[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6794-H6815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996


                amendment offered by mr. barton of texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Barton of Texas: On page 24, after 
     line 18, insert:
       Sec.   . Appropriations made available by the Energy and 
     Water Development Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-316), for a medical 
     treatment facility at the site of the terminated 
     Superconducting Super Collider project shall be rescinded on 
     the thirtieth day after the date of enactment of this Act if: 
     (1) the withdrawal by the State of Texas of its application 
     to the Department of Energy for a contribution to the 
     completion of such facility remains in effect on such 
     thirtieth day, and (2) prior to such thirtieth day, the 
     Attorney General of the United States has determined that the 
     United States has constitutional authority to rescind such 
     appropriation.
       In the fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, Congress permitted the Department of 
     Energy to make $65 million of previously appropriated funds 
     available to the State of Texas for a one-time contribution 
     for the construction of a medical treatment facility at the 
     site of the terminated Superconducting Super Collider. The 
     Committee understands that the State recently withdrew its 
     application to the Department of Energy for the $65 million 
     grant. Accordingly, the Committee has included language to 
     rescind the $65 million, provided that: (1) the State's 
     withdrawal of its application remains in effect thirty days 
     after the enactment of this act, and (2) the Attorney General 
     of the United States determines that the funds are subject to 
     rescission.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas (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 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, last year on August 10 before this 


[[Page H 6795]]
body, we had the same piece of legislation, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill.
  At that point in time there was an amendment offered by the Senate to 
specifically set aside $65 million as part of the settlement agreement 
with the State of Texas for the construction of the SSC to use to build 
a medical treatment center for cancer and research. I stood on this 
floor and supported that agreement, as did many other Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  At that time, there was some concern that the State might decide at a 
future point in time not to use the money for the building of the 
cancer treatment center, and I again said that that would not happen. 
To make a long story short, Since August 1994 the State of Texas has, 
in fact, decided not to use the $65 million to build and operate the 
cancer treatment center. They want to use the money for other purposes. 
I think that the only honorable thing to do, since I was a supporter of 
the agreement, is for me to offer an amendment to rescind that money, 
if it is constitutional to do so. That is what this amendment does.
  I am told that a point of order can be made against it. The 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has reserved that point of 
order, so at the appropriate time, unfortunately, I will have to 
withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that we should put in the 
Record that we did intend for this money to be used to build a cancer 
treatment center. It was my purpose at the time to have the money spent 
for that reason. I still think that was the best use of those funds.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure that I 
understand the facts. I know that the gentleman for some 10 years was 
the most stalwart supporter of the super collider in the House of 
Representatives. I personally supported the super collider as well, and 
think that the House and the Congress as a whole made a terrible 
mistake when it turned its back on that productive science and chose 
not to go forward with what would have reaped great results for the 
American people.
  However, Congress did decide to scrap the super collider as the 
project was well underway. There were facilities that were left, and 
there were moneys that were unexpended in the super collider account. 
If I am correct, Mr. Chairman, and I hope if I am not the gentleman 
would correct me, but as I understand it, the $65 million left in the 
super collider account which, in order to mollify, in effect, the 
people of Texas for the loss of this project that was begun and then 
abandoned by the Congress, was expected to go into a cancer research 
facility.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Then the State of Texas asked for the money, accepted 
the money, and was to use the money for the cancer research facility, 
but since that decision has been made and all agreements were expected 
to go forward, the State of Texas has unilaterally decided not to go 
forward with that facility. Is that correct?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct. As a part of the settlement 
agreement, there is an alternative settlement procedure that gives the 
State the right to do so. That alternative settlement agreement was not 
a part of the public record.
  What is a part of the public record is, and it was unequivocal in the 
conference report, in the report language and in all the public 
comments, was that if the House and the Senate would agree, this $65 
million would in fact be used to build this cancer research and 
treatment center if it passed peer review, which it did.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. But if the gentleman would yield further, as I 
understand it, now that the State of Texas has decided to abandon its 
plans to go forward with the cancer research center, it still intends 
to use that $65 million on other projects that the State of Texas deems 
worthwhile; is that correct?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. But was that not the intention of the Congress when 
they decided to leave the $65 million with the State of Texas after the 
super collider project collapsed?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct. In fact, we have a monologue by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman, last year on that 
very point. He asked the Department of Energy and they said 
specifically that they did not believe that they could authorize $210 
million unilaterally; that they felt like the most they could give to 
the State in cash was $145 million, but they could support the $65 
million for the cancer treatment center if it passed peer review.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield further, do I understand 
it is the gentleman's position that if the money is not to be used as a 
cancer research and treatment center, then indeed the money should be 
rescinded?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, now that the super collider project 
has fallen through and the State of Texas has decided unilaterally not 
to go forward with the cancer treatment and research center, that it is 
the position of the gentleman from Texas that the right thing would be 
to return that $65 million to the U.S. Treasury; is that correct?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield, it would be the 
intent of my amendment, if passed, to put the money back in Federal 
control, and let the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate 
reprogram the funds to the best purpose that they see fit. That would 
be the intent of my amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. But because of House rules and the structure of the 
rule for this bill, the gentleman is not permitted to go forward with 
his amendment, or if he were to go forward, it could be struck on a 
point of order; is that correct?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. At this point, there is nothing really that the 
gentleman can do except to clarify the record that it was not the 
intent of the Congress when this legislation first went through in 
fiscal year 1995 that the $65 million would be used for anything other 
than the cancer treatment center.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. All I am trying to do is keep my word to the 
House of Representatives when I stood on the floor and said these funds 
would go for cancer treatment and research. I believe that. I still at 
this point in time think that was the most appropriate use, but our 
State leaders have decided otherwise. They have the legal authority to 
do so.
  I would just hope that between now and the conference, the 
subcommittee chairman will work with the ranking member to work with 
the Attorney General to see if there might be some way yet to rescind 
these funds.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I commend the gentleman on his position. I think he 
has been true to his word from the very beginning, from the inception 
of his support for the Super Collider project, throughout that project, 
and since then.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee did support the 
SSC up to its final blow. It is not quite as simple as has been 
presented here today.
  In settlement for the SSC, the Federal Government agreed to a two-
pronged approach, which this subcommittee opposed for quite some time, 
not so much the cash settlement with Texas but the fact that that $65 
million is not left in the account, not at all. It was placed in 
escrow. It can be spent as far as this committee is concerned only for 
one purpose, the construction of the cancer treatment facility.
  The subcommittee is not opposed to that by any means, but we did not 
feel that we should tie up the money. Texas should still have the right 
yet today to spend that money any way they wanted 

[[Page H 6796]]
to. So it is not quite like leaving the money there so it can be spent 
any way it wants to. It was committed.
  When I was a trust officer some years ago, when something was put in 
trust, we had to fulfill that trust. We could not change that agreement 
by anyone.
  We tried to say, just take the $210 million and give it to Texas. DOE 
would not accept that. With an
 agreement with the authorities in Texas, they said the only way we can 
do this is to give the State of Texas $145 million in cash, which they 
got, and then place $65 million for this cancer center, for which we 
were told Texas probably would never vote.

  They wanted to bypass the system in Texas to obligate the money; am I 
not correct on this point? Now I think there is a serious legal 
question. How do we correct the mistake--and I call it a mistake--that 
was made 2 years ago when this $65 million was put into escrow.
  This is the reason I must object today, until we find out what we can 
legally do. We do not want to hang it up here and leave it hanging 
again. Let's settle it once and for all how we approach this problem.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, would the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee be inclined to at least address this issue in 
conference so that we get all the facts and understand really what 
happened there?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman would continue to yield, in 
discussion with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], we discussed 
that. Let's settle the legal question, whether we can do this as simply 
as we are trying to do it today, before we try to do it. If it gets 
settled before we go to conference, of course, we will agree with that.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the 
subcommittee chairman and the full committee chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit material from last year's Record for this 
Record, as follows:

       Senate amendment No. 35: Page 19, line 19, after ``tract'' 
     insert: ``: Provided further, That of the amounts previously 
     appropriated to orderly terminate the Superconducting Super 
     Collider (SSC) project in the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, amounts not to exceed $65,000,000 
     shall be available as a one-time contribution to the 
     completion, with modification, of partially completed 
     facilities at the project site if the Secretary determines 
     such one-time contribution (i) will assist the maximization 
     of the value of the investment made in the facilities and 
     (ii) is in furtherance of a settlement of the claims that the 
     State of Texas has asserted against the United States in 
     connection with the termination of the SSC project: Provided 
     further, That no such amounts shall be made available as a 
     contribution to operating expenses of such facilities''.
       Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us 
     today in effect approves the tentative agreement reached to 
     settle the claims of Texas against the Department of Energy 
     for shutdown of the superconducting super collider [SSC].
       Much about this settlement disturbs me--and should disturb 
     every Member of this body. Under the settlement, taxpayers 
     will be forced to shell out more money for a dead project to 
     pay off spurious claims by Texas--claims that were expressly 
     rejected by this body in 1990.
       Worse still, the agreement sets up a mock peer review 
     process to provide additional funds to the States. The review 
     process in the settlement has more in common with a shotgun 
     wedding than with normal scientific merit evaluation.
       Under the settlement, if the reviewers--whom Texas will 
     have a say in selecting--do not approve the $65 billion 
     grant, the entire settlement is nullified. This sounds more 
     like peer pressure than peer review. I hope no potential 
     source of future funds for the linear accelerator is taken in 
     by this unusual arrangement.
       Finally, I'm concerned that the Department of Energy 
     already seems to be sidling away from its initial statements 
     that the settlement can be funded entirely from fiscal 1994 
     appropriations. I hope the Department proves more capable of 
     living within cost estimates than it has in the past.
       Still, despite all this, and despite the covert 
     way the Department has proceeded, I will reluctantly go along 
     with this settlement because I believe delaying the shutdown 
     now will cost taxpayers even more money. There's a benefit to 
     be gained simply in putting this entire episode behind us.
       In addition, my two primary concerns have been addressed. 
     In a letter that I will include in the Record, the Department 
     has pleaded that this will be the last Federal money going to 
     the SSC site and that termination costs should be held to the 
     level already appropriated.
                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1994.
     Hon. Hazel R. O'Leary,
     Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: I appreciated the briefing I received 
     from the deputy secretary and our staff last week on the 
     terms of agreement with Texas. I hope the lines of 
     communication can remain open in the future.
       I do continue to have several concerns about the agreement 
     with Texas that I hope you can allay.
       First, the agreement seems to set up a situation in which 
     Texas could be coming back quickly to the federal government 
     for additional funds to operate former 
     Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) facilities. 
     The grant to complete the Linear Accelerator (LINAC) with its 
     unusual peer review provisions and the continuation of the 
     planning grant to Texas--also awarded under unusual 
     procedures--would seem to indicate that Texas still wishes to 
     encumber the federal government in the future with projects 
     unrelated to national scientific priorities. Has the 
     Department agreed--either in the agreement or in any other 
     documents or discussions--to any future funding of former SSC 
     facilities? I believe it is imperative that the federal 
     government severe all ties (except those concerning 
     liability) with the SSC site.
       Second, I remain concerned that the settlement costs could 
     exceed the funding available from existing appropriations. 
     The uncertainties associated with environmental cleanup at 
     the site, the proposed elimination of contingency funds and 
     the continuing threat of claims and litigation from local 
     authorities in Texas raise questions about the adequacy of 
     the $735 million on hand to implement the settlement. And 
     quite frankly, our experience with Department of Energy cost 
     estimates is not good. How certain are you that the 
     settlement outlined in the terms of agreement can be paid for 
     out of existing appropriations?
       The Department's proposed settlement with Texas goes much 
     further toward satisfying the state's unreasonable claims 
     than I would prefer. Still, like you, I would prefer to put 
     this whole sorry chapter behind us (And in bills like the one 
     Congressman Boucher and I have drafted, providing for high 
     energy and nuclear physics, we are indeed looking toward the 
     future.) I hope you can offer me the reassurances I need to 
     back the proposed settlement on the House floor. I look 
     forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
                                               Member of Congress.
                                 ______


                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert.
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Boehlert: I was very pleased to receive 
     the advice contained in your letter of July 28, 1994 that the 
     briefing on the Department's settlement terms with Texas 
     conducted by Under Secretary Curtis was helpful to you. I 
     share your hope that our lines of communication remain open 
     and constructive.
       Turning to your specific questions, the Department has made 
     no commitment for future Federal funding of former 
     Superconducting Super Collider facilities. To the contrary, 
     the $65 million grant toward completion of the Lear 
     Accelerator as a medical facility is described explicitly as 
     a one-time contribution. The settlement terms clearly state 
     that the Department is to have no continuing or additional 
     obligation in financing this or any other former 
     Superconducting Super Collider facility.
       The full scope of termination activities includes costs of 
     a settlement of the Texas reimbursement claim and the above-
     mentioned grant associated with Texas' future use of the 
     Linear Accelerator. During negotiations with Texas, the 
     Department has emphasized the importance of minimizing the 
     prospect of requiring any additional appropriations for Super 
     Collider activities. Based upon our current cost estimates 
     and planning assumptions, the Department fully expects that 
     all anticipated termination expenses--including settlement 
     with Texas and a $65 million one-time Federal contribution 
     toward completion of the LINAC--can be accommodated with 
     existed appropriated funds. We will work aggressively to 
     achieve this goal through management efficiencies and, to the 
     extent possible, changing the scope of termination 
     activities.
       Your letter notes concerns regarding the reliability of 
     prior Department of Energy cost estimates regarding the 
     Superconducting Super Collider project, I share those 
     concerns. Therefore I must acknowledge that judgments about 
     estimated costs of termination necessarily will be reassessed 
     as our knowledge increases while project termination 
     progresses. Nonetheless our actions are directed to the goal, 
     which thus far seems an achievable one, of concluding all 
     termination activities--including the settlement--from within 
     the current appropriations of $735 million.
       In order to maximize our prospects of meeting our goals of 
     funding all termination activities from within the $735 
     million we are conducting a complete rebaselining in order to 
     identify the management efficiencies and potential changes in 
     scope of work described above. We will provide you a 
     supplemental report on this work when it is concluded.
       I hope this information will help allay the concerns that 
     you have raised, and that they will enable you to conclude, 
     as I have, that 

[[Page H 6797]]
     these settlement terms are in the national interest and merit your 
     support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hazel R. O'Leary.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 16, line 1 strike 
     ``$2,596,700,000'' and insert ``$2,576,700,000''.

