NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(House of Representatives - June 15, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H5990-H6021]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Pursuant to House
Resolution 164 and rule XXIII, the chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1530.
{time} 1103
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. [[Page
H5991]]
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on
Wednesday, June 14, 1995, amendment 37 printed in part 2 of House
Report 104-136 offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]
had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in subpart F
of part 1 of the report.
amendment offered by mr. markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 3133:
Page 528, line 17, strike out ``Funds'' and all that
follows through page 529, line 9, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
(1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in section
3101(b), not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for a
project to provide a long-term source of tritium, subject to
paragraph (2).
(2) The amount made available under paragraph (1) may not
be used until such time as the Secretary of Energy has
completed a record of decision on a tritium production
program and congressional hearings have been conducted to
determine the appropriate option, in light of the national
security needs and nonproliferation and environmental
consequences, for establishing a long-term source of tritium.
Page 530, strike out lines 1 through 9.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment being considered right now is a quite
technical one because once the word ``tritium'' is uttered, I can see
minds and attention spans drifting off onto other subjects. But it is a
very important subject, because tritium is a gas which is used in order
to ensure that we can derive the maximum potential from our nuclear
weapons.
It is a critical subject, in fact. It is so critical that this
amendment has been put in order, because it is important that this
Congress and this country select the best way, the most economical way,
the best proliferation resistant way, of producing this very important
gas.
Now, this body and all who listen to it should understand some very
fundamental facts. No. 1, the National Taxpayers Union supports the
Markey-Ensign-Vucanovich-Dellums-Skeen-Richardson amendment. This is
bipartisan, and it is the National Taxpayer Union's blessing having
been placed upon it because they have determined that this is nothing
more than radioactive pork which has been built into this bill. Not
because we do not want or need the tritium, we do. That is agreed upon
by Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative.
What is not agreed upon, however, is that the committee should be
able to select a particular technology and to build from $50 million
more than the Department of Energy wants, than the Department of
Defense wants, than the National Taxpayers Union thinks is necessary.
The decision which has been made is one which runs completely
contrary to the proposition that there should be no specific earmarking
of technology or location, but rather each of these decisions should be
open to full competition amongst all of those who are interested in
providing the best technology for the defense of this country.
That is why we bring this amendment out on the floor. It cuts out $50
million that no one wants and cannot be justified. It is a specific
earmark which benefits a Swedish company trying to get a specific
earmark into this bill for South Carolina. I will have to say a word.
But that is not good policy. This company ABB, the Swedish company,
might as well be called, instead of ABB, just A Big Boondoggle. That is
what ABB stands for. You are voting for $50 million for a Swedish
company for a technology that neither the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, nor the National Taxpayers Union can support.
So we are going to be out here having this debate. It will be
bipartisan. But if you want to find money that you can vote for that is
not justified in this budget, this is it. This cannot be justified on
any basis, either defense, energy, budgetary, or proliferation. It
violates every one of the principles that we are concerned with. But
most of all, it violates the principle against earmarking specific
technologies with extra money that cannot be justified technologically
until the Departments of Energy and Defense have gone through the
process of evaluating them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am glad that the gentleman from
Massachusetts has stated that there is no dispute as to the requirement
for tritium. The ranking member of the full committee has mentioned
during our debate on the ABM treaty that we still, at least with
respect to the Soviet Union, rely on our deterrents, on our strategic
arsenal, our nuclear arsenal, to deter nuclear conflict. Tritium is an
important component of that arsenal, and it deteriorates. The half-life
of tritium is 5\1/2\ years. That means you have to keep making it. So
the Clinton administration agrees with the committee that you have to
keep making tritium, and they themselves put some $50 million into this
program.
The difference is, and my colleague has said you should never have
earmarking of technology, the difference is for political reasons in my
estimation, and this comes from conversations with many people in the
administration, people who are pro-strategic weapons. The
administration has decided already not to build a reactor.
Now, there are several ways to make tritium. The way that we have
used in the past, the reliable, proven method, whereby we have made our
tritium in the past for our strategic weapons, is a reactor, a nuclear
reactor. there have been no invitations from Massachusetts. The
gentleman has mentioned that South Carolina is the place where they
make tritium, have made it, have had reactors, and presumably would
invite reactors in the future. We have got so similar invitation from
Massachusetts to build a nuclear reactor.
But nuclear reactors are the way you make tritium in a reliable
fashion. There is a chance that you can make tritium with an
accelerator, but it is risky, and it is not proven. Let me tell you
that I personally relied on the word and the testimony of arguably the
best authority in this country on the validity or the viability of
reactors versus accelerators, and that is the former head of the Los
Alamos Lab, who was in charge of Los Alamos during a large part of the
accelerator program, who is very, very understanding of the accelerator
program, a person who is on the various commissions, who has been asked
to evaluate this. And let me recite to you the words of Harold Agnew, a
former director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which would get the
accelerator work or a large part of it, and he is writing to the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the other body, and he says
this:
Dear Pete: I have been serving as a member of the Joint
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety. Recently we
were asked to assess the feasibility of using an accelerator
to produce the tritium required for our future nuclear
weapons stockpile. Because the accelerator would presumably
be designed at Los Alamos, I particularly wanted you to have
my thoughts on the issue firsthand.
My concern is that while it is technically feasible, it is
not economically rational. I fear that Los Alamos may come to
rely on a full blown accelerator program to produce tritium
only to be disappointed when the economic realities are
better understood. In these days of severe budgetary
constraints, a program of this magnitude will certainly
receive heavy scrutiny.
Simplified, the reality is that an accelerator producing
tritium would consume about $125 million per year in
electricity . . . while a reactor producing tritium would
produce for other purposes about $175 million per year. . . .
In other words, a reactor makes electricity, an accelerator uses
electricity, and the difference, according to Mr. Agnew, is a
difference of $300 million per year.
He continues:
[[Page
H5992]]
Over a lifetime of 40 years, that's a $12 billion
consideration. It is simply counter intuitive to believe a
difference in energy consumption of this magnitude will be
sustainable. This is particularly true when the cost of
facilities--accelerator or reactor--are roughly the same.
Given a projected capital cost of $3.2 billion for the
accelerator and a declining requirement for tritium, the
tritium imperative is a thin reed upon which to lean.
He concludes, and this is one of the paragraphs that I think is very
critical for this House to consider. He talks about an accelerator
having some value if you used it for other purposes. That is to consume
plutonium when it is hooked up with a reactor. So an accelerator and a
reactor hooked together could do the whole thing. He says:
The accelerator is unique and can totally destroy virtually
all weapons plutonium. It can do so extremely economically
when combined in tandem with a deep burn reactor. The deep
burn reactor using a surplus weapons plutonium as fuel could
consume 90 percent of the plutonium 239 in a once through
cycle. The depleted fuel element with the remaining plutonium
would then be transferred to a subcritical assembly
irradiated with an accelerator. The accelerator would destroy
the remaining plutonium. Because there are large amounts of
electricity produced when the plutonium is destroyed, there
is no cost for the plutonium destruction. In fact, it makes
money. The same assembly would also be able to produce
tritium at the same time and at no additional cost if tritium
is needed.
{time} 1115
The gentleman who cited the taxpayer groups, I wish they had had a
chance to sit down with one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project,
Harold Agnew, the director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and a
gentleman whose colleagues would benefit and profit from an
accelerator, has looked at this thing and has said, listen, if you can
build a triple play reactor, that is, you can build a system that not
only makes tritium but consumes plutonium and makes electricity at the
same time that you can sell, thereby mitigating your costs, why not do
it?
He concludes: ``I could and would get firmly behind a reactor program
with this objective in mind.'' That is, this combination with the
reactor and an accelerator. ``I cannot support the accelerator for the
sole purpose of producing tritium because it is too expensive, its need
too uncertain and there is a better way to provide the requirement
while satisfying the three needs, electricity, plutonium, and tritium
production for the price of one.''
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the
gentleman's argument and the gentleman and I have had an ongoing dialog
on this matter. I understand that the gentleman believes that the
Department of Energy at the end of the day will come out on the side of
the accelerator.
My distinguished colleague from California believes very strongly in
the superiority of the reactor approach. But let me read very briefly
from the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
because I think it addresses the gentleman's concern by placing the
Congress in the loop to make a decision in the event that they disagree
with the Secretary.
I will read very quickly. It says,
The amount made available under paragraph 1 may not be used
until such time as the Secretary of Energy has completed a
record of decision on the tritium production program and
congressional hearings have been conducted to determine the
appropriate option in light of the national security needs
and nonproliferation and environmental consequences for
establishing a long-term source of tritium.
So it provides the opportunity for my distinguished colleague, this
gentleman, and others, to weigh in after the findings have been given
by the Secretary.
Unless the gentleman feels that we are in some way impotent or
incompetent to carry out our responsibilities, this is the way that we
can address the gentleman's concern.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Let me just respond in this way before I yield to other Members. The
administration, in my estimation, has already done the earmarking.
Members of the administration, folks who are inside the administration,
I think have made it fairly clear that they have already decided, this
record of decision is down the road.
They have made the decision at this point to go with the accelerator.
Let me cite to my friend the letter from the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Harold P. Smith, who basically sent us a letter that gave, in
my estimation, the smoking gun.
He says, ``The funding request made by the Department of Energy was
formulated in support of their production strategy,'' that is, an
existing production strategy, ``of primary and backup--light water
reactor.''
Well, if the backup is a light water reactor, what is the existing
primary production strategy? It is an accelerator.
I would say to my friend, I have spent some time on this. I have had
discussions with folks in the administration. The essence of it is,
they do not think it is politically possible in this administration to
come through with what Harold Agnew thinks is a scientifically
meritorious decision, and that is a reactor.
My feeling is, they have already done the earmarking. I think this
letter shows that. There has already been an earmarking by the
administration. And because of that, I think we are going to waste
valuable time, if we wait for them to come down with a paper decision
that merely records a decision they have already made at this time,
when the people that I rely on, and I think the committee justifiably
relies on, like Harold Agnew, who was the director of the facility that
would benefit from an accelerator, I think to go with what we see on
the merits from a scientific way and not wait for this paper decision
to
come down months from now that has already been made. That is the
point I would make to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my first response is that I think it is hyperbole to refer to the
Department of Energy's judgment as an earmark. All they can do is
recommend. We can earmark in legislation. We write the laws.
So it is not earmarking. They may come to an option you do not agree
with, but earmarking is hyperbole.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an important political
principle here. When you know that an agency of the Government, of the
executive branch, is going to come out with what is on the face of it a
decision made on the merits, but you know and you have been told has
already been made and is a political decision, I think it is wrong to
wait and have them utilize this decision that they have already
basically broadcast to us, they telegraphed to us, it is going to be an
accelerator, not for science reasons but for political reasons, to wait
for that to come out months from now where that will then be used as an
argument to try to weight this very important decision, where I think
the scientists like Harold Agnew have already made a very clear and
convincing case. That is my point.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
He has been very generous.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Vucanovich-Ensign amendment. Let me also agree on the importance of
maintaining tritium production in this country and how critical that is
to our national security.
I come from a State that in the interest of national security was
willing to allow bombs to be blown up underneath our ground because we
care so much about national security. So I do not come at this as
somebody who is antinuclear or anything. I am coming here in support of
the amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do.
First of all, we are cutting out $50 million in earmarked spending
that will go to a Swedish company. Second of all, we have enough
tritium to last approximately the year 2011 with current supplies, and
if we recycle those, we can get it out to about the year 2015, 2017. So
we have enough time to be able to research some of the other
options. [[Page
H5993]]
I think there are legitimate differences within the scientific
community on whether a reactor or an accelerator is the best way to go
here. And what I am saying is that we should take that time and
research truly what is in the best interest of national security as
well as with environmental concerns.
