[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8980-S8988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the bill, if I 
may, for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend the managers of this 
bill and the staff for the energy and water development appropriations 
bill which I have in my hand which has a provision for the Mid-Dakota 
Rural Water System for $7.5 million.
  I hope in conference, or possibly in future developments, that the 
funding level for mid-Dakota can be raised to $11.5 million, which is 
the House level. I was disappointed with the administration only 
recommended $2.5 million. While we need to change that, we can actually 
save money on a contractual basis by accelerating this project and 
going to the $11.5 million level.
  Let me say a word or two about the mid-Dakota project. It will bring 
water into eastern South Dakota to 24 communities, and it will run from 
Pierre to Huron, SD, along Highway 14 and surrounding areas.
  In the State of South Dakota in eastern South Dakota we have a 
problem with water. On my farm we have a rural water system hooked up 
where water is brought from a central source as opposed to farms in 
this area that depend on wells. In this case, it takes the mid-Dakota 
project. This project will bring water from the Missouri River 
eastward. We have the great resource of the Missouri River in our 
State. It is almost unused. But this is using Missouri River water for 
our people.
  I have had a number of meetings on this project over the past several 
years. I met with Kurt Pfeifle yesterday, the general manager of mid-
Dakota project to discuss ways to get a higher funding level. I have 
met with him and other South Dakotans who traveled here to propose this 
important project for 30,000 people in eastern South Dakota--Tom Edgar 
from Orient, Susan Hargens from Miller, Johnny Gross from Onida, Eugene 
Warner from Blundt, Mory Simon from Gettysburg, to name a few.
  So, Mr. President, let me say in conclusion that I thank the managers 
of the bill for the $7.5 million that has been included for mid-Dakota. 
It is a very important water project in our State. I hope that the 
level can be increased to $11.5 million.
  I note that the administration included only $2.5 million in their 
recommendations. So it has been a struggle. But it is very, very 
important to the people of South Dakota. To have clean drinking water 
for livestock and people is very, very important to the farmers and the 
people of eastern South Dakota.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 5093

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending business is the Gorton 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the Gorton amendment, and the 
other side has no objection to the Gorton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from Washington.
  The amendment (No. 5093) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 5094

 (Purpose: To clarify that report language does not have the force of 
                                  law)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have two amendments. The first one is at 
the desk. I ask for the immediate consideration of the first of the two 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5094. On page 36, line 1, strike all after the word 
     ``this'' through line 3 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following: ``Act.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I and my staff spend some time perusing 
the appropriations bills as they come up. I will have comments on some 
aspects of the bill before the bill is voted on.
  But I was quite disturbed to see on page 36 of the bill beginning on 
page 35 where it says:

       Notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. funds made 
     available by this act to the Department of Energy shall be 
     available only for the purposes for which they have been made 
     available by this act, and only in accordance with the 
     recommendations contained in this report.

  My understanding of that language in the bill is that it means that 
the report language has the force of law.
  Mr. President, that is just not something that is correct. It is not 
appropriate. It is not in keeping with the proper procedures used by 
the Congress.
  I hope that my colleague from New Mexico will accept the amendment to 
strike that language. If not, obviously, I would want to ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I have no more discussion of that amendment. I am 
ready to move on to the other amendment at the appropriate time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not prepared to accept the 
amendment at this time. My counterpart is not here at this time. 
Obviously, we both want to look at it in light of our reasons for 
putting it in. Our reasons for putting it in are different than the 
Senator's reasons for taking it out. We would like to discuss that. So 
we will debate that at another time.
  If the Senator is agreeable to proceed to another amendment, if he 
would like, if he would set his aside, it will be properly sequenced.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be glad to do that. Prior to doing 
so, I guess I would 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.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again I would be more than happy to engage 
in a discussion with both distinguished managers on this amendment. I 
have only been here 10 years, but I have not seen such language in an 
appropriations bill. I would be very disturbed to see that became 
custom here in the Senate although, if the Senator from New Mexico 
States has other reasons for it being in there, I would be more than 
happy to discuss that. And perhaps we could change that language so 
that the effect of the language is not as I see it.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5095

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to carry out the advanced light 
                         water reactor program)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have another amendment which I send to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S8981]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5095.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR PROGRAM.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to carry out the advanced light water 
     reactor program established under subtitle C of title XXI of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13491 et seq.) or to 
     pay any costs incurred in terminating the program.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment terminates funding for the 
Advanced Light Water Reactor Program, which provides taxpayer-funded 
subsidies for corporations for the design, engineering, testing, and 
commercialization of nuclear reactor designs.
  I am pleased that Senators Feingold, Gregg, and Kerry of 
Massachusetts have joined me as cosponsors on this important amendment. 
I urge my colleagues to support us in ending this wasteful Government 
spending and corporate welfare.
  Organizations such as Public Citizen, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Taxpayers for Common Cause, 
and the Heritage Foundation have lent their strong support to 
eliminating the funding for the advanced light water reactor, and last 
year a bipartisan Senate coalition, with the help of the Progressive 
Policy Institute and the Cato Institute, included the Advanced Light 
Water Reactor Program as one of a dozen high-priority corporate pork 
items to be eliminated.
  Many Americans would be surprised to know that this program has 
already received more than $230 million in Federal support over the 
last 5 years. The Department of Energy has requested an additional $40 
million for the program for fiscal year 1997. This program was created 
under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That act makes clear that design 
certification support should only be provided for advanced light water 
reactor designs that can be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission by no later than the end of fiscal year 1996.
  The Department of Energy has acknowledged that no advanced light 
water reactor designs that would be funded under this bill will be 
certified by the end of fiscal year 1996. Thus, under the legislation 
no funds should be appropriated to support this program's designs.
  Mr. President, this act specifies that ``no entity shall receive 
assistance for commercialization of an advanced light water reactor for 
more than 4 years.'' The Department of Energy's 1997 funding request 
would allow for a fifth year of Federal financial assistance to the 
program's chief beneficiaries, which are well-to-do corporations which 
can afford to bear commercialization costs on their own.
  General Electric, Westinghouse, and Asea Brown Boveri/Combustion 
Engineering have already received 4 years' of assistance under this 
program since 1993, and, significantly, these three companies had 
combined 1994 revenues of over $70 billion, and last year their 
combined revenues exceeded $100 billion. I believe these corporations 
can afford to bring new products to the market without taxpayers' 
subsidies.
  One of the primary recipients of this program funding, General 
Electric, recently announced that it is canceling its simplified 
boiling water reactor after receiving $50 million from the Department 
of Energy because extensive evaluations of the market competitiveness 
of a 600 megawatt-sized advanced light water reactor have not 
established the commercial viability of these designs.
  The program exemplifies the problems of unfairness, in my view, that 
corporate welfare engenders. If this program's designs are commercially 
feasible, large wealthy corporations like Westinghouse do not need 
taxpayers to subsidize them because the market will reward them for 
their efforts and investment in this research. If they are not 
commercially viable, then the American taxpayer is being forced to pay 
for a product in complete defiance of market forces that a company 
would not pay to produce itself.

