[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7152-S7156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. May I inquire of the Chair as to the
parliamentary state of affairs on the floor? What is the pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the amendment by
Senator Cohen from Maine.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 4371 to Amendment No. 4369
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself and Mr.
Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 4371 to amendment No.
4369.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam 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:
In the table in subsection (b), delete the entry relating
to titanium sponge.
Mr. BRYAN. If it is not clear, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Reid be made a cosponsor of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I do not know whether we are going to be
debating this extensively this evening, but the underlying amendment
seeks, as an offset, to compel the sale of certain minerals in the
strategic reserve, one of which would have a profound impact on a very
important industry in my own State. The issue is titanium, titanium
sponge.
My colleagues may not be familiar with this, but upon the implosion
of the Soviet Union into its various respective states, massive amounts
of titanium sponge, a part of the Soviet reserve, were dumped on the
international market, depressing the price of titanium to the extent
that the domestic titanium industry nearly went under. That occurred in
1991.
Over the past 4 or 5 years, it has been a struggle just to survive.
Senator Reid and I have been informed that this year is kind of a
turnaround year; that is to say, they have begun to, from a financial
perspective, surface above the water line, and the concern that I have
is that with the authorized disposition of the strategic reserve,
including titanium sponge, we might lose a very important domestic
industry, one that is critical to our national defense as well.
So it is on that basis that the second-degree amendment that Senator
Reid and I have offered would delete titanium sponge from the list of
strategic materials that Senator Cohen has provided as an offset to
finance the recoupment provisions in the underlying amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the titanium metals is located in a place
called Henderson, NV. Henderson, NV, is a town that was developed
during the Second World War. It was built for no other purpose than to
supply essential war products to the allied war efforts. It was
Nevada's industrial center and, in fact, still is.
Madam President, after World War II ended, this facility started
building other things, doing other things than what was done during the
Second World War. With the advent of jet engines, one of the things
they needed was titanium metal.
As a result of that, Henderson, NV, became one of the two places in
the United States that manufactures this essential product. It is
important that manufacturing of this product continue. It is important
that there be a stockpile of this material, because in case of an
international crisis, the country would be simply without products that
are essential to our national security.
Hundreds of employees are affected as a result of this amendment by
our friend from the State of Maine. There are only, to my knowledge,
two operations in the United States that manufacture titanium sponge.
The largest manufacturer is in Henderson, NV.
Madam President, if in fact this underlying amendment passes,
hundreds of people would be laid off. And not only would hundreds of
people be laid off, but the United States would not be in a position to
be ready in case of international crisis.
The amendment says that:
The President may not dispose of materials under subsection
(a) to the extent that the disposal will result in--
(1) undue disruption of usual markets of producers,
processors, and consumers of the materials proposed for
disposal. . .
Madam President, this amendment is being offered as an offset.
Because of the amendment we passed last year, what is beginning to
happen around here, because of all the cuts that have been made, is
that we are beginning to scavenger anything that is in existence.
To show how desperate we are for offsets, we are now going to
cannibalize the stock piles of essential minerals and metals that we
have in the United States. I think it is simply wrong. I hope that this
second-degree amendment will pass. It is important, Madam President,
that we eliminate titanium sponge from this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. If I could just respond very briefly. I know the Senator
from Nevada is concerned about the potential consequences of any
amendment to his State. But I point out that the amendment provides,
specifically on page 2 of the amendment, that ``The President may not
dispose''--may not dispose--``of materials under subsection (a) to the
extent that the disposal will result in--(1) undue disruption of the
usual markets of producers, processors, and consumers of the materials
proposed for disposal; or (2) avoidable loss to the United States.''
Second, we have a factsheet submitted by the Department of Defense.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
DOD Fact Sheet--Titanium Sponge
Reported consumption for 1995 was estimated by the Bureau
Mines to be 21,000 metric tons (23,100 short tons).