Everyone agrees an accelerator is the best for environmental because
it does not produce high-level nuclear waste. It produces low-level
nuclear waste. So we are talking about accelerator technology, clearly,
it is the best from an environmental standpoint.
You also mentioned that when taken into effect, the reactor could
downgrade plutonium and reuse that and that an accelerator needs a
reactor. That is discounting that there is other technology on the
drawing board out there that is possibly developable in the future.
That is using the transmutator. And that would no longer produce the
high-level nuclear waste as well. It would actually recycle a lot of
the nuclear waste that is out there. So there are other options out
there that we can explore.
The point is that we do have some time to explore this without taking
the next few years and using those years just to raise money to build
this reactor. We can actually take the years and develop the technology
that we will need.
The other problem that I have with this is that we have not built a
reactor and the reactor that you are talking about is just as
theoretical as the accelerator is. We have never built a reactor like
this that can produce the tritium in the quantities we need, just like
we have not built the accelerator to produce the tritium in the
quantities we need. We know an accelerator will produce tritium. There
is no question about that. In Los Alamos they have proven that as far
as on the bench there.
The other problem that I have is that we cannot store the nuclear
waste that we are producing at this time. Obviously the whole issue on
Yucca Mountain on a temporary interim nuclear storage facility is
because the people that are producing the nuclear waste all want to
ship it to my State because they cannot house it now. The linear
accelerators are, there is no question, they are proven technology.
They are out there and the x-ray machine is basically a linear
accelerator. They use it with radiation technicians for cancer, and
Stanford has a very large linear accelerator. The linear accelerator
technology is there. It is just a question of applying this technology
to what we need. And I think it is the right thing to do, and I think
this is the right amendment.
I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to support it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment that has been offered by our
colleagues. As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent or
by $50 million a program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and by doing so presumptively directs the Department
of Energy to use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific
technology but to award the contract to begin work on the reactor which
will utilize the ABB combustion engineering concept to be built in
Savannah River, Georgia to a particular contractor. This amendment
eliminates these provisions and ensures that the decisionmaking process
will remain open. That is the critical reason that I have come to the
floor to urge that this amendment be adopted.
Secretary O'Leary noted that the Department of Energy is currently
analyzing the technical, environmental, political, fiscal implications
of this production technology and that, further, the analysis is
nearing completion. As the previous speaker has indicated, the supply
is not the issue. There is at least 15 or perhaps more years of
available supply.
Therefore, it seems to me very, very persuading that we permit the
Department of Energy to continue with this analysis and to come up with
their recommendations.
The second aspect of the amendment, which is critical, is that rather
than forestall the opportunity of Congress to have a critical role in
making this decision, if we do not adopt this amendment, there will be
a preemption of this opportunity by the selection of a contractor
without due consideration of all of the aspects.
Furthermore, we are told that if this amendment is not approved, that
the contractor, by provisions in the bill, will be allowed to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising the funds for this project.
It seems to me, therefore, that this amendment should be passed to
restore the decisionmaking to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to
H.R. 1530
offered by Representatives Ed Markey, Barbara Vucanovich, and John
Ensign.
As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent--or $50
million--the program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and presumptively directs the Department of Energy to
use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific technology to
produce tritium, but to award the contract to begin work on a tritium-
producing reactor that will utilize the ABB combustion engineering
concept and be built in Savannah River, GA to a particular contractor.
The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment eliminates these provisions and,
ensures that the decisionmaking process related to tritium production
will remain open.
WIth respect to
H.R. 1530 directing the Department of Energy to
pursue the ABB combustion engineering concept for tritium production,
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary notes that the Department of Energy is
currently analysing the technical, environmental, political, and fiscal
implications of a range of new tritium production technologies.
Secretary O'Leary also notes that the ongoing departmental analysis,
including a programmatic environmental impact statement, is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Secretary O'Leary further
notes that the analysis in nearing completion and will support the
selection of a preferred technology and site for tritium production.
H.R. 1530 selects the tritium-producing reactor utilizing the ABB
combustion engineering concept and allows the contractor to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising $6 billion in private
financing and concluding multiple power purchase agreements for the
sale of power to be generated. Secretary O'Leary indicates that such a
contract, with its 3-year feasibility study and business plan, will
delay by 3 years the development of a new tritium production source.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign
amendment because it provides the funding level requested by the
Department of Energy and withholds any funding for actual tritium
production until the Department of Energy has completed its analysis
and reached a decision on a tritium production program and, most
importantly, ensures that the Congress will be able to hold hearings on
any such Department of Energy decision.
Because the establishment of a long-term source of tritium touches
upon various national security, nuclear nonproliferation, and
environmental issues, the Congress must play a role in the debate on
tritium production. The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment ensures such
a role for the Congress.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose quickly we need to correct a
couple of things. The gentlewoman from Hawaii should know that the
Savannah River site is in South Carolina. This is not a discussion
about where we will build tritium but how. I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts in recognizing that we in fact do need to build tritium,
and we are going to do it, need to be doing it by 2001, not 2017.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and often has little, if
anything, to show for it in many cases. A perfectly good example of
that, a recent example includes the high level waste repository in
Nevada.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues stated in a news conference
last week in regards to a proposal of the elimination of DOE, the
Department suffers from problems of communication and contracting and
management and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology [[Page
H5994]] and siting has many of the same problems.
This is a very complicated technical issue, but let us try to simplify
it just a little bit.
We know how to make a reactor. We have been doing that now for 30
years. The technology is there. If we go with a triple play reactor, we
know we can privatize the construction of it. In a country that has 5
trillion dollars' worth of cash flow problems, that is important.
We know for a fact that this reactor will burn plutonium and help get
rid of waste. We also know it will produce electricity, which will
help, indeed, cut the cots.
What we absolutely must consider here is that the cost of using an
accelerator, technology that we do not know for sure will work, will be
considerably more expensive, to the tune of about $10 billion. We talk
about $50 million, and this is a $10 billion project, if we do not go
with the triple play reactor.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against the Markey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and has little, if anything,
to show for it in many cases. A recent example of this includes the
high level waste repository in Nevada.
As some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week
regarding the proposed elimination of the DOE: The Department suffers
from problems of communication, contracting, management, and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology and siting has many of the same problems.
I believe the action taken by the House National Security Committee
to authorize funding for a privatized multipurpose reactor technology
is the only logical approach for the success of the next tritium
production mission. This reactor would consume our excess plutonium,
produce tritium and generate electricity. The resale of this
electricity would generate revenues that would directly reduce the
total cost to the taxpayer. The logical siting of such a reactor is the
Savannah River site in South Carolina. The site has been the leader in
tritium production and other related missions for more than 30 years.
The taxpayer has payed billions of dollars over these 30 years building
the tritium infrastructure I speak of. Mr. Chairman, it would not be
prudent to rebuild a new tritium infrastructure elsewhere at an even
higher cost to the taxpayer, just to satisfy the political motives of
DOE.
The action by the committee represents, Mr. Chairman, it represents
sound judgment to reverse the poor decisions DOE has been making for
years and to ensure we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons
stockpile. It is imperative that we continue to produce tritium no
later than the year 2011. If we do not, our nuclear weapons stockpile
will not be maintained at the level necessary to maintain our nuclear
deterrence.
Mr. Chairman, the committee's decision also represents one that will
cost the American taxpayer far less money, and ensure we start
producing tritium no later than the year 2011.
There is a general concern by many that disposing of excess weapons
grade plutonium in this reactor is a proliferation concern. This
concern is unwarranted. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty contains
specific provisions which allow the use of this material in nuclear
reactors for peaceful purposes. Ridding ourselves of excess plutonium
is definitely a peaceful purpose.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we allow the DOE to select an
accelerator to produce this tritium; a decision I believe they have
already made, we run a high degree of risk of not having a nuclear
capability in the year 2011. Assuming it did work, and there is no
evidence that an accelerator of the magnitude required will work, the
lifecycle costs would amount to billions of dollars more than a
multipurpose reactor. I am not prepared, and I am sure many of my
colleagues are not prepared to take that risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity
in yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. Before I go
the arguments, let us define the term ``earmark'' so everyone
understands, who is in this debate or observing this debate, what that
is about.
The way the Congress of the United States earmarks is if it
authorizes and appropriates dollars so it can only go to one place.
Very simple. You do not have to be a brilliant rocket scientist to
understand that you can write a piece of legislation in this
legislative body in such fashion that there is no competition, that it
goes specifically to one place. That is part of this.
Mr. Chairman, last year, as a matter of high principle, after
negotiations with the other body we agreed as a group that we would
move beyond the practice of earmarking, because we felt it so
thoroughly distorted and perverted the legislative process that we need
to be beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically this is the mother of
all earmarks. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who
represents a district in southern California, has a firm that does
reactor business. Whether I agree or disagree with reactor or
accelerator, put that esoteric discussion for a moment off to the side.
We are talking earmarking here.
The gentleman from California could not even get it modified so that
there would be more than one reactor firm in the business, Mr.
Chairman. this is a $14 million earmark to a Swedish firm in one
district, ultimately to the tune of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this approach on substance, because I
have learned from some of my regional colleagues that ``I do not have a
dog in this fight,'' so I can stand back objectively, at arms' length,
and debate this matter with clean hands.
In working with the gentleman from California, back and forth, trying
to figure out whether he and I could reach some accommodation that
would allow the option to open up, so that his district could be
represented in this matter, and this gentleman, who was raising broader
issues that I will discuss a little later in my presentation, any
effort that we had to try to dialog on this matter was resisted. The
Committee on Rules did not even allow the gentleman on that side of the
aisle to offer an amendment to open up competition just on the reactor
side.
Mr. Chairman, we understand it has been stated that somewhere down
the road, this is supposed to come down the pike in November from the
Secretary of Energy, someone briefed somebody in the Congress and said
``We do not think it is going to be a reactor, we think it is going to
be the accelerator.'' So suddenly there was a rush to judgment before
we could hear from informed scientific, knowledgeable sources what are
the options that are available which would still allow us to exercise
our responsibilities to agree or disagree.
Apparently someone said ``Wait a minute, let us not wait until the
Secretary gives us this informed judgment. Let us jump the gun. We are
legislators. We are in control of the process.''
So what happened? Earmark, Mr. Chairman, the mother of all earmarks,
$14 million to a Swedish firm to the tune ultimately of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is an obligation of the
American taxpayer to tens of millions of dollars and potentially, down
the pike, it could even achieve billions.
On that basis it ought to be rejected, just on the integrity of the
process itself, having nothing to do with the substantive issues like
nonproliferation and these kinds of things, just the fact that we ought
to reject that approach to how we do our business.
We talk here about clean hands and fair play and openness and above
board. This is inappropriate. With this gentleman in the last Congress,
when I stood as chairman of the former Committee on Armed Services, we
stood up publicly and said ``We will resist earmarking.'' We tried to
legislate in the authorizing process to end that, because all of us in
here at one time or another have been burned by the process of
earmarking.
Our dignity and our self-respect and our integrity as legislators
dictate that we do not go down this road, Mr. Chairman. It may be right
at the end of the day, but let it be right because the process led us
there, not because we exploited or manipulated it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be rejected on that basis alone.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
[[Page
H5995]]
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to say that this
authorization defense bill does not earmark where we produce tritium.