  As a practical matter, such unnecessary and wasteful Government 
spending must be eliminated if we are to restore fiscal sanity. More 
importantly, though, as a matter of fundamental fairness, we cannot ask 
Americans to tighten their belts across the board in order that we 
might balance the budget while we provide taxpayer-funded subsidies to 
large corporations. Corporate welfare of this kind is unfair to the 
American taxpayer. It increases the deficit, and we cannot allow it to 
continue.
  Finally, there are no termination costs to worry about because the 
Department of Energy contract with Westinghouse specifically provides 
that ``reimbursements shall be subject to availability of appropriated 
funds.''
  Enough is enough. After 5 years and $230 million, it is time we bring 
the program to an end.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of letters from Citizens Against 
Government Waste, Public Citizen, and the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the 600,000 members of 
     the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I 
     am writing to urge you to introduce legislation to eliminate 
     the Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program. This program 
     has already surpassed its authorized funding level, and 
     extending its funding will exceed the goals of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT).
       In 1992, EPACT authorized $100 million for first-of-a-kind 
     engineering of new reactors. In addition, EPACT specified 
     that the Department of Energy should only support advanced 
     light water reactor designs that could be certified by the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission no later than the end of FY 
     1996.
       In a surprise announcement on February 28, 1996, General 
     Electric (GE) terminated one of its taxpayer-subsidized R&D 
     light water reactor programs (the simplified boiling water 
     reactor), stating that the company's recent internal 
     marketing analyses showed that the technology lacked 
     ``commercial viability.'' Westinghouse, which is slated to 
     receive ALWR support between FYs 1997-99 for its similar AP-
     600 program, is not expected to receive design certification 
     until FY 1998 or FY 1999. Taxpayers should not be expected to 
     throw money at projects with little or no domestic commercial 
     value.
       EPACT also stipulates that recipients of any ALWR money 
     must certify to the Secretary of Energy that they intend to 
     construct and operate a reactor in the United States. In 
     1995, the Nuclear Energy Institute's newsletter, Nuclear 
     Energy Insight, reported that, ``all three [ALWR] designers 
     see their most immediate opportunities for selling their 
     designs in Pacific Rim countries.'' In Fact, GE has sold two 
     reactors developed under this program to Japan, and still the 
     government has not recovered any money.
       As you may recall, CCAGW endorsed your corporate welfare 
     amendment, including the elimination of the ALWR program, to 
     the FY 1996 budget Reconciliation bill. We are again looking 
     to your leadership to introduce legislation to now eliminate 
     this program. I also testified before the House Energy and 
     Environment Subcommittee on Science on May 1, 1996 calling 
     for the elimination of the ALWR. The mission has been 
     fulfilled, now the program should end.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                               Public Citizen,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
     Senator John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are pleased to support your efforts to 
     terminate further government support for the Advanced Light 
     Water Reactor (ALWR) program at the U.S. Department of 
     Energy. The ALWR program, having received five years of 
     support and more than $230 million of taxpayer money, is a 
     prime candidate for elimination in the coming budget cycle. 
     It represents a textbook example of corporate welfare, 
     provides little value to taxpayers and fails to account for 
     the fact that domestic interest in new nuclear technologies 
     is at an all-time low.
       As of today, not one utility or company participating in 
     the ALWR program has committed to building a new reactor in 
     this country nor are there any signs that domestic orders 
     will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. Instead of 
     providing reactors for American utilities, the ALWR program 
     has become an export promotion subsidy for General Electric, 
     Westinghouse and Asea Brown Boveri in direct violation of the 
     intent of the Energy Policy Act. These companies, with 
     combined annual revenues of over $70 billion, are hardly in 
     need of such generous financial support.

[[Page S8982]]

       Continuing to fund the ALWR program would send a strong 
     message that subsidies to large, profitable corporations are 
     exempt from scrutiny while other programs in the federal 
     budget are cut to reach overall spending targets. The 
     industry receiving this support is mature, developed and 
     profitable and should be fully able to invest its own money 
     in bringing new products to market.
       This legislation is consistent with your long-standing 
     campaign to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending in 
     the federal budget. We salute your effort and offer our help 
     in pruning this subsidy from the fiscal year 1997 budget.
           Sincerely,

                                                Bill Magavern,

                                                         Director,
     Critical Mass Energy Project.
                                                                    ____



                             Competitive Enterprise Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McCain: I wish to commend you for your 
     efforts to eliminate funding for Advanced Light Water Reactor 
     (ALWR) research. As a longtime opponent of federal subsidies 
     for energy research of this kind, I am glad to see members of 
     Congress representing the interests of the taxpayer on this 
     issue.
       Since 1992, the Department of Energy has spent over $200 
     million on ALWR research, with little to show for it. If such 
     reactors are commercially viable, as supporters claim, then 
     there is no need to waste taxpayer dollars on what amounts to 
     corporate welfare. If the ALWR is not commercially viable, 
     then throwing taxpayer dollars at it is even more wasteful. 
     The fact that no utility plans to build such a reactor in 
     this country any time soon suggests that the latter is more 
     likely. Either way, federal funding for this program should 
     end.
       I fully support your efforts to eliminate the ALWR research 
     subsidy and hope that this effort is the first step in the 
     eventual elimination of the Department of Energy as a whole.
           Sincerely,
                                               Fred L. Smith, Jr.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last May, at the end May, there was an 
interesting article in the Washington Post by Mr. Guy Gugliotta. I 
would like to quote parts of his article.

       Five or six years ago, depending on whom you asked, 
     Congress voted to fund research on a new kind of nuclear 
     energy plant called the Advanced Light Water Reactor. You 
     remember nuclear energy, right?
       The money--more than $200 million so far--has gone to three 
     struggling firms--General Electric, Westinghouse, and Asea 
     Brown Boveri Inc./Combustion Engineering. The idea is to 
     develop a new generation of nuclear powered generators.
       Except nobody in the United States wants one. No utility 
     has bought a nuclear plant since 1973, and 89 percent of 
     utility executives polled this year by the Washington 
     International Energy Group said they never would.
       Even General Electric decided in February to abandon 
     research on one of its two reactor projects concluding that 
     ``extensive evaluations . . . have not established the 
     commercial viability of these designs.''

  Mr. President, I would point out that I am a supporter of nuclear 
power. I believe that it is a viable option and someday will be a 
viable option, but I do not believe that justifies this kind of 
expenditure.
  Mr. President, the San Francisco Chronicle said, ``If there's a 
lucrative export market, let them finance their own development 
programs.''
  The Oregonian says, ``Asking taxpayers to subsidize nuclear power 
research is like asking them to build barns to store up horsepower.''
  The Richmond Times Dispatch editorial lead says, ``Zap It.''
  The Louisville Courier-Journal calls it ``A needless subsidy.''
  The Kennebec Journal says, ``Reactor research funding deserves to be 
terminated.''
  The Charleston Gazette says, ``Nuclear subsidy Corporate welfare?''
  The Morning Sentinel of Maine says, ``Congress should switch off 
Energy's nuke-pork project.''
  The Bangor Daily News says: ``Members of the House and Senate have 
yet to justify the need for what amounts to a large corporate subsidy. 
It is likely they cannot. Instead, they should end the program before 
it costs taxpayers any more money.''
  The Houston Chronicle says, ``Time to stop federal subsidies for 
nuclear generators.''
  And the Des Moines Register calls it ``Nuclear Nonsense.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these editorials be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 28, 1996]

                   Research for Reactor Nobody Wants

                           (By Guy Gugliotta)