  Mr. KLUG. My colleagues, this is an amendment to try to attempt to 
terminate the GTMHR program, which is a gas turbine nuclear reactor 
project. But let me, if I can, put two numbers in perspective.
  Taxpayers have already spent more than $900 million to develop this 
technology. This bill in front of us appropriates $20 million under 
energy research supply activities to fund the project and if we 
continue to fund the project, the General Accounting Office estimates 
that we will spend nearly $2.6 billion in additional funds.
  It is always interesting to come to this floor to try to argue to 
terminate science projects, because we are invariably told that science 
projects are either are in two stages of development. It is early 
enough in the project where we do not know if the technology is going 
to pay off, so we cannot stop it, or we have invested so much money in 
the project over the years, cannot afford to terminate it so we still 
have to spend the money.
  This amendment will simply eliminate the funding this year from the 
appropriations bill for $20 million the amount appropriated to GTMHR. 
But let me make it clear to my colleagues immediately that this year's 
science authorization committee in full committee specifically struck 
all funding for this project.
  Now, you know, you ask yourself why we did not go to the Committee on 
Rules and ask them to strike on a point of order since we have an 
appropriations today which has never been authorized. But we were told 
by the Committee on Rules that we could not do it that way. We had to 
fight it on the floor in order to kill it. But I think it is clear by 
the rules of the House, when the authorizing committee kills a program 
by a vote of 2 to 1, there is absolutely no way this program can stand.
  Now, who wants this project killed? Let me start back with the Reagan 
administration which recommended it be killed; followed by the Bush 
administration which recommended the program be terminated; followed by 
the Clinton administration. The Senate voted to kill it last Congress. 
The National Academy of Sciences twice rejected this technology; once 
in 1992 and once in 1994.
  The National Taxpayers Union and the Citizens Against Government 
Waste, Friends of the Earth, U.S. PIRG and a number of other groups are 
all opposed to the technology.
  And may I add that a number of my colleagues in particular have been 
very supportive in my attempts to kill this funding: My colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] the distinguished ranking member of 
the committee, who we will hear from in a few minutes and, 
particularly, I would like to pay tribute to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Foley], a freshman Congressman who led the fight in the 
authorizing committee, in fact, over the objections of his committee 
chairman, to defund this technology.
  Mr. Chairman, where does the Department of Energy stand on this? This 
is from a letter written to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], 
June 20, 1995. The Energy Department,

       . . . does not support continued funding for the gas 
     turbine nuclear helium reactor. There are significant 
     questions about the viability of this reactor type, including 
     whether the fuel will retain fission products to the extent 
     necessary for safety.
       There is little utility interest in this technology and we 
     believe that development of this reactor concept would 
     require Federal expenditures in excess of $1 billion over the 
     next decade.''

  Again the General Accounting Office says $2 billion.

       Gas cooled reactor technology has been under development by 
     the Federal Government for approximately 30 years without 
     tangible benefits. The Department, therefore, proposes to 
     terminate work on the gas turbine modular helium reactor.

  Signed by Terry Lash, who works for Hazel O'Leary, who is the 
Secretary of Energy.
  So we have the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the 
Clinton administration, the Senate, the National Academy of Sciences, 
the authorizing committee. The bottom line is that nobody thinks this 
technology will work.
  In fact, once upon a time there actually was a commercial project 
which attempted to use this technology. It was run in Colorado at Fort 
Saint Vrain. The reactor was closed down after 16 years after operating 
at a very impressive 14 percent of capacity.
  I think it is abundantly clear that after 30 years of funding this 
technology, it is virtually impossible to find any support for it in 
the scientific community. As we saw last month, there is no support of 
it in our own Committee on Science. Our Committee on Science voted 2 to 
1 to kill authorization for it.
  Again, the Department of Energy, the Reagan administration, the Bush 
administration, and the Clinton administration all recommended this 
program be terminated. I urge my colleagues today, once and for all, to 
finally put this technology behind us.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as the previous speaker indicated, this is a bipartisan 
amendment. It is being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] and by myself, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], and by 
the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
  This amendment, as has already been indicated, cuts $20 million in 
the bill for the gas turbine modular helium reactor. This program is a 
prime example of the continuation of corporate welfare for a mature 
segment of the nuclear industry for a program with questionable 
technology.
  Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out, the Committee on Science recently 
voted 23 to 15 to kill the program, despite the support of the Chairman 
of that committee. No funds have been requested for this program by the 
President for 3 years in a row. That is fiscal 1994, 1995, and 1996. 
And yet somehow Congress finds room, within a brutal budget for working 
people, to allocate funds for this program.
  Over the past 30 years, taxpayers have been asked to spend 900 
million smackeroos on gas-cooled reactor programs. And what do we have 
to show for it? Absolutely zip.
  Mr. Chairman, as was indicated previously, the only commercial 
version ever built was in Colorado. That operation had the worst 
operating record of any nuclear facility. It was shut down in 1990, 
after it operated at only 14 percent of capacity. And despite the 
claims of the proponents of this technology about a new design and 50 
percent private sector match, the technology is still not proven.
  The real question is simply whether we are going to continue to fund 
this program at an eventual cost of $5.3 billion. I would hope not.

                              {time}  1715

  I would point out there has not been a nuclear power plant 
successfully licensed in this country since 1974. The nuclear industry 
itself is lukewarm to this particular type of reactor, and, third, even 
nuclear advocates admit that there are no utility orders for this type 
of plant based on this technology that would be placed before the year 
2010. So it seems to me this is a little premature.
  I would simply say that this Congress appears to be all too willing 
to cut Medicare, all too willing to cut education, all too willing to 
cut job training programs, all too willing to cut other science, all 
too willing to cut anything that benefits directly the working people 
of this country, but when it comes to hardware items, whether it is the 
F-22, which we do not need until the year 2014, whether it is this or 
whether it is several other reactor technologies in the bill, evidently 
the Congress feels comfortable in funding and providing funds for that. 
I think that represents misplaced priorities.

[[Page H 6798]]

  I would urge you to vote for this amendment. Turn down this project. 
Save some money, leave a few table scraps for programs that affect the 
welfare of working people.
  This is a turkey. It is a boondoggle. It is unaffordable. It is not 
needed. We ought to kill it and kill it right now.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's opinion. But let me put some 
actual facts.
  First of all, it was said that the taxpayers were against this. This 
technology replaces $1 billion per week in oil that we are purchasing, 
$1 billion, and it is cleaner.
  We say there is not benefit from this. There is 75 percent less 
nuclear heavy metal waste.
  It was also mentioned that Colorado was a failure. It is because they 
used 25-year-old technology, mechanical technology. The system in 
Pennsylvania has been 86 percent efficient and produces 50 percent 
higher yield than any current nuclear operating plant that we have in 
existence. So there is benefit.
  The private industry itself has put in over $800 million into this 
program, and it is good science. Only the modular helium reactor has 
got these characteristics, that it is also meltdown-proof, one of the 
problems that many people were afraid of in early nuclear technologies, 
which was that there was going to be a meltdown. This system will not 
do that, Mr. Chairman.
  Early demonstration plans in Pennsylvania and Colorado have proved 
the integrity of the basic science. As I mentioned, in Colorado they 
used 25-year-old technology, and that is why you have a pilot program 
is to determine the pluses and the minuses. We determined that it was a 
minus. So we established a system in Pennsylvania which proved very, 
very effective.
  The effort in the 1990's focused on driving down the cost, combining 
the modular helium reactor with direct drive gas turbine for higher 
efficiency. Combined with higher thermal outputs, it made dramatic 
increases in the power outputs.
  I could tell you the per module kilowatt-hour, but I will not. It has 
more than doubled it, more than any current nuclear facility, and that 
is important, we feel, also.
  The $20 million appropriation should be compared, as I mentioned, 
with $1 billion spent by U.S. foreign oil each week.
  Several years ago the National Academy expressed some concerns over 
the economic competitiveness of GTMHR. Since the increase in power and 
the increase in costs have been lowered, we expect another report.
  Nuclear provides 20 percent of our power today, nuclear energy. There 
are some Members on the floor, and they have a right to that opinion, 
are against nuclear energy. We feel that the energy policy of this 
country has got to involve nuclear energy.
  And I think it is fair to ask the question: What would you replace it 
with? Do you replace it with oil at $1 billion a week? Do you replace 
it with hydro? Right now the environmentalists are trying to tear down 
dams because of salmon and fish and so on, and there is none left. Do 
you replace it with fossil fuels and coal, which is damaging to the 
environment? Of course, the answer is ``no.''
  Twenty percent of our energy can be replaced with this system, and 
is, and it is a viable system.
  Taxes and jobs and lower electricity costs: We heard about LIHEAP and 
that we are taking away the cost of supplementing because of energy 
costs for poor individuals in this country. Well, this reduces those 
energy rates for individuals not only in San Diego but across this 
Nation, and I think that is important also, Mr. Chairman.
  Nuclear is part of a secure energy future. Can nuclear be improved? 
Yes, it can, and that is why we have these kinds of pilot programs.
  If today's nuclear plants were as efficient as GTMHR, taxpayers would 
save about $10 billion a year just because of the increased proficiency 
that has been proven.
  The Committee on the Budget said ``yes'' on the GTMHR. It fulfills 
the 6 criteria for priority funding for essential science.
  I would also like to say to my freshman colleagues, this system was 
specifically mentioned in the Kasich budget because of its importance 
and is in the balanced budget. It specifically addresses it because of 
its importance. The Kasich budget that you voted for includes this 
program.
  I would like to ask you to vote against this amendment and support 
the turbine because it is the future of energy and the future of 
science.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of 
continuing the modest funding for this gas turbine modular helium 
reactor.
  I recognize that, as the distinguished gentlemen from Wisconsin 
indicated, that there is a bipartisan effort to strike this $20 million 
from the funding in this bill and hope that that will balance the 
Federal budget. I confess to having historic interest in this program 
and to indicate that there is bipartisan support for continuing with 
the program.
  I note that Chairman Walker and I both signed a ``Dear Colleague'' 
asking you to support this program, and when you get Chairman Walker 
and me to agree, you cannot get any more bipartisan than that. And I 
suggest that our reasons for doing that are because we have been 
involved in supporting this program with good cause for the better part 
of the past generation. This is an evolving technology. It will not 
bear fruit overnight.
  It has undergone several changes over the past decade. It has moved 
to the use of helium gas, for example, as the coolant because helium is 
inherently safer than any other kind of available coolant systems. 
There have been a number of other changes to improve the efficiency of 
the system. It employs a number of unique characteristics which take a 
great deal of time to fully develop. The pelletized system for 
containing the plutonium, for example, is a complex technology in 
itself. But it is my opinion and that of Chairman Walker and obviously 
of the gentleman from California, Mr. Cunningham, who spoke so 
eloquently and has obviously done his homework on this technology about 
its potential value, it is our view that with the fairly modest 
expenditure of funds that this can make a substantial contribution to 
the energy technologies of the future.
  Now, there is some complaint this is long-range, as much of our 
research and development is. It does not compare in long range to the 
fusion program, for example, which I have been trying to nurse along 
for the last 30 years, and I am still told that in another 30 years it 
may produce a commercially feasible energy technology, and I believe 
that it will. But that is quite a long-range program, and, of course, 
the cost of fusion is at least 10 times or more, 10 to 20 times what we 
are spending on this program, which could pay off sooner and could 
provide an opportunity for export in this country, which I think would 
be extremely useful.
  The company that is mainly involved in developing this technology has 
spent tens of millions of dollars of its own money over the past 20 
years. It is involved in conversations or discussions with the Russians 
about the possibility of using this to assist them to replace the 
present Russian nuclear commercial reactor facilities, and I think this 
is a very interesting and rater promising possibility.
  There are reasons why this Committee on Appropriations, the 
authorizing committee, have both supported this over the past decade or 
more. It has this kind of promise that I have indicated. It is worth 
nursing along.
  While we are pressed for funds, obviously, this is included in the 
budget projections, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] 
has indicated, because it is a promising technology and it is a 
relatively expensive energy technology compared to most of the others 
that we are promoting at this time.
  So I ask you to support the committee, support those of us admittedly 
in the minority on the authorizing committee. This was a generational 
thing. The senior Members voted for it, but we are outnumbered by the 
junior Members who want to make their impact by cutting out something, 
and this was their target of choice.
  I do not think this is the proper way to legislate and disregard the 
efforts that have gone on, as I say, for the last 

[[Page H 6799]]
15 or 20 years to support promising technologies of this sort.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My colleagues, the distinguished gentleman who offered this amendment 
stated that there is no legitimate support for this reactor, but, in 
fact, there is, and I have a couple of letters, one here from Duke 
Power that says, ``GTMHR represents breakthrough potential for nuclear 
power.'' Maybe its opponents do not want a breakthrough, but if there 
is no breakthrough, it is hard to explain where the world's electricity 
is going to come from in the next century.
  The Nuclear Energy Institute similarly writes a letter of support, 
stating, ``The nuclear industry also supports Federal funding for other 
advanced reactor technologies, such as the GTMHR. These technologies 
will have an important role in America's electricity supply, and the 
industry has invested more than $10 million in R&D efforts to date on 
advanced nuclear energy technologies.''
  Now, my colleagues, we have got a lot of conservatives and a number 
of Members who are more liberal, alike, but who are concerned about 
government expenditures, who say, ``Well, doggone it, why is private 
industry not paying for this R&D?'' And I think the American nuclear 
society states it best when they explain why private industry is not 
coming forth with that money. It is because there is presently a 
chilling effect throughout this country and throughout industry on any 
type of reactor. When did we build the last reactor? How many decades 
ago was it we built the last reactor?
  Let me just quote what is stated by the American Nuclear Society, a 
group which incidentally very strongly supports this reactor. They say, 
``The United States no longer holds a position of competitive 
leadership within the international commercial nuclear industry, due, 
in large part, to a web of disincentives imposed upon nuclear energy 
technologies, including tax laws discouraging collaborative research 
and development among corporations.'' We cannot deny that. That exists 
today. That is why private industry is not coming forth. ``Nuclear 
plant liability coverage requirements far in excess of other 
industries, despite demonstrably lower risks to public safety.'' We 
cannot deny, in fact, that exists, that liability exists.
 That chills the industry and deters private industry from investing. 
``Trade policies prohibiting sale of nuclear energy equipment,'' that 
does exist. ``Failure of governmental agencies to fulfill mandates for 
spent fuel storage and waste management, which creates overwhelming 
economic uncertainties for potential investors,'' my colleagues, all of 
those things exist in the private sector, and that is why, if we are 
going to meet this challenge for a reactor technology which does not 
melt down and which greatly reduces waste, we are going to have to 
spend some government dollars, and we, as conservatives and liberals 
and moderates in this body, have to accept and understand that.