It does imply how we should produce tritium, and that is because the
Department of Energy has made up their mind that they want to use a
faulty process in the accelerator that may not let us have the tritium
we need to have a nuclear proliferation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the report language
specifically refers to location. Everyone in here, and I would say,
sir, we may disagree politically, but I choose not to insult the
gentleman's intelligence. I hope he does not choose to insult mine.
I have been on the Committee on Armed Services for 20-some-years. I
think that I have enough experience to know an earmark when I see one.
This is in the report. We all understand it. I would tell the gentleman
to ask the gentleman standing next to him. He knows it is an earmark,
because his reactor company has been left out of the process.
I am 59 years old and do not have my glasses, so it is a little
difficult to read here, but let me just refer the gentleman to page 305
of the report dealing with section 3133, tritium production, and about
a half of the way down the page, with the paragraph starting ``On March
1, 1995,'' there the gentleman will see the earmark.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the
distinguished gentleman from California, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me mention what the gentleman mentioned first, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] mentioned. That was
technological earmarking.
There is probably no bill that is a perfect bill, but my objection to
the idea of having this record of decision come down on the technology
is, to my colleague, and he is a realist and I am a realist, is it is
politically impossible, in my estimation, for the Clinton
administration to come down on behalf of anything except an
accelerator. I think that is what they feel is politically doable, and
even though everybody agrees we have to build tritium, they are non-
nuclear enough to say that we do not want to be building it with a
reactor.
I think the gentleman would be just as insulted by a record of
decision that comes down this fall that will supposedly be based on
scientific merit, but in fact it will not be based on scientific merit.
It will be based on the decision that at least is implied as having
already been made by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Smith, in
his letter, where he says ``Our program is to go with what is,'' and I
am paraphrasing, ``the lead technology,'' and then there is a backup
technology, which is the reactor, implying obviously the lead
technology is an accelerator.
Of course I want to have my people participate and have a chance to
participate in any work that is done, but I think there is an
overriding goal here that in my estimation is very compelling. That is
to continue to produce tritium, to do it in a reliable way, and I think
everyone would agree that the only reliable way we have done it in
large quantities is with a reactor.
Last, all of these arguments have been made about how scientifically
we can do this with an accelerator. The director of the laboratory that
would benefit from the accelerator said these words: ``I cannot support
the accelerator for the sole purposes of producing tritium because it
is too expensive, too uncertain, and there is a better way to provide
for the requirement while satisfying 3 needs,'' and that is
electricity, tritium, plutonium.
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman has made that point, Mr. Chairman. It is a
little redundant.
Mr. HUNTER. My point is there is just as bad earmarking on the part
of the administration, earmarking technology that flies in the face of
what the scientists say is needed.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, the bill reads
``$14 billion shall be made available to private industry to begin
implementation of the private advertised multi-purpose reactor program
plan submitted by the Department of Energy,'' et cetera, et cetera, to
the Department.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentleman's major assertion, the
amendment provides the opportunity for the Congress of the United
States to weigh in. This is a triumvirate form of government. The
executive branch will make an option. The gentleman may disagree with
it, but the gentleman and I together can hold hearings, we can make
judgments, we can make determinations, we can legislate in this area. I
am simply saying when we read that and we read the report language, it
is an earmark.
Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying, A, the Department of
Defense opposes this provision in the bill. The Department of Energy
opposes this provision in the bill. The Arms Control Agency opposes
this provision in the bill. Why does it? It opposes it because part of
our nonproliferation strategy has been that we would not breach the
firewall between civilian and commercial use of nuclear power.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, an important part of our nonproliferation strategy is
that we would not breach the firewall that exists between commercial
and civilian use of nuclear power and military use of nuclear power for
the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. That is the moral high
ground upon which we stand. That is the moral high ground that allows
us to challenge North Korea and it allows us to challenge the Iranians:
Do not breach that firewall.
How noble are we, then, if we embrace this approach in this bill,
multipurpose reactor? It speaks to breaking that firewall. At that
point, where is the high ground that allows us to say to the North
Koreans, or to the Iranians, ``You are doing a bad thing?'' All they
have to do is turn around and say ``Do as you say, don't do as you
do,'' because this is exactly what we are doing.
This is too precious for our children, too precious for the future,
for us to be violating this incredible approach to nonproliferation.
That is our fundamental strategy. It is for those and many other
reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I argue that my colleagues support the
Markey amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair tell us how much time we
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 6
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would remark, the gentleman mentioned that a number
of authorities in the Clinton administration are against this approach.
Let me just say that in my estimation, the guy who was the leading
authority on the validity of reactors versus accelerators endorses this
approach, and the last of his letter says ``With respect to an
accelerator, it is too uncertain, and there is a better way for the
requirement, while satisfying three needs for the price of one.'' That
is, the leading authority, in my estimation, on this technology
endorses the idea of a triple play.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most important debates that
I have followed in Congress, because I am from South Carolina, and the
men and women of the Savannah River site have for the last 40 to 50
years produced tritium by reactor in my district to help win the cold
war. We want to continue to do it for the country, not because I am
from South Carolina, but because we have the infrastructure, we have
the community commitment, we have the will to do it, and I want to do
it in the most fiscally sound and conservative manner.
{time} 1145
I will tell you when this administration and DOE will prefer a
reactor to do anything. That is when hell freezes [[Page
H5996]] over.
It will not be 2011. If you want to produce tritium to maintain a
national defense structure, you need to start now. Not 2011 when START
II is implemented.
What I am asking my colleagues who are fiscally conservative to do is
look at the numbers. This is not about millions, it is about billions.
The Clinton DOE will never prefer a reactor that we know will work,
that will save the construction costs. The energy costs alone are $10
billion over the life of the reactor.
This is about politics and spending billions of dollars on technology
that is pie in the sky and not going to something we know that works
that can make plutonium that works and create energy and is privately
financed. It is about politics.
The men and women of my district understand tritium. We understand
politics and I hope my colleagues will call the National Taxpayers
Union and talk to Mr. Paul Hewitt. I have. They have information about
millions. That does not consider the billions. They will consider the
billions.
This is politics at its worst. Let's get on with defending America.
2011 is here today. How long does it take to get any technology going?
Never, with an accelerator, because it never produced tritium.
The reactor has produced tritium in this country. We need to start
now because it takes a long time, because we want to be safe and we
should be safe. But we need to start now to give our children a secure
future financially by saving billions of dollars with technology that
works.
And a secure future with the threat of Iran and Iraq is not looking
at will they follow our lead, but will we have the resources to
implement American policy? And not ask them to follow our lead, but we
will be the biggest guy with the biggest stick on the block all the
time. That is what this debate is about.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one thing that my
friend from San Diego mentioned. The Los Alamos Laboratory wants the
accelerator made. The gentleman has been referring to Harold Agnew, an
official of the labs.
Harold Agnew has been out of office for 15 years and he is now a
contractor with one of the companies trying to get the contract. So let
me be clear. The Los Alamos Laboratory, which is an expert in this
area, would like to be involved in this process, as would the States of
Texas, Idaho, Nevada, and Tennessee. And because of this specific
earmark, all of these States are locked out and we have a Swiss-Swedish
firm getting a benefit over American companies.
That is not right. These States, and my labs in Los Alamos, are
experts. Why are we making decisions that scientists should be making?
These are thousands of scientists. Ph.D's at Los Alamos, at DOE, at
Savannah River. They should be making these decisions. And I think a
Swiss-Swedish firm, they may be very competent, I don't think they
should be barred, but what this Markey amendment is doing, and I must
say it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Ensign] and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. My name is
on it. We just want an open process.
We think that this process by which there was a specific mention, an
earmark, is flawed. We are saving the taxpayers money, $50 million. But
let me be absolutely clear. I represent Los Alamos. They are in my
district. They are for the Markey-Ensign amendment because they want
science and scientists to have a chance.
So, my good friend should not mention Harold Agnew who is a good
public servant. But he was 15 years ago. He is a contractor now. Of
course, he has an interest. We respect that.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Would the gentleman tell me what contracting firm Mr. Agnew is
supposed to be working for now?
Mr. RICHARDSON. General Atomics.
Mr. HUNTER. General Atomics is excluded from being able to
participate in this amendment.
I would ask how much time we have remaining, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] to whom we always give plenty of
time.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. With all
due respect, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
Since 1992, the Department of Energy has been working on this
alternate source for producing tritium and they tell us they are 3 to 4
years away from doing that. It is going to cost taxpayers more money.
I want to remind the body that the Department of Energy is the same
agency that the Vice President told us in the National Performance
Review misses 20 percent of its milestones and is 40 percent
inefficient. That means that their estimates could be longer than
expected and overrun in cost.
But if we use the multipurpose reactor for the production of tritium,
it represents a tried and true technology. This technology would also
be the least cost to the American taxpayer and it would guarantee that
we are going to produce tritium on time.
Mr. Chairman, I, along with my other colleagues on the Committee on
National Security, are concerned--but not surprised--about the lack of
progress that the Department of Energy has been making toward this
long-term source of tritium and it is essential if we are going to
maintain our nuclear weapons for nuclear defense.
But we cannot allow our nuclear weapons capability to diminish just
to satisfy an antinuclear coalition in the administration and in the
Department of Energy. We need to do what is right for the American
people and for the national defense.
Time is running out. And we cannot afford to wait on the Department
of Energy to get its act together. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. First of all the
multipurpose reactor, that technology has not been developed as well.
We have never produced with the reactor the amount of tritium that we
are talking about developing today.
Also, the tritium, as far as technologically, has been produced from
an accelerator. This is false when my colleagues say it has not.
Granted, I will admit that the accelerator technology is not as far
along, but we have the time to see whether we can develop this
technology with an accelerator. No question about it. It is
environmentally the safest thing to do.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have the right to close the
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has the
right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Vucanovich-
Ensign amendment. What this bipartisan amendment does is very simple:
It allows the existing search for the best site and the best technology
for the provision of tritium to go forward. The Department of Energy
has been engaged in an evaluation of five different technologies and
five different sites and a decision is expected in late summer or early
autumn.
H.R. 1530 threatens to derail that process. It would add $50 million
to the administration's request for tritium work and would choose a
winning site--Savannah River--and a winning technology--the so-called
triple play reactor proposal led by Ansea, Brown & Boveri. In choosing
a winner,
H.R. 1530 short-circuits [[Page
H5997]] the process of
technology and environmental evaluation that was intended to guarantee
that the taxpayers get a tritium facility that minimizes its nuclear
proliferation potential, is environmentally sound and cost effective.
I am not saying that I know that the ABB proposal is the most
expensive or least attractive or that Savannah River is an inferior
site. The fact is I don't know that. But that is precisely the point:
No one in this body knows which technology, which consortia and which
site offers the best deal for the taxpayer. There is no record of
judgment by impartial experts that we can turn to for guidance because
the experts are still doing their work. There are no hefty hearing
volumes documenting the full and exhaustive review of this billion
dollar deal to explain why we must intervene to stop that impartial
review and pick or own winner.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that
bureaucrats aren't good at picking winners and losers among
technologies; I would suggest that when it comes to choosing winning
technologies, Congress makes bureaucrats look like geniuses.
There is general agreement that we need a new tritium facility. But
let us give our citizens a facility that is the best that their money
can buy. To do that, we need to repudiate a pork-driven decision, we
need to let the selection process go forward to let these technologies
and sites compete. Support good government and a fair process. Vote for
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this. Using the words of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], Massachusetts does not have a
dog in this fight. This is not a battle that I certainly have any
interest in.
My only problem with this whole debate is that after a day of
sanctifying the whole concept of procurement reform just 2 days ago, we
now come back out here on the floor and we allow for a single Member to
earmark a specific technology that does not even exist to be the
exclusive way that we are going to produce one of the most important
defense technologies in our country.
