
Subcommittee Chairman Boucher for their leadership in getting this bill 
to the floor.
  This bill provides valuable support for many vital programs, but I 
want to take a few minutes to discuss one that I believe is of critical 
importance: the fusion program and in particular, the tokamak physics 
experiment.
  As the world population grows and the demand for energy increases, 
the energy needed to a support our industrialized economy and our 
lifestyles will be daunting. There is no doubt that we will need 
central power sources in the 21st century.
  Fusion is part of the solution. It offers the promise of a safe and 
environmentally sensitive energy technology, one that we could export 
to growing energy markets around the globe. Fusion's abundant fuel 
supply--ordinary water, and its safety and environmental features make 
it a sound investment for American taxpayers.
  In December, the Princeton tokamak used--for the first time--a 
commercial grade fuel mixture to produce 6 million watts of fusion 
power. The results of these extremely successful experiments are very 
significant and represent a new level of maturity in fusion energy 
development. The Department's proposal to move forward with 
construction of the tokamak physics experiment [TPX] is an indication 
that the program is addressing practical fusion energy issues. TPX will 
be the first advanced, steady-state fusion machine and it will address 
physics and engineering issues that will help industry design and build 
a more compact, economic fusion reactor. TPX is unique among world 
fusion efforts and it is a necessary step along the path to commercial 
fusion power. If American industry can design and build a machine that 
will help build a smaller, more compact power source, it will give us 
an edge on our economic competitors in harnessing this promising energy 
technology and serving the energy markets of the future.
  We all know that one criticism of the U.S. fusion program is that 
practical fusion power is still decades away. The current DOE plan 
calls for demonstration reactor by 2025 and for more than a decade, the 
major steps to practical fusion power have been identified. The time to 
move forward is now. DOE should be held accountable and they should be 
expected to met milestones along the way. The successful Princeton 
experiments are a good example of a milestone that DOE and the fusion 
program promised American taxpayers and then delivered on. The 
Princeton fusion project is not only doing what is promised to do, but 
it will complete its program with less funding than was projected when 
it started operations.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly this is a program that deserves support. I 
again congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] and all those who have been responsible for leading the fight on 
its behalf.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this legislation, and 
in particular in opposition to any efforts to cap energy supply 
research and development that may evolve here.
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown], the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], and particularly the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, for their good work in bringing 
this bill to the House. I think it does a good job of allocating funds 
to a variety of very important energy research and development programs 
that are critical to helping us meet our future energy needs. For 
example, I am glad to see that the bill protects funding for fusion 
energy research conducted both at the takamak reactor and for eventual 
participation in the international thermonuclear experiment reactor. 
Overall, the bill is an important step toward decreasing our dependence 
on foreign sources of energy, reducing future environmental problems, 
and very importantly, creating good-paying jobs for Americans.
  I urge Members to oppose any efforts that may be made to cap R&D 
funding in this bill. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
estimates that such caps would result in large cuts for research and 
solar and renewable energy sources, in environmental safety and health 
research, and in environmental restoration and waste management 
research. While I strongly support as my colleagues do efforts to 
reduce the budget deficit, I believe a cap on investments in these 
areas of research is the wrong way to do it.
  Last year's budget agreement containing spending is working quite 
well. For proof we only have to listen to the comments of Members from 
both sides of the aisle during the course of the appropriations work 
that we have done over the last several months who have been lamenting 
how these bills are cracking down on programs that are of vital 
interest to them. To create an additional cap even further than the 
overall allocation caps in the budget agreement would only further 
reduce our discretion over allocation of funds in again what I think is 
a critical area for the country's economic and environmental future. A 
funding cap here also blindly, I think, singles out one area of the 
budget for special spending restraints while leaving other areas 
untouched, and that does not make a great deal of sense.
  New alternative energy technologies, which is really the objective of 
a lot of the programs in this bill, are going to help us prevent 
pollution. In this regard, one of the most important investments we are 
making in this area is that of renewable energy technologies. I have a 
somewhat parochial interest here since the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory [NREL], is located in the part of Colorado I am privileged 
to represent and it has been a leader in this field of research. At 
NREL they are working on such critical technologies as photovoltaic, 
wind, and hydrogen energy research, all of which are clean sources of 
energy. Amendments to cap our research efforts in this area will 
threaten the excellent work conducted at NREL and similar research at 9 
other national laboratories.
  Again I commend the committee for its fine work in bringing this bill 
to the House. I urge my colleagues' support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                TITLE II--FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAM

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) fusion energy is one of the nonfossil fuel technologies 
     which could potentially provide safe, abundant, 
     environmentally sound, secure, and affordable energy supplies 
     in the future;
       (2) in the last 16 years, fusion energy researchers have 
     made significant progress toward realizing magnetic fusion as 
     a viable source of energy, increasing power production from 
     test reactors more than a million-fold over that time period;
       (3) while significant engineering, technical, and 
     scientific challenges remain to make fusion energy 
     commercially viable, limited funding remains the primary 
     constraint to more rapid progress;
       (4) the technical risks and the long time scale needed to 
     demonstrate the commercial viability of fusion energy will 
     likely require a stable, predictable, and sustained 
     investment of government funding for decades to come;
       (5) while magnetic fusion is the leading fusion technology, 
     research on alternative fusion concepts should continue to be 
     supported;
       (6) opportunities to participate in international fusion 
     experiments can dramatically lower the cost to the Federal 
     Government of fusion energy research;
       (7) the United States must demonstrate that it is a 
     credible partner in international scientific programs by 
     being able to make and keep long-term commitments to funding 
     and participation; and
       (8) the United States should commit to participating in the 
     siting, construction, and operation of ITER as soon as 
     practicable.

