John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Of whose dollars?

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. 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. Will the Senator yield at this point?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is not the $5.3 billion figure the Senator refers to the amount for the new production reactor, which was a different design, and that was wholly financed by the United States?

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

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

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. Yes. Just on my time on that point. The Senator said that they do not allow for the use of containment. You cannot put containment over a gas-cooled reactor. It is simply that it is not necessary because the fuel density and the temperature is such that it cannot melt down. You cannot have that kind of accident where hydrogen gas accumulates and you have an explosion and you need containment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Why do we not cut it to 30 or 40 minutes going into debate?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this has been worked out with the two Senators from Nevada. We support the amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks about me. And I want to say, Mr. President, that this is Senator Domenici's first appropriations bill but he is a veteran of great leadership in many areas in the Senate, and he has taken to the appropriations process like a duck in water and has put together an excellent bill. The relationship that I have had over a period of, I think, 18 years with Senator Hatfield, the Senator from Oregon, who is now the chairman of the full committee--but for those 18 years he and I have switched off as chairman and as ranking minority member of this committee--that relationship is being continued, I am pleased to say, with the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. He is a long-time leader in the Senate and long-time friend, and it is a pleasure to work with him on this bill. This bill is a very, very difficult one, the 602(b) allocation in domestic programs having been cut substantially from what it was last year. And that means that the needs and certainly the requests of our colleagues could simply not be met, Mr. President, because the resources were so minimal in this bill. But the Senator from New Mexico, as a magician, has done an excellent job in at least dealing with the most important priorities in the bill, and I think putting together an excellent bill. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from new Mexico [Mr. Domenici] in presenting to the Senate the energy and water development appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1996 beginning October 1, 1995. This bill, H.R. 1905, passed the House of Representatives on July 12, 1995, by a vote of 400 yeas to 27 nays. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development marked up this bill on July 25, 1995, and the full committee marked it up and reported the bill Thursday, July 27, 1995. At the outset, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Domenici. This is the first time he has handled an appropriation bill as chairman, and he has done an excellent job in putting this bill together, under very difficult budgetary constraints and circumstances. He is an outstanding Member of the Senate and I am pleased to work with him in connection with this bill and on other matters. I also want to thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations. Senator Hatfield and I had probably one of the longest running twosomes in the Appropriations Committee on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, I having chaired on and off for a number of years, and Senator Hatfield having chaired on and off for a number of years, and having rotated as ranking minority member. Beginning this year, of course, Senator Hatfield is chairing a different subcommittee. We always shared a productive, pleasant, bipartisan, and always, I think, the kind of relationship that Senators seek and glory in when it is present. I treasure his friendship and appreciate the cooperation and assistance given to me. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has presented the committee recommendations and explained the major appropriations items, as well as the amounts recommended, so I will not undertake to repeat and elaborate on the numerous recommendations. Instead I will just have a few brief remarks summarizing the bill. purpose of the bill The bill supplies funds for water resources development programs and related activities, of the Department of the Army, civil functions-- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program in title I; for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the Department of Energy's energy research activities--except for fossil fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory functions-- including atomic energy defense activities in title III; and for related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission and Appalachian regional development programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority in title V. section 602(b) allocation for the bill The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation under section [[Page S 10929]] 602(b)(1) of the Budget Act totals $20,180,000,000 in budget authority and $20,216,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1996. Of these amounts the defense discretionary allocation is $11,447,000,000 in budget authority and $10,944,000,000 in outlays. For domestic discretionary the budget authority allocation is $8,863,000,000 and the allocation for outlays is $9,272,000,000. The committee recommendation uses nearly all of the budget authority allocation in both categories, so there is no room for add-ons to the bill as there are no additional outlays available for spending. Therefore, any amendments to add will have to be offset by reductions from within the bill. The bill is approximately 57 percent in the defense [050] function and about 43 percent for domestic discretionary programs. summary of recommendations Mr. President, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimates for the bill total $20,681,648,000 in new budget obligations authority. The recommendation of the committee provides $20,162,093,000. This amount is $520 million under the President's budget estimate and $1,464,636,000 more than the House-passed bill. Mr. President, I will briefly summarize the major recommendations provided in the bill. All the details and figures are, of course, included in the committee report number 104-102, accompanying the bill, which has been available since last Friday. title i, army corps of engineers First, under title I of the bill which provides appropriations for the Department of the Army civil works program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the recommendation is for a total of new budget authority of $3,174,512,000, which is $45 million below