Now, we keep hearing about a 3-in-1 technology. It is good for
plutonium. It is good for electricity. It is good for this. It is good
for that. It sounds like you are listening to an ad for a chopomatic at
3 a.m. in the morning on channel 43.
This technology does not exist. And, in fact, although we are talking
about $50 million out here, the truth is it triggers $6 billion worth
of reactor that has to be built. By the way, a reactor which has never
produced tritium before.
The technology which they are selecting has never, in fact, performed
this task before. Now, you hear the word linear accelerator. What does
that mean? Well, it is just another fancy word for saying atom smasher.
That is what a linear accelerator is.
Right now the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Defense, are evaluating linear accelerators as
opposed to this new reactor which has never been tested with regard to
which is the better way of going to produce tritium in this country.
Now, I do not care which technology they select, but I do know that
this bill should not have $50 million in it for a Swedish firm for a
technology that ultimately triggers $6 billion worth of expenditures
before we have had a technical evaluation. That is what this whole
debate is about.
And the $50 million is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, by
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], by the gentlewoman from Nevada
[Mrs. Vucanovich], and a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans
that want a balanced budget, fairly done, with logical assessment done
of each and every item. This provision violates every one of those
principles.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Idaho the gentleman from [Mr. Crapo].
(Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the committee's
product. We in Idaho are doing some critical research under this
proposal that will help us to develop this program.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Texas panhandle is a long way from
either Savannah River or from Nevada where the accelerator would be
built, but I think it is very important to make these basic points.
We have no choice on tritium. Everyone has agreed with that. And we
need it quickly. Now, this is a gas that deteriorates at a rate of
approximately 5 percent a year. We have built none in this country
since about 1988. And the longer we take, particularly with an unproven
technology, the worse off it is for the security of this country.
I think the key point, however, that I want to make is this. The
committee version advances both options. Currently, the Department of
Energy is only looking at one option and that is an accelerator. They
are not considering in any manner the sort of reactor that would be
considered under this bill.
Now, I will tell my colleagues that in my district we have got a lot
of excess plutonium that is building up as we dismantle weapons that we
are bringing back from Europe. We have got to figure out what to do
with that plutonium and the reactor is one option that we ought to
consider as a way to dispose of that excess material.
The Department of Energy will not even consider it and there are no
other technologies that are even close to being considered at the
current time. The committee bill gives approximately the same amount of
money toward the accelerator as the gentleman's amendment would do, but
it adds to that. It doubles the amount of money because of how
important this gas is and it gives us another option to look at.
We are not bound to any option forever, but it does push forward the
process on both counts so that we can find the best, most economical,
safest way to produce tritium and that can accomplish our other
security goals as well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee position
and in opposition to the Markey amendment which would cut funding for a
new tritium production source by 50 percent. The Markey amendment would
also erect additional barriers not in even the administration's request
to achieving a low-cost, reliable supply of tritium.
Tritium is needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. Because tritium decays at a rapid rate, it
must be regularly replenished. However, the United States currently has
no capacity to produce tritium and therefore a new production source
has been in the works for years.
H.R. 1530 directs the Department of Energy to pursue the lowest cost,
most mature technology to accomplish this mission--and that is a
reactor. Reactor technology has produced all of the tritium currently
used in U.S. nuclear weapons.
The committee also endorsed using reactor technology to burn
plutonium and to generate electricity. The prospect of private sector
financing could also dramatically reduce the cost of the American
taxpayer of this critically important undertaking.
The Markey amendment would cut the funds added by the committee for
future tritium production, and would give the Department of Energy the
final say over which tritium production technology should proceed. We
fear that the Department is headed in the direction of actually
selecting the less mature, more costly accelerator option.
Let us do what's right to most cost-effectively ensure our ability to
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. Let's get on with this
innovative cost-saving approach to producing tritium. The only way to
do this is to support the committee and vote ``no'' on the Markey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
AYES--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra [[Page
H5998]]
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Cardin
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Ki
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(House of Representatives - June 15, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H5990-H6021]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Pursuant to House
Resolution 164 and rule XXIII, the chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1530.
{time} 1103
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. [[Page
H5991]]
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on
Wednesday, June 14, 1995, amendment 37 printed in part 2 of House
Report 104-136 offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]
had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in subpart F
of part 1 of the report.
amendment offered by mr. markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 3133:
Page 528, line 17, strike out ``Funds'' and all that
follows through page 529, line 9, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
(1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in section
3101(b), not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for a
project to provide a long-term source of tritium, subject to
paragraph (2).
(2) The amount made available under paragraph (1) may not
be used until such time as the Secretary of Energy has
completed a record of decision on a tritium production
program and congressional hearings have been conducted to
determine the appropriate option, in light of the national
security needs and nonproliferation and environmental
consequences, for establishing a long-term source of tritium.
Page 530, strike out lines 1 through 9.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment being considered right now is a quite
technical one because once the word ``tritium'' is uttered, I can see
minds and attention spans drifting off onto other subjects. But it is a
very important subject, because tritium is a gas which is used in order
to ensure that we can derive the maximum potential from our nuclear
weapons.
It is a critical subject, in fact. It is so critical that this
amendment has been put in order, because it is important that this
Congress and this country select the best way, the most economical way,
the best proliferation resistant way, of producing this very important
gas.
Now, this body and all who listen to it should understand some very
fundamental facts. No. 1, the National Taxpayers Union supports the
Markey-Ensign-Vucanovich-Dellums-Skeen-Richardson amendment. This is
bipartisan, and it is the National Taxpayer Union's blessing having
been placed upon it because they have determined that this is nothing
more than radioactive pork which has been built into this bill. Not
because we do not want or need the tritium, we do. That is agreed upon
by Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative.
What is not agreed upon, however, is that the committee should be
able to select a particular technology and to build from $50 million
more than the Department of Energy wants, than the Department of
Defense wants, than the National Taxpayers Union thinks is necessary.
The decision which has been made is one which runs completely
contrary to the proposition that there should be no specific earmarking
of technology or location, but rather each of these decisions should be
open to full competition amongst all of those who are interested in
providing the best technology for the defense of this country.
That is why we bring this amendment out on the floor. It cuts out $50
million that no one wants and cannot be justified. It is a specific
earmark which benefits a Swedish company trying to get a specific
earmark into this bill for South Carolina. I will have to say a word.
But that is not good policy. This company ABB, the Swedish company,
might as well be called, instead of ABB, just A Big Boondoggle. That is
what ABB stands for. You are voting for $50 million for a Swedish
company for a technology that neither the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, nor the National Taxpayers Union can support.
So we are going to be out here having this debate. It will be
bipartisan. But if you want to find money that you can vote for that is
not justified in this budget, this is it. This cannot be justified on
any basis, either defense, energy, budgetary, or proliferation. It
violates every one of the principles that we are concerned with. But
most of all, it violates the principle against earmarking specific
technologies with extra money that cannot be justified technologically
until the Departments of Energy and Defense have gone through the
process of evaluating them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am glad that the gentleman from
Massachusetts has stated that there is no dispute as to the requirement
for tritium. The ranking member of the full committee has mentioned
during our debate on the ABM treaty that we still, at least with
respect to the Soviet Union, rely on our deterrents, on our strategic
arsenal, our nuclear arsenal, to deter nuclear conflict. Tritium is an
important component of that arsenal, and it deteriorates. The half-life
of tritium is 5\1/2\ years. That means you have to keep making it. So
the Clinton administration agrees with the committee that you have to
keep making tritium, and they themselves put some $50 million into this
program.
The difference is, and my colleague has said you should never have
earmarking of technology, the difference is for political reasons in my
estimation, and this comes from conversations with many people in the
administration, people who are pro-strategic weapons. The
administration has decided already not to build a reactor.
Now, there are several ways to make tritium. The way that we have
used in the past, the reliable, proven method, whereby we have made our
tritium in the past for our strategic weapons, is a reactor, a nuclear
reactor. there have been no invitations from Massachusetts. The
gentleman has mentioned that South Carolina is the place where they
make tritium, have made it, have had reactors, and presumably would
invite reactors in the future. We have got so similar invitation from
Massachusetts to build a nuclear reactor.
But nuclear reactors are the way you make tritium in a reliable
fashion. There is a chance that you can make tritium with an
accelerator, but it is risky, and it is not proven. Let me tell you
that I personally relied on the word and the testimony of arguably the
best authority in this country on the validity or the viability of
reactors versus accelerators, and that is the former head of the Los
Alamos Lab, who was in charge of Los Alamos during a large part of the
accelerator program, who is very, very understanding of the accelerator
program, a person who is on the various commissions, who has been asked
to evaluate this. And let me recite to you the words of Harold Agnew, a
former director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which would get the
accelerator work or a large part of it, and he is writing to the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the other body, and he says
this:
Dear Pete: I have been serving as a member of the Joint
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety. Recently we
were asked to assess the feasibility of using an accelerator
to produce the tritium required for our future nuclear
weapons stockpile. Because the accelerator would presumably
be designed at Los Alamos, I particularly wanted you to have
my thoughts on the issue firsthand.
My concern is that while it is technically feasible, it is
not economically rational. I fear that Los Alamos may come to
rely on a full blown accelerator program to produce tritium
only to be disappointed when the economic realities are
better understood. In these days of severe budgetary
constraints, a program of this magnitude will certainly
receive heavy scrutiny.
Simplified, the reality is that an accelerator producing
tritium would consume about $125 million per year in
electricity . . . while a reactor producing tritium would
produce for other purposes about $175 million per year. . . .
In other words, a reactor makes electricity, an accelerator uses
electricity, and the difference, according to Mr. Agnew, is a
difference of $300 million per year.
He continues:
[[Page
H5992]]
Over a lifetime of 40 years, that's a $12 billion
consideration. It is simply counter intuitive to believe a
difference in energy consumption of this magnitude will be
sustainable. This is particularly true when the cost of
facilities--accelerator or reactor--are roughly the same.
Given a projected capital cost of $3.2 billion for the
accelerator and a declining requirement for tritium, the
tritium imperative is a thin reed upon which to lean.
He concludes, and this is one of the paragraphs that I think is very
critical for this House to consider. He talks about an accelerator
having some value if you used it for other purposes. That is to consume
plutonium when it is hooked up with a reactor. So an accelerator and a
reactor hooked together could do the whole thing. He says:
The accelerator is unique and can totally destroy virtually
all weapons plutonium. It can do so extremely economically
when combined in tandem with a deep burn reactor. The deep
burn reactor using a surplus weapons plutonium as fuel could
consume 90 percent of the plutonium 239 in a once through
cycle. The depleted fuel element with the remaining plutonium
would then be transferred to a subcritical assembly
irradiated with an accelerator. The accelerator would destroy
the remaining plutonium. Because there are large amounts of
electricity produced when the plutonium is destroyed, there
is no cost for the plutonium destruction. In fact, it makes
money. The same assembly would also be able to produce
tritium at the same time and at no additional cost if tritium
is needed.
{time} 1115
The gentleman who cited the taxpayer groups, I wish they had had a
chance to sit down with one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project,
Harold Agnew, the director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and a
gentleman whose colleagues would benefit and profit from an
accelerator, has looked at this thing and has said, listen, if you can
build a triple play reactor, that is, you can build a system that not
only makes tritium but consumes plutonium and makes electricity at the
same time that you can sell, thereby mitigating your costs, why not do
it?