       Five or six years ago, depending on whom you ask, Congress 
     voted to fund research on a new kind of nuclear energy plant 
     called the Advanced Light Water Reactor. You remember nuclear 
     energy, right?
       The money--more than $200 million so far--has gone to three 
     struggling firms--General Electric, Westinghouse and Asea 
     Brown Boveri Inc./Combustion Engineering. The idea is to 
     develop a new generation of nuclear power generators.
       Except nobody in the United States wants one. No utility 
     has bought a nuclear plant since 1937, and 89 percent of 
     utility executives polled this year by the Washington 
     International Energy Group said they never would.
       Even GE decided in February to abandon research on one of 
     its two reactor projects, concluding that ``extensive 
     evaluations . . . have not established the commercial 
     viability of these designs.''
       In the next couple of months Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), a 
     young conservative, will try to kill the Advanced Light Water 
     Reactor. It is a waste of money, he said, and, even if it 
     weren't, ``large corporations don't need the help of the 
     federal government.''
       He has 65 signatures on an amendment to erase the reactor 
     from the 1997 Energy Department appropriations bill, and is 
     brimming with confidence since he successfully defunded a 
     gas-cooled reactor last year.
       ``I understand the nuances of appropriations better,'' 
     Foley said, which is fortunate for him, because, as everyone 
     knows, starting federal programs is hard, but getting rid of 
     them is much harder.
       And the nuclear industry is not going to roll over. ``In 
     the next decade, the balance of power demand will shift . . . 
     because of aging and environmental concerns,'' said Nuclear 
     Energy Institute spokesman Steve Unglesbee. ``We think 
     nuclear will be a contender.''
       That would be a change. Nuclear power, once deemed the 
     magic bullet for energy consumption, has fallen on hard times 
     in the past two decades. Catastrophes like Three Mile Island 
     and Chernobyl haven't helped, but the main reason for the 
     current lack of interest is probably more mundane.
       According to the Safe Energy Communication Council, which 
     doesn't like the reactor, nuclear energy today costs 5 to 10 
     cents per kilowatt hour while coal-generated energy costs 1.5 
     to 3.5 cents, natural gas, 3 to 4 cents, and windmills, 5 
     cents. Utility executives can add.
       The United States has 110 nuclear plants, supplying 20 
     percent of the nation's electrical power needs. All use a 
     controlled fission reaction to generate heat, which in turn 
     makes the steam that drives turbine generators.
       The Advanced Light Water Reactor seeks dramatic 
     improvements in the old design through new computer 
     technology and simplified safety features that rely more on 
     gravity and other natural forces and less on complex valve 
     systems.
       Almost everything else about the reactor is in dispute. The 
     Energy Policy Act, signed into law in November 1992, 
     authorized five years of development funding. Because the 
     fiscal year had already begun the reactor's proponents say 
     the clock started in 1993, and this year's request--$30.3 
     million--simply fulfills the five-year authorization.
       Foley argues that because the act was signed in 1992, the 
     fifth year was 1996 and the current request is extra. 
     Besides, Westinghouse wants funding through 1998, he adds, 
     which is icing on the icing.
       Unglesbee counters that the 1998 funding involves no extra 
     money. Instead, Westinghouse simply wants to pick up $17 
     million owed from past years, and has signed a deal with the 
     Energy Department to get it.
       Further, Unglesbee contends, the corporations will repay 
     the investment once the orders start rolling in--when old 
     reactors wear out or oil prices go up, or both, sometime in 
     the not-too-distant future.
       The technology is good, Unglesbee adds, noting that GE is 
     using it in a joint venture in Japan. The Safe Energy 
     Council, however, says this is a violation of the law, 
     because the projects are supposed to be built in the United 
     States, which doesn't want then.
       GE hasn't paid back a dime on the Japanese reactors, but 
     Unglesbee says that's because the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission hasn't yet certified the design. Once that 
     happens, the corporations have to kick back to the feds no 
     matter where reactors are built.
       Until then, one supposes, taxpayers should simply regard 
     their investment as an export subsidy.
                                                                    ____


        [From the Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY, June 4, 1996]

                           A Needless Subsidy

       Congressman John Myers, a moderate Hoosier Republican in 
     the last of his 30 years in the House, has an unbeatable 
     opportunity to make sure he's remembered for opposing 
     flagrant government waste.
       Rep. Myers, a banker and farmer from the 7th District in 
     west central Indiana, chairs the Energy and Water 
     Appropriations Subcommittee. His panel is expected to decide 
     this week whether to approve more taxpayer money for private 
     development of advanced, and purportedly safer, nuclear 
     reactors.
       This is an easy one and shouldn't require more than a few 
     moments of thought by Rep. Myers and his colleagues.

[[Page S8983]]

       The committee should join forces on this issue with 
     environmentalists and taxpayer protection groups, consumer 
     advocates and conservative think tanks. All agree that what 
     amounts to subsidies for several multi-billion-dollar 
     companies is a poor investment and money down the drain.
       Since World War II, Washington has lavished tens of 
     billions of dollars on civilian atomic research. The dream, 
     never realized, was that electricity generated by nuclear 
     plants would be abundant, safe and cheap. Although those 
     expenditures have been scaled back, the public has continued 
     to support programs at companies like General Electric and 
     Westinghouse.
       It could happen that a new generation of safer, more 
     efficient reactors will prove handy many years hence. If that 
     time comes, rich corporations can surely be counted on to 
     invest their own resources to complete work on a commercially 
     successful design. Taxpayers have done more than their share.
       But there'll be no market for nukes of any kind in this 
     country so long as such basic problems as safe long-term 
     disposal of radioactive waste remain unsolved.
       Given the new competitive pressures in the utility 
     industry, no manager with any concern for his company's 
     financial stability would even think of going nuclear. Demand 
     is as dead as the villages and fields near the burned-out 
     reactor in Chernobyl.
       The only potential customers for the fruits of America's 
     tax-supported research are Asian countries, but exports would 
     give rise to new concerns about proliferation of nuclear 
     materials.
       That should clinch the case for Rep. Myers and others on 
     the committee to do the taxpayers a very large favor. Just 
     vote no.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Kennebec Journal, June 3, 1996]

           Reactor Research Funding Deserves to Be Terminated

       While it is always hard to start up a federal program, it's 
     even harder to stop one. Such is the case with many pork-
     barrel schemes Congress creates and then keeps on funding for 
     no apparent reason that it lacks the will to turn off the 
     flow of money.
       Congress is currently considering continuation of funding 
     for something called the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced 
     Light Water Reactor, which over its five-year life span has 
     cost taxpayers $230 million.
       This despite the fact that no utility has built a new 
     nuclear plant in the past 23 years and that according to a 
     poll conducted by the Washington International Energy Group, 
     89 percent of utility executives claim they will never order 
     another nuclear plant.
       Yet the research and development lives on. The Advanced 
     Light Water Reactor program was created under the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 and was supposed to be funded for only 
     five years. When the fifth year actually ends is in some 
     dispute since fiscal years and calendar years overlap, but 
     the 1997 DOE appropriations bill includes a $30.3 million 
     request to fulfill the original obligation.
       The money--which critics such as the Safe Energy 
     Communication Council contends is little more than corporate 
     welfare--goes to multi-national corporations, including 
     General Electric and Westinghouse to develop the advanced 
     nuclear reactors.
       Such governmental largesse has caught the eyes of 
     government-watch-dog groups as diverse as Citizens against 
     Governmental Waste, Friends of the Earth and the U.S. Public 
     Interest Research Group, which have petitioned Energy 
     Secretary Hazel O'Leary to eliminate the program.
       Already 65 members of Congress have signed onto a request 
     to scrap what they term wasteful spending that amounts to 
     little more than an export promotion subsidy since the 
     reactors would be sold overseas.
       Maine's two congressmen, James B. Longley in the 1st 
     District and John E. Baldacci in the 2nd, may soon get a 
     crack at this issue. Baldacci voted in favor of eliminating 
     the program last year; Longley did not vote.
       We would urge them to scrap this wasteful spending, 
     especially when the purpose is no longer of any use.