  Let me just say, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], who just 
spoke, was very eloquent on that point. We have a common interest in 
this body in following this technology.
  So, if you just want to be anti-nuclear, vote for this amendment. But 
if you want to approach and continue development in a rational manner, 
to meet the two great challenges, that is, meltdown and, second, waste 
disposal problems, with respect to nuclear reactors, then please vote 
to reject this amendment.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter], my colleague. I think those of us that were involved in 
the nuclear debate back in the 1970's would recognize that waste 
production was the major concern at that time, and if that nuclear 
could have come before America and said, ``We will not only produce 
nuclear wastes, we will consume waste,'' then I think there would be a 
whole lot of different discussion by those of us who were involved in 
the debate at that time. This technology not only has the capability of 
avoiding those pitfalls, but it also has the ability of consuming a 
waste problem that has been totally ignored by this body at this time, 
and that is the fact that there is going to be over 100 metric tons of 
plutonium, military-grade plutonium between Russia and the United 
States; that all we are talking about right now is putting it in the 
ground and hoping, hoping that somebody does not know it is there, and 
use it for operations we do not care about.
  I think one of the concerns we need to recognize is that this 
technology, it not only consumes waste, it not only produces power, but 
there is this national
 defense issue that I think we got to talk about. They will say, ``Why 
doesn't the private sector do this?'' I will tell my colleagues we 
cannot walk away from our obligation to address the plutonium issue, 
not only in the United States, but across the globe. We have 100 metric 
tons that this technology can address so that it would not be used 
against the people of the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I think there is an issue there, and I would ask 
everybody that would love to vote for this amendment to recognize that 
if they want to try to kill this technology in this research, then be 
ready to go back to their district and say, ``I don't think the issue 
of our military-grade plutonium, the hundred tons that is going to 
exist between Russia and the United States, is an issue that we really 
need to worry about right now.'' This technology takes a problem and 
creates an answer to it, and for those of us that have been involved in 
environmental issues, we use a term called appropriate technology, and 
this is the appropriate technology for the use of an existing system, 
and it is probably the best example, Mr. Chairman, of military 
conversion.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Let's take that military equipment, the 
plutonium, and let's convert it into power so the civilian use can help 
our economic prosperity built on past military expenditures.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I simply want to 
commend the committee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for a very good bill, and 
on this issue I strongly urge the Members to resist the amendment and 
rise in support of the bill language.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, and 
I also commend the chairman and ranking member for their excellent 
work. Please oppose this amendment. The committee put together a 
responsible mark here, and this is specifically included in the 
balanced-budget resolution. It is within that resolution.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of this amendment. 
Recently, along with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] I was part 
of the bipartisan effort that has been referred to here in the House 
Committee on Science which eliminated a $25 million authorization for 
this particular project. Now I stand before my colleagues to urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment which would eliminate the 
appropriations for the same project.
  I respect the motives of the supporters of this particular program, 
but I believe it should be terminated because, based on all of the 
available information, it is too unlikely to become a competitive 
energy resource for the Congress to justify a request for more 

[[Page H 6800]]
taxpayer dollars. The scientific community in this country
 has rejected the claims of the supporters of this project. Studies by 
the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy and the 
Electric Power Research Institute have pointed out that this technology 
is expensive, inefficient, potentially unsafe, and a poor option for 
the disposition of excess plutonium.

  Funding for this program is also opposed by the National Taxpayers 
Union and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Last November, Mr. Chairman, the voters in my State of Minnesota and 
across the country sent a message to the U.S. Congress. They said the 
time has come for us to balance our budget by establishing priorities 
and making tough decisions. Like all programs, a case can be made for 
this particular program. But this program has been rejected by the 
administration, the scientific community, the U.S. Senate, the House 
Committee on Science. It is simply not a high enough priority to 
justify further expenditure of taxpayer dollars with the budget crisis 
that we face in this country.
  When I came to Congress, people warned me, ``Be careful about what 
you start here because once a program is begun, it just keeps on going 
and going. You can never stop it here.''
  I believe that this particular project is a classic example of that 
kind of self-perpetuation. But today we can disprove that admonition. 
We can stop this project today on the House floor.
  Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, I leave my colleagues with this thought. 
If we cannot cut this program, what program can we cut in this 
Congress? I urge my colleagues to make the tough decision and show the 
American people that Washington can change, that we can prioritize and 
that we can cut programs. A vote in support of this amendment is a 
bipartisan vote to change the way Washington operates and a step toward 
restoring the confidence people have in government.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of this amendment to terminate the gas 
turbine-modular helium reactor [GT-MHR] program appear not to 
appreciate the environmental benefits provided by nuclear power and the 
particularly unique environmental advantages of the GT-MHR technology. 
To exploit the benefits of nuclear power, the development of advanced 
nuclear technologies needs to be continued with the objective of 
achieving higher efficiencies, enhanced safety characteristics, lower 
costs, greater proliferation resistance, and less environmental impact.
  The GT-MHR is the only foreseeable option that offers an improvement 
in these characteristics. Today, over 20 percent of the Nation's 
electricity is being produced by nuclear power which is displacing, on 
a yearly basis, 600 million tons of carbon dioxide, 5 million tons of 
sulfur dioxide, and 2 million tons of nitrogen oxides. However, 70 
percent of the electrical power is being provided by burning fossil 
fuels--mostly coal, some natural gas, and some oil. Combustion of these 
fuels results in the production of significant environmental 
pollution--greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, acid rain gases 
such as sulfur dioxide, and smog effluents such as nitrogen oxides.
  Concern for environmental quality is placing an increased emphasis on 
development of electricity generation options which avoid the 
environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power has stalled 
in the United States because of concerns with uncertain safety, 
marginal economics, waste disposal, and proliferation resistance. The 
GT-MHR is designed to mitigate or to resolve these concerns. The GT-MHR 
has: First, the highest safety of any nuclear power system; second, the 
lowest cost of any alternative system; third, the least waste of any 
nuclear system; and fourth, the highest proliferation resistance of any 
nuclear power system. It couples a high-efficiency gas turbine to the 
passively safe modular helium reactor developed specifically in 
response to our requests for a simpler, safe nuclear power system.
  It achieves a 50 percent improvement in generation efficiency over 
present nuclear systems. This efficiency improvement plus the physics 
characteristics of the modular helium reactor result in a 75 percent 
reduction in heavy metal radioactive waste generation and a 50 percent 
reduction in thermal discharges per kilowatt hour produced. These 
environmental advantages coupled with the absence of emissions make the 
GT-MHR a clear choice to reduce the environmental impact of burning 
fossil fuels.
  The unique safety, economic, and environmental characteristics of the 
GT-MHR system are the reasons why its development was undertaken in the 
first place. We have made a significant investment and have made major 
progress in this technology. In the absence of an energy policy which 
indicates otherwise, now is not the time to abandon this technology and 
discard our investment. We are on the threshold of realizing the 
promise of the high temperature reactor technology. I urge my 
colleagues' support to defeat this amendment, and I hope we can make 
valid the investment that this committee and this Congress have made 
for a number of years. We have eliminated many of the alternatives. It 
seems to me we should stay the course on those that show the most 
promise.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the 
amendment. When a similar amendment was introduced by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Foley] during the Committee on Science markup, I 
strongly opposed it then, and I strongly oppose it today.
  Today, nuclear energy produces about 20 percent of our electricity. 
This is the largest producer next to coal. World electricity demand is 
expected to triple over the course of the next century and I feel it 
would be extremely short-sighted to eliminate this program when we are 
going to need a means to meet the worlds increasing electricity 
demands.
  Living in a country which now consumes $1 billion in foreign oil 
imports each week, I think it is imperative to explore other energy 
options.
  The GT-MHR is one of the most promising next generation nuclear 
reactors. As a scientist, let me tell you why I am supportive of this 
reactor. It combines a meltdown-proof reactor and advanced gas turbine 
technology in a powerplant that can provide 50 percent more electrical 
power per unit of thermal energy than other reactors.
  The current design dramatically lowers the production of radioactive 
wastes and thermal emissions which results in a new kind of powerplant 
that is efficient and safe provider of low-cost electricity.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a prime example of the kind of technology we 
need to pursue and I urge a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an important announcement for the American 
people. Pork-barrel politics is alive and well in Washington.
  My colleagues may have thought that the change which took place last 
November would bring an end to politics as usual. But that is not the 
case when it comes to bringing home the pork. True, we are making 
significant efforts to cut overall spending to balance the budget--and 
I support those efforts. But despite the deep spending cuts, members of 
the Appropriations Committee have managed to slip wasteful, 
unauthorized and unrequested projects into this spending 
bill for the benefit of local or special interests back home.
  As a cochair of the Porkbusters Coalition, I rise today in strong 
support of the Klug amendment to cut the $20 million in this bill which 
is earmarked for researching an impractical nuclear technology referred 
to as the gas turbine-modular helium reactor. The GT-MHR is a prime 
example of what the Federal Government ought not to be funding. This 
$20 million appropriation was not requested by the President in his 
budget and has not been authorized by the Science Committee. In fact, 
as a member of the Science Committee, I participated in a bipartisan 
vote to eliminate the GT-MHR. This wasteful boondoggle was also opposed 
by the Reagan and Bush administrations. In addition, several expert 
organizations are opposed to funding the GT-MHR including the National 
Academy of Sciences, the Electric Power Research 

[[Page H 6801]]
Institute, and the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past 30 years, American taxpayers have seen 
nearly 900 million of their hard-earned dollars wasted on this 
inefficient reactor technology without any tangible benefit. 
Incredibly, the General Accounting Office has estimated that it will 
take another $5.3 billion to complete the GT-MHR. I ask my colleagues: 
Do you think your constituents would approve of throwing more of their 
money into this black hole of waste? I think not.
  I urge my colleagues to take the high ground and suppress efforts 
such as this to pull a fast one on the American people. If we are 
insistent on cutting spending, it should begin with cutting the 
wasteful pork projects which are squandering taxpayer dollars. Support 
the Klug amendment to cut the GT-MHR.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a good deal of misinformation out here 
about GT-MHR, and I would like to at least clarify a point on a couple 
of things.
  First of all, it was stated by someone that the vote in the 
authorizing committee to kill the GT-MHR was a two-to-one vote. In 
fact, that is not true. The vote was 23 to 15. A switch of four votes 
would have in fact passed the program in the committee. So it was 
nowhere close to a two-to-one vote in that committee.
  Second, it has been stated that administrations for the past several 
years have not requested this program. Well, I have here the 1991 
request from the Department of Energy. In fact, it was requested in 
1991. It was only appropriated about half the level it was requested, 
but there had been in fact requests in the past.
  This is also a program I would say that has been authorized. Back in 
1992, when the Public Law 102-486 was passed, the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, Congress specifically went on record saying ``The goals of the
 program established under subsection (a) shall include--to complete 
necessary research and development on high temperature gas-cooled 
reactor technology--by September 30th, 1998.'' We specifically said we 
ought to go forward with this program in the Energy Policy Act only a 
couple of years ago.

  So the Committee on Appropriations is acting not on a pork-barrel 
program. They are acting on a direct authorized program, done by the 
Congress of the United States and our energy policy.
  Finally, there is a real myth being perpetrated here on the floor 
that somehow we are going to save money in 1996 by passing this 
amendment. The fact is not a dime will be saved by passing this 
amendment. The amendment purports to save $20 million in this fiscal 
year. The fact is that there is a legal obligation of the Federal 
Government to pay the closeout costs of the project. The closeout costs 
for the project are going to approximate the same $20 million. So we 
end up with an amendment that absolutely saves no money and would 
require the same money to be spent in 1996 to terminate a program that 
in a matter of a couple of years, after several hundred million 
dollars' worth of spending, will be complete.
  You tell me what the sense is on that. You cannot come to the floor 
and suggest that there are rational ways of doing these things if what 
you are proposing is irrational. It's absolutely irrational to come to 
the floor, claim you are going to save money when there are no savings, 
and in fact cancel out a program in which we have invested hundreds of 
millions of dollars. I have to tell you, I think what we ought to do is 
go forward with this.
  Finally, let me state that one of the best reasons for proceeding 
ahead here is what this could mean to us in terms of global competition 
in the years just ahead. This is a reactor concept which, if it proves 
feasible, can be done in small factory fabricatable designs that are of 
modular construction. Now, what you have is then an opportunity to 
produce electricity in increments of 300 megawatts or less. This is 
what utilities say that they need in order to meet steadily growing 
marginal demands.
  But the most important factor here is this has an enormous potential 
for export into developed markets such as Japan. It is needed in 
smaller, less capital intensive bites for less developed power grids 
such as those in the Far East and in Eastern Europe. So here is a 
technology that we have a chance to sell into the global marketplace.
  Also, this is something where Russians have expressed an interest in 
a joint venture with us, in large part because this can destroy all 
weapons grade useful plutonium in a once-through fuel cycle. Ninety-
five percent destruction of PU-239 is involved in this particular 
technology.
  So it seems to me that what we have here is an opportunity to really 
be economical in what we are doing, support good science, and, in the 
end, end up with a product that takes us into the global marketplace. 
That seems like a pretty good bargain for the amount of money we are 
proposing to spend.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we vote against this amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as part of a strong bipartisan opposition 
to this amendment which would delete the funding for the GT-MHR 
Development Program.
  I have heard the opponents to this program argue that it is a pork 
project, that it is an example of corporate welfare. They have said 
that this pork has cost the taxpayers $900 million. Well, let us set 
the record straight. Approximately $900 million has been appropriated 
from taxpayers' money to be spent on high temperature gas cooled 
reactor technology. But this expenditure has been a sound public 
investment for the following reasons. We have had in fact a sound 
public investment for these reasons:
  Number one, an amount substantially equal to the taxpayers' $900 
million has also been invested by private industry in the high-
temperature gas-cooled reactor technology. This is the kind of 
government and industry partnership we want for research and 
development to advance promising technologies.
  These funds together have permitted the design, development, and 
construction of two demonstration plants, permitted the gas-cooled 
reactor to be selected by the Department of Energy as a new production 
reactor, and provided the brood technology base which allows a GT-MHR 
project to proceed.
  Second, much of the taxpayers' $900 million has gone to our national 
laboratories who are involved in research and development. At present, 
there are four prime contractors and several subcontractors involved in 
this technology. GT-MHR research and development is being performed 
throughout the country by several government laboratories and private 
companies. The prime beneficiary is our country.
  Third, the breakthrough achieved by the GT-MHR provides high 
prospects--higher I am told than ever before--that there will be an 
investment payoff. Its safety, low cost, low environmental impact, and 
high proliferation resistance make it an ideal candidate for helping to 
meet the future electricity requirements which will provide jobs, an 
export product, and a technology to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil.
  The gas-cooled reactor was one of the two technologies selected in an 
exhaustive evaluation for development as a new production reactor and 
was evaluated to be the most cost-effective alternative. The project 
was deferred at the end of the cold war because of a lack of immediate 
need. However, the Department of Energy is now in position of having to 
identify a new tritium supply source and is in the process of spending 
significant additional taxpayers' dollars re-looking at tritium 
production alternatives. Why is this effort being performed again when 
it was evaluated less than 10 years ago? This is the kind of thing that 
should be examined to avoid wasting taxpayers' dollars.
  The GT-MHR breakthrough is a result of the foresight which went into 
past congressional actions on this technology, but it is imperative 
that the research and development be seen through to completion. To 
stop it now would really be a waste of the investment. Worse yet, 
another country may step forward and capitalize on our investment. We 
cannot let that happen. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