He concludes: ``I could and would get firmly behind a reactor program
with this objective in mind.'' That is, this combination with the
reactor and an accelerator. ``I cannot support the accelerator for the
sole purpose of producing tritium because it is too expensive, its need
too uncertain and there is a better way to provide the requirement
while satisfying the three needs, electricity, plutonium, and tritium
production for the price of one.''
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the
gentleman's argument and the gentleman and I have had an ongoing dialog
on this matter. I understand that the gentleman believes that the
Department of Energy at the end of the day will come out on the side of
the accelerator.
My distinguished colleague from California believes very strongly in
the superiority of the reactor approach. But let me read very briefly
from the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
because I think it addresses the gentleman's concern by placing the
Congress in the loop to make a decision in the event that they disagree
with the Secretary.
I will read very quickly. It says,
The amount made available under paragraph 1 may not be used
until such time as the Secretary of Energy has completed a
record of decision on the tritium production program and
congressional hearings have been conducted to determine the
appropriate option in light of the national security needs
and nonproliferation and environmental consequences for
establishing a long-term source of tritium.
So it provides the opportunity for my distinguished colleague, this
gentleman, and others, to weigh in after the findings have been given
by the Secretary.
Unless the gentleman feels that we are in some way impotent or
incompetent to carry out our responsibilities, this is the way that we
can address the gentleman's concern.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Let me just respond in this way before I yield to other Members. The
administration, in my estimation, has already done the earmarking.
Members of the administration, folks who are inside the administration,
I think have made it fairly clear that they have already decided, this
record of decision is down the road.
They have made the decision at this point to go with the accelerator.
Let me cite to my friend the letter from the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Harold P. Smith, who basically sent us a letter that gave, in
my estimation, the smoking gun.
He says, ``The funding request made by the Department of Energy was
formulated in support of their production strategy,'' that is, an
existing production strategy, ``of primary and backup--light water
reactor.''
Well, if the backup is a light water reactor, what is the existing
primary production strategy? It is an accelerator.
I would say to my friend, I have spent some time on this. I have had
discussions with folks in the administration. The essence of it is,
they do not think it is politically possible in this administration to
come through with what Harold Agnew thinks is a scientifically
meritorious decision, and that is a reactor.
My feeling is, they have already done the earmarking. I think this
letter shows that. There has already been an earmarking by the
administration. And because of that, I think we are going to waste
valuable time, if we wait for them to come down with a paper decision
that merely records a decision they have already made at this time,
when the people that I rely on, and I think the committee justifiably
relies on, like Harold Agnew, who was the director of the facility that
would benefit from an accelerator, I think to go with what we see on
the merits from a scientific way and not wait for this paper decision
to
come down months from now that has already been made. That is the
point I would make to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my first response is that I think it is hyperbole to refer to the
Department of Energy's judgment as an earmark. All they can do is
recommend. We can earmark in legislation. We write the laws.
So it is not earmarking. They may come to an option you do not agree
with, but earmarking is hyperbole.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an important political
principle here. When you know that an agency of the Government, of the
executive branch, is going to come out with what is on the face of it a
decision made on the merits, but you know and you have been told has
already been made and is a political decision, I think it is wrong to
wait and have them utilize this decision that they have already
basically broadcast to us, they telegraphed to us, it is going to be an
accelerator, not for science reasons but for political reasons, to wait
for that to come out months from now where that will then be used as an
argument to try to weight this very important decision, where I think
the scientists like Harold Agnew have already made a very clear and
convincing case. That is my point.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
He has been very generous.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Vucanovich-Ensign amendment. Let me also agree on the importance of
maintaining tritium production in this country and how critical that is
to our national security.
I come from a State that in the interest of national security was
willing to allow bombs to be blown up underneath our ground because we
care so much about national security. So I do not come at this as
somebody who is antinuclear or anything. I am coming here in support of
the amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do.
First of all, we are cutting out $50 million in earmarked spending
that will go to a Swedish company. Second of all, we have enough
tritium to last approximately the year 2011 with current supplies, and
if we recycle those, we can get it out to about the year 2015, 2017. So
we have enough time to be able to research some of the other
options. [[Page
H5993]]
I think there are legitimate differences within the scientific
community on whether a reactor or an accelerator is the best way to go
here. And what I am saying is that we should take that time and
research truly what is in the best interest of national security as
well as with environmental concerns.
Everyone agrees an accelerator is the best for environmental because
it does not produce high-level nuclear waste. It produces low-level
nuclear waste. So we are talking about accelerator technology, clearly,
it is the best from an environmental standpoint.
You also mentioned that when taken into effect, the reactor could
downgrade plutonium and reuse that and that an accelerator needs a
reactor. That is discounting that there is other technology on the
drawing board out there that is possibly developable in the future.
That is using the transmutator. And that would no longer produce the
high-level nuclear waste as well. It would actually recycle a lot of
the nuclear waste that is out there. So there are other options out
there that we can explore.
The point is that we do have some time to explore this without taking
the next few years and using those years just to raise money to build
this reactor. We can actually take the years and develop the technology
that we will need.
The other problem that I have with this is that we have not built a
reactor and the reactor that you are talking about is just as
theoretical as the accelerator is. We have never built a reactor like
this that can produce the tritium in the quantities we need, just like
we have not built the accelerator to produce the tritium in the
quantities we need. We know an accelerator will produce tritium. There
is no question about that. In Los Alamos they have proven that as far
as on the bench there.
The other problem that I have is that we cannot store the nuclear
waste that we are producing at this time. Obviously the whole issue on
Yucca Mountain on a temporary interim nuclear storage facility is
because the people that are producing the nuclear waste all want to
ship it to my State because they cannot house it now. The linear
accelerators are, there is no question, they are proven technology.
They are out there and the x-ray machine is basically a linear
accelerator. They use it with radiation technicians for cancer, and
Stanford has a very large linear accelerator. The linear accelerator
technology is there. It is just a question of applying this technology
to what we need. And I think it is the right thing to do, and I think
this is the right amendment.
I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to support it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment that has been offered by our
colleagues. As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent or
by $50 million a program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and by doing so presumptively directs the Department
of Energy to use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific
technology but to award the contract to begin work on the reactor which
will utilize the ABB combustion engineering concept to be built in
Savannah River, Georgia to a particular contractor. This amendment
eliminates these provisions and ensures that the decisionmaking process
will remain open. That is the critical reason that I have come to the
floor to urge that this amendment be adopted.
Secretary O'Leary noted that the Department of Energy is currently
analyzing the technical, environmental, political, fiscal implications
of this production technology and that, further, the analysis is
nearing completion. As the previous speaker has indicated, the supply
is not the issue. There is at least 15 or perhaps more years of
available supply.
Therefore, it seems to me very, very persuading that we permit the
Department of Energy to continue with this analysis and to come up with
their recommendations.
The second aspect of the amendment, which is critical, is that rather
than forestall the opportunity of Congress to have a critical role in
making this decision, if we do not adopt this amendment, there will be
a preemption of this opportunity by the selection of a contractor
without due consideration of all of the aspects.
Furthermore, we are told that if this amendment is not approved, that
the contractor, by provisions in the bill, will be allowed to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising the funds for this project.
It seems to me, therefore, that this amendment should be passed to
restore the decisionmaking to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to
H.R. 1530
offered by Representatives Ed Markey, Barbara Vucanovich, and John
Ensign.
As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent--or $50
million--the program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and presumptively directs the Department of Energy to
use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific technology to
produce tritium, but to award the contract to begin work on a tritium-
producing reactor that will utilize the ABB combustion engineering
concept and be built in Savannah River, GA to a particular contractor.
The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment eliminates these provisions and,
ensures that the decisionmaking process related to tritium production
will remain open.
WIth respect to
H.R. 1530 directing the Department of Energy to
pursue the ABB combustion engineering concept for tritium production,
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary notes that the Department of Energy is
currently analysing the technical, environmental, political, and fiscal
implications of a range of new tritium production technologies.
Secretary O'Leary also notes that the ongoing departmental analysis,
including a programmatic environmental impact statement, is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Secretary O'Leary further
notes that the analysis in nearing completion and will support the
selection of a preferred technology and site for tritium production.
H.R. 1530 selects the tritium-producing reactor utilizing the ABB
combustion engineering concept and allows the contractor to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising $6 billion in private
financing and concluding multiple power purchase agreements for the
sale of power to be generated. Secretary O'Leary indicates that such a
contract, with its 3-year feasibility study and business plan, will
delay by 3 years the development of a new tritium production source.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign
amendment because it provides the funding level requested by the
Department of Energy and withholds any funding for actual tritium
production until the Department of Energy has completed its analysis
and reached a decision on a tritium production program and, most
importantly, ensures that the Congress will be able to hold hearings on
any such Department of Energy decision.
Because the establishment of a long-term source of tritium touches
upon various national security, nuclear nonproliferation, and
environmental issues, the Congress must play a role in the debate on
tritium production. The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment ensures such
a role for the Congress.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose quickly we need to correct a
couple of things. The gentlewoman from Hawaii should know that the
Savannah River site is in South Carolina. This is not a discussion
about where we will build tritium but how. I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts in recognizing that we in fact do need to build tritium,
and we are going to do it, need to be doing it by 2001, not 2017.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and often has little, if
anything, to show for it in many cases. A perfectly good example of
that, a recent example includes the high level waste repository in
Nevada.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues stated in a news conference
last week in regards to a proposal of the elimination of DOE, the
Department suffers from problems of communication and contracting and
management and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology [[Page
H5994]] and siting has many of the same problems.
This is a very complicated technical issue, but let us try to simplify
it just a little bit.
We know how to make a reactor. We have been doing that now for 30
years. The technology is there. If we go with a triple play reactor, we
know we can privatize the construction of it. In a country that has 5
trillion dollars' worth of cash flow problems, that is important.
We know for a fact that this reactor will burn plutonium and help get
rid of waste. We also know it will produce electricity, which will
help, indeed, cut the cots.
What we absolutely must consider here is that the cost of using an
accelerator, technology that we do not know for sure will work, will be
considerably more expensive, to the tune of about $10 billion. We talk
about $50 million, and this is a $10 billion project, if we do not go
with the triple play reactor.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against the Markey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and has little, if anything,
to show for it in many cases. A recent example of this includes the
high level waste repository in Nevada.
As some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week
regarding the proposed elimination of the DOE: The Department suffers
from problems of communication, contracting, management, and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology and siting has many of the same problems.
I believe the action taken by the House National Security Committee
to authorize funding for a privatized multipurpose reactor technology
is the only logical approach for the success of the next tritium
production mission. This reactor would consume our excess plutonium,
produce tritium and generate electricity. The resale of this
electricity would generate revenues that would directly reduce the
total cost to the taxpayer. The logical siting of such a reactor is the
Savannah River site in South Carolina. The site has been the leader in
tritium production and other related missions for more than 30 years.
The taxpayer has payed billions of dollars over these 30 years building
the tritium infrastructure I speak of. Mr. Chairman, it would not be
prudent to rebuild a new tritium infrastructure elsewhere at an even
higher cost to the taxpayer, just to satisfy the political motives of
DOE.
The action by the committee represents, Mr. Chairman, it represents
sound judgment to reverse the poor decisions DOE has been making for
years and to ensure we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons
stockpile. It is imperative that we continue to produce tritium no
later than the year 2011. If we do not, our nuclear weapons stockpile
will not be maintained at the level necessary to maintain our nuclear
deterrence.
Mr. Chairman, the committee's decision also represents one that will
cost the American taxpayer far less money, and ensure we start
producing tritium no later than the year 2011.