                             reactor waste

       The issue: The Department of Energy's Advanced Light Water 
     Reactor program is coming under attack for having spent $270 
     million over five years for a nuclear reactor no one wants.
       How we stand: The project is a classic governmental 
     boondoggie, all the more egregious since it squanders 
     taxpayers' money on wealthy multi-national companies.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Charleston Gazette, May 28, 1996]

                            Nuclear Subsidy


                           corporate welfare?

       General Electric had $60 billion in revenues in 1994. Yet 
     the company took millions of dollars in tax money to fund 
     research on advanced light-water nuclear reactors.
       Then this February, GE announced that it was terminating 
     one reactor program subsidized by taxpayers because it wasn't 
     ``commercially viable.''
       Why on earth is Congress giving taxpayers' money to 
     billion-dollar companies to fund research that isn't 
     commercially viable?
       GE isn't the only company taking handouts from the 
     Department of Energy's Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. 
     Westinghouse and other companies are also tapped into the 
     program, which has poured $275 million into their pockets 
     since 1992.
       Sadly, this subsidized research probably will never benefit 
     one single American consumer. There has not been a new 
     nuclear reactor ordered in the United States since 1973. 
     Instead of cheap, plentiful energy promised by proponents, 
     nuclear plants turned out to be more expensive than coal-
     fired generating plants. On top of that, the nation has yet 
     to figure out what to do with all of the nuclear waste 
     generated by the 110 nuclear plants in operation.
       Congress should end this subsidy, and let these huge 
     corporations risk their own money designing new reactors that 
     nobody wants.
                                                                    ____


                   [From the Oregonian, May 28, 1996]

                      A Taste of Corporate Welfare

       No American utility has completed a nuclear power plant in 
     the past 23 years. In fact, U.S. utilities have canceled 
     every nuclear reactor they've ordered since 1973.
       Let's face it, nuclear power in the United States, no 
     matter how you might feel about it, is a dead issue. It's 
     simply too expensive to compete with alternative energy 
     sources.
       So why then are the Clinton administration and Congress 
     continuing to provide taxpayer dollars to subsidize research 
     and development of the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced 
     Light Water Reactor?
       The House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee 
     should be prepared to answer that question next week when it 
     considers the Energy Department's proposal to give additional 
     funding to the light-water reactor research program.
       The facts clearly do not support further public subsidies 
     for conventional nuclear fission development.
       Consider this:
       A recent poll conducted by the Washington International 
     Energy Group shows that 89 percent of utility executives 
     surveyed say their companies would never consider ordering a 
     nuclear power plant.
       Only 8 percent of those surveyed believe that there will be 
     a nuclear power resurgence in the next century.
       A 1996 survey of registered voters, conducted by Republican 
     pollster Vince Breglio, found that more than 71 percent of 
     the voters opposed government funding for developing a new 
     generation of nuclear reactors.
       The advanced light water reactor research program was 
     created in 1992 to assist major multinational corporations--
     General Electric, Westinghouse and Asea Brown Boveri/
     Combustion Engineering--in developing advanced reactors. 
     Never mind that there was no U.S. market for a finished 
     product. This is a pork-barrel of the worst kind. It defines 
     what is meant by the phrase ``corporate welfare.''
       Besides all of that, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which 
     created this corporate welfare, expires in September, so why 
     is the Energy Department requesting additional funding 
     through fiscal 1997 and perhaps beyond?
       It's not as if the three major nuclear vendors are going 
     broke and need extra bucks to finish the job. They showed 
     combined revenues of $73 billion last year.
       Moreover, General Electric announced in February it was 
     abandoning development of its boiling-water reactor, which to 
     date has received more than $50 million in taxpayer subsidies 
     under this program.
       The Energy Policy Act of 1992 clearly stipulates that 
     recipients of the Advanced Light Water Reactor money must 
     certify that they intend to construct and operate a reactor 
     in the United States. Yet these nuclear reactor manufacturers 
     are selling their U.S. taxpayer-supported reactor designs to 
     Japan, South Korea and other countries--a clear violation of 
     the intent of the law.
       Not only has the $275 million the government has paid out 
     since 1992 been spent under false pretenses, but some of the 
     taxpayer dollars for this program also have been wrongly used 
     to reimburse General Electric, Westinghouse and Combustion 
     Engineering for fees charged them by the U.S. Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.
       This means taxpayers, not the corporations, are paying fees 
     meant to cover the costs of government services.
       The conservative Citizens Against Government Waste, Cato 
     Institute and Taxpayers for Common $ense organizations, as 
     well as a variety of environmental groups, are united in 
     their opposition to continued funding for this boondoggle.
       Even leaving the valid taxpayer-subsidy arguments aside, 
     continuing this program clearly is in conflict with 
     congressional efforts to cut the federal budget deficit, 
     reduce federal spending and kill corporate welfare programs.
       Rep. Jim Bunn, R-Ore., who has used these themes in his 
     campaign for re-election, serves on the House Appropriations 
     subcommittee that will decide the fate of advanced light 
     water reactor funding next week.
       Oregonians should be relying on him to be fiscally 
     responsible and take these reactor vendors off welfare.
                                                                    ____


           [From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 23, 1996]

                                 Zap It

       Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could eliminate all 
     examples of dubious federal spending with a single stroke of 
     a mighty pen or Bowie knife? Government doesn't work that 
     way, of course, which is one reason the feds spend more of 
     the taxpayers' money than they should. Cuts generally occur 
     the slow way: one at a time. And that brings us to the 
     Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR).

[[Page S8984]]

       Fermat's Last Theorem is easier to prove than--for liberal 
     arts majors, at least--the ALWR is to explain. Let's just say 
     the ALWR is a nuclear reactor, and leave it at that. Despite 
     generous (profligate?) government subsidies, research into 
     the ALWR has produced few dividends. In a letter opposing 
     continued funding for the reactor, the Heritage Foundation 
     argues:
       As a recipient of this research funding has indicated, 
     these reactors have not established their commercial 
     viability. There have been no nuclear reactors ordered or 
     built in America since 1973, and there is no domestic market 
     for nuclear power in the foreseeable future. . .If the 
     reactors truly would be profitable, then corporations would 
     willingly invest their own capital to receive the expected 
     returns. This is the nature of the free market. If an 
     investment has a low probability of being profitable, 
     however, the federal government should not force taxpayers to 
     fund corporate ventures which unnecessarily drain our 
     nation's wealth.
       Nuclear power remains a prudent way to generate juice, 
     probably the most prudent way ever devised. Many of the 
     obstacles placed in its path are lamentable. Nevertheless, 
     R&D relating to nukes is not an obligation of government but 
     of industry. Government's role in power is to avoid impeding 
     progress. Except perhaps in times of national crisis, the 
     responsibility for producing energy rests with the private 
     sector. The last time we checked, the U.S. was not fighting a 
     world war. Morever, the companies involved in nuclear 
     research are hardly poor.
       Welfare reform ranks among the year's hot issues. 
     Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, 
     gadflys and cranks are debating how best to promote self-
     sufficiency. Corporate welfare also deserves some shaking up. 
     The subsidies for the ALWR stand as one example of what 
     government ought not to be doing. Congress should give the 
     ALWR--and similar projects--the zap.
                                                                    ____


            [From the San Francisco Chronicle, May 20, 1996]

               End Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Reactors

       No American electric utility has successfully ordered a 
     nuclear power reactor for the last 23 years. And a recent 
     survey of utility executives concluded that there is ``little 
     hope that new nuclear generation'' will remain an option ``in 
     a time frame that has any practical significance.''
       So why are U.S. taxpayers still being asked to fork over 
     hundreds of millions of dollars to mature, highly profitable 
     private companies to develop new nuclear power reactors?
       The House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee is 
     scheduled to take up that question later this week as it 
     looks for fiscal 1997 budget savings among existing energy 
     programs. A prime candidate should be the Department of 
     Energy's five-year-old Advanced Light Water Reactor program, 
     a shining example of corporate welfare that has never 
     delivered--and probably never will--a single kilowatt of 
     electricity to American consumers.
       The idea of subsidizing industry research on a generic, 
     pre-licensed and safer type of reactor for the American 
     market may have made sense five years ago. But except for the 
     reactor's export potential, it's hard to see how a 
     continuation of the program, which is scheduled to expire 
     this year, can be justified.
       Just four months ago, General Electric, which has received 
     $50 million from the program to develop a prototype, 
     announced that it was abandoning the effort because its own 
     market research had ``not established the commercial 
     viability of these designs.''
       Indeed, the only markets where new U.S. designed nuclear 
     plants are viable are in Southeast Asia. Westinghouse, one of 
     the program's major benefactors, has identified China and 
     Indonesia as the most likely markets for its reactor--despite 
     a U.S. ban on exports of nuclear technology to China.
       But the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which created the 
     subsidy, specifically stipulated that the funds were for 
     development of reactors to be constructed and operated in the 
     United States--not reactors for export. And if, in fact, 
     there is a lucrative export market, there's no reason why 
     companies like Westinghouse and General Electric, with 
     combined revenues of close to $70 billion a year, can't 
     finance their own development programs without help from 
     taxpayers.
       This piece of nuclear pork was nearly killed last year by 
     an unlikely coalition of environmental liberals and budget-
     slashing fiscal conservatives. With electric utility 
     deregulation now adding to an already large surplus of 
     electric generating capacity in the United States, the 
     reasons for letting the subsidy fade into the sunset in 
     September, as scheduled, are better than ever.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Des Moines Register, May 23, 1996]

                            Nuclear Nonsense

       A trio of events has brought the lurid legacy of nuclear 
     energy to the fore in recent days. The first was the 
     anniversary of a nuclear disaster, the second, the need to 
     divert some hot fuel from the weapons market; the third, the 
     need to shut of the federal money spigot feeding a dying 
     industry.
       The 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster late last 
     month was a reminder of how wrong things can go, and how one 
     country's energy source can be another's poison. The reactor 
     explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union 
     spread a cloud of radiation over Europe, releasing 200 times 
     as much radiation as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Thirty-
     two died, but thousands more may have radiation-related 
     illnesses.
       Nothing even close to Chernobyl has happened in the 111 
     nuclear-power plants in the United States. Civilian reactors 
     have admirably clean records. But there have been some 
     harrowing near-misses.
       Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy has announced 
     plans to import some 20 tons of nuclear waste from 41 nations 
     to keep it out of the hands of potential terrorists. Most of 
     it will come from Europe, and some from Asia, South America 
     and Australia. The United States sent the stuff overseas as 
     fuel over a 40-year period. Some of it is weapons-grade 
     uranium.
       Finally, Congress will soon vote on whether to continue the 
     taxpayer subsidy of the Advanced Light Water Reactor, a 
     project that has gobbled up $275 million.
       The 1992 ALWR project was intended to improve the design of 
     nuclear-power plants in the United States, where no new nukes 
     have been built in a generation. Nobody was enticed by ALWR, 
     either, so the tax money went for reactor designs destined 
     for overseas markets, enriching Westinghouse and General 
     Electric (which hardly need federal subsidies).
       Everybody from the conservative CATO Institute to the 
     liberal U.S. Public Interest Research Group wants the program 
     junked. Said Jerry Taylor, CATO's natural resources director, 
     ``If ALWR is such a promising technology let the nuclear 
     industry fund it themselves.''
       The project expires this year. But the U.S. Department of 
     Energy wants another $40 million to keep it going.
       Since 1948, when atomic power was being hyped as the energy 
     source of the future, ``too cheap to meter,'' nuclear fission 
     has received $47 billion in federal money for research and 
     development. A bunch of that was spent after utilities gave 
     up on it in the early 1970s.
       Today the nation is faced with the apparently impossible 
     task of finding a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste that 
     will remain dangerous for thousands of years. Reactor after 
     reactor was built on the assumption that ``someday'' science 
     would learn how to handle the waste.
       Science hasn't. ``Temporary'' storage pools are close to 
     overflowing. Nevada is fighting plans to bury it there; 
     everyone else is fighting plans to ship it through their 
     states to Nevada.
       Exhibit A: Chernobyl, the ultimate accident. Exhibit B: 
     weapons-grade uranium, the ultimate terrorist tool. Exhibit 
     C: hot waste, the ultimate white elephant.
       Despite that sorry scenario, the U.S. Department of Energy 
     wants more money to make the program even worse.
       Baloney.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Morning Sentinel, June 3, 1996]

         Congress Should Switch Off Energy's Nuke-Pork Project

       While it is always hard to start up a federal program, it's 
     even harder to stop one. Such is the case with many pork-
     barrel schemes Congress creates and then keeps on funding for 
     no apparent reason that it lacks the will to turn off the 
     flow of money.
       Congress is currently considering continuation of funding 
     for something called the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced 
     Light Water Reactor, which over its five-year life span has 
     cost taxpayers $230 million.
       This despite the fact that no utility has built a new 
     nuclear plant in the past 23 years, and that, according to a 
     poll, conducted by the Washington International Energy Group, 
     89 percent of utility executives claim they will never order 
     another nuclear plant.
       Yet the research and development lives on. The Advanced 
     Light Water Reactor program was created under the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 and was supposed to be funded for only 
     five years. When the fifth year actually ends is in some 
     dispute since fiscal years and calendar years overlap, but 
     the 1997 DOE appropriations bill includes a $30.3 million 
     request to fulfill the original obligation.
       The money which critics such as the Safe Energy 
     Communication Council contends is little more than corporate 
     welfare goes to multi-national corporations, including 
     General Electric and Westinghouse to develop the advanced 
     nuclear reactors.
       Such government largesse has caught the eyes of government-
     watchdog groups as diverse as Citizens against Governmental 
     Waste, Friends of the Earth and the U.S. Public Interest 
     Research Group, which have petitioned Energy Secretary Hazel 
     O'Leary to eliminate the program.
       Already 65 members of Congress have signed onto a request 
     to scrap what they term wasteful spending that amounts to 
     little more than an export promotion subsidy since the 
     reactors would be sold overseas.
       Maine's two congressmen, James B. Longley in the 1st 
     District and John E. Baldacci in the 2nd, may soon get a 
     crack at this issue. Baldacci voted in favor of eliminating 
     the program last year; Longley did not vote.
       We would urge them to scrap this wasteful spending, 
     especially when the purpose is no longer of any use.