[[Page H 6802]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I think it would be useful to start by correcting a 
few statements that have been made here on the floor that are just not 
supported by fact. It has been stated that the Electric Power Research 
Institute has decided that this technology is not worth pursuing. I 
have here a fairly thick study by the Electric Power Research Institute 
done by Commonwealth Edison, Duke Engineering, Yankee Atomic Energy 
Electric, here is the conclusion in the executive summary. This is a 
1991 study:

       In conclusion, the utility review team recognizes that the 
     high temperature gas reactor design offers a viable potential 
     nuclear option to the power industry for the next century 
     potential and deserves continuing development. This 
     endorsement is consistent with previous opinions expressed by 
     the utility industry and more recently by the endorsement of 
     the Advance Reactor Corporation in the January 10, 1990, 
     report, and the corporation's ad hoc committee on DOE's 
     advanced reactor development plan.

  By the same token, it has been said here on the floor that this 
program was terminated by the Reagan administration and terminated by 
the Bush administration.
  In fact, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor was one of two 
candidates for the new production reactor that would have gone to 
Savannah River or Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for the next 
tritium production source.
  In fact the NPR team, the new production reactor team at the 
Department of Energy, headed by Dominique Mineta, had settled upon this 
particular design, the high-temperature modular gas-cooled reactor, for 
the new tritium production source, when Admiral Watkins as the 
Secretary of Energy decided that we did not need to incur the expense 
of building a new production reactor.
  Why? Because that fall, in late September 1991, the Bush 
administration had entered into an agreement with the Soviet Union for 
the drawdown of nuclear weapons, and we had far more tritium generated 
as a result of that drawdown than we needed and there was no urgent 
immediacy or need for tritium. Indeed, we do not need any until the 
next century. That was the reason that the Bush administration did no 
go forward with the high temperature gas reactor at that time.
  For the statement here on the floor that that administration canceled 
it, has nothing to do with the merits of this program, and it does have 
merits. It had merits, first of all, still for the Department of Energy 
as a tritium production source. Indeed, the Department of Energy, while 
they are not pursuing this as their primary source, did single it out 
and did say themselves, their Energy Research Committee, said a couple 
of years ago, this concept has the highest probability for success if 
we choose a second generation reactor.
  Furthermore, they said that this concept, the high-temperature gas-
cooled reactor, presents an opportunity for significant advantages in 
the level of safety over current commercial reactor experience.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been stated here on the floor that this 
particular design has inherent safety features. It is worth taking 
those one by one to show the House and the committee why it is worth 
pursuing this particular technology.
  First of all, the fuel particles, these uranium kernels, are encased 
in a ceramic coating that is pyrolytic, that is fired, that is made of 
silicone and carbon, and, as a result, the uranium is in an 
impermeable, impervious case. Consequently, once it is irradiated, it 
gives off heat, but it does not give off fissionable products. So you 
do not get the inner area of the reactor contaminated with fissionable 
products, with radionuclides. These are still contained in the ceramic 
case of the fuel particle.
  Second, to the extent that any of these radionuclides do escape, they 
are captured by a graphite matrix that is part of the fuel assembly. 
They absorb them.
  Third, the reactor itself has a helium moderator or coolant. Rather 
than using light water or regular water, it uses helium. Helium is 
inert. It does not chemically react with the reactor itself or with the 
fuel elements of the fuel assembly. And, unlike water, it does not 
boil. This gives it another passive safety feature.
  Finally, the fuel core is arranged so that there is a negative 
temperature coefficient. As the temperature goes up, radioactivity of 
the core goes down.
  All of these are passive safety features. Why is it important? 
Because this reactor is safe without depending upon the operator's 
interaction.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Spratt was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the important inherent safety features of 
this reactor means that it does not depend for its safety on an alert, 
astute operator, who is wide awake. Nor does it depend upon backup 
systems and a power system to supply these systems.

                              {time}  1800

  It is passively and inherently safe by its own design. This 
particular system has been endorsed and supported by a number of people 
who believe that nuclear power still has a role to play in this 
country. One of those is Duke Power Co., which is a prominent electric 
utility in my own district. And the head or chairman emeritus of that 
company, Bill Lee, wrote us all a letter, wrote the chairman of this 
committee a letter. I would just like to read what the chairman of that 
committee said.
  People in the utility industry, this is Bill Lee talking, who look 
ahead, want the improvements in nuclear power that are represented by 
this technology. The electric utility industry supports the light water 
technology for its immediate potential benefits, but most people in the 
industry recognize that breakthrough potential of the gas turbine 
modular helium reactor and belief that these breakthroughs must be 
pursued and that it is the proper role of our Government for our 
Nation's longer term energy competitiveness to underwrite them.
  In my opinion, it is essential that this technology be continued 
along with the advanced light water reactor. If it is not, I fear we 
will be buying much of our nuclear power generating equipment in the 
next century from abroad. This would mean the loss of an industry 
larger than the commercial airplane market, and it would be sad indeed 
for the U.S. economy, U.S. jobs and the U.S. standard of living.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment because I wanted to 
be part of this historic debate. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] has put together, in my opinion, the historic trifecta, Reagan, 
Bush, and Clinton, all supporting the position of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin; in addition, the National Taxpayers Union, the Friends of 
the Earth, and the National Academy of Sciences, a combination of truly 
all-star proportions, all gathered together to kill one technology.
  Now, why does this technology deserve to be killed? Very simply, it 
is the second generation of the same technology. And it is not basic 
research that we are talking about, it is applied research. That is, it 
is the point at which they are building this monstrosity for commercial 
purposes.
  Now, ordinarily if you are talking about a nascent industry, one that 
is just beginning to get off the ground, it would be one thing; and we 
can debate out here what the proper role is of the Federal Government 
in subsidizing a new industry. This, however, is one of the oldest 
industries in the United States and one of the two or three wealthiest 
industries.
  We are talking about the electric utility industry of the United 
States. Every one of us, all 275 million Americans, has a wire that 
goes into our home. And every one of us has an electric utility that 
every time we turn on a light bulb or have our toast pop up, gets ready 
to send us another bill to charge us for. This multi-hundred-billion 
dollar a year industry makes an enormous amount of money from doing 
that. We are grateful to them for the wonderful service which they 
provide for us and do not really begrudge them 

[[Page H 6803]]
the incredible profits which this industry receives.
  However, when they then turn to the very same 275 million people, as 
taxpayers, and say, by the way, we do not want to actually pay for the 
next generation of our electric utility generating capacity; we would 
like you, the taxpayers, to put up the money for that as well, well, 
this is the point at which the American taxpayer and Adam Smiths all 
begin to spin wondering what is going on with the capitalist system.
  As we know, this technology is competing with oil and gas and 
geothermal and conservation and the new wheeling technologies and 
interconnection capacities which are reducing the need for electricity 
inside of our country or generating them in 20 and 30 megawatt size 
plants, using the new laws which we passed in 1992 to wheel that power 
to where it is needed around the country.
  Now, the problem with the technology is that it goes back to an 
earlier era, the late 1970's and the early 1980's. During that period 
of time, the electric utility industry testified before Congress that 
we would need 500 more 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants by the year 
2000 or else we would face blackouts of electricity across the country. 
And that was, I am sure, their sincere testimony before the Congress in 
the late 1970's and early 1980's. It resulted in a lot of this basic 
research at least being invested in.
  Well, it is 15, 20 years later. We did not build a single new nuclear 
power plant in our country during that period of time. We have 
electricity surpluses across the country because we have, because of 
the law changes, so many smaller independent generators of electricity 
who are using the wires to produce electricity using nonnuclear 
sources.
  So as we hit the middle of the 1990's, we have a
   fundamental question to ask ourselves. Should we, as the 
Representatives of the taxpayers of the United States, be subsidizing 
the very wealthiest mature industry in the United States in applied 
research, as we build the reactor for them, when in fact the most that 
we can elicit from these electric utility executives are letters of 
support for us to spend taxpayers money?

  The capitalist system demands that in the free market that private 
sector companies, especially those as well-to-do as the electric 
utilities of this country, make the investment in the new technologies. 
If they do not, they must step aside and allow these newer, smaller 
generators of electricity to continue to do the job for our country 
which they have over the past several years.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has an amendment which must be embraced, 
if capitalist, free market principles are to endure in the electricity 
marketplace of our country. I hope that all understand the importance 
of this amendment.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let me 
quote the Bangor Daily News in their editorial calling it a nuclear 
turkey: ``What's tougher than the hide on a M-1 tank, more resilient 
than the hungriest garden pest and harder to shake than a bad 
reputation? Time's up. The answer is: a nuclear turkey.
  ``Most taxpayers remember the mohair subsidies that annually clipped 
them for millions before Congress recently found the courage to pull 
the plug.
  ``Today the target is the gas turbine modular helium reactor, a 
nuclear turkey that deserves to be carved from the federal budget.''
  Taxpayers have been paying $900 million for this technology.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] made some nice points. 
He suggested that, if the nuclear and electric companies are so 
supportive of this, send a check. Send a check to support this 
technology. Do not just send a letter. The American public who is 
paying for this technology is paying over and over and over again for a 
system that clearly does not work.
  You read all the documentation. I can read you editorial after 
editorial, the Oregonian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Atlanta 
Constitution. All have weighed in on this subject. All have looked at 
the expert testimony. All have read the reports from the National 
Academy of Sciences. All have read the documentation.
  Now, the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, suggested that it was 
only new Members of Congress that wanted to eliminate this technology. 
Let me correct the record, because three subcommittee chairman of the 
Committee on Science voted to end this project: the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the 
gentleman form Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]; all subcommittee chairmen 
stood up and voted against this appropriation.
  This is not an antinuclear amendment. I recognize and support the 
important role of nuclear technology in the Nation's energy needs. In 
my home State, nearly one-third of the electricity is provided by 
nuclear facilities. But what I am interested in is cutting funding for 
things that simply are never going to occur in my lifetime.
  Now, the chairman of the Committee on Science suggests that we cannot 
cut this today because it is going to cost us 20 million more dollars 
to terminate the program.
  Let me give you a letter from the Department of Energy that suggests 
it will require an additional 1 billion of expenditures to bring this 
project to fruition.
  I will take that bet. I will spend $20 million to get out of this 
boondoggle before I will spend $1 billion to find out if it works.
  Let me say to you in the hallways of this Congress, those listening 
on their TV sets around our Nation, as a freshman Republican, I came 
here to make a difference. I came here to cut things that are wasteful 
spending. If we are to meet the priorities of this Nation, we are going 
to have to start looking at things like this and saying no to projects 
like this.
  I ask those private utilities again if they like this technology so 
much, send a check. Bring a check for us.
  Let me also suggest to the committee, we had a vote. It may have been 
23 to 15, but in my book of politics, 23 to 15 wins; 23 to 15 wins. 
When I ran for office, I was telling people every vote counts. People 
have won offices by one vote. So I think 23 to 15 is a fairly 
significant victory in the committee, the authorizing committee, for 
this project.
  The appropriation is unauthorized. We won in committee, and we are 
here on the floor to ask the appropriations process of this Chamber to 
agree with us.
  We know the Senate will agree with us because they voted on killing 
this project before. We know the President's budget. The last three 
Presidents, as has been mentioned, have not authorized this. Again, the 
vast majority of my colleagues on the Committee on Science supported 
the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and 
myself to terminate this project.
  Times have changed. Today we see a new coalition of Members on both 
sides of the aisle. These coalitions are taking the will of the 
American people into consideration on every single spending bill.
  This amendment will keep the taxpayers from having to continue being 
high risk financiers for private corporations.
  If this program holds the potential that its proponents claim, then 
let the private sector fund it. Stop ripping dollars out of the 
constituents hard-earned taxpayer monies for wasteful pork.
  I urge every Member that comes to this floor to vote to do what is 
right for the American people and kill this boondoggle once and for 
all.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. My 
colleagues, when the National Taxpayers Union, the Sierra Club, the 
Council of Citizens Against Government Waste, the Cato Institute, Ralph 
Nader, the National Academy of Sciences and the House authorizing 
committee all agree, I would submit that we have to pay careful 
attention.
  This diverse group has concluded that the gas turbine modular helium 
reactor, a proposed gas-cooled nuclear fission reactor in San Diego, 
fails the 