There is a general concern by many that disposing of excess weapons
grade plutonium in this reactor is a proliferation concern. This
concern is unwarranted. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty contains
specific provisions which allow the use of this material in nuclear
reactors for peaceful purposes. Ridding ourselves of excess plutonium
is definitely a peaceful purpose.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we allow the DOE to select an
accelerator to produce this tritium; a decision I believe they have
already made, we run a high degree of risk of not having a nuclear
capability in the year 2011. Assuming it did work, and there is no
evidence that an accelerator of the magnitude required will work, the
lifecycle costs would amount to billions of dollars more than a
multipurpose reactor. I am not prepared, and I am sure many of my
colleagues are not prepared to take that risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity
in yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. Before I go
the arguments, let us define the term ``earmark'' so everyone
understands, who is in this debate or observing this debate, what that
is about.
The way the Congress of the United States earmarks is if it
authorizes and appropriates dollars so it can only go to one place.
Very simple. You do not have to be a brilliant rocket scientist to
understand that you can write a piece of legislation in this
legislative body in such fashion that there is no competition, that it
goes specifically to one place. That is part of this.
Mr. Chairman, last year, as a matter of high principle, after
negotiations with the other body we agreed as a group that we would
move beyond the practice of earmarking, because we felt it so
thoroughly distorted and perverted the legislative process that we need
to be beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically this is the mother of
all earmarks. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who
represents a district in southern California, has a firm that does
reactor business. Whether I agree or disagree with reactor or
accelerator, put that esoteric discussion for a moment off to the side.
We are talking earmarking here.
The gentleman from California could not even get it modified so that
there would be more than one reactor firm in the business, Mr.
Chairman. this is a $14 million earmark to a Swedish firm in one
district, ultimately to the tune of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this approach on substance, because I
have learned from some of my regional colleagues that ``I do not have a
dog in this fight,'' so I can stand back objectively, at arms' length,
and debate this matter with clean hands.
In working with the gentleman from California, back and forth, trying
to figure out whether he and I could reach some accommodation that
would allow the option to open up, so that his district could be
represented in this matter, and this gentleman, who was raising broader
issues that I will discuss a little later in my presentation, any
effort that we had to try to dialog on this matter was resisted. The
Committee on Rules did not even allow the gentleman on that side of the
aisle to offer an amendment to open up competition just on the reactor
side.
Mr. Chairman, we understand it has been stated that somewhere down
the road, this is supposed to come down the pike in November from the
Secretary of Energy, someone briefed somebody in the Congress and said
``We do not think it is going to be a reactor, we think it is going to
be the accelerator.'' So suddenly there was a rush to judgment before
we could hear from informed scientific, knowledgeable sources what are
the options that are available which would still allow us to exercise
our responsibilities to agree or disagree.
Apparently someone said ``Wait a minute, let us not wait until the
Secretary gives us this informed judgment. Let us jump the gun. We are
legislators. We are in control of the process.''
So what happened? Earmark, Mr. Chairman, the mother of all earmarks,
$14 million to a Swedish firm to the tune ultimately of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is an obligation of the
American taxpayer to tens of millions of dollars and potentially, down
the pike, it could even achieve billions.
On that basis it ought to be rejected, just on the integrity of the
process itself, having nothing to do with the substantive issues like
nonproliferation and these kinds of things, just the fact that we ought
to reject that approach to how we do our business.
We talk here about clean hands and fair play and openness and above
board. This is inappropriate. With this gentleman in the last Congress,
when I stood as chairman of the former Committee on Armed Services, we
stood up publicly and said ``We will resist earmarking.'' We tried to
legislate in the authorizing process to end that, because all of us in
here at one time or another have been burned by the process of
earmarking.
Our dignity and our self-respect and our integrity as legislators
dictate that we do not go down this road, Mr. Chairman. It may be right
at the end of the day, but let it be right because the process led us
there, not because we exploited or manipulated it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be rejected on that basis alone.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
[[Page
H5995]]
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to say that this
authorization defense bill does not earmark where we produce tritium.
It does imply how we should produce tritium, and that is because the
Department of Energy has made up their mind that they want to use a
faulty process in the accelerator that may not let us have the tritium
we need to have a nuclear proliferation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the report language
specifically refers to location. Everyone in here, and I would say,
sir, we may disagree politically, but I choose not to insult the
gentleman's intelligence. I hope he does not choose to insult mine.
I have been on the Committee on Armed Services for 20-some-years. I
think that I have enough experience to know an earmark when I see one.
This is in the report. We all understand it. I would tell the gentleman
to ask the gentleman standing next to him. He knows it is an earmark,
because his reactor company has been left out of the process.
I am 59 years old and do not have my glasses, so it is a little
difficult to read here, but let me just refer the gentleman to page 305
of the report dealing with section 3133, tritium production, and about
a half of the way down the page, with the paragraph starting ``On March
1, 1995,'' there the gentleman will see the earmark.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the
distinguished gentleman from California, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me mention what the gentleman mentioned first, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] mentioned. That was
technological earmarking.
There is probably no bill that is a perfect bill, but my objection to
the idea of having this record of decision come down on the technology
is, to my colleague, and he is a realist and I am a realist, is it is
politically impossible, in my estimation, for the Clinton
administration to come down on behalf of anything except an
accelerator. I think that is what they feel is politically doable, and
even though everybody agrees we have to build tritium, they are non-
nuclear enough to say that we do not want to be building it with a
reactor.
I think the gentleman would be just as insulted by a record of
decision that comes down this fall that will supposedly be based on
scientific merit, but in fact it will not be based on scientific merit.
It will be based on the decision that at least is implied as having
already been made by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Smith, in
his letter, where he says ``Our program is to go with what is,'' and I
am paraphrasing, ``the lead technology,'' and then there is a backup
technology, which is the reactor, implying obviously the lead
technology is an accelerator.
Of course I want to have my people participate and have a chance to
participate in any work that is done, but I think there is an
overriding goal here that in my estimation is very compelling. That is
to continue to produce tritium, to do it in a reliable way, and I think
everyone would agree that the only reliable way we have done it in
large quantities is with a reactor.
Last, all of these arguments have been made about how scientifically
we can do this with an accelerator. The director of the laboratory that
would benefit from the accelerator said these words: ``I cannot support
the accelerator for the sole purposes of producing tritium because it
is too expensive, too uncertain, and there is a better way to provide
for the requirement while satisfying 3 needs,'' and that is
electricity, tritium, plutonium.
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman has made that point, Mr. Chairman. It is a
little redundant.
Mr. HUNTER. My point is there is just as bad earmarking on the part
of the administration, earmarking technology that flies in the face of
what the scientists say is needed.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, the bill reads
``$14 billion shall be made available to private industry to begin
implementation of the private advertised multi-purpose reactor program
plan submitted by the Department of Energy,'' et cetera, et cetera, to
the Department.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentleman's major assertion, the
amendment provides the opportunity for the Congress of the United
States to weigh in. This is a triumvirate form of government. The
executive branch will make an option. The gentleman may disagree with
it, but the gentleman and I together can hold hearings, we can make
judgments, we can make determinations, we can legislate in this area. I
am simply saying when we read that and we read the report language, it
is an earmark.
Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying, A, the Department of
Defense opposes this provision in the bill. The Department of Energy
opposes this provision in the bill. The Arms Control Agency opposes
this provision in the bill. Why does it? It opposes it because part of
our nonproliferation strategy has been that we would not breach the
firewall between civilian and commercial use of nuclear power.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, an important part of our nonproliferation strategy is
that we would not breach the firewall that exists between commercial
and civilian use of nuclear power and military use of nuclear power for
the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. That is the moral high
ground upon which we stand. That is the moral high ground that allows
us to challenge North Korea and it allows us to challenge the Iranians:
Do not breach that firewall.
How noble are we, then, if we embrace this approach in this bill,
multipurpose reactor? It speaks to breaking that firewall. At that
point, where is the high ground that allows us to say to the North
Koreans, or to the Iranians, ``You are doing a bad thing?'' All they
have to do is turn around and say ``Do as you say, don't do as you
do,'' because this is exactly what we are doing.
This is too precious for our children, too precious for the future,
for us to be violating this incredible approach to nonproliferation.
That is our fundamental strategy. It is for those and many other
reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I argue that my colleagues support the
Markey amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair tell us how much time we
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 6
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would remark, the gentleman mentioned that a number
of authorities in the Clinton administration are against this approach.
Let me just say that in my estimation, the guy who was the leading
authority on the validity of reactors versus accelerators endorses this
approach, and the last of his letter says ``With respect to an
accelerator, it is too uncertain, and there is a better way for the
requirement, while satisfying three needs for the price of one.'' That
is, the leading authority, in my estimation, on this technology
endorses the idea of a triple play.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most important debates that
I have followed in Congress, because I am from South Carolina, and the
men and women of the Savannah River site have for the last 40 to 50
years produced tritium by reactor in my district to help win the cold
war. We want to continue to do it for the country, not because I am
from South Carolina, but because we have the infrastructure, we have
the community commitment, we have the will to do it, and I want to do
it in the most fiscally sound and conservative manner.
{time} 1145
I will tell you when this administration and DOE will prefer a
reactor to do anything. That is when hell freezes [[Page
H5996]] over.
It will not be 2011. If you want to produce tritium to maintain a
national defense structure, you need to start now. Not 2011 when START
II is implemented.
What I am asking my colleagues who are fiscally conservative to do is
look at the numbers. This is not about millions, it is about billions.
The Clinton DOE will never prefer a reactor that we know will work,
that will save the construction costs. The energy costs alone are $10
billion over the life of the reactor.
This is about politics and spending billions of dollars on technology
that is pie in the sky and not going to something we know that works
that can make plutonium that works and create energy and is privately
financed. It is about politics.
The men and women of my district understand tritium. We understand
politics and I hope my colleagues will call the National Taxpayers
Union and talk to Mr. Paul Hewitt. I have. They have information about
millions. That does not consider the billions. They will consider the
billions.
This is politics at its worst. Let's get on with defending America.
2011 is here today. How long does it take to get any technology going?
Never, with an accelerator, because it never produced tritium.
The reactor has produced tritium in this country. We need to start
now because it takes a long time, because we want to be safe and we
should be safe. But we need to start now to give our children a secure
future financially by saving billions of dollars with technology that
works.
And a secure future with the threat of Iran and Iraq is not looking
at will they follow our lead, but will we have the resources to
implement American policy? And not ask them to follow our lead, but we
will be the biggest guy with the biggest stick on the block all the
time. That is what this debate is about.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one thing that my
friend from San Diego mentioned. The Los Alamos Laboratory wants the
accelerator made. The gentleman has been referring to Harold Agnew, an
official of the labs.
Harold Agnew has been out of office for 15 years and he is now a
contractor with one of the companies trying to get the contract. So let
me be clear. The Los Alamos Laboratory, which is an expert in this
area, would like to be involved in this process, as would the States of
Texas, Idaho, Nevada, and Tennessee. And because of this specific
earmark, all of these States are locked out and we have a Swiss-Swedish
firm getting a benefit over American companies.
That is not right. These States, and my labs in Los Alamos, are
experts. Why are we making decisions that scientists should be making?
These are thousands of scientists. Ph.D's at Los Alamos, at DOE, at
Savannah River. They should be making these decisions. And I think a
Swiss-Swedish firm, they may be very competent, I don't think they
should be barred, but what this Markey amendment is doing, and I must
say it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Ensign] and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. My name is
on it. We just want an open process.
We think that this process by which there was a specific mention, an
earmark, is flawed. We are saving the taxpayers money, $50 million. But
let me be absolutely clear. I represent Los Alamos. They are in my
district. They are for the Markey-Ensign amendment because they want
science and scientists to have a chance.