                            wasted millions

       The issue: Congress is currently considering continuation 
     of funding for something called the U.S. Department of 
     Energy's Advanced Light Water Reactor, which over its

[[Page S8985]]

     five-year life span has cost taxpayers $230 million, despite 
     the fact that no utility has built a new nuclear plant in the 
     past 23 years.
       How we stand: Already 65 members of Congress have signed 
     onto a request to scrap what they term wasteful spending. 
     Maine's two congressmen, James B. Longley in the 1st District 
     and John E. Baldacci in the 2nd, should join them.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Bangor Daily News, June 21, 1996]

                           Spending Priority

       No U.S. utility has purchased a nuclear plant for more than 
     a quarter century and, according to a recent survey, almost 
     no utility executive plans to ever order another one. This, 
     unfortunately, has not stopped the federal government from 
     spending $235 million in the last five years on nuclear 
     research for a new style of nuclear power plant, nor has it 
     slowed members of Congress from asking for more money--$30 
     million this year--for the project.
       This is not a knock on government-sponsored research but a 
     questioning of priorities. The tax money used for developing 
     the Advanced Light Water Reactor has gone largely to three 
     firms: Westinghouse, General Electric and Asea Brown Boveri 
     Inc./Combustion Engineering. All of them are well able to 
     support their own work and would, if it ever had a chance of 
     turning a profit. A 1995 study by Washington International 
     Energy Group showed that 89 percent of utility executives 
     believed their utility would never order another nuclear 
     power plant, suggesting a dismal future market.
       The Advanced Light Water Reactor program has been trying to 
     develop a simpler, safer nuclear plant--a potentially 
     wonderful thing--but supporting this research should not be a 
     priority with a government that is trying to balance its 
     budget and has trouble covering the cost of health care and 
     education for its citizens. If Congress is determined to 
     spend money on nuclear programs, it might consider investing 
     further funds in finding a suitable place to store the high-
     level radioactive waste from the country's 110 active nuclear 
     power plants.
       A wide range of organizations oppose the new proposed 
     funding for the reactor, including U.S. Public Interest 
     Research Group, the Heritage Foundation, the Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common 
     Sense. Sixty-nine members of Congress have signed a letter 
     expressing their opposition to it. The Department of Energy 
     and advocates of the nuclear power industry favor continued 
     funding.
       Members of the House and Senate have yet to justify the 
     need for what amounts to a large corporate subsidy. It is 
     likely they cannot. Instead, they should end the program 
     before it costs taxpayers any more money.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Houston Chronicle, June 20, 1996]

   Dim Future--Time To Stop Federal Subsidies for Nuclear Generators

       Nuclear power plants to produce cheap electricity were once 
     the dream of the future. But the bright future of nuclear 
     plants has dimmed as higher than expected construction costs, 
     environmental considerations and safety concerns have taken 
     their toll over the past two decades.
       No new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United 
     States since 1973, and most utility company executives 
     surveyed this year said they would never consider ordering a 
     nuclear power plant.
       Yet, Congress has authorized more than $230 million in 
     federal support to companies since 1992 to develop advanced 
     nuclear reactor designs when no one in the United States 
     apparently wants to buy them.
       Now the Department of Energy is asking Congress for a 
     three-year extension in funding for the Advanced Light Water 
     Reactor program, which was supposed to be completed by the 
     end of this fiscal year. Local U.S. Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, 
     Gene Green and Ken Bentsen have a record of having voted for 
     this program. Congress now should say no to this ``corporate 
     welfare.''
       The fact that few, if any, American utilities appear 
     interested in buying new nuclear plants would make the 
     taxpayers' investment questionable even without today's 
     severe restraints on the federal budget.
       Recipients of ALWR funds, including such giants as General 
     Electric and Westinghouse, have the resources to finance the 
     development of these new reactors, if they so choose. If the 
     market is there and ALWR technology works, let them develop 
     these new nuclear plants on their own.
       Meanwhile, the bloom is off nuclear power plants for most 
     Americans. Taxpayers' funds should be spent more wisely, 
     particularly with the critical need to balance the budget.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know that there will be some opposition 
to this amendment because we have debated and discussed this program 
before in this Chamber. I would obviously be interested in engaging in 
that debate, which I think may not take place until Monday or Tuesday. 
But I hope to be here at that time.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Not at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will have plenty of time to make sure the Senator 
gets the yeas and nays.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every day, the working families of 
Massachusetts have to make tough choices about what they can afford, 
how to pay the rent, or whether they can send their kids to college.
  The Federal budget deficit, while reduced considerably due to 
President Clinton s leadership and the courage of the Democratic-
controlled Congress in 1993, is still over $100 billion a year. We 
absolutely must get a grip and bring the Federal Government's 
expenditures within its means.
  Like families in Massachusetts, I have been working in the U.S. 
Senate to make the tough choices concerning our Federal budget.
  In 1994, I successfully led the fight to eliminate funding for the 
dangerous advanced liquid metal reactor.
  Last year, I stood with Senators McCain, Feingold, and Thompson in an 
effort to cut $60 billion in corporate welfare programs to get rid of 
wasteful Federal spending and reduce the deficit.
  Today, I am proud to continue that fight as a cosponsor of Senator 
McCain's legislation to cut one of the biggest examples of corporate 
pork, the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program.
  This program has already spent over $200 million of taxpayer money to 
improve the designs of nuclear power plants that nobody in this country 
wants. There is no demand for more nuclear power plants in the United 
States. No utility has bought a nuclear power plant since Richard Nixon 
was President.
  This program is the definition of corporate pork. The three companies 
which received the majority of funding for this program had a combined 
profit of $80 billion last year. It is unconscionable for the Federal 
Government to subsidize the research and development budgets of these 
companies when we cannot sufficiently fund our schools or put enough 
cops on the beat to make our communities safe.
  In 1992, the Congress funded research for this project for 5 years 
ending in 1996. Now proponents of the advanced light water reactor say 
that they need 3 more years of funding to finish the designs that no 
one wants. This is just corporate pork and it has to be stopped now.
  Proponents of this program cite China as a prime market for the 
design despite the fact that it is illegal to sell China this 
technology.
  Proponents also argue that corporations are going to repay the 
Federal Government for its investment in the Advanced Light Water 
Reactor Program once they receive orders for these new plants. However, 
General Electric has already canceled part of this project because it 
is not commercially viable.
  For all these reasons the advanced light water reactor must be 
stopped.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Johnston has the best grasp of 
this program and will argue in opposition to it in due course. He is 
not here today for the rest of this afternoon, but I want to say to the 
Senator from Arizona how much I appreciate the way he has handled these 
amendments and the manner in which he has presented them. He has made 
in a very few moments as good an argument as there is going to be 
against this program, and he did not fill the air with all kinds of 
technical things but went right to the heart of it. Surely this has 
been before us before, but obviously it will be taken up briefly in 
opposition, and then it will take its place among the votes to occur on 
Tuesday.
  I understand the Senator may have a bit of difficulty being here on 
Monday. I understand that. He can rest assured we will try to get the 
yeas and nays at the earliest moment, so he can be assured of that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as always, I thank the very wonderful 
courtesy of my colleague from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S8986]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to clarify one point in the 
committee report. Reference is made in the report to the commitment of 
the State of New Mexico to the Animas-La Plata project. Specifically, 
this commitment includes the 1986 cost-sharing agreement for the 
project, allocation of consumptive use required for the project from 
New Mexico's apportionment under the Upper Colorado River Basin 
compact, participation in the San Juan River Recovery Implementation 
Program, and support of the Colorado Ute Indian water rights 
settlement.
  I ask unanimous consent to have two letters in their regard printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             New Mexico Interstate