[[Page H 6804]]
important test of scientific merit, environmental safety, and cost 
effectiveness. And yet, unless we act today, this project will continue 
to receive significant Federal support.
  How much will taxpayers be saddled with before this project is 
completed?
  The General Accounting Office says the project will cost $5.3 
billion, and taxpayers will have to pick up half of that tab. Adopting 
this amendment will save taxpayers $20 million next year and more than 
$2.5 billion when all is said and done.
  Two years ago the Senate voted to cut off funding for the reactor. 
Now is the time for this body, once and for all, to do the right thing.
  At a time, my colleagues, when we are told that we must make massive 
cuts in Medicare that are going to affect thousands and thousands of 
people in my district and all of our districts and when we are going to 
be cutting student loans and when we will be cutting a whole range of 
education programs, it would be a shameful abdication of our 
responsibilities not to stop this wasteful spending.
  I urge a yes vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gas turbine modular helium reactor fails to meet 
the basic test of spending Americans' hard-earned tax dollars: Does it 
work? The only commercial version of this reactor closed after 16 years 
of operation and never achieved more than 14 years of capacity. Based 
on this failure, the National Academy of Sciences determined the 
reactor has low market potential and endorses its elimination. Even 
worse, as has been pointed out on the floor, the gas turbine is a 
budget-buster. Eliminating it will save $20 million now in fiscal year 
1996 and $2.5 billion later.
  Several opponents of this amendment, proponents of this boondoggle, 
have said it does not really save $20 million now. The fact is, every 
time there is a huge budget-busting engineering project on this floor, 
whether it is Super collider, whether it is the space station, whether 
it is this reactor, the proponents of these boondoggles always argue 
``It will not save any money today,'' and they do not talk about how 
much money it will save in the future. That cost savings, that $2.5-
billion cost saving in the long run, is what is so important.
  Additionally, the gas turbine modular helium reactor, Mr. Chairman, 
is a potential environmental hazard. The reactor does not have a 
containment structure to prevent an accidental environmental 
catastrophe in the event of a problem. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] called the support for this by Presidents Reagan, Bush, 
and Clinton, as a trifecta.
  On this day, Mr. Chairman, of the baseball All Star game, I would use 
a slightly different metaphor. As six Cleveland Indians represent 
murderers' row in the American League this year in the All Star team, I 
would say that our murderers' row of Presidents Reagan, Bush, and 
Clinton, the National Taxpayers Union, Friends of the Earth, and 
Citizens Against Government Waste underscores the public opposition to 
this huge hunk of pork.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge House support of the amendment.
  Mr. BEVILLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and in support 
of the subcommittee. This is a project that this subcommittee is 
familiar with. We have supported it over the years. We hear all these 
things about the National Academy of Sciences, criticizing this 
technology and actually the last word on the GT-MHR from NAS was a 
letter to Senator Bradley dated December 10, 1993. The National Academy 
of Sciences' committee chairman notes and points out, ``The National 
Academy committee did not examine and therefore could not evaluate the 
gas turbine reactor.''
  Then we hear about the Department of Energy's opposition to this 
project. The Department of Energy--we consider them the experts and we 
listen to them. Unfortunately, many times we have regretted listening 
to them. We have the Clinch River breeder reactor, which is a hole in 
the ground in Tennessee, because we followed DOE's advice. They said 
this is a great project. We put $1 billion in it, or so, and then DOE 
decided they had something else better and the project was terminated.
  Then they start the gas concentrifuge plant, and the same thing 
happened. Then the mirror fusion, and again, the same thing. They get 
us to start these projects and then they come in and tell us they found 
something better. We just keep going.
  Therefore, do not get carried away with what the Department of Energy 
says. I think there is more reliable information from people who 
actually deal with nuclear power and who so enthusiastically support 
this source of energy--the public utilities who use nuclear power.
  Here is a letter from a friend of mine from the State of Alabama who 
has been involved with nuclear power ever since it came into being. He 
served as president of Southern Company Nuclear that handles all of 
Southern Companies' nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, and 
northern Florida. He says,

       One of the most promising technologies for the future is 
     the gas turbine engineering reactor program, which has been 
     supported by the nuclear industry and by the Congress for a 
     number of years. It is an extremely safe and efficient 
     technology . . . and it creates less waste for disposition. 
     With a program such as this, if it was terminated, it would 
     be extremely difficult if not impossible to renew our 
     investment. Valuable technology would be lost if we 
     discontinue it.

  Duke Power Co. Chairman Emeritus, another person who knows what they 
are talking about, who deals with these matters every day says, ``The 
cost of the gas turbine is very small when compared to its potential 
benefits. The gas turbine is a dramatically different helium reactor 
from that considered by the National Academy of Science.'' He states 
that; ``The gas reactor represents a breakthrough potential for nuclear 
power.''
  These are people that deal with nuclear power and are sold on this 
project. So, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
support the subcommittee's recommendation. This project has a future. 
It is long-range research. We are not talking about a large amount of 
money, as the former chairman of the Committee on Science and present 
ranking member, Mr. Brown of California, has pointed out.
  Japan and other countries are quick in pursuit of this project. They 
are putting money into it. They are working on it. They are very 
supportive of it. We support this research and urge Members to support 
the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations of the House 
by voting against this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the King-Foley-Luther-Obey 
amendment to cut $20 million to terminate the gas turbine modular 
helium reactor, the gas-cooled reactor. The fact is that before I came 
to the Congress of the United States I spent over 10 years building up 
an energy company. That energy company worked in oil, in gas, 
electricity. It worked in a range of renewable energies, from solar 
energy to conservation energy.
  We ought to have a very simple energy policy in this country which 
is, ``Cheaper is better.'' If we followed that rule, we would be 
pumping not billions of dollars into this ridiculous technology, but we 
would be putting money into energy conservation. We would recognize 
that we could dramatically reduce the amount of administering that this 
country needs. We could dramatically reduce our balance of trade 
problems with all the countries around the world, where we have such 
tremendous difficulties these days. We could increase our own 
independence if we had a simple policy, if we got away from the kind of 
corporate welfare that this is the best single example of that exists 
in the budget of the United States.
  Why should we be writing a taxpayer check to the richest industry in 
this country? The fact of the matter is that what we need is the kind 
of wheeling capabilities that allow us to trade energy among different 
utilities all across America that in and of itself will bring down our 
cost of electricity 

[[Page H 6805]]
and increase our capability dramatically. Those are the kinds of areas 
that we ought to be concentrating in.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to create greater energy independence, put 
money into basic research. However, this notion of applied research 
funded by taxpayers is absolutely outrageous. It does nothing to help 
out our country. All it does is line the pockets of a specific 
industry.
  If we look at the actual technologies that are going into this 
particular thing, we have a proven failure. Colorado's Fort St. Vrain 
reactor, the world's only commercial version of this technology, has 
had one of the worst operating records of any nuclear facility and has 
consistently operated at a very low capacity. Both the National Academy 
of Sciences and the Electric Power Research Institute have concluded 
that the reactor is not commercially viable.
  Therefore, why do we pick this particular technology to pump $1 
billion into? Nobody can give us a reason. I know it has to be located 
in somebody's congressional district, but that is no reason to override 
the authorizing committee. That is no reason to override the best 
judgment of three Presidents, no reason to do anything other than 
finally kill this program, put the funds that are necessary into where 
this country can gain its efficiencies, can gain its independence, can 
do things that will help out ordinary citizens in their electrical 
utility needs.
  There are a great many areas where we should be putting our money 
into research. Just because we are opposed to this kind of boondoggle 
does not mean that we should oppose the basic research budgets of this 
country. Our country needs vital investments in basic research, so we 
can have that kind of independence that America has always striven for. 
This is not basic research, Mr. Chairman. This is money to line the 
pockets of particular utilities that have already made this investment, 
and now want the taxpayer to bail them out. Let us not bail out the 
utility industry, let us bail out the American taxpayer and support the 
Obey-Foley amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  First off, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, are his children 
and grandchildren going to have power, the electric energy we are using 
now to cool this building? The light water reactor has been the 
workhorse for the past 40 years for the Department of Energy, the only 
reactor we have. What is going to be the power source for our children 
and grandchildren? This is what we are looking to now. Sure, it is 
looking down the road a ways, but do we want safe, available power? 
Then this gas-cooled, yes, helium-cooled, but it is a gas turbine, an 
entirely different reactor than most of the Members have been 
describing here today.
  First off, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Foley] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], who 
mentioned the utilities putting their money up. There is more than $800 
million spent by the utility companies, the utility consortium, they 
have put in $800 million of their own money so far, and they are still 
supporting it, as has been expressed here. It was said it cost over $2 
billion, $2.6 billion, to continue the research. That would be a new 
power reactor which would be the reactor to destroy high level fuel. 
That has nothing to do with that, it would be entirely owned by 
government, entirely paid for by government. It is a different reactor 
entirely.
  It has been estimated to us that this gas turbine modular helium 
reactor can be completed, all the research, all the development, and 
the certification can be completed for about $2 billion. The question 
here is, Mr. Chairman, are we going to have a new reactor or are we 
going to continue with the old workhorse, the light water reactor.
  It has been stated here about the National Academy of Sciences. A 
letter by the chairman of the national committee says, ``The National 
Academy Committee did not examine and therefore could not evaluate the 
gas turbine reactor,'' only the old reactor, which was the high 
temperature gas reactor.
  The one test they did in 1992, they only tested HTGR, which is an 
earlier version, not the modern one we are discussing here now. In 1994 
the discussion there was about using HTGR to destroy plutonium. Again, 
it was decided it was not the efficient way, because the gas reactor 
could be used. However, if you were interested in destroying plutonium, 
as has been earlier said, this gas turbine can destroy 95 percent of 
plutonium, compared to about 50 percent with the light water reactor.
  This is a reactor that can be used. It is of utility interest. That 
has been already discussed here. There has been one letter that no one 
has discussed. Many will remember Eddy Teller, Dr. Teller. He just sent 
us a letter, and I will just quote a couple of things, and he was kind 
of the father and knows more about nuclear industry and nuclear 
research than anybody else that I know of in the country:

       Of all the nuclear technologies, the GT-MHR is a promising 
     and essential step to the ultimate reactors which will some 
     day be deep under ground and have no moving parts . . . . The 
     research and development of the gas turbine reactor is 
     promising and I strongly recommend the continuation of its 
     funding by the House.

  In closing, it has been discussed about Fort St. Vrain in Colorado. 
Yes, it operated I think for 17 years, but here again, it is like 
comparing a Model T to the modern vehicles we have today. It was the 
first generation. It did have some problems. However, the problem was 
not with the reactor itself, the problem was in the cooling system. 
They could not keep the bearings and all of the cooling system working. 
It had a very low availability.
  However, at the same time, Peach Bottom I, which was a gas reactor, 
had an 85-percent availability. Therefore, Members only looked at one, 
did they not, Fort St. Vrain in Colorado? The Public Service Company of 
Colorado sent us a letter saying it would be a serious mistake for the 
Department of Energy to turn its back on this superior technology. Mr. 
Chairman, it is easy to cut the money out, but if Members want to have 
a new source of reactor that is reliable, safe, then we have to start 
looking for the 21st century, and this is the reactor we should look 
to.
   Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two points. The National 
Academy of Sciences in a report from this year says the basic HMHTGR 
design has been available for many years and has not been commercially 
successful. Let me reiterate the point made by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], and 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. If money talks, then in this 
case the utility industry has fundamentally walked.

                              {time}  1800

  Nothing in this amendment prevents any private utility company in the 
United States from going ahead with this design. It simply says, after 
$900 million, $2 billion more to finish the project, we have had enough 
of it.
  It used to be called the MHTGR. It is now called the GTMHR, which is 
an interesting anagram. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that any way you 
spell it, it ultimately is a waste of billions of dollars and 
fundamentally it is a radioactive boondoggle and I urge a ``yes'' on 
the amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, world electricity demands are expected to 
triple in the next century--we will need nuclear power to meet this 
need. We need technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign energy 
sources--we now consume $1 billion in foreign oil imports each week.
  The Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor produces only two-thirds of 
the high-level waste and one-third of the heavy metal waste as current 
reactors. Contrary to opponents' claims, the National Academy of 
Sciences has never evaluated this project. The 1988 study opponents of 
this project are waving around was for a completely different design of 
gas-cooled reactor.
  The direct-drive turbine system of this reactor make it far more 
efficient than traditional steam-driven reactors. The GT-MHR could be 
meltdown-proof modular technology, creating a safe as well as efficient 
reactor technology. 

[[Page H 6806]]
And contrary to opponents' assertions, the project enjoys wide support 
from the utility industry.
  The GT-MHR will also create economical production of hydrogen, and 
can destroy over 90 percent of surplus weapons-grade plutonium by using 
it as fuel to provide electrical energy. Development of new and 
advanced energy sources requires government support. Continued 
government support of this technology will create the technical base 
needed for industry to assume complete development.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important technological investment, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would end the GT-MHR 
program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 306, 
noes 121, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               AYES--306

     Allard
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--121

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Bunn
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Knollenberg
     Lazio
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Schaefer
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cardin
     Frost
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stark
     Yates

                              {time}  1849

  Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. WELLER, and Mr. BUNN of Oregon changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HANCOCK, SAXTON, BROWDER, and HERGER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 23.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 16, line 1, insert 
     ``(less $18,000,000)'', before ``to remain''.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] would consider limiting the time on his amendment 
equally divided between yourself and myself, say, at 20 past 7 for this 
amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Half an hour, with three speakers on each side?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I would like to equally divide a half hour, but 
make the time certain and equally divided, yes.
  Mr. OBEY. Surely. I have no objection.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for such 
a request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair understands that the amendment 
and all amendments thereto will be debated for 30 minutes, divided 
evenly between both sides. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for their support on the last vote, 
and I would ask that they continue that support for the next two 
amendments.
  This amendment simply cuts $18 million from the nuclear technology 
research and development program.
  Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress voted decisively to kill the 
advanced liquid metal reactor program. It was judged to be too costly 
at $3.3 billion, and the technology too questionable to continue.
  The Department of Energy, which has never been able to end a program 
on its own, sought and received approval from the subcommittee to 
reprogram $21 million to terminate this program. After receiving 
approval for this reprogramming, the department reneged on its 
commitment, terminated only a few people with buyouts, and sought $37 
million more in fiscal 1996 to continue to pay the people affected 
while searching for a new mission for them.

[[Page H 6807]]

  One part of DOE claimed the concept of nuclear fuel reprocessing 
technology may be a potential treatment for DOE spent fuel, but 
internal documents from another entity of DOE show that there is no 
consensus within the department on the use of this technology and, in 
fact, DOE's waste managers have developed plans for spent fuel which do 
not involve reprocessing.
  In fact, their preference is to obtain approval to haul spent fuel in 
canisters and dispose of it directly in a repository.
  Opponents of my amendment are sending around a Dear Colleague saying 
that this program will actually save taxpayers' dollars. But, in fact, 
the National Academy of Science's report yesterday, on page 412, states 
that the pyro processing approach would require substantial additional 
engineering development and construction of major new facilities, and I 
am quoting now,

       including what would amount to a sizable liquid metal 
     reactor fuel reprocessing plant to provide feed material, and 
     it would produce a waste form that has not been characterized 
     at all for long-term deposition, and it would probably be 
     unsuitable for emplacement in Yucca Mountain. All of this is, 
     it strikes our panel.