So, my good friend should not mention Harold Agnew who is a good
public servant. But he was 15 years ago. He is a contractor now. Of
course, he has an interest. We respect that.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Would the gentleman tell me what contracting firm Mr. Agnew is
supposed to be working for now?
Mr. RICHARDSON. General Atomics.
Mr. HUNTER. General Atomics is excluded from being able to
participate in this amendment.
I would ask how much time we have remaining, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] to whom we always give plenty of
time.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. With all
due respect, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
Since 1992, the Department of Energy has been working on this
alternate source for producing tritium and they tell us they are 3 to 4
years away from doing that. It is going to cost taxpayers more money.
I want to remind the body that the Department of Energy is the same
agency that the Vice President told us in the National Performance
Review misses 20 percent of its milestones and is 40 percent
inefficient. That means that their estimates could be longer than
expected and overrun in cost.
But if we use the multipurpose reactor for the production of tritium,
it represents a tried and true technology. This technology would also
be the least cost to the American taxpayer and it would guarantee that
we are going to produce tritium on time.
Mr. Chairman, I, along with my other colleagues on the Committee on
National Security, are concerned--but not surprised--about the lack of
progress that the Department of Energy has been making toward this
long-term source of tritium and it is essential if we are going to
maintain our nuclear weapons for nuclear defense.
But we cannot allow our nuclear weapons capability to diminish just
to satisfy an antinuclear coalition in the administration and in the
Department of Energy. We need to do what is right for the American
people and for the national defense.
Time is running out. And we cannot afford to wait on the Department
of Energy to get its act together. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. First of all the
multipurpose reactor, that technology has not been developed as well.
We have never produced with the reactor the amount of tritium that we
are talking about developing today.
Also, the tritium, as far as technologically, has been produced from
an accelerator. This is false when my colleagues say it has not.
Granted, I will admit that the accelerator technology is not as far
along, but we have the time to see whether we can develop this
technology with an accelerator. No question about it. It is
environmentally the safest thing to do.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have the right to close the
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has the
right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Vucanovich-
Ensign amendment. What this bipartisan amendment does is very simple:
It allows the existing search for the best site and the best technology
for the provision of tritium to go forward. The Department of Energy
has been engaged in an evaluation of five different technologies and
five different sites and a decision is expected in late summer or early
autumn.
H.R. 1530 threatens to derail that process. It would add $50 million
to the administration's request for tritium work and would choose a
winning site--Savannah River--and a winning technology--the so-called
triple play reactor proposal led by Ansea, Brown & Boveri. In choosing
a winner,
H.R. 1530 short-circuits [[Page
H5997]] the process of
technology and environmental evaluation that was intended to guarantee
that the taxpayers get a tritium facility that minimizes its nuclear
proliferation potential, is environmentally sound and cost effective.
I am not saying that I know that the ABB proposal is the most
expensive or least attractive or that Savannah River is an inferior
site. The fact is I don't know that. But that is precisely the point:
No one in this body knows which technology, which consortia and which
site offers the best deal for the taxpayer. There is no record of
judgment by impartial experts that we can turn to for guidance because
the experts are still doing their work. There are no hefty hearing
volumes documenting the full and exhaustive review of this billion
dollar deal to explain why we must intervene to stop that impartial
review and pick or own winner.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that
bureaucrats aren't good at picking winners and losers among
technologies; I would suggest that when it comes to choosing winning
technologies, Congress makes bureaucrats look like geniuses.
There is general agreement that we need a new tritium facility. But
let us give our citizens a facility that is the best that their money
can buy. To do that, we need to repudiate a pork-driven decision, we
need to let the selection process go forward to let these technologies
and sites compete. Support good government and a fair process. Vote for
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this. Using the words of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], Massachusetts does not have a
dog in this fight. This is not a battle that I certainly have any
interest in.
My only problem with this whole debate is that after a day of
sanctifying the whole concept of procurement reform just 2 days ago, we
now come back out here on the floor and we allow for a single Member to
earmark a specific technology that does not even exist to be the
exclusive way that we are going to produce one of the most important
defense technologies in our country.
Now, we keep hearing about a 3-in-1 technology. It is good for
plutonium. It is good for electricity. It is good for this. It is good
for that. It sounds like you are listening to an ad for a chopomatic at
3 a.m. in the morning on channel 43.
This technology does not exist. And, in fact, although we are talking
about $50 million out here, the truth is it triggers $6 billion worth
of reactor that has to be built. By the way, a reactor which has never
produced tritium before.
The technology which they are selecting has never, in fact, performed
this task before. Now, you hear the word linear accelerator. What does
that mean? Well, it is just another fancy word for saying atom smasher.
That is what a linear accelerator is.
Right now the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Defense, are evaluating linear accelerators as
opposed to this new reactor which has never been tested with regard to
which is the better way of going to produce tritium in this country.
Now, I do not care which technology they select, but I do know that
this bill should not have $50 million in it for a Swedish firm for a
technology that ultimately triggers $6 billion worth of expenditures
before we have had a technical evaluation. That is what this whole
debate is about.
And the $50 million is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, by
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], by the gentlewoman from Nevada
[Mrs. Vucanovich], and a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans
that want a balanced budget, fairly done, with logical assessment done
of each and every item. This provision violates every one of those
principles.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Idaho the gentleman from [Mr. Crapo].
(Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the committee's
product. We in Idaho are doing some critical research under this
proposal that will help us to develop this program.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Texas panhandle is a long way from
either Savannah River or from Nevada where the accelerator would be
built, but I think it is very important to make these basic points.
We have no choice on tritium. Everyone has agreed with that. And we
need it quickly. Now, this is a gas that deteriorates at a rate of
approximately 5 percent a year. We have built none in this country
since about 1988. And the longer we take, particularly with an unproven
technology, the worse off it is for the security of this country.
I think the key point, however, that I want to make is this. The
committee version advances both options. Currently, the Department of
Energy is only looking at one option and that is an accelerator. They
are not considering in any manner the sort of reactor that would be
considered under this bill.
Now, I will tell my colleagues that in my district we have got a lot
of excess plutonium that is building up as we dismantle weapons that we
are bringing back from Europe. We have got to figure out what to do
with that plutonium and the reactor is one option that we ought to
consider as a way to dispose of that excess material.
The Department of Energy will not even consider it and there are no
other technologies that are even close to being considered at the
current time. The committee bill gives approximately the same amount of
money toward the accelerator as the gentleman's amendment would do, but
it adds to that. It doubles the amount of money because of how
important this gas is and it gives us another option to look at.
We are not bound to any option forever, but it does push forward the
process on both counts so that we can find the best, most economical,
safest way to produce tritium and that can accomplish our other
security goals as well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee position
and in opposition to the Markey amendment which would cut funding for a
new tritium production source by 50 percent. The Markey amendment would
also erect additional barriers not in even the administration's request
to achieving a low-cost, reliable supply of tritium.
Tritium is needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. Because tritium decays at a rapid rate, it
must be regularly replenished. However, the United States currently has
no capacity to produce tritium and therefore a new production source
has been in the works for years.
H.R. 1530 directs the Department of Energy to pursue the lowest cost,
most mature technology to accomplish this mission--and that is a
reactor. Reactor technology has produced all of the tritium currently
used in U.S. nuclear weapons.
The committee also endorsed using reactor technology to burn
plutonium and to generate electricity. The prospect of private sector
financing could also dramatically reduce the cost of the American
taxpayer of this critically important undertaking.
The Markey amendment would cut the funds added by the committee for
future tritium production, and would give the Department of Energy the
final say over which tritium production technology should proceed. We
fear that the Department is headed in the direction of actually
selecting the less mature, more costly accelerator option.
Let us do what's right to most cost-effectively ensure our ability to
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. Let's get on with this
innovative cost-saving approach to producing tritium. The only way to
do this is to support the committee and vote ``no'' on the Markey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
AYES--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra [[Page
H5998]]
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Cardin
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (R
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(House of Representatives - June 15, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H5990-H6021]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Pursuant to House
Resolution 164 and rule XXIII, the chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1530.
{time} 1103
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. [[Page
H5991]]
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on
Wednesday, June 14, 1995, amendment 37 printed in part 2 of House
Report 104-136 offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]
had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in subpart F
of part 1 of the report.
amendment offered by mr. markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 3133:
Page 528, line 17, strike out ``Funds'' and all that
follows through page 529, line 9, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
(1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in section
3101(b), not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for a
project to provide a long-term source of tritium, subject to
paragraph (2).
(2) The amount made available under paragraph (1) may not
be used until such time as the Secretary of Energy has
completed a record of decision on a tritium production
program and congressional hearings have been conducted to
determine the appropriate option, in light of the national
security needs and nonproliferation and environmental
consequences, for establishing a long-term source of tritium.
Page 530, strike out lines 1 through 9.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment being considered right now is a quite
technical one because once the word ``tritium'' is uttered, I can see
minds and attention spans drifting off onto other subjects. But it is a
very important subject, because tritium is a gas which is used in order
to ensure that we can derive the maximum potential from our nuclear
weapons.
It is a critical subject, in fact. It is so critical that this
amendment has been put in order, because it is important that this
Congress and this country select the best way, the most economical way,
the best proliferation resistant way, of producing this very important
gas.
Now, this body and all who listen to it should understand some very
fundamental facts. No. 1, the National Taxpayers Union supports the
Markey-Ensign-Vucanovich-Dellums-Skeen-Richardson amendment. This is
bipartisan, and it is the National Taxpayer Union's blessing having
been placed upon it because they have determined that this is nothing
more than radioactive pork which has been built into this bill. Not
because we do not want or need the tritium, we do. That is agreed upon
by Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative.
What is not agreed upon, however, is that the committee should be
able to select a particular technology and to build from $50 million
more than the Department of Energy wants, than the Department of
Defense wants, than the National Taxpayers Union thinks is necessary.
The decision which has been made is one which runs completely
contrary to the proposition that there should be no specific earmarking
of technology or location, but rather each of these decisions should be
open to full competition amongst all of those who are interested in
providing the best technology for the defense of this country.
That is why we bring this amendment out on the floor. It cuts out $50
million that no one wants and cannot be justified. It is a specific
earmark which benefits a Swedish company trying to get a specific
earmark into this bill for South Carolina. I will have to say a word.
But that is not good policy. This company ABB, the Swedish company,
might as well be called, instead of ABB, just A Big Boondoggle. That is
what ABB stands for. You are voting for $50 million for a Swedish
company for a technology that neither the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, nor the National Taxpayers Union can support.
So we are going to be out here having this debate. It will be
bipartisan. But if you want to find money that you can vote for that is
not justified in this budget, this is it. This cannot be justified on
any basis, either defense, energy, budgetary, or proliferation. It
violates every one of the principles that we are concerned with. But
most of all, it violates the principle against earmarking specific
technologies with extra money that cannot be justified technologically
until the Departments of Energy and Defense have gone through the
process of evaluating them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am glad that the gentleman from
Massachusetts has stated that there is no dispute as to the requirement
for tritium. The ranking member of the full committee has mentioned
during our debate on the ABM treaty that we still, at least with
respect to the Soviet Union, rely on our deterrents, on our strategic
arsenal, our nuclear arsenal, to deter nuclear conflict. Tritium is an
important component of that arsenal, and it deteriorates. The half-life
of tritium is 5\1/2\ years. That means you have to keep making it. So
the Clinton administration agrees with the committee that you have to
keep making tritium, and they themselves put some $50 million into this
program.