     SEC. 202. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to provide direction and authorize appropriations for a 
     broadly based fusion energy research, development, and 
     demonstration program;
       (2) to ensure that alternative fusion concepts receive 
     adequate funding and management attention from the Department 
     of Energy;
       (3) to provide an accelerated commitment to United States 
     participation in ITER and provide authorization of 
     appropriations for such activity contingent on meeting 
     program milestones; and
       (4) to provide for the selection of a host country and 
     establish a site selection process for ITER.

     SEC. 203. FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Fusion Program.--The Secretary shall carry out in 
     accordance with the provisions of this title a Fusion Energy 
     Research Program, including research, development, and 
     demonstration to demonstrate the technical and economic 
     feasibility of producing safe, environmentally sound, and 
     affordable energy from fusion.
       (b) Program Goals.--The goals of the Fusion Energy Research 
     Program are to demonstrate by the year 2010 the 
     practicability of commercial electric power production and to 
     lead to commercial production of fusion energy by the year 
     2040.
       (c) Program Elements.--The Fusion Energy Research Program 
     shall consist of the following elements:
       (1) Research, development, and demonstration on magnetic 
     fusion energy technology, including--
       (A) research on plasma physics and control, confinement, 
     ignition, and burning;
       (B) the design, construction, and operation of experimental 
     fusion reactors, including the Tokamak Physics Experiment, 
     and the development of special materials for such reactors, 
     the facilities to develop such materials, and the development 
     of components which support the operation of such reactors, 
     such as diagnostic and remote maintenance equipment; and
       (C) participation by the United States industrial sector in 
     the design and construction of fusion reactors, and 
     cooperation with utilities.
       (2) Research, development, and demonstration of alternative 
     fusion concepts, to be administered through a Program 
     Director for Alternative Fusion Research, including research 
     and development needed to build and test an Induction Linac 
     Systems Experiment, and for systems engineering and design of 
     a prototype inertial fusion energy power plant suitable for 
     the eventual development of a heavy ion based commercial 
     power plant, for the purpose of developing heavy ion inertial 
     fusion energy.
       (3) Participation in the design, construction, and 
     operation of ITER with the goal of ITER becoming operational 
     by the year 2005.

     SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FUSION TECHNOLOGIES.

       Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall contract with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a study, to be completed within 18 months 
     after such contract is executed, which--
       (1) examines the various magnetic fusion technologies and 
     alternative fusion concepts to assess their current state of 
     development;
       (2) evaluates the potential of such technologies and 
     concepts to become commercially viable sources of energy in 
     the future;
       (3) identifies research and development goals and 
     priorities, and the range of probable costs and time scales 
     needed to achieve commercial viability; and
       (4) reviews facilities formerly proposed by the Department 
     of Energy for construction during the past 10 years, 
     comparing their proposed capabilities and the justification 
     offered for such proposals with the rationale for the 
     subsequent withdrawal of the proposals.

     SEC. 205. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY.

       Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall contract with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a study, to be completed within 18 months 
     after such contract is executed, which examines the status 
     and promise of other energy sources, including deuterated 
     metal, and improvements in the efficient use of energy which 
     could affect our national energy needs on the same time scale 
     and quantity as projected fusion energy development, and 
     which identifies priorities for research on other energy 
     sources and energy-efficient devices and practices.

     SEC. 206. ITER SITE SELECTION PROCESS.

       (a) ITER Study and Report.--Within 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a study which compares the technical and scientific 
     advantages and disadvantages and the economic costs and 
     benefits to the United States of siting ITER in the United 
     States with siting ITER outside of the United States. Such 
     study shall include the consideration of the impact on 
     employment of constructing ITER in the United States, the 
     effect of manufacturing major ITER subsystems (such as 
     superconducting magnets) in the United States, and the effect 
     of siting on United States funding requirements for 
     participation in ITER.
       (b) Host-Country Selection.--The Secretary shall seek to 
     reach an agreement with the international partners which 
     provides for--
       (1) the selection of a host country in which to site ITER 
     by October, 1995;
       (2) the equitable distribution of economic and 
     technological benefits among the international partners, 
     including the siting and construction of ITER and related 
     facilities and the manufacture of major ITER subsystems;
       (3) substantial United States industry and utility 
     involvement in the design, construction, and operation of 
     ITER to ensure United States industry and utility expertise 
     in the technologies developed; and
       (4) a schedule to complete site-specific design activities 
     by 1998.
       (c) United States Site Selection.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) immediately initiate a process for identifying 
     candidate sites within the United States which meet the site 
     requirements for the construction and operation of ITER; and
       (2) propose within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act a process for selection of a site within the United 
     States by June, 1996, if the United States is selected as the 
     host country for ITER pursuant to the international agreement 
     described in subsection (b).
       (d) Final Cost Estimate.--The Secretary shall provide to 
     Congress, within 90 days following the completion of site-
     specific design activities, a detailed estimate of the final 
     projected total cost and cost to the United States of the 
     construction and operation of ITER based on final site-
     specific engineering and construction designs.