                                            Stream Commission,

                                    Santa Fe, NM, October 5, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senator, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: Recent news articles and other 
     reports reaching this office indicate continuing controversy 
     concerning efforts to proceed with development of the Animas-
     La Plata Project.
       This agency continues its full support for the project 
     which includes the commitments made by New Mexico under the 
     several interstate stream compacts, congressional 
     authorization of the project, the 1986 cost-sharing agreement 
     for the project, allocation of consumptive use required for 
     the project from New Mexico's apportionment under the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Compact, participation in the San Juan 
     River Recovery Implementation Program and support of the 
     Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement. The water 
     committed to the project by New Mexico from the public waters 
     of the state must be made available for use as soon as 
     possible to meet current demands for water in the San Juan 
     River Basin.
       I urge that the Congress take such action as is reasonably 
     necessary to ensure the expeditious development of the 
     Animas-La Plata Project to provide needed water supply for 
     use in Colorado and New Mexico.
       Please let me know if I may provide additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas C. Turney,
                                                        Secretary.
                                 ______
                                 
                                               Attorney General of


                                                   New Mexico,

                                      Santa Fe, NM, July 17, 1996.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici: I write to you concerning language 
     in draft Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittee reports 
     addressing the proposed Animas-La Plata Project. Because some 
     of the statements in the reports are false and because other 
     statements appear to encourage bypassing of federal laws, I 
     urge you to contact members of the Appropriations Committees 
     to urge that the problematic language be stricken from those 
     reports. Alternatively, I ask that you seek clarification 
     from Committee members on the intent underlying the reports. 
     Although this report language does not carry the force of 
     law, it has great potential to mislead agencies, courts, and 
     the public at large, to the detriment of all.


                       New Mexico ``Commitments''

       The Subcommittee reports state the following: ``For 
     purposes of initiating construction of Stage A, the existing 
     repayment obligations of the parties contracting for water, 
     along with the commitments of the States of Colorado and New 
     Mexico, provide adequate assurances that the United States 
     will be repaid in connection with construction of those 
     facilities.'' (Emphasis added.) This language indicates 
     erroneously that the State of New Mexico has made a financial 
     commitment toward the construction of the Animas-La Plata 
     (ALP) Project. I know of no such financial commitment. 
     Although the State Legislature in 1991 authorized $2 million 
     in severance tax bonds to assist San Juan County with ALP 
     start-up costs, in 1993 the Legislature took the money back 
     and authorized it for other purposes. Because the State of 
     New Mexico has no outstanding financial commitment toward 
     repayment of ALP construction costs, this report statement is 
     erroneous and should be stricken.


            Evasion Of Federal and State Environmental Laws

       Addressing environmental impacts of the ALP Project, the 
     reports state:
       ``The present documentation is fully informative of these 
     issues and construction of the first stage of the project may 
     proceed without adversely affecting any of the other water 
     users on the San Juan system.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``The Committee is aware that the San Juan River and its 
     tributaries do not consistently meet New Mexico's newly 
     adopted water quality standards for selenium and that there 
     is concern over the potential effect of the operation of the 
     Animas-La Plata facilities in Colorado on this existing 
     problem. The Secretary of the Interior should take reasonable 
     steps to assist Colorado and New Mexico in improving the 
     quality of surface flows by addressing the problems caused by 
     non-point sources.''
       This language is problematic because it implies a 
     congressional finding of the adequacy of the environmental 
     documentation for the project and a concomitant exemption 
     from full compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
     Act. Yet the adequacy of the ALP EIS and its supplement is in 
     gave doubt. Just recently, EPA stated that it ``ha[d] 
     identified significant shortcomings in the level and scope of 
     [environmental] analysis,'' and that ``this EIS process [for 
     ALP] has not adequately considered the impacts to Navajo 
     water rights and existing water projects, water quality, 
     mitigation, and the impacts associated with municipal and 
     industrial use.''
       Neither the New Mexico Environment Department nor this 
     office has completed a review of the new documentation, but 
     preliminary analyses indicate that it is sorely lacking, 
     particularly in relation to the Project's water quality 
     impacts in New Mexico and the absence of analysis of 
     alternatives that would meet the terms of the 1988 Colorado 
     Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. There is simply no 
     basis for a congressional pronouncement that the 
     environmental documentation for the Project ``is fully 
     informative of these issues.''
       Moreover, the reports' implications that New Mexico's only 
     water quality concern relates to its recent adoption of a new 
     selenium standard are false. The ALP Project threatens to 
     violate or exacerbate existing violations of multiple state 
     water quality standards, including selenium, mercury, and 
     possibly others. The 1994 state selenium standard was adopted 
     unanimously by the state Water Quality Control Commission on 
     the basis of extensive and convincing scientific evidence 
     that a higher standard would not be protective of aquatic 
     life.
       In addition, a direction to the Secretary of Interior to 
     take steps to address nonpoint source pollution in New Mexico 
     issued simultaneously with a mandate to proceed with 
     construction of a project that, if its agricultural 
     irrigation components are included (Stage B of Phase I and 
     Phase II), will lead to large new nonpoint source pollution 
     problems in the State is both ironic and nonsensical. If the 
     reports' intent is to require the Secretary to mitigate the 
     adverse water quality impacts of the Project, then such 
     mitigation should be identified, described, and committed to 
     in the environmental documentation for the Project, rather 
     than being relegated to a vague allusion in a congressional 
     report.
       Contrary to the reports' implications, Stage A cannot be 
     viewed in isolation from the remainder of the Project, 
     especially the remainder of Phase I. Construction of Stage A 
     would not satisfy the requirements of the 1988 Colorado Ute 
     Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Stage B, which involves a 
     great deal of irrigation and related impacts on New Mexico 
     water quality, must also be constructed in order to meet the 
     terms of the Settlement Act. Since, as the Reports note, New 
     Mexico already had a severe water quality problem in the 
     river stretches affected by the Project, any further 
     deterioration of water quality in that area is not 
     acceptable. Thus, this language, which implicitly endorses 
     evasion of the Clean Water Act and State water quality 
     standards, should be excised.
       Please urge the Committees to strike the erroneous language 
     concerning ALP from their reports and to remove from the 
     reports all implications that compliance with federal and 
     state laws may be short-circuited in order to commence 
     Project construction as hastily as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Udall,
                                                 Attorney General.


                       Garrison Diversion Project

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the appropriations process provides once 
again a payment for something called the Garrison Diversion Project, 
which is a very important project, fulfilling a promise made by the 
Federal Government to the State of North Dakota 40 years ago.
  I appreciate very much the help of the Senator from New Mexico, the 
Senator from Louisiana, and others on those issues.
  I wanted to thank them today for that assistance. It is part of a 
promise--keeping a promise to a State for water delivery from a series 
of dams that were built in North Dakota that flooded a half a million 
acres. That flood came and stayed. We were told that, if you will 
accept the permanent flood, we will give you some benefits over the 
next 50 or 60 years.
  That is what this process has been about--benefits that will in the 
long run allow jobs and opportunity and economic growth in a rural 
State that needs it, but also benefits that are the second portion of a 
promise that was made if we kept our portion.
  We now have a permanent flood of a half a million acres. This payment 
once again is another installment in the Federal Government keeping its 
promise to the people of North Dakota.