the House and $133 million less than the budget estimate. it is $234 million less than the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. The committee received a large number of requests for various water development projects including many requests for new construction starts. However, as the chairman has stated, due to the limited budgetary resources, the committee could not provide funding for each and every project requested. The committee recommendation does include a small number of new construction starts and has deferred without prejudice several of the largest of the projects eligible for initiation of construction. Because of the importance of some of these projects to the economic well-being of the Nation, the committee will continue to monitor each project's progress to ensure that it is ready to proceed to construction when resources become available. As the committee reports points out, the committee recommendation does not agree with the policies proposed by the administration in its budget. title ii, department of the interior For title II, Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, the recommendation provides new budget authority of $816,624,000 million, which is $16 million less than the budget estimate and $40 million under the House bill. title iii, department of energy Under title II, Department of Energy, the committee provides a total of $16.2 billion. This amount includes $2.8 billion for energy supply, research and development activities, a net appropriation of $29 million for uranium supply and enrichment activities; $279 million for the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, $971 million for general science and research activities, $151.6 million from the nuclear waste disposal fund, and $6.6 billion for environmental restoration and waste management--defense and nondefense. For the atomic energy defense activities, there is a total of $11.429 billion comprised of $3.752 billion for weapons activities; almost $6.0 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management; $1.440 billion for other defense programs and $248 million for defense nuclear waste disposal. For departmental administration $377 million is recommended offset with anticipated miscellaneous revenues of $137 million for a net appropriation of $240 million. A total of $312.5 million is recommended in the bill for the power marketing administrations and $131 million is for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] offset 100 percent by revenues. A net appropriation of $197 million is provided for solar programs, including photovoltaics, wind, and biomass and for all solar and renewable energy, $283.5 million, an increase of over $17 million over the House bill. For nuclear energy programs, $280 million is recommended, which is about $13 million less than the current level. The major programs provided for included funds to continue the advanced light water reactor program at $40 million and about $73 million in termination costs. The sum of $12.5 million is included for the gas turbine-modular helium reactor [GT-MHR], also known as the gas reactor which I strongly support. For the magnetic fusion program, the committee is recommending $225 million, which is $141 million less than the budget. An amount of $428.6 million is included for biological and environmental research and $792 million for basic energy sciences. title iv, regulatory and other independent agencies A total of $331 million for various regulatory and independent agencies of the Federal Government is included in the bill. Major programs include the Appalachian Regional Commission, $182 million; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, $474.3 million offset by revenues of $457.3 million; and for the Tennessee Valley Authority, $110.4 million. Mr. President, this is a good bill. I wish there were additional amounts for domestic discretionary programs in our allocation but that is not the case. A large number of good programs, projects, and activities have been either eliminated or reduced severely, because of the allocation, but such action is required under the budget constraints we are facing. I hope the Senate will act favorably and expeditiously in passing this bill so we can get to conference with the House and thereafter send the bill to the White House as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor with just the parting comment that it is a pleasure to work with the Senator from New Mexico and with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, tomorrow in Brunei, the Secretary of State is going to meet with Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen to discuss a very serious rift between China and the United States which has been brewing for some time and which has more [[Page S 10945]] recently erupted over the visit of President Lee of Taiwan to the United States. My colleagues, I think, are fully aware of the importance of the China-American relationship. In my view, it is the single most bilateral relationship the United States has. Whether that characterization is correct, it is clear, Mr. President, that China is the key to Asia. It is the largest country, one of the fastest growing in the world. If our relationship with China and Asia is secure, then our relationship with Asia, for the most part, is secure. If that relationship begins to spiral downward, as it has in recent months, then it portends terrible things for the United States-- terrible things not only for our bilateral relationship, but for peace in the world. Now, Mr. President, the problem with one of these relationships, when it begins to go sour, as our relationship with the People's Republic of China has begun to do, it begins to get a momentum of its own; portent of evil becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, tempers become frayed, pride gets in the way, insults--whether intended or unintended--are imagined in every bit of conduct. Sometimes the downward spiral can get out of control. Mr. President, this is a very, very serious matter, our relationship with China. It has been written about by people from both sides of the aisle, whether in Congress or out of Congress. This meeting in Brunei is, therefore, a vitally, vitally important meeting. I have high hopes that from this meeting we can at least begin a process that will relieve our relationship with the People's Republic of China. Our relationship with the People's Republic of China is much broader and much more difficult than the detention of one American citizen, Harry Wu. While we all are very concerned about that, Mr. President, the solution to that problem will not solve the whole relationship. It is a much, much, by many orders of magnitude, bigger problem than the problem of Harry Wu, as important as that may be. Mr. President, I can think of nothing more unwise to do than to start legislating or making expressions about the Harry Wu situation on the eve of the meeting between our Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China. I believe, Mr. President, that