John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. The $5.3 billion figure the Senator refers to was for the new production reactor, which was designed several years ago, different from this design, and wholly supported by the United States and nothing by either foreign countries or by the domestic industry, is that not correct?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Of whose dollars?

Mr. JOHNSTON. But the $5.3 billion was the cost of the new production reactor which was the tritium reactor for the manufacture of tritium, was it not?

Mr. JOHNSTON. And there has been no cost put on this.

Mr. JOHNSTON. This is a different design from the new production reactor on which the $5.3 billion estimate was made.

Mr. JOHNSTON. This design is different. The initial design of the new production reactor had a steam cycle. This has no steam cycle and has a 50 percent higher efficiency.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Senator from Alaska 10 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. There is a lot of technology involved here, but the question is really quite simple. What the Stevens amendment does--and it is a very sound amendment--it simply says that before we take this program, which has a promise of burning 85 to 95 percent of the plutonium which is put through the cycle--and that compares with 20 percent of plutonium which would be burned in a light-water reactor, but before we stop this technology which has that capacity, that hope of burning 85 to 95 percent of the plutonium, we get a report from the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. No more than $5 million may be spent until that evaluation takes place. That is all the amendment does. We have done in this country research on these high-temperature gas reactors over a period of many years. This is a new design which has never been evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences. It is 50 percent more efficient than the previous design. It is the first design that has used the high-temperature helium gas directly against the turbine, which is a radical new design. Moreover, the main reason we want to do this is because of plutonium burnout, but it also has the added advantage in that this reactor cannot melt down. Its fuel density and maximum temperature is less than the melt rate of the fuel. So if you lost all coolant, there would be no possibility of a meltdown of this reactor, which is one of the reasons that Mr. Mikhailov, who is the Russian Energy Minister, wants to build this reactor in a consortium with America. They have a proposal whereby they would put up half of the costs, and the net cost to the United States, if this were done, would be about $350 million, not $5.3 billion. Mr. President, the fact is we do not know the answers to these questions about exactly what it would cost because, frankly, we need an evaluation by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Really, as a matter of prudence, we ought to have the National Academy of Sciences look at this brand new technology, this brand new design before we scrap this program in which so much has been invested, which has such hope not only for plutonium burnup but it has tremendous hope for being meltdown proof. It is what we call a passively safe reactor. I might add, it also has the capacity and capability to make tritium in a reconfiguration, which is the reason it was picked as the top candidate for the new production reactor. In any event, this is a very prudent thing to do, to have the National Academy of Sciences look at this matter before we scrap the reactor. And that is all the Stevens amendment does. It represents real progress. We are not committing this country by this amendment to build the reactor or to spend additional money but simply to have the National Academy of Sciences look at this design. That is all it does. Mr. President, did the Senator from Alaska desire additional time at this point?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator would yield, we have a package of agreed amendments. If you could make an exception to that, accept those which are cleared by managers on both sides. Second-degree amendments were permitted or not permitted?

Mr. JOHNSTON. We would need a Byrd second-degree amendment to the Grams amendment, and a Byrd first-degree relevant amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Second degree to the Grams amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. And a Byrd first-degree relevant amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold the request, I am advised we need to hotline it and we will try to do so very quickly.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the difficult things on this bill--which are nuclear waste in Nevada--we hope the new spallation source will be worked out. We believe that the Princeton problem has been worked out. The difficult things, those that would have tied us up for a long time, I believe have been worked out. And it is my hope that dealing with two fairly short amendments, we will be ready to go to final passage. I ask the Senator from New Mexico, does he not share my view that we ought to be able to go to final passage very shortly?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I would, from my standpoint, like to put Senators on notice that if they have something they want in the bill, something to go in the managers' amendment, please contact us so we can put it in, because we may be ready to wrap up, we hope, early this afternoon.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. And no second-degree amendments.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield on that?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I have a group of cleared amendments now. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the action of the Senate adopting the committee amendment on page 12, beginning on line 17 through line 18 on page 13, striking House text regarding Manistique Harbor, MI. The adoption of this request will restore the House language.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I think that is an excellent idea. I wonder if we could get unanimous consent to close out all other amendments other than the Wellstone amendment.