Domestic production is running at 80 to 85 percent of
capacity. However, Johnson Matthey is installing a titanium
sponge facility in Salt Lake City, Utah. They have told DNSC
officials that they would prefer the Stockpile to sell
material into the market during the early part of 1996 while
their facility is being brought on line. Thereafter, they
would hope to see DNSC not sell titanium sponge at all.
Considering the state of the domestic production (U.S.
sponge producers have sold out their production, forcing
titanium metal producers to go offshore for sponge) this
would be an ideal time to enter the market with the Stockpile
sponge. Market growth has been in the commercial aerospace
applications, demand for titanium-shafted golf clubs and
tubing for energy applications. RMI Titanium Co. (U.S.
producer of titanium metal) recently increased its metal
prices by 5 percent. RMI indicated that the reason for the
increase has been the tightening of supply, demand exceeding
the supply and a bid to increase the profit margin. The
published price for domestic sponge has been consistent at
$4.40 per pound ($8,800 per short ton) since October 12,
1995.
The Market Impact Committee has not been asked to comment
on possible sales of titanium sponge in fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997.
P.L. 104-106 February 10, 1996, Sec. 3305 requires the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to 250 short tons of
titanium sponge to the Secretary of the Army during each of
the fiscal years 1996 to 2003 for the main battle
[[Page S7153]]
tank upgrade program. Maximum total transfer will equal 2,000
short tons.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I will cite it here.
Considering the state of the domestic production (U.S.
sponge producers have sold out their production, forcing
titanium metal producers to go offshore for sponge) this
would be an ideal time to enter the market with the Stockpile
sponge.
Madam President, I am doing this at the request of the
administration. They are saying they are going to veto this measure
unless we include this provision. So I am trying to act in a bipartisan
fashion saying: The administration wants this. I want it. It makes good
sense for our producers of military equipment. The Department of
Defense wants it.
It seems to me that the language is written as such that it would not
pose the kind of job loss that the Senator from Nevada has indicated.
As a matter of fact, according to DOD, this is the precise time that we
ought to enter the market for stockpile sponges.
So, Madam President, I hope that we will vote against the elimination
of the titanium from my amendment and approve the amendment as I have
drafted it. I ask for the yeas and nays on the underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the
amendment.
Mr. COHEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. BRYAN. Before the Senator from Maine would be prepared to yield,
the Senators from Nevada appreciate the Senator from Maine operating in
a bipartisan fashion, but the concern that we have with this amendment
surfaces on the floor at nearly 2200 hours eastern daylight time. We
get an emergency call expressing concern from an industry that is
vital, not only, in my view, to our national defense, but to a
community that my senior colleague and I represent.
We are also informed that the amount of the offset that the Senator
from Maine needs to accomplish his objective is something in the
neighborhood of $440 million. I will yield to him if he seeks to
correct those numbers that we have been provided with.
In point of fact, by having all the materials in the strategic
reserve made available in the market, they actually generate more money
than the Senator has required for the offset. We want to work with the
Senator, but I do not believe we can feel comfortable that there will
not in fact be an impact upon an industry which is of critical
importance to our State. And I share the concern with the Senator, my
friend, from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, just for the record, this amendment was
filed yesterday. It is not a last-moment initiative on my part. We do
need to move forward if we are going to have any chance of completing
action on this bill. 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. BRYAN. Madam 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. 4371, Withdrawn
Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, at this time, I would like to withdraw my
second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Amendment No. 4369, As Modified
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I have a modification of my original
amendment, which will add a new subsection that would satisfy the
interests of the Senators from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his
amendment, and the amended will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 4369), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of title XXXIII, add the following:
SEC. 3303. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF MATERIALS IN
NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.
(a) Disposal Required.--Subject to subsection (c), the
President shall dispose of materials contained in the
National Defense Stockpile and specified in the table in
subsection (b) so as to result in receipts to the United
States in amounts equal to--
(1) $110,000,000 during the five-fiscal year period ending
September 30, 2001;
(2) $260,000,000 during the seven-fiscal year period ending
September 30, 2003; and
(3) $440,000,000 during the nine-fiscal year period ending
September 30, 2005.