both the United States and the People's Republic of China are trying to find ways to get this relationship back on track; trying to find ways, consistent with the principles of both countries, consistent with our long-held commitment to human rights, consistent with the importance of this relationship, consistent with China's determination that its ``one China policy'' be maintained as it has from the time of the Shanghai communique up to, I believe, the present day. I believe both parties, both the United States and the People's Republic of China, are searching for the way to bring that relationship back together. To do so takes diplomacy that is most subtle and requiring the greatest degree of expertise of any kind of relationship we have. It does, in fact, deal with not only fundamental interests of both countries, but the pride, the feeling, the emotion contained on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. Mr. President, I hope we will let this diplomacy, so vital to the basic interests of this country, play out and not try to sour the atmosphere in which that relationship will take place. I believe that, if we enact this amendment, as easy as it sounds in its terms, as innocent as it sounds from the way it is written up, I believe the adoption of this kind of amendment would really sour the atmosphere, would be poking the People's Republic of China in the eye to make it much more difficult for our Secretary of State and the Chinese Foreign Minister to get this relationship back together. I repeat, Mr. President, I believe this relationship is the most important bilateral relationship that this country has. China will, shortly after the turn of the century, be the largest economy in the world. It is the largest country in the world. Its power, both economically and in a military way, is growing every day. The latter, alarmingly so. If we can just somehow get our relationship back together, reassure the Chinese that we are not trying to contain them, as some people in the United States say, if we can reassure them that our relationship will be one of friendship, consistent with our strong commitment to human rights, but nevertheless a relationship of friendship, I believe it is in the vital interests of the United States for that to take place. I hope, therefor, Mr. President, that we will not adopt the Dole amendment this evening or at any time until the Brunei conference is completed.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, recently I was along with some of my colleagues and was invited to hear the President of France at a one- table luncheon at the French Embassy on the subject of Bosnia principally; to the British Embassy, to hear Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Minister of Britain, speak about foreign matters in general. Both were, I thought, very important dinners. Both would clearly have exceeded the $20. Would this be prohibited under the $20 rule?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, despite the collapse of efforts to enact comprehensive and meaningful regulatory reform, there is credit and thanks that are due to many public-spirited organizations and individuals who gave selflessly of their time and talent to make S. 343 a good, strong, credible bill. Perhaps no single professional organization did more to help the U.S. Senate in this regard than the American Bar Association and the incoming chair of the ABA Administrative Law Committee, Mr. Philip J. Harter. Administrative law is nowhere as simple as many would make it out to be. In the debate on S. 343, there were many unfortunate misstatements and misrepresentations regarding the most basic tenets of administrative law. Few persons were more willing to volunteer their time as a truth squad on such topics than Phil Harter. He gave days and perhaps weeks of pro bono time to educate my staff on the intricacies of the topics covered by the bill. He helped many other Senate staff as well. Many of the improvements that I was able to suggest to S. 343 came about as a result of discussions with Mr. Harter and other input from members of the ABA Administrative Law Committee. The ABA continued to help Senators during the floor debate with a series of letters that provided staff and members with neutral, professional peer review of the relevant legal issues. When complex issues were under discussion, we could generally count on Phil Harter and the ABA's able Washington representative, Gary Sellers, to appear in the lobby for consultations with whomever was willing to avail themselves of their expertise. S. 343 was a better bill for their tireless efforts. We owe Phil Harter and the ABA a great debt of thanks. My only regret is that their efforts did not result in a permanent improvement in our Nation's administrative law.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk here on the floor about good faith and negotiation, and there has, in fact, been good faith and good negotiation by both sides. Believe me, Mr. President, the majority leader has yielded and yielded and yielded, and I have given a list of those things he has yielded. There was some progress made on the bill. Mr. President, ultimately there are a few basic differences. Really, three in number. A lot of small ones, but three basic differences on this bill that constitute a wide chasm and a wide gulf. Now, the first is whether we can question existing rules. I have heard it said you could. Mr. President, let me read what the Glenn substitute says. The Glenn substitute says, ``The head of the agency, in his sole discretion, picks what is to be reviewed.'' In his sole discretion. When you get around to a review, it says, ``judicial review of the agency action taken pursuant to these requirements shall be limited to review of compliance or noncompliance with this section.'' You review at the sole discretion of the head of the agency. Now, Mr. President, if that is a right to challenge an existing regulation, then I am not a U.S. Senator, because, Mr. President, it is no right at all. It is business as usual. The head of the agency has that discretion right now. If you want to keep things exactly as they are, then vote against cloture. I say vote for the Glenn amendment. We have already voted for the Glenn amendment once and it went down. It constitutes the bureaucrats preservation act, because it keeps things exactly as they are. Mr. President, we can make more progress in negotiation if cloture is voted, but unless we have an end to this process, Mr. President, there is an end to this bill. I believe strongly in this bill. I hope we will get cloture. I hope we can get an act passed.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if one of the Senators can see if we can clear it, then we might not have any debate.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Who is it that controls the time?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I hate to object, but I think we have the 1-hour debate before the cloture vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield.