[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Superconducting Super Collider project shall be rescinded on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.
____________________