(b) Limitation on Disposal Quantity.--The total quantities
of materials authorized for disposal by the President under
subsection (a) may not exceed the amounts set forth in the
following table:
AUTHORIZED STOCKPILE DISPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material for disposal Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrome Metal, Electrolytic................ 8,471 short tons
Cobalt.................................... 9,902,774 pounds
Columbium Carbide......................... 21,372 pounds
Columbium Ferro........................... 249,395 pounds
Diamond, Bort............................. 91,542 carats
Diamond, Stone............................ 3,029,413 carats
Germanium................................. 28,207 kilograms
Indium.................................... 15,205 troy ounces
Palladium................................. 1,249,601 troy ounces
Platinum.................................. 442,641 troy ounces
Rubber.................................... 567 long tons
Tantalum, Carbide Powder.................. 22,688 pounds contained
Tantalum, Minerals........................ 1,748,947 pounds contained
Tantalum, Oxide........................... 123,691 pounds contained
Titanium Sponge........................... 36,830 short tons
Tungsten.................................. 76,358,235 pounds
Tungsten, Carbide......................... 2,032,942 pounds
Tungsten, Metal Powder.................... 1,181,921 pounds
Tungsten, Ferro........................... 2,024,143 pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Minimization of Disruption and Loss.--The President may
not dispose of materials under subsection (a) to the extent
that the disposal will result in--
(1) undue disruption of the usual markets of producers,
processors, and consumers of the materials proposed for
disposal; or
(2) avoidable loss to the United States.
(d) Treatment of Receipts.--(1) Notwithstanding section 9
of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50
U.S.C. 98h), funds received as a result of the disposal of
materials under subsection (a) shall be deposited into the
general fund of the Treasury and used to offset the revenues
lost as a result of the amendments made by subsection (a) of
section 4303 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 658).
(2) This section shall be treated as qualifying offsetting
legislation for purposes of subsection (b) of such section
4303.
(e) Relationship to Other Disposal Authority.--The disposal
authority provided in subsection (a) is new disposal
authority and is in addition to, and shall not affect, any
other disposal authority provided by law regarding the
materials specified in such subsection.
(f) Definition.--The term ``National Defense Stockpile''
means the National Defense Stockpile provided for in section
4 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act
(50 U.S.C. 98c).
(g) Additional Limitation.--Of the amounts listed in the
table in subsection (b), titanium sponge may be sold only to
the extent necessary to attain the level of receipts
specified in subsection (a), after taking into account the
estimated receipts from the other materials in such table.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified, of the Senator from Maine. On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
Chafee], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers],
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from California [Mrs.
Feinstein], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 18, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]
YEAS--74
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
[[Page S7154]]
Faircloth
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--18
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Dorgan
Feingold
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Leahy
McCain
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Bumpers
Chafee
Cochran
Exon
Feinstein
Hatfield
Inhofe
Pryor
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Lieberman be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have discussed with my friend, Senator
Thurmond, the issue of shipboard solid waste discharges and the Navy's
ability to comply with the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships [APPS]
and Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution on Ships [MARPOL]. After thoroughly studying the operational
and environmental impacts, the Navy has identified the use of paper/
cardboard pulpers and metal/glass shredders as the preferred technology
for full compliance with MARPOL, at a fleet-wide cost of about $300
million. Conversely, full compliance with the APPS would involve the
use of technologies that would significantly degrade operations and
result in a fleet-wide cost of about $1.1 billion. Therefore, it is
evident that additional legislative guidance is necessary to ensure
that U.S. strictures allow for the use of developed technologies that
are environmentally sound, operationally feasible, and affordable. As a
result, I have introduced S. 1728, which amends section 1902(c) of the
APPS by allowing the Navy to use pulpers and shredders to dispose of
non-plastic and non-floating solid waste. Senator Thurmond, I am aware
that you and I have similar concerns related to this issue.
