[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 126 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11068-S11080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate business is the energy and water 
appropriation bill, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we are going to try to 
finish this energy and water appropriations bill today. I have been 
advised by the managers that they think that can be done. They have 
resolved one of the contentious issues.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I should like to address one portion of 
that bill for just a few moments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as we recommence the debate on the 
appropriations for energy and water, I should like to express my 
appreciation to the distinguished chairman of that appropriations 
subcommittee, the Senator from New Mexico, and his colleague, the 
Senator from Louisiana, for the thoughtful and generous treatment they 
have accorded to two projects in the State of Washington that are of 
great importance to that State. The subcommittee has approved and the 
Senate is now considering funding for the Yakima River Basin water 
enhancement project and the Columbia 

[[Page S11069]]
Basin project. Each of them is beneficial both to irrigators and fish 
and wildlife and the Yakima Indian Nation in central Washington.
  Last year, under the leadership of the Senator from Louisiana, 
Congress passed authorizing legislation creating the Yakima River Basin 
water enhancement project. This program will fund water conservation 
and storage measures which will secure irrigation water supplies for 
farmers, help salmon populations in the basin, and be of considerable 
benefit to the Yakima Indian Nation as well.
  Specific programs within the project are the Cle Elum Reservoir, the 
Chandler pumping and powerplant, the Kachess Dam and Reservoir, 
irrigation and instream flow studies, enhancement of tributaries water 
supplies and environmental compliance activities.
  Further down the river, the Columbia Basin funding will help complete 
that project's drainage system. It will assure a sustainable irrigation 
project that will be able to meet its Federal repayment obligations and 
generate the project's intended social, environmental, and economic 
benefits. Once a drainage inventory is finished, local irrigation 
districts and the local Bureau of Reclamation office will be able to 
expedite work and reduce overhead burdens to finally complete the 
drainage system, saving taxpayer dollars in the long run.
  Mr. President, as we all know, weather is an uncertain thing. And if 
you are a farmer faced with a drought, your entire livelihood is in 
jeopardy. Washington State is no stranger to severe water shortages, 
and funding for these projects will make water supply more certain for 
farmers within their areas.
  These projects also improve conditions for fish. Already, at the 
Yakima project, fish passage facilities have been installed at project 
dams and screens have been placed at irrigation diversions.
  I am truly pleased that the Senate subcommittee and full committee 
have approved funding for the Yakima enhancement and Columbia Basin 
projects. Both are excellent measures for helping Washington State 
agriculture.
  I encourage support for the overall bill and once again thank the two 
managers of the bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are now on the energy and water 
appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Tennessee 
wants to wait a couple of minutes on the committee amendments, and we 
are going to obviously wait for that. But I might say to Senators that 
have expressed an interest in amendments, the leader has asked us to 
get this bill finished tonight, and there are two Senators who have 
told me they have amendments. I hope they could get here in the next 
few minutes and we can get a reasonable time agreement and vote on 
them.
  Senator Bumpers indicated he had a gas-cooled reactor amendment. 
Maybe we could just ask Senator Bumpers' office if he could come down 
and offer that and do that rather quickly. Senator Jeffords on the 
Republican side has a renewable resource amendment.
  If Senator Jeffords could come down and share that with us so we can 
move quickly with it. We are working up some amendments that we are 
going to make en bloc for various Members. But we cannot do anything on 
the committee amendments until we get word from the Senator from 
Tennessee who has a hold on those committee amendments.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, I would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the difficult things on this bill--which 
are nuclear waste in Nevada--we hope the new spallation source will be 
worked out. We believe that the Princeton problem has been worked out. 
The difficult things, those that would have tied us up for a long time, 
I believe have been worked out. And it is my hope that dealing with two 
fairly short amendments, we will be ready to go to final passage.
  I ask the Senator from New Mexico, does he not share my view that we 
ought to be able to go to final passage very shortly?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, unless there are Senators that have not 
conferred with me--and I have had plenty of notes given to me; we are 
working on most of them--I think most of them are solved. I think that 
conclusion is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I would, from my standpoint, like to put Senators on 
notice that if they have something they want in the bill, something to 
go in the managers' amendment, please contact us so we can put it in, 
because we may be ready to wrap up, we hope, early this afternoon.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Robert 
Simon be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of 
H.R. 1905, the energy and water appropriations bill, and any votes 
thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be agreed to, en bloc, except as to the amendment 
found on page 23, line 7, and the amendment found on page 38, line 19, 
and that the bill as thus amended be regarded as original text for the 
purpose of further amendment, provided that no point of order shall 
have been waived by agreeing to this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The committee amendments are printed in the Record of July 31, 
1995.)


       Excepted Committee Amendment beginning on page 23, line 7

  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, as I understand it, the first 
committee amendment which I exempted from that unanimous-consent 
request is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


  Amendment No. 2053 to the Committee Amendment beginning on Page 23, 
                                 Line 7

    (Purpose: To amend the provision relating to the expansion of a 
                  facility for the storage of uranium)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2053 to the committee 
     amendment on page 23, line 7.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 24, line 7, strike ``135(a)(2), 135(d), 135(e), 
     141(g), 145'' and insert ``135(d), 135(e),''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this has been agreed to by the two 
Senators from Nevada, myself, and the ranking member. I have no 
objection to its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this has been worked out with the two 
Senators from Nevada. We support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2053) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  
[[Page S11070]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we are working with Senator 
Jeffords and his staff regarding an amendment that he has. I ask 
Senator Bumpers and his cosponsor if they could be ready in a few 
minutes. We could take that amendment and get the debate, and maybe 
there is a vote needed on that.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark 
Turner, who is a Javits Fellow detailed to the Energy and Water 
Development Subcommittee, be allowed floor privileges during the debate 
of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe, through oversight, after amending the first 
committee amendment, I did not proceed to have that amendment adopted, 
as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first 
committee amendment, as amended.
  The committee amendment beginning on page 23, line 7, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] has an amendment on behalf of himself and 
three other Senators. We are going to accept the amendment. He is going 
to modify it and then send it up. He agrees to speak up to 15 minutes 
on the amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if I may respond.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, that is perfectly all right with me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent there are 15 minutes on the 
amendment and then we proceed to a vote on the amendment, and we intend 
to accept it at the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I will be proposing an amendment 
very shortly which will help maintain the United States support for its 
solar and wind power. It would restore $25 million and offset this by 
reducing funding for the Department of Energy's operations budget.
  Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 began to outline an 
energy security strategy for our country. As I have argued many times 
before, energy security is vital to our economy and our national 
security. I believe that renewable energy resources are important 
components of our energy security strategy and must not be compromised.
  The United States now imports in excess of 50 percent of the oil we 
use to power our homes, automobiles and workplaces. This is a national 
security concern, and our dependence on foreign sources of energy is an 
economic security risk.
  Mr. President, every month the Commerce Department releases its 
statistics on the balance of our trade. The numbers are very grim. We 
are running huge trade deficits, and oil imports are a major reason 
why. Imports of oil constitute an enormous drag on our balance of 
payments and serve only to export U.S. jobs abroad.
  In contrast, more than one-half of the manufacturing capacity of the 
U.S. solar industry is geared to exports. Northern Power Systems from 
my State of Vermont markets wind turbine technologies around the globe. 
If a city, town or power system in Saudi Arabia wants to build a wind 
turbine, they call Waitsfield, VT. Nevertheless, without adequate 
Federal support, the United States leads in developing renewable energy 
technologies will slip.
  The U.S. Information Agency predicts that the worldwide market for 
renewables and efficiency technologies will equal $280 billion through 
the year 2010. However, they also point out that at the current rate of 
growth, the United States will capture less than 8 percent of this 
market. Why? Because Europe and Japan are funneling more and more money 
to their renewable companies in the form of capital financing and 
export promotion. And that export promotion is what does the most 
damage, especially deals they can give.
  Mr. President, despite the proven successes of renewable energy 
programs and their overwhelming public support, the renewable accounts 
have been hit disproportionately hard in this bill. Funding for wind, 
solar, and biomass programs have been cut 27 percent from the fiscal 
year 1995 levels compared to a 15-percent cut in the Department of 
Energy's overall energy supply research and development accounts.
  We have made commitments to many small companies through public and 
private partnerships to drive renewables research and development to 
the marketplace. We are just entering year 3 of a 5-year commitment to 
the solar and wind field. To pull the plug now would constitute a 
serious abrogation of our commitment and undermine much of the progress 
we have witnessed in the past few years.
  In this time of fiscal constraint, hard choices must be made, and I 
agree with many of them. But solar and wind programs are working. These 
programs have enormous nationwide benefits for a very small investment. 
For example, the DOE wind program is working closely with Kotzbue 
Electric Association 30 miles inside the Arctic Circle in Alaska to 
supply reliable wind energy and reduce dependence on diesel generators. 
The Florida Solar Energy Center in Cape Canaveral works with more than 
100 solar manufacturers, resulting in significant exports to Latin 
America. The AWT-26, one of the world's most advanced wind turbines, is 
being developed by former Boeing engineers outside of Seattle, WA.
  Mr. President, we are pushing forward, working to lead this booming 
global market, and we will succeed if Congress maintains its commitment 
to wind and solar research and development. The money that is spent on 
renewable energy programs has a direct impact on this country's bottom 
line. Overall, we can expect more than $4 billion in annual fuel cost 
savings by the year 2000, more than $8 billion by the year 2010, and 
nearly $26 billion by the year 2020. Solar, biomass, wind and 
geothermal energy systems will also create many thousands of jobs by 
the year 2000.
  This amendment simply asks the Department of Energy to speed up 
implementation of the strategic alignment and downsizing plan, thereby 
reducing administrative costs. Currently, the Department spends $377 
million for general management and program support functions.
  One of the largest pieces of this budget is the field operations 
offices. These offices are the paperwork side of our national labs. A 
less than 10 percent cut of $25 million will help do what needs to be 
done to keep us on track.
  My amendment would shift this amount from administrative functions to 
support for solar, wind, and biomass programs. This money would not be 
used for overhead and paperwork but to finance important programs that 
assist small companies in the development of advanced renewable 
technology.
  The goal we seek to accomplish today with this amendment has been 
recommended by the Galvin task force, 