  They went on to say,

       As a prescription for long delays and big investments in
        pursuit of a program for which satisfactory approaches are 
     much closer at hand.

  It would, therefore appear that the jury is still out, at minimum, on 
the position of the National Academy of Sciences on the issue of 
electro refining of spent nuclear fuel. It would also appear that the 
agenda of those who advocate this funding is to keep alive the 
possibility of reviving the advanced liquid metal reactor program or a 
hybrid of it.
  What is really going on here is that the Department of Energy is 
seeking funds to keep Argonne National Labs in Idaho and Chicago going 
until somebody figures out a new mission for them.
  The Department of Energy was singled out for elimination in the House 
budget, but the inability of this committee to recommend the 
termination of this tiny program, I think, is a perfect illustration of 
the difficulty that people seem to have in going from the general to 
the specific, when it comes to budget cutting.
  How on Earth are we to take seriously all of the rhetoric about the 
necessity to abolish the Energy Department, if you cannot even abolish 
this tiny little program which most unbiased people recognize is a 
waste of money and a turkey?
  Now, what made matters worse is that the committee added $8 million 
to the original subcommittee mark at the time we met in full committee 
at the request of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell].
  Now, I have great respect for the gentleman, and I have great respect 
for the people whom he is trying to defend. But I can recall many an 
occasion when he has come to this floor saying we should be knocking 
out congressional pork in other peoples' districts. Well, this is, to 
me, an example of congressional pork which has no justification. It is 
an agency and a program in search of a mission. We ought to save this 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, it is too bad the time is a bit short, but, 
Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in opposition to the Obey amendment. 
This amendment would zero out an appropriation of $18 million for what 
I believe is an extremely important ongoing environmental nuclear waste 
reduction research program being conducted by the Department of Energy 
in Illinois and Idaho. This environmental nuclear waste treatment 
program was funded at $25.7 million in fiscal year 1995, the current 
year. The administration and the Department of Energy requested funding 
this year at approximately $36 million. The House Committee on Science 
and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of that committee have 
both authorized funding for that amount in fiscal year 1996, so there 
is no question about authorization here. The House energy water 
appropriation bill wrestled with this. They have a long background and 
knowledge obviously of what they are talking about, and they cut the 
appropriation down to $18 million from the $36 million that had been 
authorized, a 50-percent reduction so that there has been some cutting 
that has taken place.
  Now the Obey amendment would zero out this nuclear waste reduction 
program altogether, and apparently, and I want to stress this point on 
the mistaken conclusion that it represents continued funding for the 
Department of Energy's advanced liquid metal reactor IFR program, which 
was terminated by Congress last year, I think mistakenly, at a cost of 
something like $330 million over 4 years; but this is not the ALMRIFR 
program, an advanced nuclear research program aimed at developing a new 
and safe nuclear reactor which recycled and consumed its own nuclear 
waste, which I felt was good, but that is gone. It is terminated; it is 
in the process of termination at a cost, as I said, of $330 million.
  Now the environmental nuclear waste treatment program here, which is 
the subject of this amendment, involves research on an elec- 
trometallurgical process that is aimed at decreasing the toxicity and 
the volume of over 2,700 metric tons of more than 150 different types 
of nuclear waste stored at the various DOE sites around this Nation in 
Idaho, Washington, Tennessee, South Carolina, and other places. In 
fact, Congress last year specifically reaffirmed the importance of this 
nuclear waste research program precisely because of its applications to 
help solve current problems with the storage and treatment of nuclear 
waste. I want to reemphasize it has got nothing to do with the program 
that was terminated last year.
  Is this research supported by the sciences? Yes. The National Academy 
of Sciences does support continued funding of this research saying that 
it represents, and I quote, promising technology for treating a variety 
of Department of Energy spent fuels, end of quote. Indeed further 
funding of this research is predicated on the continued approval of the 
National Academy of Sciences, and I have the most recent report from 
the National Academy of Sciences, which came this day, which deals with 
the electrometallurgical process that we are talking about here in 
regard to the treatment of spent fuels, and their quotes, and I set 
this forth as a quote: ``Notwithstanding the above,'' and they went 
over disadvantages and concerns, ``it is desirable that this process 
technology based at Argonne National Laboratory be kept viable as a 
problem-solving research program.'' This is specifically in regard to 
the electrometallurgical process, and I believe that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin was talking about a National Academy's report of yesterday.
  The safe disposal of more than 2,700 metric tons of nuclear waste is 
a dire responsibility of the Federal Government. It will not go away. 
We are not doing anything about being able to store this properly, and 
now we have reticence, I gather by some, to do something about the 
problem of treatment. We need places in which to store spent nuclear 
waste, and we need the technology to electrometallurgically treat these 
wastes in order to lessen their volumes and toxicity as well as to 
assure their safe disposal.
  Now I want to emphasize this:
  The committees of jurisdiction, both authorizing and appropriations, 
the administration, the Department of Energy, the National Academy of 
Sciences all have recommended continued funding of this research, and I 
believe it is good science. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote no 
on the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, just so everyone can understand what it is 
that we are debating out here on the floor, this is basically a baby 
breeder reactor. The name has been changed to protect the guilty, but 
it is just the next generation of the breeder reactor, that whole 
debate we had about the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and all of that. I 
say to my colleagues, ``If you remember, this miracle technology is 

[[Page H 6808]]
going to produce electricity too cheap to meter, and it is also going 
to solve our reprocessing problem, if such existed.''
  The problem with it was that it created two problems. One, it, in 
fact, cost more than anyone had ever imagined that it could cost to 
generate electricity; and, second, it blew a hole right through our 
nonproliferation policy because, as we began the process of 
constructing a technology to reprocess plutonium, we were sending a 
signal to North Korea, and Iran, and Iraq, and Libya, and every other 
country around the world that was contemplating the use of this 
technology to extract nuclear-weapons-grade fuel and telling them, 
``Don't listen to what we say. Don't in any was believe that we are 
sermonizing on the subject. Just look at this
 huge amount of money that we are willing to spend on the same 
technology that we are telling you that you should not in fact invest 
in.''

  So the $18 million which the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks to cut 
out of this budget goes right to the heart of this debate. One, we 
should not be subsidizing once again private-sector technology which is 
supposed to ultimately reuse this spent fuel for other purposes. That 
would be wrong. Eighteen million dollars for the nuclear utility 
industry would be about $100,000 in electric utility per year. If they 
think it is such a wonderful technology for a hundred thousand bucks 
apiece, the wealthiest industry in America should be able to finance 
it.
  But second, we all have to ask whether or not our 20-year-old policy 
of turning our back to this reprocessing technology which blows a hole 
into our nonproliferation regime is something we want to destroy. Now 
they can use this new term of pyral processing, but, if we are 
pyromaniacs here, we are basically going to burn up 18 million bucks 
and burn up our nonproliferation policy simultaneously out here on the 
floor this evening. The vote, the correct vote, is to insure that the 
private sector funds this if in fact it is deemed to be worthy as a 
generator of a new era of nuclear powerplant fuel, and second, we 
should understand that the $18 million we spend absolutely makes us 
look like hypocrites on the world stage, and we try to convince North 
Korea and others that the nonproliferation regime of the United States 
has any credibility.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It is 18 million this year. How much next year, the 
following year, and the following year?
  Mr. MARKEY. It is a pile as high as the Moon because ultimately this 
technology will never produce any final product which was an 
unfortunate experience which we had with the Clinch River Breeder 
Reactor. It never resulted in a final product.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. I simply want to point out the gentleman said this is 
private-sector technology. We are talking about spent nuclear fuel that 
the public owns and creates. This is Department of Energy spent nuclear 
fuel which is spread all over this Nation at public sites. The private 
entities have nothing to do with this metallurgical processing of waste 
products. It has got nothing to do with any physical reactors.
  I say to the gentleman, you have got all your information wrong.
  Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, I do not have my information wrong. 
In fact, as the gentleman knows, the DOE has not even decided whether 
or not they want to use this technology at all. The gentleman is 
substituting his own scientific judgment for that of the Department of 
Energy.
  Moreover, we are not even talking about the reprocessing of the spent 
fuel from the 40 years of the cold war. So what is at the heart, as the 
gentleman knows, is the plan to reuse this fuel in a civilian context. 
It is a source of fuel that could be used. The Clinch River Breeder 
Reactor was originally intended for that purpose. This technology 
ultimately has the same purpose. It is nothing more than a second 
generation of that same objective.
  So, the DOE says that it will, in fact, cost $85 billion if we do 
reprocessing for spent fuel from civilian reactors. Eighty-five billion 
dollars is the number of the Department of Energy. There is no way we 
are going to spend that kind of money. This is a civilian pork barrel 
project that blows a hole through our nonproliferation policy.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], who was a practicing scientist. A 
lot of us have been quoting scientific facts here today from what we 
have read, but our colleague is one of the few scientists we have in 
Congress.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, in the middle of the desert and underneath 
a mountain in the western United States we were building or trying to 
build a repository for nuclear waste. It is commonly known as Yucca 
Mountain. We have already collected billions and billions of dollars 
from the consumers in this country, consumers of electric power, in 
order to pay for that waste storage facility and the problems that 
arise from it in the future. And we are talking about billions and 
billions of dollars for that purpose alone.
  The question is can we perhaps improve the operation of that 
facility, can we perhaps save some money by not simply dumping things 
in there, but rather processing them first, categorizing the waste, 
putting the short-lived waste in one type of container, putting the 
long-lived waste in another type of container?
  One of the advantages of the project that is before us is that it is 
an attempt to separate waste into the high-activity, long-life waste 
and the high-activity, short-life waste, and, if we can do that, I 
would expect that to result, result in a substantial savings to the 
American taxpayers who are currently paying for the Yucca Mountain 
facility.
  Getting rid of nuclear waste is a very complex business. If it were 
easy, it would have been done long ago, and I hope that in fact we do 
manage to resolve this problem and deal with nuclear wastes in a safe, 
sane, and less costly fashion in the future.
  I do not claim to be an expert on the technology that is under 
discussion here in this particular amendment, but I will certainly say 
this is not a nuclear reactor, and certainly it does not deal with 
purely the private sector's waste. In fact, it is aimed primarily at 
the nuclear wastes that are produced by the Federal Government and its 
facilities at Hanford and elsewhere.
  I think we ought to continue this. I agree with the report. That is 
we have a pre-publication copy of the report from the National Research 
Council. You have heard the Congressman from Illinois read a section 
from that a few moments ago.
                              {time}  1915

  They recommend that even though there are substantial concerns at 
this point, it is desirable to continue working on this process and 
keep it viable until we determine whether or not it in fact will assist 
us in disposing of our nuclear wastes at a lower cost.
  I agree with that conclusion. I believe we should continue this 
project. We should try to determine whether or not it will work, 
because if it does work, the payoff is large.
  The report goes on to say if this does not prove out, we should not 
hesitate to terminate it. I am sure if this does not prove to be a 
valid technology, the maker of the motion and those speaking in favor 
of the motion will be back next year or the year after, waving this 
language at us and saying ``See, it did not work. Let's cut it out.''
  My response is if in fact that does happen and the National Research 
Council agrees with the conclusion it does not work, all of us should 
vote to cut it out. But at this point it looks like a promising, useful 
approach to dealing with nuclear waste, and I urge defeat of the 
amendment and continuation of the project until we determine precisely 
whether or not it will or will not work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make four points once again. 
After the Congress voted to end the advanced liquid metal reactor 
program, the agency asked Congress for money to terminate that program 
and to begin to lay off people at the labs associated with that 
program.

[[Page H 6809]]