Mr. THURMOND. Let me assure my friend that I am aware of this issue
and agree that a legislative solution is necessary. It is clear that
the Navy's use of pulpers and shredders provides the best available
means of balancing the competing interests associated with
environmental protection, shipboard quality of life, operational
capability, and cost effectiveness. As chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I feel that compliance with U.S. and international
laws must, as a matter of national security, take into consideration
the impacts on mission effectiveness and operational flexibility. Navy
ships are self-contained units with severe limits on space, weight, and
the ability to power onboard equipment. In short, these ships are
designed to maximize mission performance for the preservation of our
national security. Based on an administration request and the Navy's
expressed operational needs, I have included a provision in the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 that is similar
to S. 1728. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I would propose that we
use the National Defense Authorization Act as a vehicle for this
legislative provision.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree that the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1997 is an appropriate vehicle for this legislative
proposal. Accordingly, I will support your efforts to include such a
provision in your bill.
Mr. THURMOND. I want to express my deep appreciation for the
Senator's interest and support on this issue. It is my hope that we may
continue to work together in such matters.
telemedicine
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as the Chairman knows, the Senate
Appropriations Committee has provided $20 million in the fiscal year 97
Department of Defense Appropriations bill in the area of telemedicine.
The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator
Thurmond, has for several years recognized the importance of military
research, development, and implementation of telemedicine. It has also
given value to the idea of working in partnership with non-governmental
entities in this area.
My own home State of Pennsylvania has a strong interest in this area
and is developing several new and exciting programs to assist our
military health care capabilities. I encourage the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee to closely examine these new
technologies and look forward to his continued involvement in this
area.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his interest
and dedication to this important breakthrough in military health care
and I look forward to working with him and our counterparts on the
Appropriations Committee on these efforts.
amendment no. 4349
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senators from Georgia, New Mexico, and Indiana to
authorize funding for an emergency assistance program to train and
equip State and local emergency personnel to respond to domestic
terrorist WMD incidents.
The amendment also authorizes increases in the Defense and Energy
budgets for assistance to Russia and all the Independent States of the
former Soviet Union under the cooperative threat reduction programs.
I have concerns about authorizing new activities in both of these
departments. I don't question the goals of the sponsors of this
amendment. However, authorizing increases of this nature as well as
expanding the scope of these two programs has not been discussed in our
committee.
The committee has received no information on the budgetary impact of
this amendment. Additionally, conferencing this provision with the
House will no doubt be extremely contentious. As it was last year.
As other members have done, I will emphasize that there are no
appropriations for these activities in either of the defense
appropriations bill. Of course, we have not yet received the energy
appropriations bill.
I have concerns about the transfer authority in the amendment, and
the potential impact on programs in the defense bill, as well as
programs in the defense portion of the energy bill.
The amendment includes authority for the Department of Defense to
provide assistance to the Department of Justice. I have concerns about
Posse Comitatus implications of this provision. This was the same
provision in the Senate's anti-terrorist bill, which was eventually
dropped in conference because of those concerns.
I would mention that I have concerns about increasing assistance to
Russia, when they continue to conduct research and development on
ballistic missiles and in building submarines. Additionally, I do have
concerns about Russia's recalcitrance on the issue regarding their
transfer of knowledge, training and material to Iran, to help them
build their nuclear reactors, as well as to China.
Additionally, Russia continues to refuse to provide information on
its biological research activities, as well as its chemical research
activities on binary weapons, which we all have been informed on by the
former Russian scientist Vil Miransaynov.
The authority to conduct these programs are not small commitments. I
understand from DOE that the potential cost for replacing the reactor
cores at Tomsk 7 and Krasnoyarsk 26 is around $100 million. And that is
just an estimate.
What is the cost of converting biological and chemical production
facilities in all the independent states of the Former Soviet Union?
What impact would ratifying a Chemical Weapons Convention have on
this authority? While the Bilateral Destruction Agreement would have
allowed the conversion of chemical facilities, the CWC prohibits the
conversion of the chemical facilities for nondefense purposes.
