Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)

[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.

____________________