[[Page S11071]]
which reviewed our national labs, and the Daniel Yergin task force, 
which advised DOE on how to best downsize.
  Mr. President, we may hear arguments today that downsizing the 
operations office in this matter is not wise. However, this Friday 
Secretary Hazel O'Leary will announce additional components of her 
strategic realignment plan. I expect a major component of her plan is 
to downsize the operations office, saving millions and millions of 
dollars in overhead costs.
  Mr. President, what we are doing is moving money from paperwork and 
bureaucracy to technology and the development of science from top-down, 
command-and-control administration to technology transfer and 
international competitiveness and from duplicative management to small 
business. Clean economic growth is not a contradiction in terms. New 
generations of environmental technologies are making it possible to 
have both. To be truly strong, the U.S. economy must be efficient, 
clean, and fueled by stable supplies of energy. By voting for this 
amendment, the Senate will help ensure that we attain these goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I ask my friend, what was the purpose of the quorum 
call?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I was getting the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2054

(Purpose: To provide that certain funds appropriated for the Department 
 of Energy operations be available instead for energy supply, research 
    and development activities relating to certain renewable energy 
                                sources)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, at this time I offer my amendment and 
ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the 
purposes of consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment of the Senator from Vermont.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Roth, Mr. Grams, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2054.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 20, line 23 insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . FUNDING FOR ENERGY SUPPLY, RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RENEWABLE 
                   ENERGY SOURCES.

       ``(a) Reduction in Appropriation for Departmental 
     Administration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the amount appropriated in title III of this Act under 
     the heading Departmental Administration is hereby reduced by 
     $37,000,000.
       ``(b) Increase in Appropriation for Energy Supply, Research 
     and Development Activities.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the amount appropriated in title III 
     of this Act under the heading Energy Supply, Research and 
     Development Activites is hereby increased by $37,000,000.
       ``(c) Availability of Funds.--Of the funds appropriated in 
     title III of this Act under the heading Energy Supply, 
     Research and Development Activites--
       ``(1) not less than $4,500,000 shall be available for solar 
     building technology research;
       ``(2) not less than $78,929,000 shall be available for 
     photovoltaic energy systems;
       ``(3) not less than $28,443,000 shall be available for 
     solar thermal energy systems;
       ``(4) not less than $55,300,000 shall be available for 
     biofuels of which no less than half shall go toward the 
     Biomass Electric Program;
       ``(5) not less than $42,000,000 shall be available for wind 
     energy systems;
       ``(6) not less than $8,000,000 shall be available for 
     international solar energy programs;
       ``(7) not less than $9,000,000 shall be available for 
     hydrogen research;''.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today, I am sponsoring an amendment that 
would restore $37 million into solar and renewable energy programs. The 
overall DOE energy supply account was cut 15.6 percent, while the 
overall renewable accounts were cut by 27 percent. My amendment would 
bring into line the budget reduction of the solar and renewables 
program to the percentage reduction level of the other DOE energy 
supply accounts.
  This amendment would restore funding for solar and renewable energy 
programs at the expenses of overhead. It would transfer 37 million from 
DOE's departmental administration to solar and renewable energy 
programs. This represents a 10-percent cut in DOE's overhead. Recent 
studies show that we need to reduce bureaucracy, cut overhead burdens 
and costs to have more effective and efficient R&D programs.
  The Galvin Task Force Report, recently commissioned by the Department 
of Energy, recommended that bold action be taken regarding the 
reduction of administrative oversight. The report further states, DOE 
should be able to accomplish a substantial reduction in oversight 
without reducing the dollars spent directly on R&D scientists and 
engineers. In addition, the Yergin Task Force also recently recommended 
that DOE reduce total energy R&D costs by cutting directly at 
administrative compliance and overhead costs. This amendment would 
restore funding for solar and renewable energy programs by cutting 
administrative costs identified in these reports.
  I believe that funding renewable energy programs is an important 
issue to our Nation. Renewable energy programs promise to supply 
economically competitive and commercially viable energy, while also 
assisting our Nation in reducing greenhouse gases and oil imports. The 
Nation should be looking toward alternative forms and sources of 
energy, not taking a step backward by cutting funding for these 
programs.
  My own State of Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 
1972, the University of Delaware established one of the first 
photovoltaic laboratories in the Nation. The university has been 
instrumental in developing solar photovoltaic energy, the same type of 
energy that powers solar watches and calculators.
  Delaware has a major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, which is 
now the fastest growing manufacturer of photovoltaic cells in the 
world. In collaboration with the University of Delaware and Astro 
Power, Delaware's major utility--Delmarva Power & Light--has installed 
an innovative solar energy system that has successfully demonstrated 
the use of solar power to satisfy peak electrical demand. Through this 
collaboration, my State has demonstrated that solar energy technology 
can be an economically competitive and commercially viable energy 
alternative for the utility industry.
  It is vital that we continue to manufacture these solar cell products 
with the high performance, high quality, and low costs required to 
successfully compete worldwide. Investment in Department of Energy 
solar and renewable energy programs has put us on the threshold of 
explosive growth. Continuation of the present renewable energy programs 
is required to achieve the goal of a healthy photovoltaic industry in 
the United States. While the solar energy industries might have evolved 
in some form on the their own, the Federal investment has accelerated 
the transition from the laboratory bench to commercial markets in a way 
that has already accrued valuable economic benefits to the Nation.
  The solar energy industries--like Astro Power--have already created 
thousands of jobs and helped to reduce our trade deficit through 
exports of solar energy systems overseas, mostly to developing nations, 
where two billion people are still without access to electricity.
  International markets for solar energy systems are virtually 
exploding, due to several key market trends. Most notably, solar energy 
is already one of the lowest cost options available to developing 
countries that cannot afford to build large, expensive centralized 
power generation facilities with elaborate distribution systems.
  The governments of Japan, Germany, and Australia are investing 
heavily in aggressive technology and market development in partnership 
with their 
 