[[Page S8987]]

                      Hanford Nuclear Reservation

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this afternoon I want to discuss the 
Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a place important to me, to the people of 
the State of Washington, and to the Nation.
  Hanford, as my colleagues on both sides of this aisle continually 
point out, has had its share of problems and challenges for the Nation. 
That goes without saying when you are the caretaker to 80 percent of 
the Nation's spent plutonium and 177 tanks filled with millions of 
gallons of nuclear byproducts. Nuclear weapons production and its 
associated hangover--cleanup--are tasks that no one wants any more, not 
Oregon, California, New York, or Alaska. You name it, people in other 
States of this Nation have gladly accepted the benefits of the efforts 
conducted at Hanford, freedom provided by a strong nuclear deterrent, 
but they are relatively uninterested in the mess that is left behind.
  Instead, Hanford's critics collectively plug their noses, complain 
about the lack of results they have received from the money invested in 
cleanup so far. Not only is that disdainful of Hanford's contribution 
to this Nation's security and freedom, but it is also plain wrong. Over 
the past 2 years, the Department of Energy, the Hanford community, and 
this Congress have made real progress toward getting on with real clean 
up.
  Mr. President, I would focus this afternoon on three things. I will 
tell you what has been achieved and actually cleaned up over the last 2 
years; I will tell you what more can be expected; and I will make the 
case for why we need a continued investment in the site.
  Cleanup successes at Hanford are beginning to pay off in a big way. 
The management strategy developed by the Department of Energy is 
increasing productivity for less money; its making the site a safer 
place to work; and it has tackled, albeit clumsily, the disturbing but 
necessary task of trimming the workforce.
  With a focused management strategy, DOE allowed Hanford to perform 
the full projected $225 million environmental restoration work over the 
past 2 years with only $175 million. This is a $50 million dollar 
savings. More importantly, DOE canceled its cost-plus contracting, and 
entered into one of the most aggressive performance-based contracts in 
its entire complex. The work force has been cut by 4,774 jobs, and 
costs associated with equipment, inventory, training, and travel have 
all been slashed. Despite these cuts, important cleanup milestones are 
consistently met.
  Workers at Hanford are in the field, pushing dirt rather than paper. 
Two years ago, 72 percent of Hanford's employees did paperwork, while 
only 28 percent actually did cleanup. Today, that field versus non-
field ratio has flipped completely.
  Here are some other accomplishments worth nothing:
  2,300 metric tons of corroding spent nuclear fuel will be stabilized 
and moved away from the Columbia River three years ahead of schedule 
and $350 million under budget;
  The cost of solid waste disposal has been reduced by 75 percent over 
the last 5 years, making the price of cleanup lower than commercial 
equivalents;
  Decontamination of PUREX, the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant, is 
16 months ahead of schedule, $47 million under budget and upon 
completion in 1997 will cut its annual mortgage cost from $34 million 
to less than $2 million;
  450 unnecessary DOE regulations and orders have been eliminated;
  The 50-year practice of discharging contaminated water to the ground 
soil has been terminated;
  7.5 million gallons of water have been evaporated from the tank 
farms, slowing the leaks and avoiding $385 million in costs for new 
tanks;
  Hanford workers have reduced the generation of new mixed radioactive 
waste by almost 200,000 gallons a year;
  Safety performance at the site has jumped from the bottom 25 percent 
among DOE sites to the top 25 percent in the fiscal year 1994-95 
timeframe;
  Worker compensation costs have fallen as safety performance 
increased: $700,000 was saved on Hanford 6-month insurance and workers 
compensation bill alone;
  17.1 million gallons of ground water were treated;
  Over 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated, while 
141,000 pounds of tetrachloride were removed from the ground water;
  44,000 highly radioactive fuel spacers were removed from the Columbia 
River; and
  The baseline costs for DOE's Remedial Action Project were reduced by 
$800 million and its scheduled improved by 9 years.
  I could go on, but I am afraid I would lose the point of this 
discussion within the nuances of technical achievements. That is just a 
part of what has been accomplished in the past 24 months. You can 
expect more.


                     where we are going at hanford

  This year, the House and Senate passed comprehensive legislation in 
the 1997 Defense Authorization Act to help lock in greater efficiencies 
at DOE sites. The legislation, sponsored by myself and Doc Hastings in 
the House, grants expanded authority to site managers to take quick 
action on cleanup projects; it places strict limits on costly paperwork 
studies; lays down a 60-day time limit on DOE headquarters review of 
budget transfers; and it establishes systems to demonstrate and deploy 
new technologies. Again, many thanks to my colleagues on the Armed 
Services Committee for their help in seeing this legislation passed.
  Within the next few weeks, a new 5-year performance based contract, 
which will include incentives to ensure tax dollars are spent 
efficiently, will be awarded at the site. A new management and 
integrator system will be implemented where the lead contractor--much 
like on the space station project--will hire subcontractors at the most 
economical price to complete work at Hanford.
  Finally, DOE is expected to award two private contracts to dispose of 
the 54 million gallons of radioactive waste upon completion of its 
removal from the 177 underground tanks situated at the site. And 
although I have generic questions over the scope and nature of DOE's 
tank waste remediation system project, I think privatization is the 
only way it will be able to meet its requirements to clean that portion 
of the site. The Department's pursuit of a two step cleanup process 
allows for new technologies and developments to be incorporated into 
the second phase of the project. It has been projected that by using 
private expertise, DOE is likely to reduce the costs of tank cleanup by 
as much as $13 billion. That is billion with a B.
  We are going to take these three events and push the Hanford 
management system even harder. Greater productivity can be squeezed out 
of Hanford, and these initial first steps are a good start.


 it's our state, our river, these are our people--we are not going to 
                                retreat

  Last year in the conference on the energy and water appropriations 
bill, the House and Senate were locked in an intense struggle regarding 
increased funding for defense environmental restoration and waste 
management within the DOE complex. I told my entrenched colleagues from 
the House that this DOE is doing a better job than its predecessor. For 
Senator Murray, Senator Hatfield, and myself, this is life or death. 
It's our State, our river, these are our people. We are not going to 
retreat. I have not changed my position from that conference one bit.
  The people of the Tri-Cities and the Columbia River are critical to 
Washington's economic health. Granted, Hanford has been a nagging cough 
for some time. But we are beating the systemic problems at the site; we 
are driving costs down in terms of management, overhead, and 
superfluous expenses; we are getting on with cleanup.
  President Clinton came to Congress with a budget proposal for nuclear 
waste cleanup which was woefully inadequate. The Senate rightly 
restored over $200 million to the defense environmental restoration and 
waste management account. It did not abandon Hanford, as this 
administration clearly did. We will not let up pressure to get this 
site clean, because to do so would be a tragic waste of the investment 
we have already made. An investment, which most of my colleagues know, 
totals in the billions.
  So, Mr. President, I have outlined the progress we have made at 
Hanford, and I have pointed out where we intend to

[[Page S8988]]

go. I hope my colleagues will acknowledge that Hanford cleanup is 
working. My colleagues need to recognize that, and push aside the 
stereotypes that for too long have been associated with Hanford. We 
can't forget what Hanford has contributed to the defense of this 
Nation, and we certainly should not back away from the commitment we 
have to get this site clean.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask if there are any other Senators 
who would like to present their amendments? We can be here for a while 
if there are. Soon we are going to get wrap-up from the leader, a 
unanimous-consent here. I will try to get that quickly so we do not 
keep the Presiding Officer here.
  We will have a quorum call so I will see if we can get that done 
expeditiously.
  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.

                          ____________________