John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the answer is, yes, these projects for biomass electric will be eligible, and the Department should give full consideration to these projects along with those mentioned in the committee report. These appear to be promising technologies, and we will urge the department to fully consider them.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. the advanced computational technology initiative

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment, which would cut $22 million from the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. Mr. President, there are a number of reasons not to cut this money. The clearest and simplest and most obvious and most unanswerable is this is the fifth year of a 5-year program, a program entered into at the behest of Congress with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for which contracts have been made and it would cost more to terminate the program, Mr. President, than to continue the program. This has been certified to by Assistant Secretary Terry Lash, who is Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, in his letter to Honorable Michael Doyle of July 24, 1996, which was entered into the Congressional Record on July 24, and certifies the fact that termination costs in the program would be considerably more than the continuation of the program. Moreover, the recoupment of cost by the Federal Government would be precluded, which would result in further lost revenue to the Federal Government of $125 million according to Director Lash's Department of Energy office. The reason for this is that, for example, with the AP-600, which is a Westinghouse reactor, the agreement requires that, upon the sale of the first reactor, they will have to repay the Department of Energy $25 million, and $4 million for each reactor thereafter sold. The same thing is true with General Electric, which has already sold two reactors under this program to Taiwan for which there would be a required payment of $3 million for those reactors. That obligation would presumably be canceled. So, Mr. President, in order to make any nuclear demonstration, the McCain amendment would actually cost the Federal Government money without regard to whether or not you like the program. Whether you are antinuclear, or whatever, the fact of the matter is the Federal Government would lose money under the McCain amendment. It is the fifth year of a 5-year program, and it is very close to fruition. All of the money that has been spent on this program, most of it private, would be lost if the program is not finished. Why did the Congress see fit in 1992 to go into this program? Because the American nuclear program, from its inception I think, was not conceived in the way that it should have been in that each reactor which was built in America under this program was a one-of-a-kind reactor designed from the ground up as a separate reactor. Each had to be separately licensed. Each had to meet separate tests to determine whether design was sufficient. We found, after Three Mile Island, that many of these designs were lacking and had to be redesigned. During the construction of many of these reactors after Three Mile Island in the mid-70's, those were the days of very high interest rates. Interest rates were well over double digits at the time. You had to undo that which was done and start all over again. For that reason, those reactors are very high cost, some running between 5 cents and 10 cents a kilowatt hour, several times the amount for which electricity can be generated today. In order to remedy that situation, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, we, first of all, remember, did nuclear licensing to provide for what we call the generic design and the generic licensing of a new reactor, so that you would be able to go in and separate the construction license from the design license and be able to rely upon the fact that your design was a valid and safe design at the time you commissioned your reactor project. We amended the licensing act in order to do that. Also, as part of that, in tandem with that program, we entered into the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program, which was calculated to design a generic reactor so that each reactor of the time sought to be licensed would be the same reactor. Westinghouse has probably the lead design in this. It is called the AP-600. The AP-600 is unique for American reactors in two respects: First, it would be, as I say, generically designed and generically licensed so that when you go to buy an AP-600, wherever you are in the world, it would be the same AP-600. It would be largely manufactured at the factory so that you do not have to do everything out at the site, and each one will be the same. Second, Mr. President, and very importantly, it is what we call a passively safe reactor. It does not depend totally on pumps and sources of electricity and that sort of thing in order to provide coolant. So in case of a catastrophic failure, it is designed to have coolant which would automatically come down into the reactor and render it safe. Nuclear plants, as the Chair well knows, are designed to have many redundant safety features so that you have power lines coming in from two or three different places and generators on site so that in case one set of power lines goes out, another will be there. In the case of both of those or all three of those going out, then generators are designed to come on automatically. But the AP-600, the advanced light water reactor, is designed to be passively safe so that even if everything else fails, in effect the coolant water will automatically come down into the reactor vessel and render it safe in case of the most unimaginable catastrophic event. Now, Mr. President, we are very close to completing this program. The AP-600 was delayed not by the Department of Energy, not by Westinghouse but by the NRC in its licensing program which no one could control but the NRC. It is due to be finished in the next fiscal year, fiscal year 1997, and the money provided in this bill will complete the job. The argument against this is apparently that no American utility at this point wants to buy one, and so therefore do not complete it and therefore we can be sure that no one is going to be able to buy one. The fact is it is unlikely that any American utility in the next few years will build a new nuclear plant, and that is because natural gas is relatively cheap. It is because the technology of natural gas turbines has advanced so far so fast that it is now the cheapest way to generate electricity, and I do not expect a big coal plant to be built and I do not expect big solar plants to be built as far as the eye can see. But I do expect additional natural gas plants to be built. And that is in this country. Mr. President, around the world, the situation is somewhat different. In China, for example, it has already commissioned some 6,000 megawatts of nuclear power. They really wanted American technology, and they have a very long and excellent relationship with Westinghouse, and I believe that the Chinese would purchase the AP-600. It will soon be licensed. It would be licensed in time for them to use the technology. But our Government prevents us from selling nuclear plants to China, this being an outgrowth of the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. We expect that agreement with respect to nuclear power will be in the not too distant future. At least I hope that we would have an agreement with China for the furnishing of nuclear technology. In fact, the 6,000 megawatts have been ordered from Russia, from