[[Page S11072]]

own solar energy industries. Until recently, Japan and Germany held the 
lead in world market share for photovoltaics; the United States has 
only recently recaptured international market dominance. Cutting 
funding for commercializing these technologies would have a chilling 
effect on the U.S. industry's ability to compete on an international 
scale in these billion-dollar markets of today and tomorrow. The 
employment potential of renewables represents a minimum of 15,000 new 
jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 the next decade.
  It is imperative that this Senate support solar and renewable energy 
technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our 
economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My State has 
done and will continue to do its part. I hope my colleagues in the 
Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and 
reliable energy future by supporting this amendment.
                           Amendment No. 2054

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Jeffords 
amendment and am pleased to be an original cosponsor. Over the past 
2\1/2\ years, I have had the opportunity to help formulate our 
renewable energy policies, both as a member of the House Energy R&D 
Subcommittee, and now as a member of the Senate Energy Committee. This 
amendment represents an important step forward in our efforts.
  In my home State of Minnesota, we have a strong commitment to 
renewable and alternative energy resources. Solar, wind, and biofuels 
play a key role in Minnesota's overall energy blueprint, and these 
priorities are shared across this Nation. Our amendment demonstrates 
this understanding while reducing redtape and bureaucracy at the same 
time.
  Too many taxpayers' dollars are being wasted on bureaucracy and red-
tape in Washington and not on programs that help meet the energy needs 
of the people of Minnesota. If we are going to spend the taxpayers' 
money, we had better make sure it is for their benefit, and not for a 
bloated bureaucracy.
  By slashing bureaucracy and eliminating $25 million from departmental 
administration, we are able to increase the levels of funding for solar 
and renewables. Even DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary endorses this type of 
approach--her proposal for strategic realignment estimates potential 
savings of nearly $2 billion through consolidating and realignment of 
the current DOE structure.
  Limiting the scope of Government--while expanding funding for 
renewable energy resources--are goals which can be achieved together, 
as this amendment so clearly demonstrates.
  The Jeffords amendment reflects a balanced prioritization of our 
limited energy dollars. It is my strong hope that by maintaining a 
Federal commitment to solar and renewable programs, we will be able to 
achieve a strong and vibrant industry that is capable of thriving in 
the free market.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Jeffords 
renewable amendment. It allows us to pursue renewable energy resources 
at the same time we protect the taxpayers, and I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of such a proposal. Thank you and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Jeffords as a 
cosponsor of his amendment to restore funding to the solar and 
renewable budget of the Department of Energy fiscal year 1996 spending 
bill.
  Our amendment restores $25 million to this vital account, boosting 
funding for solar, wind, and biomass energy research. Renewable energy 
has the potential to reduce pollution, decrease our dependence on 
imported fuels, and produce good paying jobs here in the United States.
  The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in clean, 
renewable energy technology. Vermont in particular has taken the lead 
with the development of wind and biomass energy technology. This 
``green technology'' has the potential to generate more than virtually 
pollution free energy, it generates good paying manufacturing jobs in 
Vermont and throughout the country.
  The energy and water appropriations bill passed by the House 
mortgages the future of our energy program by dramatically reduced 
funding for the solar and renewable energy budget, cutting it by 22 
percent. I think that is a shortsighted approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So, the amendment (No. 2054) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for accommodating us 
on the floor. We are pleased to have accommodated him. But I thank him 
for accommodating us on time so we can move ahead with the bill and, 
hopefully, finish it in the next couple hours. I thank the Senator very 
much.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New 
Mexico for accommodating us. This will be an important amendment to 
help. And I am very pleased to accommodate the committee with our 
promptness.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask that that be withheld for a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senators that have amendments 
that they think are going to have to take time and perhaps be voted on, 
that they accommodate the leadership of the Senate, the leadership on 
the Democrat side and the Republican side.
  Some colloquies earlier in the day indicated we wanted to get our 
schedule completed, especially on these issues that do not appear to be 
partisan in nature. So we have made a commitment to stay here tonight 
and finish this bill. I do not see any reason why we have to keep 
Senators here tonight. If Senators have amendments, please come down 
and offer them. I think that is only fair. So once again, I am not 
going to name Senators, but, please, if Senators have some amendments 
that they want us to consider and that clearly need debate, would they 
please come on down or call us and tell us?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Very seriously, this bill should not go into tonight. 
The difficult things are worked out. If Senators will come down and 
offer these amendments, we can be gone this afternoon. And so I urge 
Senators not to wait until tonight. Frankly, we ought to go to third 
reading if Senators are not going to be here to offer their amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I said we pledged to get finished tonight, but it looks 
to me like we should be finished here early enough to get home and have 
dinner with our families for a change. On this bill, there were three 
major issues, and we have solved them, at least to the satisfaction of 
the Senators that contested the issues. With Senator Lautenberg from 
New Jersey, we have agreed to an amendment he has with reference to 
fusion energy. We solved the Nebraska Senator's issue, at least in this 
body, with reference to interim nuclear waste. We have satisfied the 
issue between the Senators from Tennessee and the committee. We are 
waiting for a colloquy on that. And, indeed, I believe we are real 
close to solving it with the Senate Committee on Armed Services for a 
colloquy with reference to our nuclear stockpile.
  If we are able to work that out, whatever is left would be the 
Bumpers amendment, who--the Senator has at least told us about it. And 
we understand perhaps Senator Brown has an amendment with reference to 
two of the commissions that we funded, or one of them. And Senator 
Brown, and maybe Senator Brown's staff could advise Senators, we would 
be ready for him shortly if he could come down. And I think maybe we 
have heard that there might be one on the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. We do not know that.
  All right. That is all that we are aware of that will require debate. 
We have a number of amendments we will offer as chairman and ranking 
member 

[[Page S11073]]
as we wrap this up. Some we will not be able to accept. And the 
Senators will have to understand that.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a colloquy 
with the distinguished Senators from Tennessee. We can either enter it 
in the Record or we can state it here on the floor, whichever they 
prefer. What is Senator Thompson's preference?
  Mr. THOMPSON. The Senator will state it briefly.
  I would like to state what I understand to be language that is agreed 
to by the managers of this bill. It is language which clarifies the 
intent of the committee and replaces references in the committee report 
on pages 96 and 97 with regard to the siting of the new spallation 
source project. Part of the agreed-upon language is as follows:

       The conferees make no recommendation with regard to the 
     siting of the new spallation source project. The Department 
     of Energy shall make that determination in a fair and 
     unbiased manner.

  Am I correct in stating that this is part of the language that is 
agreed to for the purpose of legislative history?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the following 
language is also agreed to by the managers:

       The conferees direct the Department to evaluate 
     opportunities to upgrade existing reactors and spallation 
     sources as a cost-effective means of providing neutrons in 
     the near term for the scientific community while the next 
     generation source is developed. This evaluation shall be 
     available prior to the Appropriations Committee's hearings on 
     the Department's fiscal year 1997 budget submission.

  Am I correct in stating that this language is also agreed to?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just read it carefully, and I ask that 
one word be deleted, and then I will say we agree.
  Where it says, on the second line of what the Senator read 
``spallation sources as a cost-effective means,'' I wonder if we can 
strike the word ``a'' and just say ``sources as cost-effective means'' 
instead of ``a cost-effective means.''
  Mr. FRIST. That will be agreeable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If we strike that ``a,'' then my answer to the 
Senator's question is that is absolutely correct.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I believe it is our further 
understanding that our conferees will seek to place the agreed-upon 
language in the conference report; am I correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct. Let me say to both Senators 
from Tennessee, it has been a pleasure working with them on this. They 
have been tenacious. We had a genuine discussion at length and we came 
up with something at least this Senator believes is workable and good 
for spallation and neutron acceleration in the future. I think that is 
a very important part of the necessary science for the United States.
  I think the second part of it means that we will not fall behind 
while we proceed with the new major construction, and the first 
indicates that the Department will decide on a fair and equitable basis 
the site for the big machine, which will cost in excess of a billion 
dollars.
  Mr. THOMPSON. This will help us move forward in those ways, and we 
appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from New Mexico and his 
willingness to work with us on this.
  Mr. FRIST. We do appreciate it, Mr. President. It does reflect, I 
think, the critical importance placed on the Department of Energy's 
recommendations in making this site in the best way that they see fit 
in terms of overall systems development for the entire country.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I wonder if any 
of the other Senators who arrived have amendments?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, we are right 
now attempting to see if we can work this out, if we could have a 
little more time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2054, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it has come to my attention, and I 
believe Senator Jeffords from Vermont agrees, that there is a 
typographical error in the amendment that the Senator offered, which 
has been agreed to by the Senate. So I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified, as per the amendment which I now send to the 
desk. This change is agreed upon by the Senator from Vermont, the 
Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modification of the 
amendment previously adopted? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 20, after line 23 insert the following:

     SEC.  . FUNDING FOR ENERGY SUPPLY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY 
                   SOURCES.