[[Page S7155]]
I support the efforts of, and want to work with, my colleagues on
establishing a program to assist State and local communities in
responding to terrorist use of WMD. But I must emphasize my concerns
about increasing funds for the cooperative threat reduction programs in
the DOD and DOE budgets.
Tritium Production
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express some strong
concerns that I have regarding this country's ability to produce and
maintain our vital supply of tritium. I am deeply concerned that the
administration is proceeding down a costly and uncertain path, and that
we are failing to take necessary action to protect our national
security interests.
Mr. President, tritium is a man-made radioactive isotope of hydrogen.
It has a half-life of about 12 years and decays at a rate of about 5.5
percent per year. It is essentially the ``booster'' that gives a
nuclear weapon much of its explosive power. Even though the cold war is
over, the United States still requires a downsized nuclear deterrent to
ensure our security from continuing threats, including those from
emerging Third World nations with nuclear capabilities and a
demonstrated willingness to use terrorist tactics to achieve their
national objectives.
With regard to the tritium production decision, Secretary Hazel
O'Leary and now this Congress are about to travel down a path with far-
reaching implications for both national security and U.S. taxpayers'
pocketbooks over the next half century. In October 1995, Secretary
O'Leary announced a dual-track approach of more studies for meeting
future tritium requirements for the next 3 years. According to the
legislation before us, we are authorizing $160 million in fiscal year
1997 for tritium production studies. According to the legislation,
approximately 90 percent will go to Los Alamos National Laboratory's
linear accelerator research project. The remaining 10 percent of the
$160 million will go toward continued research for use of an existing
nuclear reactor to produce tritium.
With regard to the linear accelerator for tritium production, the
Department of Energy's last attempt at building a new accelerator was
the superconducting super collider--now an empty ditch full of rusting
equipment and shattered dreams, sitting idle on the plains of Texas.
Like the accelerator that the DOE wants to build, the Department
started out with an estimate of only a few billion dollars to build the
super collider. However, after several years and billions of dollars of
taxpayer money, the project began running behind schedule and the cost
estimates began to balloon out of control. Finally in 1992, when the
cost estimate had grown to more than $11 billion, Congress said
``enough is enough'' and pulled the plug on the collider program.
Now the DOE proposes to start a new accelerator research project,
using the Nation's need for tritium as the excuse. Although the project
is being justified by national security needs, scientists at DOE's
national laboratories are lining up to propose new research programs
for which the accelerator can be used.
Mr. President, the Department of Energy has a poor track record of
starting large projects and then helplessly watching the costs and
schedule expand out of control. Virtually every major project ever
started by DOE has been terminated during construction or before
beginning any useful operation. Besides the money wasted on the Super
Collider, there was the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, the Fast Flux
Test Facility, upgrades to the K-Reactors, et cetera, et cetera. Each
of these were multibillion-dollar projects.
Recently, the Department provided a forecast of the funds required to
fulfill the tritium mission during the research, development, and
proposed construction phases. According to the chart, the Department
plans on spending $4.863 billion on the accelerator and an additional
$535 million on civilian light water reactor research. Mr. President,
over the next several years, we are going to ask the taxpayers to foot
a bill of over $5 billion for tritium production and that is simply to
get the program up and running. That does not include the several
billion dollars it will take in annual operation and maintenance.