France and from Canada, all of which have technology which is inferior to American technology and I think is far inferior to the newest technology, that is, the AP-600. The Chinese like the size of the AP-600--that is, 600 megawatts, a modular size. The Chinese have lots of dirty coal but virtually no natural gas and a huge population, a huge problem of So2, of global warming, of air pollution, and they believe that nuclear power is a very big part of their future, and that is why they have already commissioned some 6,000 megawatts. They have in future plans an additional, I believe it is, 11,000 megawatts for the first decade of the next century and a clear and strong commitment to nuclear power. I must say for those in this country who feel strongly about global warming--and I do--I submit that this is the best solution to the problem of global warming, clearly the best solution for the problem of air pollution. If the economics are right, clearly the environment so far as China is concerned, as well as other nations on the Pacific rim, this is an excellent solution. Other countries are moving ahead, particularly in the Pacific, with nuclear power including Japan and Taiwan, South Korea. Of course, North Korea will soon be getting a reactor built and designed principally by the South Koreans adopting the original Westinghouse technology. Mr. President, the point I am making is not that we are getting ready to sell a lot of these reactors in the United States. We are not. But on the Pacific rim they are moving forward; they have made the decision; they have made the commitments. And the question is, would you rather complete a 5-year program on which private industry has spent almost $500 million to complete and get the good out of it to build the most technologically proficient, the safest reactor in the world which would then be available for sale to these foreign countries or would you rather terminate the program and subject the Government to greater damages than it would cost to spend on the $22 million it takes to complete the program. No one has answered that overwhelming argument of why you would want to terminate a program that is so close to finishing when it cost more to terminate than it does to complete the program. One other thought. I believe the Federal Government needs to be true to its word and to its commitments just as individuals need to do that. And the reason is that if people are going to be encouraged and companies are going to be encouraged to do business with the Federal Government, to undertake research, to undertake the expenditure of large amounts of their own money, then they ought to have some assurance that the word of the Federal Government is good because to the extent that we terminate these projects--we terminated the SSC, we have terminated the other projects--then soon the reputation of the Federal Government will be such that no one will want to enter into the doing of business with it. In the home State of the occupant of the chair, they are now seeking to enter into large contracts with private firms in order to clean up the mess at Hanford, in order to vitrify the waste there and be able to store it. It is a private undertaking. They are being encouraged to bid and to have a competition and to do business with the Federal Government. If we would adopt this amendment, it would make that kind of obligation and others like it less and less attractive to the private sector. I repeat, the most overwhelming and most unanswerable part of this argument is that it costs more to terminate than it does to finish this obligation of the Federal Government, and we ought therefore to do it. In addition to the fact that the Federal Government would lose the profit which it would get from the sale of these reactors in the future as well as those already sold to Taiwan, and that the Federal Government and our country would lose a great opportunity to do business in the future. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I simply rise in support of the position of the Senator from New Mexico. I was here several years ago speaking in favor of the continuation of the testing program, because I thought it was important for both reliability and safety. The Senate saw fit to do away with that testing program. The justification was that there were other ways with this stockpile safety program to achieve the same ends. That is why we have funded the program as we have. That is to achieve those same ends for reliability and safety of our nuclear deterrent. I think it would be a great mistake to cut that funding. Amendment No. 5097 (Purpose: To ensure adequate funding for the Biomass Power for Rural Development Program)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have been requested by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], to offer an amendment on his behalf. I will shortly send that to the desk. Let me state what it does. I am sorry that I will not be able to support the amendment. In fact, I will oppose the amendment. But nevertheless, as a courtesy to my colleague, I will offer it. What it would do is to take four-tenths of 1 percent of each program in R&D, energy supply, and put that into a program called Biomass Power for Rural Development. The money now available, some $55 million, in biomass fuels in the bill, part of that could be used for the purposes for which the Senator from Minnesota would like it used, that is, the Niagara Mohawk power project, involving short rotation willows, which would be grown and harvested every 3 years, and also another project involving alfalfa stems. The alfalfa stem program would be a total of a $232 million project, where the DOE cost share would be 20 percent of that, or approximately $46 million. Mr. President, it seems to me we should not get into one of these projects unless it can pass muster against the other programs. These would be available to be funded under the program--Mr. President, I just misspoke. I said $55 million would be available for the program. Actually, only a part, $27 million, would be available for biomass electric program. All of these projects ought to compete for that $27 million. We should not come in and, in effect, specify by limiting it to the Biomass Power for Rural Development Program, which is a very narrowly defined program. We should have all of these projects compete for the amounts available. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on Senator Bumper's amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am advised there was a pending objection by Senator Glenn to part of the first amendment relating to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. Therefore, I move to vitiate the action just taken with respect to the following language. In other words, the following language of that first amendment should be deleted. Insert where appropriate: Technical correction to the USEC Privatization Act--Section 3110(b) of the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134, title III, chapter 1, subchapter A) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: (3) The Corporation shall pay the Thrift Savings Fund such employee and agency contributions as are required or authorized by sections 8432 and 8351 of title 5, United States Code, for employees who elect to retain their coverage under CSRS or FERS pursuant to paragraph (1). I send a modification of amendment No. 5099 to the desk deleting the language I just read.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5103 (Purpose: To provide that $10,000,000 shall be available for the electrometallurgical treatment of spent nuclear fuel at Argonne National Laboratory)