       ``(a) Reduction in Appropriation for Departmental 
     Administration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the amount appropriated in title III of this Act under 
     the heading Departmental Administration is hereby reduced by 
     $25,000,000.
       ``(b) Increase in Appropriation for Energy Supply, Research 
     and Development Activities.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the amount appropriated in title III 
     of this act under the heading Energy Supply, Research and 
     Development Activities is hereby increased by $37,000,000.
       ``(c) Availability of Funds.--Of the funds appropriated in 
     title III of this Act under the heading Energy Supply, 
     Research and Development Activities--
       ``(1) not less than $4,500,000 shall be available for solar 
     building technology research;
       ``(2) not less than 78,929,000 shall be available for 
     photovoltaic energy systems;
       ``(3) not less than 28,443,000 shall be available for solar 
     thermal energy systems;
       ``(4) not less than 55,300,000 shall be available for 
     biofuels of which no less than half shall go toward the 
     Biomass Electric Program;
       ``(5) not less than 42,000,000 shall be available for wind 
     energy systems;
       ``(6) not less than 8,000,000 shall be available for 
     international solar energy programs;
       ``(7) not less than 9,000,000 shall be available for 
     hydrogen research;''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it necessary to reconsider and table that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Bumpers is 
going to offer an amendment with reference to the water-cooled reactor. 
I understand he is willing to enter into a time agreement of 1 hour 
equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally 
allocated to Senator Bumpers and Senator Johnston.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will check with Senator Stevens and make sure that 
he can come down and be part of this argument.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. And no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree 
amendments be in order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2055

 (Purpose: To terminate the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor Program)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. 

[[Page S11074]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending committee 
amendment will be set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, and Mr. Kerry proposes an amendment numbered 2055.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike lines 22-23 on page 20 and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following: ``$2,793,324,000 to remain available until 
     expended. Provided That, no more than $7,500,000 of such 
     funds shall be used for the termination of the Gas Turbine-
     Modular Helium Reactor program.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is a complicated subject dealing 
with $12.5 million, not a lot of money around here. But considering the 
budget constraints we are operating under, we need to be very careful 
what we spend. It is, to use the technical term, $12.5 million to 
continue the ``gas turbine-modular helium reactor.''
  This is a project that has been around for a very long time. A lot of 
money has already been spent on the program. Make no mistake about it, 
we have put $900 million into it, and industry has put almost as much. 
But it has been sagging simply because it is not viable. It is not 
viable technically within the time frame within which we ought to 
complete it and the National Academy of Sciences says you cannot leave 
plutonium lying around stored for the periods of time that you are 
likely to have to store it before this reactor is completed and has the 
ability to burn it.
  In addition to that, the National Academy of Sciences says leaving 
plutonium stored is a dangerous proposition, and the longer you leave 
it stored, the more dangerous it becomes because of the threat of 
diversion of the plutonium to weapons.
  The Academy does not like the program. I do not like it. A lot of 
people do not like it, and they do not want to spend any more money on 
it. The first reactor that was used for demonstration of this 
technology was in Pennsylvania back in 1967 to 1974. Then a larger 
commercial plant was built in Colorado. And after operating for 16 
years, it was finally shut down because it could only operate 14 
percent of the time.
  Now, Mr. President, just like the super collider and a host of other 
technologies we have undertaken, including the liquid metal breeder 
reactor, there always comes a time to shut these things down. In 1993--
and I hope all Senators will listen to this--the U.S. Senate, this 
body, voted 58-41 to terminate this program. But we got over to 
conference, which is so often the case, and we receded to the House and 
the project continued.
  This year, the Appropriations Committee in the House provided $20 
million to continue this thing, and Congressman Klug offered an 
amendment to kill it, and the vote to kill this project in the House 
this year was 306-121.
  Now, what we have had here is a little shell game. We did not put any 
money in, and the House did. They did not put in any money, and we did. 
Now we are back to we did not have any money in it until it was offered 
in the Appropriations Committee a few days ago, after the House just 
got through killing this thing by 306 votes to 121. This is pork at its 
worst. There was $12.5 million in the bill here on the floor right now. 
But do you know why? The Senator from Alaska--which was certainly his 
right--put it back in in committee. He won it there by 15-8. But 
Senator Domenici, in the chairman's mark, had torpedoed this thing. He 
left $7.5 million in the budget to terminate. That is the termination 
cost.
  Incidentally, my amendment only cuts $5 million. The Senator from 
Alaska got $12.5 million put back in. I am only cutting 5 of that 
because I agree with Senator Domenici. We ought to use that $7.5 
million to torpedo this project once and for all. The senior Senator 
from Texas, with whom I agree about 1 percent of the time, made what I 
thought was a good statement the other day in committee. He said, 
``When the Department of Energy, or anybody else, wants to get rid of 
something, why do we not, at least occasionally, if the bureaucrats 
want to get rid of it, honor their requests?'' It is very seldom they 
want to.
  When I think of all the unmet needs of this country, and when I think 
of all the pressures on the domestic discretionary spending side of 
this budget, and here the House has killed this thing almost 3-to-1, 
and you are talking about a project that would cost $5.3 billion to 
complete--we are not talking about a bean bag here, Mr. President. The 
Federal share would be $2.6 billion.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at this point?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Is not the $5.3 billion figure the Senator refers to 
the amount for the new production reactor, which was a different 
design, and that was wholly financed by the United States?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Repeat your question.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The $5.3 billion figure the Senator refers to was for 
the new production reactor, which was designed several years ago, 
different from this design, and wholly supported by the United States 
and nothing by either foreign countries or by the domestic industry, is 
that not correct?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, DOE said that they would expect this to cost 
billions to complete.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Of whose dollars?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Half Government and half private. That is the way the 
project has been operated so far.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. But the $5.3 billion was the cost of the new production 
reactor which was the tritium reactor for the manufacture of tritium, 
was it not?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, you could be right about that, I am not sure.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. And there has been no cost put on this.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, $5.3 billion is $5.3 billion.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. This is a different design from the new production 
reactor on which the $5.3 billion estimate was made.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You are talking about something different from the gas 
turbine modular helium reactor?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. This design is different. The initial design of the new 
production reactor had a steam cycle. This has no steam cycle and has a 
50 percent higher efficiency.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me just say that it is a different design reactor, 
but the figures I am using are sort of a horseback guess by the 
Department of Energy of what it would cost for the new design, not the 
old design.
  Well, to get on with the story, we can always find some rationale to 
keep a project going--new design, old design, anything to keep the 
money flowing. But you ought to bear in mind, there has not been one 
single nuclear plant built in the last 20 years, and right now there is 
not one single utility in America that has any plans to build one.
  So you are talking about 20 years we have not built one, and 
certainly if somebody started trying to license one now, it would take 
another 20 years, and nobody is going to license one under current 
technology ever again.
  I started off confessing that I am not a physicist. I did not even 
have high school chemistry. These subjects are difficult to me. They 
are not difficult for the National Academy of Sciences.
  Do you know what the National Academy said? The best argument that 
the Senator from Alaska can make, or anybody else can make, for going 
forward with this project is that this advanced reactor will burn 
plutonium. That is a highly desirable goal.
  Everybody in the U.S. Senate wishes we could wave a wand and some new 
technology would appear to burn plutonium, get rid of it. One of the 
arguments that has consistently been made for this reactor is that is 
what it will do. I am not going to argue whether ultimately, after we 
spend $5 billion, we might have something that would burn plutonium.
  I want to make a couple of points. One I have already made, that 
burning plutonium in a new reactor is even more dangerous than our 
present situation, because it will be years and years and years before 
this reactor is ready. Meanwhile, we will have all this plutonium 
stored, and then even after we finish it, it will take years and years 
and years to burn it up, during which time it is always subject to a 
diversion--to Qadhafi, North Korea, or whoever. 