  After they got permission from the Congress to do it, the agency then 
decided they wanted to change their mind. They asked for $37 million to 
continue employing 900 people at these labs who were going to be doing 
work on that project. They asked to continue to employ them rather than 
to terminate them. Yet they do not have any new mission. That seems to 
me to be a very big waste of money.
  Second, DOE claims that reprocessing technology might be a treatment 
that can be used for disposing of spent fuel. But the fact is that 
internal documents in that very same agency show that there is no 
consensus within that agency on the subject, and they show that in fact 
their planners are proceeding ahead under the assumption that their 
plans for dealing with spent fuel will not involve reprocessing.
  Third, I will read once again from the report of the National Academy 
of Sciences released just yesterday entitled ``Plutonium Disposition 
Reactor Related Options,'' page 412. It says, ``The pyro processing 
approach would require substantial additional engineering development 
and construction of major new facilities, and it would produce a waste 
form that has not been characterized at all for long-term disposition, 
and it would probably be unsuitable for emplacement in Yucca 
Mountain,'' which has just been mentioned.
  They go on to say, ``All of this strikes our panel as a prescription 
for long delays and big investments in pursuit of a problem for which 
satisfactory approaches are much closer at hand.''
  In plain English, it seems to me that says Don't waste the money.
  Now, the last point I would simply make is that if you voted for the 
budget resolution which called for the abolition of the Energy 
Department, then you have no logical choice, it seems to me, but to 
vote to end this program. Why on Earth should the country believe that 
you are serious about abolishing thee Department of Energy if you 
cannot even vote to abolish a program which the Energy Department 
itself decided they had to close down and asked permission from the 
Congress in fact to do so? So if you voted for the budget resolution, 
which called for the abolition of that department, then how on Earth 
can you not follow through by voting to abolish some of the tiny 
programs which that department runs, programs which obviously right now 
are just spinning their wheels, spending money in search of a mission?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to defend the taxpayer rather than a 
piece of pork. I urge Members to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let us be blunt and call a spade a spade. 
There are two kinds of people supporting this amendment. One is what I 
call the ``Screaming Greenies,'' the Green Peace group that goes out 
there and has been trying to sink the nuclear power industry in this 
country for years. Thank God they did not.
  Then you have the other kind that are kind of political and they want 
to go after the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] because he is a 
noted pork buster.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment dealing with pork 
whatsoever. There is nothing in here that this gentleman put in this 
bill. It has been there. This is an ongoing program.
  If you want to cut something, here is $900 billion in cuts, which I 
have given to every appropriator in this House and every Member of 
Congress. You can take it page by page, and you can cut, cut, cut, cut, 
cut. We want to see these amendments offered on the floor. They are 
real cutting amendments. It is how we can really balance the budget and 
bring back some fiscal responsibility to this body.
  Please, I ask all Republicans, vote ``no'' on this, and you fiscally 
responsible Democrats, you do the same thing. Let us defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. CRAPO].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, once again I stand in strong opposition to 
the efforts to eliminate some of the critical nuclear research that is 
necessary for our country's nuclear energy programs. We fought these 
kinds of battles repeatedly, but I think it is important that we 
recognize, as we did in previous years, that the National Academy of 
Sciences has recognized this technology as critical, and the reports 
that have been talked about today do not correctly reflect the 
information that has come out of the National Research Council and 
their testing.
  In fact, as the gentleman from Illinois has already indicated, 
today's report states that notwithstanding the above information in the 
report, it is desirable that the process technology here that we are 
talking about based at national laboratories be kept viable as a 
problem solving resource. We must recognize that, according to the DOE, 
this research can significantly reduce the amount of high level waste 
in spent nuclear fuel. This offers us the potential key for the safe 
treatment of our spent nuclear fuel.
  Funding fur nuclear technology research and development was requested 
by the Clinton administration and the Department of Energy and 
authorized by the House Committee on Science. At these amounts, we are 
already seeing significant reductions for budget balancing purposes. 
Now we must follow the strong science in this country and support 
continuing nuclear research.
  We have a problem in this country in dealing with spent nuclear fuel 
and nuclear waste. We have a scientific opportunity to find the 
solution, to unlock the problems and to get past the roadblocks that 
are facing us in the handling of our spent nuclear fuel, its storage 
and treatment.
  This technology is critical. The scientists in the country say it is 
needed, the Clinton administration says it is needed, the Department of 
Energy says that it is needed, the authorizing committee says that it 
is needed. It is time that we stop undercutting the nuclear research in 
this country and move forward to the kinds of solutions that are 
critical to the handling of these issues.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is awfully important to understand that in 
this case there is no National Taxpayers' Union opposition to what we 
are doing here. There is no Citizens Against Government Waste 
opposition to what we are doing here. This has been authorized by the 
authorizing subcommittee, by the House Committee on Science itself, and 
then when it came over to the appropriators they did their job in 
cutting. I felt they cut too much, because it went down to $18 million.
  So the job has been done. It has gone through the process. You have a 
National Academy of Sciences report that deals with 
electrometallurgical processing, and the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
talking about one that deals with plutonium disposition options. We are 
not talking about plutonium disposition options. We are talking about a 
metallurgical process on spent fuel that the public, that the DOE, has 
created.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the argument during the last amendment that 
successfully reduced by $20 million research for a reactor for the next 
century was the fact that, first, the President had not requested it, 
second, that the Department of Energy did not favor it and, third, it 
was not authorized.
  This program meets all three of those criteria. The President 
requested $37.3 million, it is authorized, and DOE has strongly 
supported the program. So if you are going to be consistent, the 300 of 
you voted a while ago to cut funds for those reasons or some other 
reasons, now you have no other choice but to vote for this because it 
meets the three criteria you spelled out during the last amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, one of our greatest threats today is nuclear waste. 
This is an attempt to, and hopefully it will, find a solution to the 
problem. I ask for a strong vote of no on their amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H 6810]]



                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 266, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               AYES--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--266

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boehner
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Clement
     Frost
     Jefferson
     Longley
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Oxley
     Reynolds
     Stark
     Yates
                              {time}  1947

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. McKinney for, with Mr. Yates against.

  Messrs. EVANS, PETERSON of Florida, de la GARZA, and ENSIGN changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MFUME changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding there has been a discussion and 
an agreement from the minority that this last vote will be the last 
vote for the evening, but we will have some colloquies with Members who 
have some expression here of the intent of legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I certainly hope 
so.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Is that my understanding of the agreement we 
have?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that certainly 
would be my hope and expectation. We are being asked to go into a 
markup at this point at 8 p.m., and it seems to me if we are going to 
have an appropriation subcommittee markup we should not have to be in 
two places at the same time, so I see no reason for us to continue the 
session this evening.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we will have the colloquies and 
the Committee will rise. There will be no more votes this evening, if 
it can be avoided.


                    amendment offered by mr. skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs: On page 19, line 7, strike 
     ``$5,265,478,000'' and in lieu thereof insert 
     ``$5,411,478,000''.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, on this amendment I reserve a 
point of order.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Let me just reassure my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, even 
though we have called this up as an amendment, this will not involve a 
vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I expect that the distinguished gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] may insist on his point of order. I appreciate the 
opportunity to have made these arguments on behalf of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add a modest amount, $146 million, 
in order to partially correct a serious mistake in this bill.
  That mistake is a reduction in funding for the Energy Department's 
environmental management program--the program to clean up the enormous 
mess at the various nuclear weapons facilities--a reduction of more 
than $740 million. In making that reduction, the committee's leadership 
was taking its lead from the authorizing committee, which cut the 
authorization for these programs in order to increase spending for 
missile defenses--the ``Star Wars'' programs--by a like amount.
  In this respect, the priorities in the defense authorization bill 
were exactly wrong. We shouldn't repeat the mistake. We need to clean 
up our room before we spend our allowance to buy new toys.
  Through its environmental management programs, the Energy Department 
carries out the work of cleaning up the Rocky Flats site in Colorado, 
and the other facilities where America developed and built the nuclear 
weapons that enabled us to win the cold war.
  The costs of this cleanup are part of the costs of that victory. 

[[Page H 6811]]

  They have to be paid. There is nothing speculative about the 
environmental and safety problems at Rocky Flats, or Savannah River, or 
the Hanford Reservation, or any of the other sites. While the benefits 
that might come from spending more than the Defense Department proposes 
for the Star Wars programs are at best speculative, there is nothing 
speculative about the health, safety, and environmental benefits from 
cleaning up Rocky Flats and the other sites. Nor about the serious 
risks posed to worker and public health and safety unless funding is at 
least partly restored.
  Much has been done already. The Office of Environmental Management 
has already safeguarded more than 20 metric tons of weapons-usable 
plutonium; prevented explosives in tanks of high-level wastes; treated 
more than 4 billion gallons of contaminated water; and removed or 
stabilized enough contaminated soil to fill trucks stretching from 
Alabama to Los Angeles. But more--much, much more--remains to be done.
  Progress has been made recently in improving the efficiency of the 
cleanup. For example, the administration expects to save a billion 
dollars by privatizing some operations, to let market forces push costs 
down, and by changing contract incentives to reward efficiency and 
costs savings, reducing work forces, and focusing research and 
development on the areas of most pressing needs. But these improved 
efficiencies cannot make up for the excessive cuts that would be made 
by this bill.
  The effects of this bill's underfunding are more severe because they 
come down on top of reductions self-imposed by DOE and rescissions 
adopted for fiscal 1995 funds. Last year, we cut these programs by more 
than $89 million below the fiscal 1994 level, providing $124.7 million 
less than the administration had said was needed for fiscal 1995. 
Compared to the nearly $6.58 billion requirement for fiscal 1996 
contemplated in its previous budget submission, the Department this 
year has requested only $6 billion in the actual fiscal 1996 budget 
submitted this year. That reduction, more than $557 million, reflects 
an enormous internal effort by the Department to search out and 
implement savings and efficiencies on its own.
  Unless it's amended, this bill would fall another $742.5 million 
below what DOE says it needs to do the job. That's why I am urging the 
House to adopt this amendment and to provide more funding than is now 
in the bill.
  Even with this increase, the bill will not provide all that's 
necessary for this vital work in the next fiscal year. In fact, even 
with the amendment's increase the bill will fall short of the 
administration's request by nearly $600 million. But adoption of the 
amendment will at least partially close the gap, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman speaks he 
speaks firsthand, because Rocky Flats in his State is one of the worst 
in the country as far as environmental cleanup. The committee has been 
well aware of the problem there. We have been trying to clean that up 
for the last several years. We finally, I think, are making more 
progress today.
  However, the committee has realized that almost a $1 billion increase 
each year occurs in the environmental restoration and the clean-up, and 
it is a very serious problem this committee and the country faces, but 
we have not had much success that the gentlemen has been addressing 
here as far as DOE is concerned.
  What we have done, without prejudice to the future, we have said, 
``Look, you have to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of your 
clean-up,'' This is what we are trying to do here. We will work very 
closely with the gentleman to make sure we do get the most bang for our 
buck.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I understand and share the Chairman's 
interest in promoting greater efficiency in this area, DOE. As the 
gentleman knows, the department has taken some important steps itself. 
I hope the chairman would agree with me that while greater efficiency 
is desirable, that these programs meet an important responsibility and 
that we need to continue to provide necessary resources.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We certainly do.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I hope we can work together on this in connection with 
the 1997 legislation.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The committee makes that commitment to all 
Members.
  Mr. SKAGGS. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, rather than putting the 
chairman to the point of order, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development of the Committee on Appropriations, in a colloquy regarding 
H.R. 1905.
  Specifically, I rise to inquire about title 3 for the Department of 
Energy in general science and research activities, subheading for 
nuclear physics. It is my understanding that the $304.5 million will be 
appropriated for fiscal year 1996. Of those dollars, I understand that 
is the intention of the committee to support the university-based 
accelerators under the nuclear physics account within the funds 
available.
  Furthermore, I understand that it is the intention of the committee 
to support the Bates Linear Accelerator Center in Middleton, MA, again 
within the available funds. Is this understanding correct?
  Mr. MEYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The 
committee continues to support university-based research in high 
physics, recognizing that much of the research is done by universities. 
But even maybe more importantly, it supports the development and 
teaching of scientists for the future, so it really serves two 
purposes. The committee has been a long supporter and will continue. 
The gentleman is correct, we are continuing that support.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want to 
thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for clarifying 
this very important point.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, H.R. 1905 provides $425 million for 
the nuclear waste program, which is a reduction from past levels. The 
committee report on H.R. 1905 states this funding level is insufficient 
to aggressively pursue site characterization activities at Yucca 
Mountain, and that the Appropriations Committee will be unable to 
provide resources to match the project's ambitious funding profile for 
the coming years.
  The committee report also directs DOE to concentrate available 
resources on the development and implementation of a national interim 
storage program. I would ask the gentleman if this is correct, if I am 
reading this right.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAEFER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman is correct. This committee has 
supported long-term storage. At this time we have continued to support 
the characterization of the site in Nevada known as Yucca Mountain, 
while recognizing our contractual responsibility as well as our moral 
responsibility to accept the nuclear waste that is now at 71 locations 
with 109 reactors around the country where much of the storage is 
outside in dry storage. We recognize we have to do something about 
meeting that obligation we have by accepting that storage of the 
nuclear fuel, spent fuel, from these reactors. That has to be 
accomplished by 1998. The only way we can see being able to do that is 
to focus on interim storage.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 

[[Page H 6812]]
  comments. The committee report also directs DOE to downgrade, suspend 
or terminate its activities at Yucca Mountain. It is my understanding 
that the energy and water development appropriations bill does not 
force DOE to abandon site characterization work at Yucca Mountain and 
that DOE has testified in hearings before the Energy and Power 
Subcommittee that the funding level for the nuclear waste disposal 
program in H.R. 1905 is adequate to both develop a Federal interim 
storage facility and maintain site characterization activity at Yucca 
Mountain, although site characterization activity would be slow down.
  Is it the gentleman's view that H.R. 1905 would permit continued site 
characterization at Yucca Mountain, although at a slower pace than in 
the past?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield further, the 
committee has of course worked with your subcommittee very closely on 
this issue. You have visited this mountain more recently than we have. 
It is exactly the criteria that we developed in this appropriation that 
while we are not trying to prejudice any future decision, the 
aggressive program we have had in the last year especially would have 
to be slowed own. Site characterization of some type will continue, but 
we just do not have the dollars to do both the aggressive 
characterization by the drilling in the mountain that we would have and 
still find the interim site.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Reclaiming my time, the committee report on H.R. 1905 
also states the Department should anticipate enactment of expanded 
authority to accept waste for interim storage and should refocus the 
civilian radioactive waste program accordingly. I want to assure the 
gentleman from Indiana that the Committee on Commerce will soon take up 
the legislation to direct DOE to develop an interim storage site. I 
thank the gentleman for engaging in this colloquy.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for bringing the issue up 
and look forward to working with him in the future development of a 
site for our nuclear waste.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the First District of Kentucky, which 
includes the Land Between the Lakes. LBL is a 170,000-acre national 
recreation and environmental education area managed by the Tennessee 
Valley Authority. LBL supports a $400 million regional tourism industry 
and provides high-quality recreation and environmental opportunities to 
over 2 million visitors a year.
  Mr. Chairman, TVA has been working to create a new public and private 
partnership to increase the rate of return from LBL. User fees are 
being collected from the public, and the need for Federal subsidies is 
expected to decrease as management builds more efficiencies into the 
LBL system.
  As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the recommended 
Federal contribution to LBL is $3.1 million, a reduction of $3 million 
from the budget request of $6.1 million. Although I appreciate the 
serious budgetary constraints under which the committee is operating, I 
fear that this reduced level of funding will frustrate TVA's ability to 
manage a smooth transition to LBL self-sufficiency.
  In the past, TVA has used stewardship account funds to support 
functions of LBL. To the extent that TVA is able to realize reductions, 
savings, or efficiencies, I presume the committee will allow TVA the 
flexibility to allocate available resources so that stewardship funds 
could be used from LBL if necessary.
  I would just like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and ask 
him if he agrees with that understanding.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. This is exactly the position the committee 
took. We have long supported TVA but we realize with the limited 
resources you spoke of, we just cannot continue all of these. But we 
would be glad to work with the Tennessee Valley Authority and the 
Congressmen from that area, both Tennessee and Kentucky, because this 
is a problem we have to address but that we are not expecting to be 
addressed and solved overnight. We will be glad to work with the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I appreciate the hard work that the committee has done 
and commend the chairman for trying to balance the needs of the public 
versus the resources that we are working with. I appreciate your 
working with TVA and allowing them some flexibility on these funds.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me express as one member of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on 
Appropriations my appreciation to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member, for their help in including 
in the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water appropriations bill $250,000 
in funds for the Sonoma County, California Vernal Pools Task Force. 
These funds which I sought along with my colleague the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey] will enable completion of the second phase of 
a preservation plan for Vernal Pools which are a very sensitive and 
fragile form of ecosystem and wetlands.
  As the subcommittee chairman knows, the Vernal Pools Task Force was 
established at my initiative in 1991 before my sabbatical from Congress 
and its primary goal is simplification of the Army Corps of Engineers 
permitting process for areas that do not contain high-quality vernal 
pools. In Public Law 102-580, the 102d Congress directed the Secretary 
of the Army to provide technical assistance to the task
 force in drafting a plan for the development and preservation of high-
quality seasonal wetlands on the Santa Rosa plain.