     SEC. 207. REPORTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Contingency Plan.--Within 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the feasibility of conducting a parallel design 
     effort on the Tokamak Physics Experiment to augment the 
     capabilities of or accelerate construction of the Tokamak 
     Physics Experiment in the event that an international 
     agreement cannot be reached on the site selection or 
     construction of ITER.
       (b) Program Report.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report 
     on the Fusion Energy Research Program and the progress it has 
     made in meeting the goals and requirements of this title.
       (c) Consultation.--(1) In consultation with the Secretary 
     of Defense, the Secretary shall review the research and 
     development activities of the defense Inertial Confinement 
     Fusion Program to determine the potential of such activities 
     to contribute to the civilian Inertial Fusion Energy Program.
       (2) Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall submit a report to Congress with 
     recommendations for sharing budget and other resources in 
     order to enhance the civilian energy applications of the 
     defense Inertial Confinement Fusion Program.
       (d) Duplication of Activities.--Nothing in this title shall 
     require the duplication of activities carried out under 
     otherwise authorized programs of the Department of Energy.

     SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fusion Energy Research Program.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out the 
     Fusion Energy Research Program $376,563,000 for fiscal 1995, 
     $425,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and $475,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Alternative Fusion Research.--From the sums authorized 
     in subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary for carrying out the Alternative Fusion 
     Research Program under section 203(c)(2)--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 for the Induction 
     Linac Systems Experiment project and related base programs, 
     and for the engineering and design of a prototype inertial 
     fusion energy power plant;
       (2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, of which--
       (A) not more than $20,000,000 shall be for the Induction 
     Linac Systems Experiment project and related base programs; 
     and
       (B) not more than $5,000,000 shall be for the engineering 
     and design of a prototype inertial fusion energy power plant; 
     and
       (3) $33,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, of which--
       (A) not more than $20,000,000 shall be for the Induction 
     Linac Systems Experiment project and related base programs; 
     and
       (B) not more than $5,000,000 shall be for the engineering 
     and design of a prototype inertial fusion energy power plant.
       (c) Tokamak Physics Experiment.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary for the period encompassing fiscal years 1995 
     through 2000 not to exceed $700,000,000, to complete the 
     design, development, and construction of the Tokamak Physics 
     Experiment.
       (2) None of the funds are authorized to be appropriated for 
     any fiscal year under paragraph (1) unless, within 60 days 
     after the submission of the President's budget request for 
     that fiscal year, the Secretary--
       (A) certifies to the Congress that--
       (i) the technical goals of the design, development, and 
     construction are being met;
       (ii) the design, development, and construction can be 
     completed without further authorization of appropriations 
     beyond amounts authorized under paragraph (1); and
       (iii) the design, development, and construction can be 
     completed by the end of fiscal year 2000; or
       (B) submits to the Congress a report which describes--
       (i) the circumstances which prevent a certification under 
     subparagraph (A);
       (ii) remedial actions undertaken or to be undertaken with 
     respect to such circumstances; and
       (iii) a justification for proceeding with the program, if 
     appropriate.
       (d) Construction of ITER.--No funds are authorized for the 
     construction of ITER.
       (e) Limitation on Magnetic Fusion Facilities.--No funds are 
     authorized for the design, engineering, or construction of 
     any magnetic fusion facility other than ITER, facilities 
     related to ITER, and the Tokamak Physics Experiment.

     SEC. 209. REPEAL OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Section 7 of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9306), authorizing the Technical Panel on 
     Magnetic Fusion, is repealed.


                    amendment offered by mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 21, strike lines 12 
     through 21 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (c) Tokamak Physics Experiment.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary for the period encompassing fiscal years 1992 
     through 2000 not to exceed $700,000,000 from within the 
     Fusion Energy Research Program, to complete the design, 
     development, and construction of the Tokamak Physics 
     Experiment.
       (2) None of the funds described in paragraph (1) are 
     authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year unless, 
     within 60 days after the submission of the President's budget 
     request for that fiscal year, the Secretary--

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I will not spend very long on this 
amendment. It is a clarifying and conforming amendment. It makes clear 
that the TPX program included in this title is funded out of the fusion 
energy program. Furthermore, it also makes clear that the TPX program 
is fully and completely authorized by the bill. I understand that the 
majority has been consulted on this amendment and are in agreement with 
it. That being the case, if the chairman, the gentleman from 
California, would confirm that, it does not have to take very long at 
all.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is in such a 
good mood this morning that he is willing to accept almost anything 
that the distinguished ranking member wants, as long as we understand 
what it is. I, therefore, agree with the gentleman's amendment and will 
accept it.

                              {time}  1220

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. fawell

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell: Page 22, line 23, insert 
     ``This limitation shall not apply to the design or 
     engineering of fusion materials irradiation test facilities. 
     Upon completion of the concept design for a fusion materials 
     irradiation test facility, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     the Congress a report which includes the estimated cost for 
     design, engineering, and construction of the facility, the 
     expected participation of international partners, and the 
     planned dates for starting and completing construction.'' 
     after ``Physics Experiment.''.

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment also, I believe, we have 
shared with the majority, and I believe there is no objection to it. It 
deals with section 208(e) of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds 
for the design, engineering, or construction of any magnetic fusion 
facility other than ITER, facilities related to ITER, and the Tokamak 
physics experiment. This simply provides an exemption in regard to U.S. 
participation in the IFMIF/CDA project.
  But I think that perhaps if the gentleman from California will 
confirm, he does have knowledge of this particular amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have received the amendment of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell] and it does make a valuable contribution to the 
bill.
  There is already ongoing a small but highly important materials 
testing operation at the level of a couple of million dollars a year, 
which would be precluded from the language of this bill unless it is 
clarified by the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois and the 
additional language with regard to reporting requirements is also 
extremely helpful.
  On our side we are very glad to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title II? If not, 
the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
               TITLE III--HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Energy High 
     Energy and Nuclear Physics Authorization Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``CERN'' means the European Organization for 
     Nuclear Research;
       (2) the term ``construction'' means all activities 
     necessary for completion of a project and its supporting 
     infrastructure, and includes conventional construction and 
     the fabrication, installation, testing, and preoperation of 
     technical sytems;
       (3) the term ``conventional construction'' means the design 
     and construction of civil works, facilities, and other 
     infrastructure necessary to construct a project, including 
     tunnels, buildings, and roads, necessary to house and support 
     the technical systems, and utilities as necessary for the 
     direct support of elements of a project; and
       (4) the term ``Large Hadron Collider project'' means the 
     Large Hadron Collider project at CERN.

     SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) High Energy Physics.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for high energy physics 
     activities of the Department--
       (1) $695,400,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $719,700,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       (3) $744,900,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (4) $713,600,000 for fiscal year 1999.
     Funds authorized under paragraphs (1) through (4) may be 
     expended for the B-factory at the Stanford Linear Accelerator 
     Center and the Fermilab Main Injector. Funds may also be 
     expended for research, development, and planning for the 
     Large Hadron Collider and its associated detectors. No funds 
     are authorized for United States participation in the 
     construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider 
     project until the Secretary certifies to the Congress that 
     there is an international agreement that includes the 
     provisions described in section 304(a).
       (b) Nuclear Physics.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for nuclear physics activities 
     of the Department--
       (1) $337,100,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $348,900,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       (3) $361,100,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (4) $373,700,000 for fiscal year 1999.
     None of the funds authorized under paragraph (2), (3), or (4) 
     are authorized to be appropriated for facility operations of 
     the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. Funds authorized under 
     paragraphs (1) through (4) may be expended for the 
     Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory.
       (c) Limitation on Major Construction Projects.--No funds 
     may be expended for the construction and operation of any 
     high energy and nuclear physics facility construction project 
     of the Department, with total project expenditures projected 
     to be in excess of $100,000,000, unless funds are 
     specifically authorized for such purposes in an Act that is 
     not an appropriations Act. Funds authorized under subsections 
     (a) and (b) may be expended for preliminary research, 
     development, and planning for such projects.

     SEC. 304. THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER PROJECT.

       (a) Negotiations.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation and the Secretary 
     of State, shall enter into negotiations with CERN concerning 
     United States participation in the planning and construction 
     of the Large Hadron Collider project, and shall ensure that 
     any agreement incorporates provisions to protect the United 
     States investment in the project, including provisions for--
       (1) fair allocation of costs and benefits among project 
     participants;
       (2) a limitation on the amount of United States 
     contribution to project construction and an estimate of the 
     United States contribution to subsequent operating costs;
       (3) a cost and schedule control system for the total 
     project;
       (4) a preliminary statement of costs and the schedule for 
     all component design, testing, and fabrication, including 
     technical goals and milestones, and a final statement of such 
     costs and schedule within 1 year after the date on which the 
     parties enter into the agreement;
       (5) a preliminary statement of costs and the schedule for 
     total project construction and operation, including technical 
     goals and milestones, and a final statement of such costs and 
     schedule within 1 year after the date on which the parties 
     enter into the agreement;
       (6) reconsideration of the extent of United States 
     participation if technical or operational milestones 
     described in paragraphs (4) and (5) are not met, or if the 
     project falls significantly behind schedule;
       (7) conditions of access for United States and other 
     scientists to the facility; and
       (8) a process for addressing international coordination and 
     cost sharing on high energy physics projects beyond the Large 
     Hadron Collider.
       (b) Other International Negotiations.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall be construed to preclude the President from entering 
     into negotiations with respect to international science 
     agreements.
       (c) Requirement.--The Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy shall report, within 3 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, to the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate on specific goals for international coordination in 
     megascience projects, including an action plan needed to 
     achieve these goals. The action plan shall address such 
     issues as cost sharing and financial support, site location, 
     access, and management of megascience facilities.

     SEC. 305. OPERATING PLAN.

       Within 30 days after the date of the enactment of any Act 
     appropriating funds for the high energy or nuclear physics 
     activities of the Department, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a plan for the operations of the high 
     energy and nuclear physics activities of the Department, as 
     adjusted to reflect the amounts appropriated for such 
     purposes by such Act.

     SEC. 306. LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE.

       (a) Program Governance Review.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall contract with an 
     appropriate independent organization to review the governance 
     of all elements of the Department's high energy and nuclear 
     physics programs. Such review shall include--
       (A) an evaluation of the staff allocation and funding 
     balance among facility operations, construction, and research 
     support; and
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which the Department's 
     high energy and nuclear physics advisory groups represent the 
     diversity of, and the full range of interests among, high 
     energy and nuclear physics researchers.
       (2) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act detailing the results of the review 
     required by this section, including recommendations for 
     implementing the results and schedules for such 
     implementation.
       (b) Long-Range Plan.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     high energy and nuclear physics communities, shall prepare a 
     long-range plan for the Department of Energy high energy and 
     nuclear physics programs based on current and projected 
     program funding levels. The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     preparation of the plan with the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation, as appropriate, to ensure that long-range 
     planning efforts and objectives for the entire Federal high 
     energy and nuclear physics program are appropriately 
     integrated. The plan shall be modified every 3 years. The 
     long-range plan shall include--
       (A) a list of research opportunities to be pursued, 
     including both ongoing and proposed activities, listed in 
     order of priority;
       (B) an analysis of the relevance of each research facility 
     to the research opportunities listed under subparagraph (A);
       (C) a statement of the optimal balance for the fiscal year 
     in which the report is submitted among facility operations, 
     construction, and research support and the optimal balance 
     between university and laboratory research programs;
       (D) schedules for continuation, consolidation, or 
     termination of each major category of research programs, and 
     continuation, upgrade, transfer, or closure of each research 
     facility;
       (E) a statement by project of efforts to coordinate 
     research projects with the international community to 
     maximize the use of limited resources and avoid unproductive 
     duplication of efforts;
       (F) a description of the extent to which the plan 
     modifications differ from previous plans submitted under this 
     subsection, along with an explanation for such differences; 
     and
       (G) an estimate of--
       (i) the number of scientists and graduate students being 
     supported by Federal high energy and nuclear physics 
     programs; and
       (ii) the number of scientists and graduate students needed 
     to carry out productive and sustainable research programs in 
     these fields over the next 10 years.
       (2) Reports to congress.--(A) The Secretary shall transmit 
     a copy of the original long-range plan with the President's 
     annual budget request to Congress for fiscal year 1997. The 
     plan as modified shall be submitted with the President's 
     budget request to Congress for every third fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       (B) The Secretary shall transmit with the President's 
     budget request to Congress each year a report demonstrating 
     the consistency of the current long-range plan with the 
     budget being requested for the Department's high energy and 
     nuclear physics programs.
       (c) Capital Budget Account.--Each of the President's annual 
     budget requests to the Congress for high energy physics 
     activities of the Department, and for nuclear physics 
     activities of the Department, shall distinguish between the 
     budget for capital expenditures, including all ongoing and 
     planned major construction and capital equipment items, and 
     other activities.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendment to title III? If not, the Clerk 
will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. UNIVERSITY RADIATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the future of fusion energy and advanced nuclear 
     technology research and development programs will rely 
     heavily on a healthy and vibrant university-based radiation 
     science and nuclear engineering academic program;
       (2) nuclear engineering is a broad, diverse field with 
     unique academic requirements, including mathematics, physics, 
     reactor engineering, nuclear materials, radiation protection, 
     and reactivity control and operations;
       (3) nuclear engineering academic programs at both 
     undergraduate and graduate levels have declined in terms of 
     the number of students enrolling in such programs, the number 
     of schools offering such programs, and the number of research 
     reactors available on university campuses;
       (4) the existing nuclear technical community and faculties 
     are aging, and new, younger graduates are not entering the 
     field, threatening the United States technological 
     superiority in this area;
       (5) a robust, long-term fusion program will be dependent on 
     the availability of properly trained scientific experts to 
     carry on the program from the current leaders in the field;
       (6) in the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government was 
     instrumental in founding and funding the University Research 
     Reactor program and the Nuclear Engineering Education and 
     Research program, and as a primary user of the graduates of 
     these programs, continued strong support for these programs 
     for decades;
       (7) the decline of Federal support for these programs has 
     forced many universities to close down research reactors and 
     seriously erode the accompanying academic programs;
       (8) the current condition of the university research 
     reactors needs attention and funding to upgrade 
     instrumentation and safety features; and
       (9) the Federal Government should continue its fuel 
     assistance program in order to avert further hardships to the 
     universities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (1) provide Federal support and maintain and upgrade the 
     Nation's Nuclear Engineering Education and Research and 
     University Research Reactor programs, while continuing the 
     University Reactor Fuel Assistance program;
       (2) combine these programs into a comprehensive and 
     cohesive national program which will support the future needs 
     of the Nation across many scientific and technological 
     disciplines; and
       (3) provide the nuclear engineering education and 
     university research reactor academic community opportunities 
     to consult and cooperate with the Department of Energy and 
     the national laboratories in the decisionmaking and priority 
     setting processes.
       (c) Program Direction.--
       (1) Combining of programs.--The Secretary shall combine the 
     Nuclear Engineering Research and Education program, the 
     University Research Reactor program, and the University 
     Reactor Fuel Assistance program to form a new University 
     Radiation Science and Technology program to be included as a 
     separate and distinct part of the University and Science 
     Education program.
       (2) Collaboration.--The Secretary, in developing the annual 
     budget request and program plan for the University Radiation 
     Science and Technology program, shall collaborate with the 
     university radiation science and technology community 
     (including academia, professional societies, and the national 
     laboratories).
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Comprehensive plan.--The Secretary shall request the 
     Nuclear Engineering Education Department Heads Organization 
     and the National Organization of Test, Research, and Training 
     Reactors to submit, within 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, to the Congress and the Secretary a 
     minimum of a 5-year comprehensive national plan for the 
     University Radiation Science and Technology program. Such 
     plan shall include comments from industry and all appropriate 
     professional societies.
       (2) Program proposal.--Within 120 days after the submittal 
     of the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit 
     to the Congress a University Radiation Science and Technology 
     program proposal, which shall incorporate the plan submitted 
     under paragraph (1) and shall include comments from the 
     National Academy of Sciences regarding the completeness of 
     the program proposal.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out the 
     University Radiation Science and Technology Program 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1996, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated for carrying out the programs 
     for which funds are authorized by this Act for any fiscal 
     year other than as provided by this Act.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 36, after line 7, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 403. FOREIGN PARTICIPATION REPORT.

       Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Congress on the status of foreign participation in and 
     contributions to projects for which funding is authorized 
     under this Act.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading.) Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment specifies those concerns 
discussed earlier and provides for that reporting mechanism to document 
financial participation and contributions by those foreign friends who 
are parties to our initiative. I believe it makes sense. It is a 
clarification factor that is best applied to the entire bill.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio, our staff has reviewed it on our side. From out standpoint 
it is a valuable contribution to the language of the bill, and we would 
have no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have also reviewed the amendment, and I have no 
reason to oppose it. I do believe the way the amendment is now drafted 
that it would apply to the entire energy research and development 
supply account, and it does have fairly broad implications for the 
department in terms of reporting requirements on it. But the gentleman, 
I think, is pursuing a useful area in assuring that we understand the 
full nature of the foreign participation, and I accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and in closing, I 
would offer: Whatever clarification language the chairman and ranking 
member deem appropriate and other considerations that might arise from 
this amendment, the general intent I think is understood, and I will 
accept such contributions to make it better or resolve some problems 
that you may have.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding further.
  Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the gentleman's forbearance on this 
matter. Obviously, on matters of this sort where amendments are brought 
to the floor without a lot of staff review, there is the possibility 
there may be a need to be some minor revisions to accomplish the 
purpose of the amendment. If that is necessary, I believe we can take 
care of that in conference without any difficulty.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I will inform the ranking member that 
that is the intent and that his concerns are understood by the sponsor, 
and we will accommodate those concerns in whatever way the gentleman 
works out with our chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. fawell

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell: Page 36, after line, 7, insert the 
following new section:

     SEC. 403. MERIT REVIEW REQUIREMENT FOR AWARDS OF FINANCIAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Merit Review Requirement.--Except as provided in 
     sections 204 and 205, the Secretary may not award financial 
     assistance to any person under this Act for research, 
     development, or precommercial demonstration activities, 
     including related facility construction, unless an objective 
     merit review process is used to award the financial 
     assistance.
       (b) Requirement of Specific Modification of Merit Review 
     Provision.--
       (1) In general.--A provision of law may not be construed as 
     modifying or superseding subsection (a), or as requiring that 
     financial assistance be awarded by the Secretary in a manner 
     inconsistent with subsection (a), unless such provision of 
     law--
       (A) specifically refers to this section:
       (B) specifically states that such provision of law modifies 
     or supersedes subsection (a): and
       (C) specifically identifies the person to be awarded the 
     financial assistance and states that the financial assistance 
     to be awarded pursuant to such provision of law is being 
     awarded in a manner inconsistent with subsection (a).
       (2) Notice and wait requirement.--No financial assistance 
     may be awarded pursuant to a provision of law that requires 
     or authorizes the award of the financial assistance in a 
     manner inconsistent with subsection (a) until--
       (A) the Secretary submits to the Congress a written notice 
     of the Secretary's intent to award the financial assistance; 
     and
       (B) 180 days has elapsed after the date on which the notice 
     is received by the Congress.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``objective merit review process'' means a 
     thorough, consistent, and independent examination of requests 
     for financial assistance based on pre-established criteria 
     and scientific a technical merit by persons knowledgeable in 
     the field for which the financial assistance is requested.
       (2) The term ``financial assistance'' means the transfer of 
     funds or property to a recipient or subrecipient to 
     accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation 
     authorized by Federal law. Such term includes grants, 
     cooperative agreements, and subawards but does not include 
     cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 
     subsection 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1)).