[[Page S11075]]

  A more compelling argument is the one the National Academy of 
Sciences made when they said, in 1992, ``The committee believes that no 
funds should be allocated for development of high-temperature gas-
cooled reactor technology within the commercial nuclear power 
development budget of DOE.''
  In addition to that, they have said there are two much more 
preferable ways to get rid of plutonium. One is to fabricate it with 
other fuel and burn it up; the other, which is essentially my favorite, 
is vitrification, a process which we have also spent a lot of money on 
and which so far as we know will pay rich dividends.
  Now, Mr. President, further quoting the National Academy of Sciences, 
in their 1994 report said, ``These advance reactor types themselves, 
however, are not economically competitive with other sources of 
power.'' Listen to that: ``These advance reactor types themselves are 
not economically competitive with other sources of power,'' and the 
availability of plutonium as fuel does not make them economical. The 
storage of large stocks of weapons--plutonium--until such reactors 
become competitive, is not attractive for security reasons.
  Now, Mr. President, none of the research for this goes on in my 
State. I do not know where it goes on. I do not have a dog in the 
fight. All I know is I have been waking up screaming for the last 6 
months--not about a budget cut, not about trying to balance the budget, 
but about our priorities.
  I spoke at the Governors School in my State last Saturday. There are 
400 of the presumably brightest students in my State. They go to a 6-
month school at a little liberal arts college called Hendrix College, 
where my sons went to school. When I walked out, a woman who accosted 
me said, ``My son who is here will not be able to get a college 
education.''
  We did not elaborate on that. But we are cutting student loans, we 
are cutting income investments, earned income tax credits. We are going 
to wind up cutting welfare for the poorest of the poor. I have no 
objection to reforming welfare. We will wind up cutting food stamps. We 
are going to cut everything that affects about 30 to 40 percent of the 
people in this country, and we are going to increase defense spending 
$7 billion above what the Defense Department says they want-- $7 
billion above the President's request--but still, twice as much as 
virtually the rest of the world combined. Here is an opportunity to 
save a paltry $5 million, and in the future, lord knows how many 
millions.
  The National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, 
all those people are strongly in favor of this amendment, and 
torpedoing this technology, not once and for all, but at least for the 
foreseeable future, until the National Academy of Sciences says it has 
a lot more promise than it has now.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Senator from Alaska 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have authored the provision in the 
report that Senator Bumpers' amendment seeks to delete because of my 
belief that this new technology, which has not been analyzed by the 
National Academy, may be critical to our energy future.
  What I am trying to accomplish by the change that was made in the 
report is to create the availability of $5 million to complete the 
study by the National Research Council of the technical feasibility and 
economic potential of GT-MHR for power generation.
  I got into this because of my role in arms control. One of the 
problems we have run into is the destruction of plutonium. I have been 
told that this process will destroy plutonium as it is used to produce 
electric power.
  As a matter of fact, I think the claim can truly be made that this 
new concept--and it is a new concept--has the potential to destroy 
weapons-grade plutonium and eliminate its proliferation potential.
  If the Senator will look at the report on page 91, what we have done 
is increase the funding of $5 million over the cost of the close-out of 
the program with the understanding that no more than the $5 million is 
available until the National Research Council has completed its study 
and the results have been reported.
  That means that the $5 million is available to do just what the 
Senator from Arkansas says has not been done. It is available for 
making the study and to report to respective committees of Congress. If 
it finds that this process has as much potential as we believe it has, 
the program will not be closed down. It will be continued.
  Now, this is an entirely new procedure. It is a concept of a gas-
cooled reactor with a very high rate of efficiency. It is something 
that should be reviewed by the National Academy before the project is 
closed up.
  Let me say that the Senator from Arkansas is right in one respect. 
The Government and industry have put $1.5 billion into trying to find a 
technology to accomplish the results that the program originally sought 
of nuclear power generation meeting the safety requirements of our 
country.
  One of the added benefits of this new concept is that it is possible 
for this gas turbine modular helium reactor to use plutonium for the 
purpose of generating power and at the same time accomplish the world's 
sought-after result of destroying plutonium.
  I believe that this is something which the Senate should realize what 
we are trying to do, which is to get a review of the technology. The 
technology is much different from that which has been the subject of 
this vast investment in the past. This is a technology which uses 
ceramic-coated fuel and uses inert helium as the heat transfer medium. 
It allows higher operating temperatures than can be found in the water-
cooled reactors. The water-cooled reactors have been the ones used by 
the world's nuclear power plants.
  This GT-MHR process uses higher temperature helium coolants directly 
to drive the turbine that drives the generator. As a result, the 
efficiency is much higher than the water-cooled reactors. But, what is 
more, it then has the side benefit that was brought to my attention, 
and that is that it will destroy weapons-grade plutonium so it can no 
longer be used for nuclear weapons. The GT-MHR not only destroys it and 
degrades it while generating electricity, it is really not even a 
problem as far as waste disposal. This has been one of the great 
difficulties with nuclear-powered generation in the past.
  I believe that what we are trying to do is let the scientific 
community now analyze this new concept that is available, and only 
expend Federal money in the future, if GT-MHR is found to have the 
feasibility and economic potential as it has been represented by those 
who have developed it and presented it to the Department of Energy.
  The Senator says this is pork. There are no nuclear reactors in my 
State. There is no helium in my State. There is nothing connected with 
this process in my State. I am the one that offered this amendment for 
one purpose only, to get the National Research Council to determine 
whether this process has the potential to accomplish two national 
benefits: First, to provide a process by which we can start developing 
an industry that can provide environmentally safe nuclear-generated 
energy; and, second, that the process that has been presented will in 
fact destroy plutonium at the 90-percent level in so accomplishing the 
first benefit. I think the second benefit is the one that is most 
important to the world.
  There are enormous stakes here. There is no question about that. If 
this process proves valid, as people believe it will, this $5 million 
may be the most important $5 million we have ever invested. We are not 
investing it in the process. We are investing in investigating the 
process to determine if it has the potential as presented. If it does, 
then the research will continue with the $7.5 million that was intended 
to be used to close out the program. And Congress will be directly 
involved in how much, if anything, the Federal Government will put into 
the further advancement of this concept.
  But for now, what we are doing is saying $5 million will be used 
during the period of the evaluation. That is the maximum that can be 
used to evaluate this process. After having spent $1.5 billion in 
getting this from the very beginning of nuclear technology development 
to the present, and not having successfully found a process 

[[Page S11076]]
that will meet our needs, it seems to me to be very little to ask that 
we put up $5 million to check this latest technology.
  This technology is important because it hinges on two different types 
of technology in order to be successful--the new gas turbine and the 
generator that has been used in the past. If the technology is proven 
to have the potential that we feel it does, then, I think we will have 
a program that will meet more than our national needs. It will meet the 
world's needs.
  There are assertions that the Senator from Arkansas has made that I 
believe should be answered. I can answer them for the record. But I 
think the most important thing to note is that this has not been 
reviewed before at this level.
  I will reserve what time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes and ten seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is 10 minutes sufficient for the Senator?
  Mr. INHOFE. Five minutes is fine.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers amendment to 
terminate the gas-turbine modular-helium-reactor program. For the past 
30 years, the Department of Energy's program has only served as another 
Federal monetary waste. To date, the taxpayers have already spent $900 
million to advance gas-coolant reactor technology. One would imagine 
that after costing the American public nearly $1 billion, we would see 
some type of tangible technological benefits. But this is not the case.
  In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences study concluded that the 
gas-cooled reactor has low market potential. Last month the DOE stated 
in a report by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that it did not 
see any further need to continue to develop the program.
  The report said--this is a quote we have not heard yet, I do not 
believe anyway, at least I have not:

       This technology requires a very expensive, long-term 
     development program that cannot be supported in the near 
     future. Given industry's low interest in this technology, DOE 
     has requested termination of the Gas Turbine Modular Helium 
     Reactor Program.