Indeed, according to the Department's own estimates, the accelerator
could cost taxpayers in excess of $20 billion over its lifetime.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ``Tritium Production
Budget Forecast'' be printed in the Record. Obviously, it is clear that
when President Clinton commented during his State of the Union speech
that ``the era of big government is over.'' He forgot about this
project.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TRITIUM PRODUCTION BUDGET FORECAST--1996-1997
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year APT funding CLWR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... $45 $5
1997.................................... 85 15
1998.................................... 255 37
1999.................................... 276 44
2000.................................... 282 69
2001.................................... 496 78
2002.................................... 739 108
2003.................................... 903 120
2004.................................... 901 36
2005.................................... 431 23
2006.................................... 228 0
2007.................................... 221 0
-------------------------------
Total............................... 4863 535
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--Taken from presentation by Bill Bishop, DOE, to Aiken/Augusta
Chambers of Commerce, May 2, 1996.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I must ask my colleagues: Is this the
direction we should go? We are putting a great deal of trust in an
undeveloped technology for such a critical national security mission. I
certainly cannot predict the future, but I am 100 percent at predicting
the past. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the
accelerator technology--for which we are authorizing over $140 million
in spending in fiscal year 1997--will or will not work. However, I can
say with confidence that the Department of Energy has demonstrated a
very poor record in managing other large initiatives. Furthermore, the
American people have never been enthusiastic about paying for these
types of large projects. When costs begin to escalate, what makes us
think they will support this risky project in the future?
Unfortunately, Mr. President, I fear that the administration, and now
this Congress, may be overlooking the most reasonable approach to
performing the tritium mission; that being, a new nuclear reactor that
could produce tritium, while generating electricity for use in the
surrounding area of the country. Since this type of new reactor project
would earn revenue from the electricity sales, it could be privatized
and, thus, its construction could be paid for largely through private
funds--not by the taxpayers. In fact, Department of Energy studies show
the new reactor option to be billions of dollars less expensive than
the accelerator. Indeed, industry critics say that the cost gap between
the accelerator and reactor options is even larger than the numbers in
DOE's studies--more like $10 to $15 billion over the project's
lifetime.
Mr. President, I doubt this issue will receive any more debate or
discussion than what I have raised today. I know that my colleague from
Arizona, Senator Kyl, has been an outspoken critic of the Department of
Energy's handling of the tritium decision. I commend my friend from
Arizona for his continuing interest in this matter, and his steadfast
support for maintaining a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear
deterrent.
While this issue may go largely unnoticed this year, I am forewarning
my colleagues that we are likely to debate in the future this
Government's exorbitant spending on the accelerator and how research
and development is taking much longer than previously anticipated--at
the same time that our tritium stockpile comes perilously close to
depletion. Meanwhile, a technology available today that can be
privately financed is apparently being shunned.
Considering all of the painful budget cuts confronting us in the
years ahead, and the critical need for tritium, I cannot understand how
this body would allow the Energy Department to initiate another big
ticket accelerator research project, particularly when its overall cost
and performance are seriously in question. In my view, we should be
exploring other possible alternatives, particularly those that are less
expensive and more reliable, to satisfy this key national security
requirement.
[[Page S7156]]
environmental management headquarters, program direction subaccount
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the Department of
Energy's Environmental Management Headquarters' Program Direction
subaccount which is funded under the fiscal year 1997 DOD
authorization.
The House passed version of the fiscal 1997 Defense authorization
cuts the Environmental Management Headquarters' Program Direction
subaccount by $71 million. This office under the EM program boasts some
of DOE's most technically savvy, highly trained employees--each of whom
provide critical oversight for our Nation's extensive Defense Nuclear
Safety and Waste Management initiatives. It is my understanding that
the House's reduction in this subaccount was made precipitously--
without hearings or any other discussion of its long-term impact on the
Department's ability to administer such an essential function. The
Senate version of the DOD authorization retains funding for this
important function and I urge my colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee to work to ensure that funding for the Environmental
Management Headquarters' Program Direction subaccount will be upheld at
the Senate level when the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization is
taken up in conference.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The majority
leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the cloture vote
scheduled to occur today now occur at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, a third attempt to
vote cloture on this DOD authorization bill will occur in the morning
at 9:30 as just announced.
Immediately following that vote, regardless of outcome, it will be my
intention to propound a unanimous-consent agreement limiting the
remaining amendments to the bill. We will be meeting after this
announcement with the distinguished Democratic leader to go over the
list of amendments. Also to see if we have been able to work out an
agreement on a number of other items that have been delaying final
movement. We are asking once again all Senators to cooperate. Please do
not come up with amendments that do not relate directly to the defense
bill.
____________________