  Mr. FAWELL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, once again I believe the majority has been 
able to review this particular amendment. I do not believe there is any 
controversy.
  The amendment is similar to those that I have offered in committee 
and which have been included as sections in House-passed versions of 
H.R. 3254, the National Science Foundation Act of 1994, also H.R. 3870, 
the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994, and the amendment is also 
similar to my amendment included in the Science Committee-reported 
version of H.R. 1432, Department of Energy Laboratory Technology Act of 
1994.
  Mr. Chairman, basically, this amendment deals with the subject matter 
of which the chairman is very much aware and very much involved in in 
regard to earmarks.
  In the very brief summary, what we have is simply a law which states 
that earmarks cannot be accomplished unless there is an objective merit 
review process insofar as the subject acts of this bill are concerned. 
They can be modified by general law, obviously not in a report. 
Basically that in a very cursory summary is what we are talking about 
here.
  I would like to inquire of the gentleman from California, the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Brown, as to whether or not he has had 
an opportunity to review all of the facts of this particular amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. I gladly yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] knows that 
this language is intended to support the positions which we have 
jointly taken in connection with a number of pieces of legislation. I 
commend the gentleman for introducing it in connection with this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope we could get this onto a number of 
appropriations bills as well.
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the chairman.
  I have nothing further.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to title IV.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 36, after line 7, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 403. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

       None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available 
     for any activity, or the publication or distribution of 
     literature, that in any way tends to promote public support 
     for or opposition to any legislative proposal on which 
     congressional action is not complete. If any funds are used 
     for purposes prohibited by this section, the organization to 
     whom such funds were provided shall not be eligible to 
     receive any further funding pursuant to this Act.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is essentially an 
antilobbying amendment from the standpoint of lobbying with taxpayers' 
money. What the amendment does is prohibits universities, labs, and 
private contractors from using taxpayers' money for lobbying for their 
programs. In my view it is highly questionable for the taxpayer to have 
to bear the costs of universities and others coming to solicit more 
Federal money.
  In fact, one of the problems that has arisen in the area of 
earmarking has been because the universities themselves are engaged in 
lobbying Congress to earmark specific projects for them, so one way of 
getting at the whole earmark question is to ensure that at least 
taxpayer's money is not being used as a way of garnering more 
taxpayers' money. This amendment would prohibit universities, labs, 
private contractors, and so on from lobbying, and, if they violate this 
particular provision, they would no longer be eligible for any funds 
that are authorized under this act.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that we have had a wave of this going 
on, and at this point I insert some material related to a particular 
lobbying effort:

                   Urgent Urgent Urgent Urgent Urgent


           princeton university: office of government affairs

     Re H.R. 4908.