  But I have to say, Mr. President, that my concern is not a technical 
concern. Yes, I am concerned about the energy industry. I believe, had 
a lot of this money been spent to develop enhanced recovery programs 
and to do something to stop the demise of the domestic oil industry, I 
would be in strong support of it. That is where our money should have 
gone.
  The GAO report estimates that the total cost to design and construct 
a gas-cooled reactor should be approximately $5.3 billion, of which 
taxpayers are expected to absorb approximately 50 percent. Mathematics 
would tell us that we would save more than $2 billion of hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars simply by going with the President, Congress, DOE, and 
the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and 
the list goes on and on.
  Congress has been trying to terminate funding for this program for 
the last several years. Finally, this year, the House adopted an 
amendment to eliminate the program altogether. Rightfully, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee authorized $7.5 million to cover the 
Department of Energy's termination of this program. The administration, 
the Bush administration, the Reagan administration, Congress, 
scientists and many of the fiscal unions, such as the National 
Taxpayers Union, the National Tax Limitations Committee, the Citizens 
Against Government Waste, are united in their campaign to terminate the 
project. The Department of Energy, like the rest of us, must make 
massive budget cuts if we are to ever keep our commitment to the budget 
resolution that we made that would eliminate the deficit by the year 
2002.
  We can no longer afford such luxuries as the gas-cooled reactor that 
do not earn their Federal keep. With the possibility of the dismantling 
of DOE, the administration has made a wise decision to end the program 
that only serves as a liability.
  America is watching both the House and the Senate as we bring Federal 
spending back under control. By supporting this amendment, we are 
legislating exactly the way we said we would last November by 
appropriating wisely and cutting out programs that continue to waste 
Federal dollars intended for future generations.
  So, Mr. President, I am not as impressed as I should be, I guess, 
with the National Academy of Sciences, but I am impressed with the 
National Taxpayers Union and many of the groups that are looking at 
this from a fiscal perspective.
  I would only say this is a good example of what Ronald Reagan said in 
one of the greater speeches I have ever heard, entitled ``Rendezvous 
with Destiny,'' way back in 1965 when he said there is nothing closer 
to immortality on the face of this Earth than a Government program. I 
think this is such a program.
  I yield back the time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  There is a lot of technology involved here, but the question is 
really quite simple. What the Stevens amendment does--and it is a very 
sound amendment--it simply says that before we take this program, which 
has a promise of burning 85 to 95 percent of the plutonium which is put 
through the cycle--and that compares with 20 percent of plutonium which 
would be burned in a light-water reactor, but before we stop this 
technology which has that capacity, that hope of burning 85 to 95 
percent of the plutonium, we get a report from the National Research 
Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. No more 
than $5 million may be spent until that evaluation takes place. That is 
all the amendment does.
  We have done in this country research on these high-temperature gas 
reactors over a period of many years. This is a new design which has 
never been evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences. It is 50 
percent more efficient than the previous design. It is the first design 
that has used the high-temperature helium gas directly against the 
turbine, which is a radical new design.
  Moreover, the main reason we want to do this is because of plutonium 
burnout, but it also has the added advantage in that this reactor 
cannot melt down. Its fuel density and maximum temperature is less than 
the melt rate of the fuel. So if you lost all coolant, there would be 
no possibility of a meltdown of this reactor, which is one of the 
reasons that Mr. Mikhailov, who is the Russian Energy Minister, wants 
to build this reactor in a consortium with America. They have a 
proposal whereby they would put up half of the costs, and the net cost 
to the United States, if this were done, would be about $350 million, 
not $5.3 billion.
  Mr. President, the fact is we do not know the answers to these 
questions about exactly what it would cost because, frankly, we need an 
evaluation by the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
Sciences. Really, as a matter of prudence, we ought to have the 
National Academy of Sciences look at this brand new technology, this 
brand new design before we scrap this program in which so much has been 
invested, which has such hope not only for plutonium burnup but it has 
tremendous hope for being meltdown proof. It is what we call a 
passively safe reactor.
  I might add, it also has the capacity and capability to make tritium 
in a reconfiguration, which is the reason it was picked as the top 
candidate for the new production reactor. In any event, this is a very 
prudent thing to do, to have the National Academy of Sciences look at 
this matter before we scrap the reactor. And that is all the Stevens 
amendment does. It represents real progress. We are not committing this 
country by this amendment to build the reactor or to spend additional 
money but simply to have the National Academy of Sciences look at this 
design. That is all it does. 

[[Page S11077]]

  Mr. President, did the Senator from Alaska desire additional time at 
this point?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield me just a 
couple more minutes, I do not want to use it all because I want to 
respond in the end. But, I would like to reference the committee 
report, and I encourage my colleagues to read it.

       The Committee understood that the GT-MHR has the capability 
     of destroying 90 percent of weapons grade plutonium 239 when 
     used alone and over 99 percent of the plutonium 239 when used 
     in combination with an accelerator-driven reactor without the 
     need of reprocessing or recycling of the material. The 
     evaluation shall also include, therefore, a review of the 
     technical capability of the reactor to accomplish the near 
     total destruction of weapons grade plutonium alone or in 
     combination with an accelerator without reprocessing and 
     recycling. The study shall be supported by funds within this 
     account and shall be completed no later than 90 days 
     following the signing of this bill into law. If the results 
     reported are positive, the balance of the funding shall be 
     released to continue the development of the GT-MHR and, if 
     negative, the balance of the funding shall be applied to the 
     program closeout.

  In other words, all we are doing is saying give the National Research 
Council an opportunity to review this before it is closed out. If they 
find that the Senator from Arkansas is correct, it will be closed out. 
If they find that those who have presented the process are correct, 
they will continue to analyze and find out how to apply this new 
technology to these two very vital world goals.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas, and I must say to my friends I do so on a 
personal level with some reticence because I worked so closely with 
both the proponents of this. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly that 
this is one of the moments where Congress really needs to just make the 
cut. The House has voted by 306 to 121 to cut the funding for this. We 
have been toying around with this technology since 1970. We have spent 
now some $900 million to date for the technology. But no commercial 
buyer is prepared to step up for this technology. Gas-cooled reactors 
employ what is known as a passive cooling system, and these do not 
allow for the use of conventional containment structures to prevent the 
release of radiation in case of accidents. That lack of containment 
could be a serious problem and would represent a major safety tradeoff.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. KERRY. Not on my time.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. On my time. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield but not on my time. If I can use the time of the 
Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Just on my time on that point. The Senator said 
that they do not allow for the use of containment. You cannot put 
containment over a gas-cooled reactor. It is simply that it is not 
necessary because the fuel density and the temperature is such that it 
cannot melt down. You cannot have that kind of accident where hydrogen 
gas accumulates and you have an explosion and you need containment.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend----
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that not correct?
  Mr. KERRY. I am not suggesting you have a meltdown structure, but you 
could nevertheless have a release of radiation, and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's advisory committee has suggested that they are 
not willing to accept these approaches. Moreover, in order for this 
technology to be competitive, you would have to complete the R&D phase, 
which would cost another $700 million, and then in order to make the 
technology commercial, you are going to have to build a full-scale 
demonstration plant.
 You are going to have to operate that successfully for another $1 
billion.