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5104

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk a sense-of-the- Senate resolution on behalf of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, and others regarding the United States-Japan semiconductor trade agreement which is set to expire on July 31 of this year. His resolution, after recounting the history of this agreement, resolves that: It is the sense of the Senate that, if a new United States-Japan semiconductor agreement is not concluded by July 31 of this year, that, first, it ensures continued calculation of foreign market share in Japan according to the formula set forth in the current agreement, and, second, provides for continuation of current measures to deter renewed dumping of semiconductors in the United States and in third country markets, the President shall do three things: First, direct the Office of the Trade Representative to provide for unilateral United States Government calculation and publication of the foreign share of the Japanese semiconductor market, according to the formula set forth in the current agreement; second, report to the Congress on a quarterly basis regarding the progress, or lack thereof, in increasing foreign market access to the Japanese semiconductor market; and, third, take all necessary and appropriate actions to ensure that all United States trade laws with respect to foreign market access and injurious dumping are expeditiously and vigorously enforced with respect to the United States-Japan semiconductor trade. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5099 to Amendment No. 5098, As Further Modified

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, Senator Domenici introduced an amendment on his behalf and on my behalf a second-degree amendment, and later we struck a paragraph of that amendment. I now, Mr. President, would like to further correct our action. On the first page of amendment No. 5098 to S. 1959, on the first page we should strike the following language--strike the paragraph that begins: ``Insert where appropriate: `Maintenance of Security' '' et cetera, and ending with the phrase: ``Security at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants;''. I would like to vitiate that action with respect to that paragraph.

Mr. JOHNSTON. We took out part of it but not all of it.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I am advised he has an amendment, but we do not have a copy of it. We are advised he is on his way.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send a letter to the desk addressed to me dated today and signed by Terry R. Lash, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, which details the principal arguments against terminating the advanced light water reactor program and, among other things, points out that in the fifth year of a 5-year program, the cost to terminate this program would exceed the Government's obligation, which is $22 million in this budget. So it would seem foolhardy at best to do so. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON. It is $22 million.