     To: Fusion community.
     From: Nan S. Wells.
     Date: August 15, 1994.
       The House is now scheduled to consider H.R. 4908, the 
     Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and Nuclear Physics 
     Authorization Act early tomorrow. If the crime bill and/or 
     health legislation go to the floor, the schedule could 
     change. According to the Science Committee staff, the bill 
     will be considered under an open rule and all amendments will 
     be in order. It is my understanding that the committee may 
     have only a few minutes warning of any amendments proposed.
       The amendment proposed by Representative Robert Walker, the 
     ranking Republican on the House Science Committee, which 
     would impose a four-year $4.2 billion ``hard freeze'' on most 
     of the DOE research activities, has been redrafted by 
     Representative Boehlert who would add a $50 million increase 
     each year for the first three years. This new Boehlert 
     amendment (see attached material) is almost as damaging to 
     high energy physics as the original amendment and if offers 
     no flexibility to the other energy research programs.
       Rep. Boehlert asserts that the cuts are not a problem since 
     they would come from the DOE labs including labs doing fusion 
     research. There is nothing in the legislation that directs 
     the cuts and reductions could and would be made in all DOE 
     research programs including fusion energy, high energy 
     physics, environmental restoration and waste management 
     research. DOE has informed the Science committee that 
     construction of ANS and TPX, participation in the LHC at 
     CERN, and the operation of the facilities at SLAC, Fermi Lab, 
     Newport News and Brookhaven are in jeopardy, if this 
     amendment is approved by the House.
       The Boehlert and Walker amendments continue to restrict 
     only the funding for energy research and place no 
     restrictions on other DOE programs. While these proposals, 
     and perhaps other amendments to come, are being presented as 
     budget reductions, the DOE would be free to reallocate the 
     R&D funds to other programs in the department. As currently 
     drafted, the amendments serve only to reduce funds for badly 
     needed research in high priority areas.
       There is also an amendment from Representative Walker which 
     would set a cap on TPX expenditures and Rush Holt is working 
     with staff to try to modify it. Unless amended, it should be 
     opposed. Of course, there is always the possibility of 
     another amendment from Representative Dick Swett.
       At this point, your members should oppose the walker and 
     Walker-Boehlert amendments and any other amendments. If you 
     would like further information on the legislation, please 
     call me at (202) 639-8420.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment as a way of ensuring 
that any lobbying activities are done with private moneys rather than 
with taxpayer money.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to do this, but 
this amendment disturbs my otherwise tranquil day, and I am going to 
have to rise in opposition to it and express my hope that the gentleman 
might withdraw the amendment and offer a version in another setting 
that might be more appropriate.
  I do not object, of course, to the prohibition against lobbying with 
public funds. I think the thrust of the gentleman's idea is an 
excellent one, but this is, other than the title, prohibition of 
lobbying activities; it does not really discuss lobbying. It says that 
none of the funds authorized by this act, which of course go to the 
Department of Energy and then are redistributed through grants and 
contracts to universities and research organizations, none of these 
funds shall be used for the publication or distribution of literature 
that in any way tends to promote public support for or opposition to 
any legislative proposal on which congressional action is not complete.
  Now I would hate to have to go through the files of all of the 
letters, publications, memos of every agency in the Department of 
Energy to see if in any way they tend to promote public support or 
opposition to any piece of legislation that we are considering. This is 
a gargantuan task, and I am not sure that we want to get ourselves 
involved in it.
  Now I think that the thrust of this is aimed at those agencies, 
including universities which receive Department of Energy funds, but it 
is not sufficiently spelled out to see just how this would bite. I 
think the gentleman, and certainly he is entitled to take this action, 
if he wishes, has been upset by some recent university efforts to have 
an influence on this very piece of legislation, and I think that under 
some circumstances he might be justified. On the other hand, I think 
universities, public service, public interest groups, the National 
Taxpayers Union, others, some of which may or some of which may not 
have received Federal funding, should not have their first amendment 
rights compromised unless there are some very, very serious reasons for 
it, and I do not think the circumstances here rise to that level.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that this is 
language that was lifted directly out of the Interior appropriations 
bill. It is language that we have dealt with in the Federal Government 
before. This is the way in which we have spelled out. The only thing 
that we have done here is added the penalty that says that one cannot 
get any more funds under the act if they use public monies, but the 
language the gentleman referred to is the language that is in the 
Interior appropriations bills that we have a history of handling.
  So, obviously the Federal Government does have procedures for dealing 
with the concerns the gentleman has expressed. That is the reason why 
we utilize this language, figuring that it had a history and that there 
is a way of managing this kind of situation. I would not expect that 
anybody would have to rummage through files, but I would expect, 
wherever there is an overt lobbying activity, that it would give the 
department cause for action if it is found that that was done with 
public moneys.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have, of course, high regard 
for the gentleman's legislative drafting skills, and I assume that he 
has used language which has a history. But I am not at all sure that 
history is directly applicable to this situation.
  I think, for example, the requirements in the Interior appropriation 
which he mentioned may not have applied to scientific and academic 
publications, and I would like to examine that situation to see if that 
is true.
  There is also the possibility that this would apply to nonprofit 
organizations which publish material that might affect legislation and 
which, by provisions of the Tax Code, are allowed if they do not engage 
in it to too great an extent to use a small portion of their funds for 
lobbying, which this is intended to prohibit. I think that would be a 
serious flaw in this----
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman would yield further, I am also referring 
to title 18 of the crimes and criminal procedures of the Federal Code 
of the U.S. Code in which it also uses very similar language to this 
and goes even further by suggesting that one cannot even pay for 
personal service, advertisements, telegrams, telephone, letters, 
printed or other written matter, any other device intended or designed 
to influence in any manner a Member of Congress or to favor--I mean 
there is language that goes even well beyond this that is in the 
Federal Code, it seems to me, and this is called lobbying with 
appropriated monies.
  So, what we have done here is simply extended the prohibition that is 
in title 18 of the U.S. Code to the specifics of this bill, and I would 
suggest that once again the Government does have the ability to enforce 
those provisions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. In further response to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, I think the intent of the amendment is 
solid. I am a little concerned, recalling our experience last year with 
the superconducting super collider where criticisms were made of the 
Department of Energy and its contractors for the lobbying done in 
support of the superconducting super collider and the appropriations 
bill containing the funding for it. I think under the gentleman's 
amendment all of that would have been illegal and the funding for the 
entire Department of Energy would have been canceled as a result of 
those activities.
  Now I do not think the gentleman wants to draw quite that broad a net 
when he is talking about the activities of the Federal Government which 
is in an amendment which is labeled ``lobbying'' and which I think the 
department felt was legislative representation, protecting their own 
interests before the Congress. I am worried that, for example, all of 
the funding for their office of legislative affairs might be canceled 
under this because they would be distributing literature or 
facilitating the organization of public support or opposition to 
measures that involved the Department of Energy.
  I really would like to request the gentleman to withdraw his 
amendment, and, if he is unable to and wants to vote on it, why this 
may be our vote of the day.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me 
say that I appreciate his doing that. The only thing that is covered 
are the funds authorized under this act. There are none of the funds 
for the lobbying activities, for example, that are covered by this act, 
so it would not prevent the department from doing that. It only applies 
to funds under this act. The rest of the funds may be covered under 
provisions of the bill, but I would say to the gentleman that this is 
not going to prevent the department from doing those things the 
department traditionally does.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
point, and I think I have made my position clear on the matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Walker) 
there were--ayes 7, noes 10.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 239, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 412]

                               AYES--187

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Coleman
     Engel
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Houghton
     Lantos
     McDade
     Moran
     Neal (NC)
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1359

  Mr. FINGERHUT, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. PALLONE, and Mrs. MINK of 
Hawaii changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. EWING, WALSH, JOHNSON of South Dakota, BACHUS of Alabama, 
HAYES, and ORTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to the bill, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker, having assumed the 
chair, Mr. Olver, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4908) to authorize the hydrogen and fusion 
research, development, and demonstration programs, and the high energy 
physics and nuclear physics programs, of the Department of Energy, and 
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 515, he reported the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________