  Now, various reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the most 
recent of which was released this month, have unfailingly rejected this 
reactor technology for either mission, for the mission of providing 
energy or for the mission of getting rid of nuclear plutonium. So, Mr. 
President, if you look at what the Electric Power Research Institute, 
which is a research arm of the electric utility industry, said, they 
reported in 1991 that the HTGR was just not cost competitive. Now, if 
the private sector refuses to finance the R&D on a gas-cooled reactor, 
why should the taxpayers? It just does not make sense. I mean, this is 
one of those projects which we have got to have the courage to say it 
does not make sense economically, the science is not good. There are 
other alternative means of dealing with what is being proposed. This is 
the same argument as the ALMR. It took us 2 years to cut the ALMR. We 
cut it. But it was being proposed as a way of getting rid of nuclear 
unspent fuel.
  I think that truly, Mr. President, this particular expenditure of 
$900 million since 1970, chasing some kind of legitimate mission using 
taxpayers' money on an ongoing process, in a year when we are cutting 
education, we are cutting Medicare, we are cutting all of the other 
programs that are of such importance, and here we are once again trying 
to protect one of the great chases. Truly this is the kind of program 
that makes the wool and mohair subsidy look like support for the 101st 
Airborne or for cancer research. It simply does not stand up to 
scrutiny under the National Academy Of Sciences itself, under the 
private sector's own judgments. And therefore, the U.S. Senate ought to 
step up to bat and terminate it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator yield me 1 minute for a question of my 
friend from Massachusetts?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator understand that the $5 million is for 
the study by the National Research Council? I do not understand how I 
can be accused of promoting pork when I am giving $5 million to the 
council that you and I support. Why should we not give the money to the 
one council that ought to tell us if this process has the potential to 
destroy over 90 percent of the weapons grade plutonium in this country?
  Mr. KERRY. My answer is the judgment has already significantly been 
made by the private sector and by the National Academy of Sciences that 
it is not worth pursuing.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that is absolutely not true. This process 
has not been examined. The National Academy wrote to Senator Bradley on 
December 10, 1993, stating that they did not examine this GT-MHR 
process. That is precisely why we are giving the $5 million so they 
will examine this process before we consider closing out the program.
  Mr. KERRY. I do not use any more time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes, 7 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Johnston?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 4 minutes, 
thirty seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the Senator want to yield back the balance?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry. I missed that.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes, thirty seconds.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I just want to say to my colleagues there 
are three powerful arguments for finally terminating this program which 
has been around for 30 years. One is the National Academy of Sciences 
that said there are two eminently better methods of using up plutonium: 
Fabricated fuel, and vitrification.
  Second, this is a much more dangerous project because you have to 
store plutonium for much longer periods of time, and that subjects it 
to diversion for weapons use.
  And third, we are headed for a $5.3 billion project, 50 percent of 
which Uncle Sugar will have to put up.
  Now, Mr. President, what do you have to do around here? The 
Department of Energy does not want it. The 

[[Page S11078]]
National Academy of Sciences says it is a terrible idea. And the costs 
are staggering. What do you have to do to convince people to terminate 
something around here? The Senator from Alaska read from the committee 
report. I assume he wrote it. That is committee report language that he 
wrote. It has no technical value. And the Senator from Alaska says he 
wants to put $5 million into this study. After 30 years, 
$1,800,000,000, we are going to study it. And, Mr. President, here is 
what the Department of Energy said:

       The Department does not support continued funding of the 
     Gas Turbine Modular 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 [just] over the next decade.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 2 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not get into these things lightly, 
particularly coming from an oil producing State--the most significant 
oil producing State in the Union.
  Now, I am arguing for this review by the National Research Council 
because of the report that came to us that this process will destroy 
plutonium. The Senator from Arkansas has repeatedly said that the 
National Academy has examined this process. That is not true. Again I 
point out that on December 10, 1993, in a letter to Senator Bradley, 
the chairman of the NAS committee stated that ``The National Academy 
Committee did not examine and therefore could not evaluate the gas 
turbine reactor.'' GT-MHR is a new process. And as the report says--and 
it is true that I did have something to do with writing that report--
that the information we have is, that when combined with an 
accelerator, this GT-MHR process can destroy 99 percent of plutonium 
239 while producing economically and environmentally sound electirc 
power for the future of the country.
  Now, I think the Senate should concentrate on what we have done. We 
have not said go ahead with this process. We have not said fund any 
more of this process. We have given $5 million to the National Research 
Council and said, examine this process and report back to us in 90 
days. If you find this process cannot live up to the claims, then go 
ahead and shut down the program with the $7.5 million. If you find that 
it can, then report that back to the four committees and we will go 
further.
  Now, I cannot think of anything more simple than the process of 
looking at what we have done. We have provided $5 million for the 
evaluation of this unique, new process that the National Academy 
Committee did not examine, and could not evaluate because of the fact 
that it was not submitted to them. We are now submitting to them the 
gas turbine reactor program known as GT-MHR with a 90-day deadline and 
a maximum amount that they can spend for the evaluation of $5 million. 
I think that is the fairest thing we can do for the taxpayers, 
particularly for those of us who are worried about what to do with 
plutonium.
  What are we going to do with plutonium, Mr. President? Are we just 
going to let it sit out there and worry about how to destroy it? We 
cannot destroy it today. This system burns it. It is possible to burn 
99 percent of it without cost to the taxpayers, and provide cheap 
electric energy in the process. We are going the spend billions of 
dollars to try to destroy this plutonium. This process could destroy it 
while producing normal utility electric power for our consumption. Now 
I think it is a very fine process. I hope it is evaluated and I urge 
the Senate to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator from Louisiana prepared to yield back 
time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield back the balance of my time, and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say to Senators who are coming 
down now, to vote, could you search your offices and your minds and see 
whether you have any other amendments? We would like very much to get a 
list right after this. We know of four amendments. If there are any 
others, we would like to know about them. We are not seeking time 
agreements yet, just to see how many there are because we would like to 
tell our leaders what this looks like for the remainder of the evening.
  So if Senators have any amendments that they want to offer, can they 
get us information? Maybe we will accept some of them. It will very 
much help us in our endeavor to get through at an early hour. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2055. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--38

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
  So the amendment (No. 2055) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, let me ask again, if 
any Members have amendments that we will vote on, I would like to know 
about it. I assume the same holds true for Senator Johnston.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
  We know we have a Dorgan amendment that is ready to go.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me tell Members what I know, and Senators on our 
side, if you have something to add to this, I would appreciate it.
  Senator Grams has an amendment with reference to the Appalachia 
Regional Commission. I assume Senator Grams would be ready at some 
point on that.
  Senator Wellstone has a water level amendment. We would have to 
oppose that. I would like very much for him to be ready soon.
  Senator Brown's amendment has been solved. Senator Dorgan has a 
sense-of-the-Senate on line-item veto, is that correct?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am advised Senator Dorgan says his 
side could take 10 minutes; I suppose our side could take even less 
than that. I suggest 20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have to check that out. We will see 
where we are.
  Are there any other amendments that Senators have that might be 
offered?