  The task force has now completed the first phase of developing an 
application to the Army Corps of Engineers general permit, namely, 
identifying the areas to be considered potential high-quality sites. 
Specifically at this point, I would like to express my understanding of 
actions that the subcommittee encourages the Vernal Pools Task Force to 
undertake with respect to modifying its operations in a number of areas 
and then ask the subcommittee chairman if he concurs in those 
expectations.
  First of all, approximately one-half of the current task force 
consists of representatives of Federal and State agencies. The 
involvement of the agencies as voting members of the task force has 
inhibited development of a plan that is community-driven. To rectify 
this, it may be preferable for Federal and State officials to serve in 
an advisory manner and not to have a vote on the task force.
  Second, the committee understands that a large amount of land under 
consideration by the task force is agricultural in nature and in use, 
yet the agricultural community does not have sufficient representation 
on the task force. We would encourage three additional members be added 
to represent the agricultural community as determined by the Sonoma 
County Farm Bureau.
  Third, the task force does not currently include a representative 
from my congressional office representing California's First District. 
The task force should include one nonvoting representative each from 
the First and Sixth Congressional District offices.
  And finally, we believe that affected property owners should have a 
mechanism to appeal any task force decision to list their property as 
high-quality wetlands. Before completion of phase II with the funds 
appropriated by the subcommittee, all owners of property designated as 
high-quality wetlands should be notified of the pending designation and 
the task force should develop an appeals process for affected property 
owners.
  So at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the subcommittee chairman, again 
commend him for his fine work in drafting this complex and important 
piece of legislation, and ask the gentleman if I am correct that the 
committee views these actions as appropriate.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California 

[[Page H 6813]]
  [Mr. Riggs] is correct. Under his strong leadership before, when the 
gentleman was here the first term, he became a leader in this field and 
much of what has been accomplished so far is because of the gentleman's 
endeavor and hard work. He continues to do the same job as a member of 
this subcommittee. We work closely with the gentleman and continue, as 
we have in the past, and the gentleman is correct in what we are trying 
to do .
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very kind 
remarks.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. I first want to compliment the 
gentleman and his staff for this fine bill, particularly in light of 
the fiscal situation with which we are faced, and the yeoman's job the 
gentleman has done today just staying with it and I know we will 
continue tomorrow.
  Of great importance to Arkansas, and many other states in the 
Southwest United States, is the McClellan-Kerr navigation project on 
the Arkansas River. Grain, steel, lumber and finished products are 
shipped and received on this inland navigation system.
  The surface level of the Mississippi River is expected to decline to 
95 feet above sea level, roughly 15 feet lower than the original design 
elevation at the confluence of the river and the McClellan-Kerr 
project. Without corrective action, not even empty tows could go either 
way on the river. They would be resting on the bottom with no water for 
navigation.
  Delays and unreliable service due to these low water levels will 
adversely impact industry as far west as Texas and Colorado and as far 
north as Iowa and Nebraska. As the President of Century Tube Corp. of 
my hometown of Pine Bluff, AR, Robert Pfautz, indicated in a letter 
last month,

       We have experienced river closing in the past which lasted 
     several weeks and caused us to take emergency actions to keep 
     our production lines running at significant cost and possible 
     plant shutdowns. If barges are unable to enter into the 
     Arkansas River from the Mississippi, then we are forced to 
     offload steel at ports on the Mississippi and transport the 
     steel by truck to our plant. This process is very expensive.

  Shortage of water not only stops traffic on the river, it also causes 
people to initially choose more reliable and expensive transportation 
during certain times of the year.
  In 1993, the Army Corps of Engineers finalized a study that detailed 
the necessity of the construction of lock and dam at the confluence of 
the Mississippi and the entrance to the McClellan-Kerr project. The 
other alternative was dredging. Dredging, which is a process that digs 
land from the bottom of the river to
 ensure that water levels are maintainable, costs between $6 million 
and $7 million every year.

  I might add that the disposal of the dredged material is an 
environmental issue. At this time, there are few places we can dispose 
of this material, as it may risk 2,400 acres of hardwood-wetland 
wildlife habitat.
  The highlights of the important of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam 
thus are twofold. By constructing this lock and dam, we can provide 
industry with a less expensive means of transporting its good in and 
out of the Midwest and the Southwest United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], in his bill, 
indicates his recognition that this is a problem and has included $5.4 
million to begin land acquisition for the planning and construction of 
roads and facilities for the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
  For the past 5 years, Mr. Chairman, as you know, language has been 
included expressing congressional intent that this project be built. 
Unfortunately, the Corps, despite Congress' intent to move on this 
project, has not seen fit to act.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Meyers] if 
it is his intent to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake the 
activities in fiscal year 1996 as outlined in this bill's accompanying 
report, thereby enabling Century Tube of Pine Bluff, farmers, and other 
shippers to use this critical waterway year round.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey] has very accurately described the conditions on the McClellan-
Kerr Waterway and it is a very severe problem and we are well aware of 
that. We have been trying to tell the Corps that we intend it to be 
built. We have had some difficulty getting it started, but we will work 
you and the Corps to make sure that they do fulfill the intent of 
Congress.
  We thank the gentleman for his diligence. Perseverance is not lacking 
in his character.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, also patience and tolerance is not lacking 
in the gentleman's qualifications either. Let me ask the gentleman one 
other question. Does this action that he is directing constitute the 
start of the construction process?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we think it is, yes. We will be 
working with the Corps to make sure that is carried out, and with the 
gentleman, I am sure.


                     amendment offered by mr. hoke

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: At the end of the bill, 
     insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 505. The Secretary of Energy shall transmit a report 
     to the Congress each time the Secretary authorizes the 
     payment of travel expenses of the Secretary or other 
     employees of the Department of Energy in excess of an 
     aggregate of $5,246,200 for fiscal year 1996. Such report 
     shall describe the amount authorized, the purposes for which 
     such funds were originally allocated, and the travel expenses 
     for which they are used.

  Mr. HOKE (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. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The amendment as offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] goes 
to title V.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the gentleman from Ohio withdraws the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Indiana in a 
colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I recently submitted for the 
Record this amendment which was designed to restore some degree of 
sanity to the official travel policies at the Department of Energy. I 
want to take a moment just to discuss the reasoning behind the 
amendment.
                              {time}  2015

  Some months ago I began an investigation of the Secretary of Energy's 
proclivity to spend generously on herself and her aides in the course 
of what has been called or billed as ``official travel.'' Through a 
preliminary inquiry into the agency's activities, it is apparent that 
Secretary O'Leary has already transferred in excess of $400,000 from 
nuclear accounts, including accounts used by scientists and technicians 
in the department's nuclear safeguards and security programs by pay for 
this travel.
  Although the Secretary claims that her use of official funds is not 
out of the ordinary, the facts paint an entirely different picture. 
According to a recent L.A. Times article, the Secretary believes in 
traveling in business and first class more often than not, and she 
spent approximately $815 per trip, for a total of nearly $50,000 on her 
domestic travels alone. That does not include the costs associated with 
those who are traveling with her, her staff, which has included as many 
has 10 people, nor does that take into account the Secretary's overseas 
junkets, which include bank-busting visits to Russia, to Italy and to 
France.
  It is truly shocking and without precedent that the Department of 
Energy seems to become a travel service for the Secretary of Energy. In 
fact, 

[[Page H 6814]]
she has recently demanded that program offices responsible for 
safeguarding our Nation's nuclear deterrent cough up additional funds 
to pay for an August trip to South Africa.
  The onset of this travel investigation has coincided with the 
resignation of the No. 2 official in the dependent and with rumors of 
other top-level officials leaving the department.
  As we can all no doubt recall, the President campaigned in 1992 on a 
pledge his administration would be free from even the taint of 
inappropriate activity.
  In light of all of these recent developments and because I am mindful 
of the fact my amendment may constitute legislating on an 
appropriations bill, I do not intend to offer it later today on part 5. 
However, I do intend to revisit the issue in the very near future, for 
that reason, I would like to yield for your thoughts and comments on 
this important issue.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for bringing up this 
issue. The committee is well aware of the press coverage and the 
accusations of extravagant, if not unnecessary, spending on travel.
  We have reduced the administrative resources for the Department of 
Energy this year. They have done their part. We will be watching this 
very closely. Also, we appreciate you working with the committee. We 
will be watching it very closely. I assure you of that.
  Mr. HOKE. I do appreciate the chairman's offer and expression of 
support on that.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Thank you for drawing our attention to that.
  Mr. HOKE. I know gentleman from Kansas also wanted to add some 
thoughts on this.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I know we have some limited time. We do not have time to 
talk about how the Secretary averages more on a 3-day trip than the 
next person in the Cabinet averages on a 5-day trip. We really do not 
have time to talk about the time when the Secretary went to Boston and 
spent $337 per night in a hotel when the head of the EPA was just there 
subsequently and only spent $83 per night. We do not have time a talk 
about how the Secretary of the Department of Energy always travels with 
7 or more, as an average, aides. We do not have time to talk about 
upgrading costs when she took a trip from Chicago to London along with 
members of her staff, and the upgrades alone cost $10,265 to the 
taxpayer.
  What really is kind of bothering me about this is it is being charged 
not to just this budget but also to the future. We are borrowing this 
money. We are going to go out and borrow this money.
  On July 4, I had a nephew born, Keenan Tiahrt. He was born July 4, 
1995, and because of spending like this that goes to the debt, he is 
going to have to pay $197,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the 
debt. So we are charging it to his account and to my children's account 
and to the next generation's account.
  So it is a little bit difficult. We do not want to micromanage this. 
But I am not sure what we are going to have to do, whether we have to 
shame the Secretary of the Department of Energy to travel on the same 
budget the rest of us travel on. Why does she have to be excessive on 
the taxpayers' dollars?
  I wanted to say I understand why you cannot offer this because of the 
way the rules are written, but I think that we should have some sanity 
in the way of traveling. I appreciate Chairman Myers watching the 
Secretary.
  I know that I had an amendment that I was going to offer. I am not 
going to offer it because he has done a good job of reducing the 
Administration's budget, forcing the Secretary of Energy to travel 
differently.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just wanted to, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, I would 
just like to say I think Chairman Myers has done a good job of taking 
one step forward in seeing we reduce the administrative budget by about 
approximately 20 percent.
  All the corporations across the United States have reduced, and I 
think it has made them more efficient. If you talk to the corporations, 
you will find out that by downsizing, they have become more efficient.
  So I think this is a good step in the right direction. That is why I 
am not offering my amendment. I understand the rules, you know, that we 
cannot micromanage and we cannot put this onto the appropriations bill. 
I think we are taking the right steps to downsize.
  I have a bill that will eliminate the Department of Energy. I think 
we are in line towards even that goal. So we are taking the right steps 
as a Congress, and I just want to commend Chairman Myers.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. The fact is we have got a problem at the Department of 
Energy with travel, and it is not just a small problem, because what it 
does do is it takes money away from the accounts that safeguard our 
nuclear energy program, and it is spending it in a way that is very 
difficult, to say the least, to understand by Members of Congress who 
are charged with oversight of the Department of Energy.
  I will give you one other example of this, because I think it is 
instructive, because I think it is important that our colleagues know 
that there is a real problem. It is a genuine problem, and it is a 
problem that we want the Department of Energy and the Secretary of that 
department to take seriously and to get under control and to do it now.
  As you know, government officials are permitted to claim up to 100 
percent of the maximum per diem in special or unusual circumstances. 
However, Secretary O'Leary has sought reimbursement for expenses in 
excess of the maximum per diem on 61 of the 71 occasions when she 
stayed at a hotel in the United States. She appears to believe that the 
special or unusual circumstances are the rule when she travels.
  Now, she has transferred $400,000 from other program accounts to 
finance this travel. She has just returned from a trip to Paris, 
Florence, and Baku. She is currently in Russia for the 8th time, and 
she is soon going to be off to South Africa. It is enough. Enough is 
enough, Mr. Chairman, and we want this kind of extravagant travel to 
stop, and we want the money to be stopped being taken from the accounts 
and wasted on the travel account.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I wanted to note, I want you to know 
this goes beyond just the travel budget. We have instances pointed out 
by Vice President Gore in his National Performance Review that the 
Department of Energy, in their environmental management area, has 
missed 20 percent of their milestones, which means they are behind 
schedule. They are 40 percent inefficient. It could cost us $70 billion 
over the next 30 years. I think Vice President Gore's National 
Performance Review is clear we need to do something about the 
management practices at the Department of Energy.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the Secretary was watching C-SPAN in Russia and 
got the message firsthand.
  We are about to finish here the committee's business this day. On 
behalf of the committee, I want to thank the professional staff here as 
well as our staff members for the patience and understanding and 
cooperation today.
  Tomorrow will be chapter 2, and we expect to finish by noon tomorrow, 
noon someplace, anyway, but we have a few more amendments tomorrow, but 
with the understanding and cooperation, we can finish it. Be here at 10 
o'clock sharp, tomorrow morning.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the latest discussion 
by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Kansas.
  Sitting here, it just struck me, if we are really talking about 
saving money, and I am not taking up with the Secretary of Energy, 
Secretary O'Leary, the amounts, or urge the amounts that have been set 
out. I am not taking up for her. But what was interesting for 

[[Page H 6815]]
me to hear that we are running up the big deficit by Secretary O'Leary 
charging hotel rooms and airplane flights and everything else and just, 
well, an hour ago, everybody had a chance to save $18 million. I do not 
think Secretary O'Leary has spent $18 million.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. She is not home yet.
  Mr. VOLKMER. She has not spent $18 million. We could have saved $18 
million. They did not want to save that.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, today's business for the 
committee is finished at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barr) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore 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. 1905), 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________