[[Page S11079]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator from New Mexico have my amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is regarding the $65 million for a cancer institute.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how much time would the Senator from 
Arkansas want on that amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to accommodate the expedient 
disposition of this bill. I suggest an hour, and we will try to cut it 
to 30 or 40 minutes. One hour equally divided.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Why do we not cut it to 30 or 40 minutes going into 
debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS. It is not always easy to get the unanimous consent to 
extend the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me suggest that your amendment will be very 
controversial, and I think the Senator understands that.
  Without setting time agreements, I would like to see what the 
amendments are. If you have one that has to do with the superconducting 
super collider closedown--
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is the only one we have.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be in order, and there be second-degree amendments 
permissible on any of them: Senator Grams on Appalachia, Senator 
Wellstone on water level, Senator Dorgan on a sense-of-the-Senate on 
line-item veto, and Senator Bumpers on superconducting super collider, 
and that there be no other amendments in order.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator would yield, we have a package of agreed 
amendments. If you could make an exception to that, accept those which 
are cleared by managers on both sides.
  Second-degree amendments were permitted or not permitted?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I cannot follow because I cannot hear.
  Now, Mr. President, could I propose a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator would yield for a moment, I did have an 
amendment that we are trying to work out. At this point, I reserve a 
spot, in case we do not work it out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will try it again.
  I was going to clear Senator Abraham's amendment.
  Senator Hutchison would like to inquire, a little more specifically, 
of Senator Bumpers and see if we cannot get an agreement. Could the 
Senator tell the Senator from Texas precisely what his amendment would 
do?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, briefly, when we terminated the 
superconducting super collider, we entered into an agreement with the 
State of Texas, which was obligated at that time to spend close to $1 
billion. They had already spent quite a bit of it.
  I guess you would say there were two parts of the termination 
agreement. One dealt with the employees severance package; the other 
was with the State of Texas. There was $65 million that the Federal 
Government was going to put up to assist Texas in building a cancer 
institute on the site where the super collider was being built.
  Texas has now decided that they will not build the cancer institute 
there and wants us to give them the $65 million. My amendment would 
rescind the $65 million.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas seek recognition?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand what the amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas does. I will oppose the amendment because it was part of the 
package deal that the Federal Government agreed with the State of Texas 
to do. Although there was a change, we will discuss that during the 
amendment.
  My question is, when is this amendment going to be brought up and 
what is the proposed time agreement for the unanimous consent?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will defer to the distinguished floor manager on that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say to the Senator from Texas 
and other Senators, I was not looking for a time agreement. I was 
merely looking to establish a list of primary amendments and see if we 
could agree on those, and then we will work out time agreements and 
maybe even work out some of the amendments.
  It will be sometime this evening. I understand that is not 
necessarily in the best interests of the Senator from Texas, but we 
have been asked to complete this bill today.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, just one other point. This would put this 
bill on all fours with the House bill which has already done what my 
amendment would do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only 
amendments that be in order on this bill are the Grams amendment on 
Appalachia; Wellstone; Dorgan on line-item veto--these amendments are 
subject to second-degree amendments-- Senator Feingold on TVA; Senator 
Harkin on hydrogen research; and Senator Pressler; I understand we are 
exempting any amendments that could be agreed upon by the two managers; 
and Senator Abraham has an amendment he will offer right quick that we 
are going to accept, so that would be subject to both managers' 
agreement.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. We would need a Byrd second-degree amendment to the 
Grams amendment, and a Byrd first-degree relevant amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the Byrd second-degree amendment beyond Grams? 
What was the second one?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Second degree to the Grams amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And that is all? You did not have another one on Byrd?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. And a Byrd first-degree relevant amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK.
  Let us add to the unanimous-consent request the following: A Byrd 
second-degree amendment to the Grams amendment, a Byrd relevant 
amendment, and a Burns relevant amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold the 
request, I am advised we need to hotline it and we will try to do so 
very quickly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK. I withhold.
  Let us proceed.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I will.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I misspoke myself a while ago and in 
fairness to the Senator from Texas I want to correct it. The amendment 
is what the Congressman from the district where the super collider is 
located tried to do in the House, but because of the House rule, was 
not permitted to offer the amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield for a minute, I know that 
was what was meant and I appreciate his correcting it because I think 
the Congressman does not understand the agreement. We will debate this 
fully but it is not the House bill and, of course, I am going to try to 
keep it from being in the Senate bill as well.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Abraham, I had agreed to accept the Senator's 
amendment and then Senator Mack wanted some time so I will yield to him 
after the Senator's amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2056

(Purpose: To repeal section 7 of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering 
                                  Act)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment I think 
will be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator, under the 
present parliamentary situation it will require the pending amendment 
be set aside.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside. This is an amendment on behalf of myself as 
well as Senators Grams and Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] for himself, Mr. 
     Grams and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 2056.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


[[Page S11080]]

       On page 41, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 510. MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY ENGINEERING.

       Section 7 of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act (42 
     U.S,C. 9396) is repealed.

     SEC. 511. REPEAL OF REPORT ON VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES FOR 
                   PRODUCTION OF PLUTONIUM AND HIGHLY ENRICHED 
                   URANIUM.

       Section 3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1839) is 
     amended by striking out subsection (c).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak briefly to the amendment.
  Earlier this summer, the Congress adopted a historic budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment, the 
Chair notes the Senate is still not in order. Please extend courtesy to 
the Senator from Michigan. The Senate is still not in order.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in putting together the budget I think 
Members on all sides worked hard to try to identify various 
departments, agencies, commissions, boards, and councils whose 
functions were either unnecessary or duplicative of other activities 
going on in Government.
  Working in conjunction with a number of my fellow freshman Members of 
this body, we have tried using the assumptions made in that budget, 
using suggestions that have been previously made by the GAO, by the 
CBO, in some cases by the President in the budget submission he made, 
to try to identify numerous agencies of Government which no longer fill 
their purpose and which consequently ought to be terminated. The 
purpose of this amendment, and it is the first of several we will be 
bringing during the course of the appropriations debates, is to bring 
to an end to these various no longer necessary Government agencies.
  The amendment I am offering today will repeal the authorization of 
two technical panels who have outlived their usefulness, the Technical 
Committee on Verification of Fissile Material and Nuclear Warhead 
Controls and the Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion. Neither of these 
panels currently receives funding. Nor do they have the support of 
either Congress or the executive branch. In other words, they are 
deadwood that should be cleared away as part of the process of 
balancing the budget.
  Mr. President, Congress has the opportunity to produce something a 
vast majority of Americans want very deeply, a balanced budget. But to 
do so means trimming the fat from Government and cutting spending. This 
amendment represents a step in that direction. It terminates the 
activities of two Federal panels whose job is either finished or never 
began.
  More important, it sets the tone I believe we should adopt with all 
of our spending bills. And so, as I said, from time to time during the 
appropriations process, a number of us are going to be working together 
bringing other similar amendments to the floor in the hope we can 
produce the tangible reduction of numerous activities, agencies, and 
programs in Government that have outlived their usefulness.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Ashcroft as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, did we adopt the amendment?
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2056) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before Senator Mack speaks I wonder if I 
could ask Senator Grams if he would let us follow a routine, now. 
Senator Dorgan has also been waiting on a line-item veto sense-of-the-
Senate. He would agree to 15 minutes per side. Could we have him go 
next and then the Senator would follow immediately after that?
  Mr. GRAMS. That will be fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2057

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the conference on S. 4, 
                        the Line Item Veto Act)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment No. 2057 at the desk 
which I would like to call up. Is there an amendment pending before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
  Mr. DORGAN. I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Kohl, Mr. Ford, Mr. Robb, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Bradley, and Mr. Wellstone proposes an amendment numbered 
     2057.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CONFERENCE ON S. 4, THE 
                   LINE ITEM VETO ACT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the line item veto was a major plank in the House 
     majority's ``Contract with America'' and has received strong 
     bipartisan support in the 104th Congress;
       (2) the House of Representatives on February 6, 1995, 
     passed H.R. 2, the Line Item Veto Act, on a vote of 294-134;
       (3) the Senate on March 23, 1995, passed S. 4, the Separate 
     Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1995, on a vote of 69-
     29;
       (4) the House passed S. 4, with the text of H.R. 2 
     inserted, by voice vote on May 17, 1995, 50 days after 
     passage by the Senate;
       (5) notwithstanding the failure of the House to request a 
     conference, the Senate disagreed with the House amendment, 
     requested a conference and appointed conferees on S. 4 on 
     June 20, 1995;
       (6) the papers for S. 4 have been held at the desk of the 
     Speaker of the House for 42 days and the Speaker of the House 
     has not yet moved to appoint conferees;
       (7) with the passage of time it increasingly appears that 
     the Congress may pass and send to the President not only the 
     appropriations bills for fiscal year 1996 but also the 
     reconciliation bill required by H. Con. Res. 67 (the 
     concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget 
     for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002) without first passing and sending to the President a 
     line item veto bill; and
       (8) the House majority leadership has publicly cast doubt 
     on the prospects for a conference on S. 4 this year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Speaker of the House should move to appoint 
     conferees on S. 4 immediately, so that the House and Senate 
     may resolve their differences on this important legislation;

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we operating under a time agreement by 
unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not been formally entered into.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on this 
amendment there be 15 minutes on a side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if Senator Dorgan will do me a favor. I 
forgot, I left Senator Mack standing. He had been recognized and I 
asked him if he would wait for us and I did not go back to him. He 
wants to speak for 2 minutes and then it will be Mr. Dorgan's turn on 
the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I will be happy to do that. It is my 
understanding there will not be a second-degree on my amendment, and I 
will have an up-or-down vote on my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is my understanding.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________