The difference is, and my colleague has said you should never have
earmarking of technology, the difference is for political reasons in my
estimation, and this comes from conversations with many people in the
administration, people who are pro-strategic weapons. The
administration has decided already not to build a reactor.
Now, there are several ways to make tritium. The way that we have
used in the past, the reliable, proven method, whereby we have made our
tritium in the past for our strategic weapons, is a reactor, a nuclear
reactor. there have been no invitations from Massachusetts. The
gentleman has mentioned that South Carolina is the place where they
make tritium, have made it, have had reactors, and presumably would
invite reactors in the future. We have got so similar invitation from
Massachusetts to build a nuclear reactor.
But nuclear reactors are the way you make tritium in a reliable
fashion. There is a chance that you can make tritium with an
accelerator, but it is risky, and it is not proven. Let me tell you
that I personally relied on the word and the testimony of arguably the
best authority in this country on the validity or the viability of
reactors versus accelerators, and that is the former head of the Los
Alamos Lab, who was in charge of Los Alamos during a large part of the
accelerator program, who is very, very understanding of the accelerator
program, a person who is on the various commissions, who has been asked
to evaluate this. And let me recite to you the words of Harold Agnew, a
former director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which would get the
accelerator work or a large part of it, and he is writing to the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the other body, and he says
this:
Dear Pete: I have been serving as a member of the Joint
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety. Recently we
were asked to assess the feasibility of using an accelerator
to produce the tritium required for our future nuclear
weapons stockpile. Because the accelerator would presumably
be designed at Los Alamos, I particularly wanted you to have
my thoughts on the issue firsthand.
My concern is that while it is technically feasible, it is
not economically rational. I fear that Los Alamos may come to
rely on a full blown accelerator program to produce tritium
only to be disappointed when the economic realities are
better understood. In these days of severe budgetary
constraints, a program of this magnitude will certainly
receive heavy scrutiny.
Simplified, the reality is that an accelerator producing
tritium would consume about $125 million per year in
electricity . . . while a reactor producing tritium would
produce for other purposes about $175 million per year. . . .
In other words, a reactor makes electricity, an accelerator uses
electricity, and the difference, according to Mr. Agnew, is a
difference of $300 million per year.
He continues:
[[Page
H5992]]
Over a lifetime of 40 years, that's a $12 billion
consideration. It is simply counter intuitive to believe a
difference in energy consumption of this magnitude will be
sustainable. This is particularly true when the cost of
facilities--accelerator or reactor--are roughly the same.
Given a projected capital cost of $3.2 billion for the
accelerator and a declining requirement for tritium, the
tritium imperative is a thin reed upon which to lean.
He concludes, and this is one of the paragraphs that I think is very
critical for this House to consider. He talks about an accelerator
having some value if you used it for other purposes. That is to consume
plutonium when it is hooked up with a reactor. So an accelerator and a
reactor hooked together could do the whole thing. He says:
The accelerator is unique and can totally destroy virtually
all weapons plutonium. It can do so extremely economically
when combined in tandem with a deep burn reactor. The deep
burn reactor using a surplus weapons plutonium as fuel could
consume 90 percent of the plutonium 239 in a once through
cycle. The depleted fuel element with the remaining plutonium
would then be transferred to a subcritical assembly
irradiated with an accelerator. The accelerator would destroy
the remaining plutonium. Because there are large amounts of
electricity produced when the plutonium is destroyed, there
is no cost for the plutonium destruction. In fact, it makes
money. The same assembly would also be able to produce
tritium at the same time and at no additional cost if tritium
is needed.
{time} 1115
The gentleman who cited the taxpayer groups, I wish they had had a
chance to sit down with one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project,
Harold Agnew, the director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and a
gentleman whose colleagues would benefit and profit from an
accelerator, has looked at this thing and has said, listen, if you can
build a triple play reactor, that is, you can build a system that not
only makes tritium but consumes plutonium and makes electricity at the
same time that you can sell, thereby mitigating your costs, why not do
it?
He concludes: ``I could and would get firmly behind a reactor program
with this objective in mind.'' That is, this combination with the
reactor and an accelerator. ``I cannot support the accelerator for the
sole purpose of producing tritium because it is too expensive, its need
too uncertain and there is a better way to provide the requirement
while satisfying the three needs, electricity, plutonium, and tritium
production for the price of one.''
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the
gentleman's argument and the gentleman and I have had an ongoing dialog
on this matter. I understand that the gentleman believes that the
Department of Energy at the end of the day will come out on the side of
the accelerator.
My distinguished colleague from California believes very strongly in
the superiority of the reactor approach. But let me read very briefly
from the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
because I think it addresses the gentleman's concern by placing the
Congress in the loop to make a decision in the event that they disagree
with the Secretary.
I will read very quickly. It says,
The amount made available under paragraph 1 may not be used
until such time as the Secretary of Energy has completed a
record of decision on the tritium production program and
congressional hearings have been conducted to determine the
appropriate option in light of the national security needs
and nonproliferation and environmental consequences for
establishing a long-term source of tritium.
So it provides the opportunity for my distinguished colleague, this
gentleman, and others, to weigh in after the findings have been given
by the Secretary.
Unless the gentleman feels that we are in some way impotent or
incompetent to carry out our responsibilities, this is the way that we
can address the gentleman's concern.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Let me just respond in this way before I yield to other Members. The
administration, in my estimation, has already done the earmarking.
Members of the administration, folks who are inside the administration,
I think have made it fairly clear that they have already decided, this
record of decision is down the road.
They have made the decision at this point to go with the accelerator.
Let me cite to my friend the letter from the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Harold P. Smith, who basically sent us a letter that gave, in
my estimation, the smoking gun.
He says, ``The funding request made by the Department of Energy was
formulated in support of their production strategy,'' that is, an
existing production strategy, ``of primary and backup--light water
reactor.''
Well, if the backup is a light water reactor, what is the existing
primary production strategy? It is an accelerator.
I would say to my friend, I have spent some time on this. I have had
discussions with folks in the administration. The essence of it is,
they do not think it is politically possible in this administration to
come through with what Harold Agnew thinks is a scientifically
meritorious decision, and that is a reactor.
My feeling is, they have already done the earmarking. I think this
letter shows that. There has already been an earmarking by the
administration. And because of that, I think we are going to waste
valuable time, if we wait for them to come down with a paper decision
that merely records a decision they have already made at this time,
when the people that I rely on, and I think the committee justifiably
relies on, like Harold Agnew, who was the director of the facility that
would benefit from an accelerator, I think to go with what we see on
the merits from a scientific way and not wait for this paper decision
to
come down months from now that has already been made. That is the
point I would make to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my first response is that I think it is hyperbole to refer to the
Department of Energy's judgment as an earmark. All they can do is
recommend. We can earmark in legislation. We write the laws.
So it is not earmarking. They may come to an option you do not agree
with, but earmarking is hyperbole.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an important political
principle here. When you know that an agency of the Government, of the
executive branch, is going to come out with what is on the face of it a
decision made on the merits, but you know and you have been told has
already been made and is a political decision, I think it is wrong to
wait and have them utilize this decision that they have already
basically broadcast to us, they telegraphed to us, it is going to be an
accelerator, not for science reasons but for political reasons, to wait
for that to come out months from now where that will then be used as an
argument to try to weight this very important decision, where I think
the scientists like Harold Agnew have already made a very clear and
convincing case. That is my point.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
He has been very generous.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Vucanovich-Ensign amendment. Let me also agree on the importance of
maintaining tritium production in this country and how critical that is
to our national security.
I come from a State that in the interest of national security was
willing to allow bombs to be blown up underneath our ground because we
care so much about national security. So I do not come at this as
somebody who is antinuclear or anything. I am coming here in support of
the amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do.
First of all, we are cutting out $50 million in earmarked spending
that will go to a Swedish company. Second of all, we have enough
tritium to last approximately the year 2011 with current supplies, and
if we recycle those, we can get it out to about the year 2015, 2017. So
we have enough time to be able to research some of the other
options. [[Page
H5993]]
I think there are legitimate differences within the scientific
community on whether a reactor or an accelerator is the best way to go
here. And what I am saying is that we should take that time and
research truly what is in the best interest of national security as
well as with environmental concerns.
Everyone agrees an accelerator is the best for environmental because
it does not produce high-level nuclear waste. It produces low-level
nuclear waste. So we are talking about accelerator technology, clearly,
it is the best from an environmental standpoint.
You also mentioned that when taken into effect, the reactor could
downgrade plutonium and reuse that and that an accelerator needs a
reactor. That is discounting that there is other technology on the
drawing board out there that is possibly developable in the future.
That is using the transmutator. And that would no longer produce the
high-level nuclear waste as well. It would actually recycle a lot of
the nuclear waste that is out there. So there are other options out
there that we can explore.
The point is that we do have some time to explore this without taking
the next few years and using those years just to raise money to build
this reactor. We can actually take the years and develop the technology
that we will need.
The other problem that I have with this is that we have not built a
reactor and the reactor that you are talking about is just as
theoretical as the accelerator is. We have never built a reactor like
this that can produce the tritium in the quantities we need, just like
we have not built the accelerator to produce the tritium in the
quantities we need. We know an accelerator will produce tritium. There
is no question about that. In Los Alamos they have proven that as far
as on the bench there.
The other problem that I have is that we cannot store the nuclear
waste that we are producing at this time. Obviously the whole issue on
Yucca Mountain on a temporary interim nuclear storage facility is
because the people that are producing the nuclear waste all want to
ship it to my State because they cannot house it now. The linear
accelerators are, there is no question, they are proven technology.
They are out there and the x-ray machine is basically a linear
accelerator. They use it with radiation technicians for cancer, and
Stanford has a very large linear accelerator. The linear accelerator
technology is there. It is just a question of applying this technology
to what we need. And I think it is the right thing to do, and I think
this is the right amendment.
I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to support it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment that has been offered by our
colleagues. As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent or
by $50 million a program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and by doing so presumptively directs the Department
of Energy to use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific
technology but to award the contract to begin work on the reactor which
will utilize the ABB combustion engineering concept to be built in
Savannah River, Georgia to a particular contractor. This amendment
eliminates these provisions and ensures that the decisionmaking process
will remain open. That is the critical reason that I have come to the
floor to urge that this amendment be adopted.
Secretary O'Leary noted that the Department of Energy is currently
analyzing the technical, environmental, political, fiscal implications
of this production technology and that, further, the analysis is
nearing completion. As the previous speaker has indicated, the supply
is not the issue. There is at least 15 or perhaps more years of
available supply.
Therefore, it seems to me very, very persuading that we permit the
Department of Energy to continue with this analysis and to come up with
their recommendations.
The second aspect of the amendment, which is critical, is that rather
than forestall the opportunity of Congress to have a critical role in
making this decision, if we do not adopt this amendment, there will be
a preemption of this opportunity by the selection of a contractor
without due consideration of all of the aspects.
Furthermore, we are told that if this amendment is not approved, that
the contractor, by provisions in the bill, will be allowed to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising the funds for this project.
It seems to me, therefore, that this amendment should be passed to
restore the decisionmaking to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to
H.R. 1530
offered by Representatives Ed Markey, Barbara Vucanovich, and John
Ensign.
As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent--or $50
million--the program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and presumptively directs the Department of Energy to
use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific technology to
produce tritium, but to award the contract to begin work on a tritium-
producing reactor that will utilize the ABB combustion engineering
concept and be built in Savannah River, GA to a particular contractor.
The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment eliminates these provisions and,
ensures that the decisionmaking process related to tritium production
will remain open.
WIth respect to
H.R. 1530 directing the Department of Energy to
pursue the ABB combustion engineering concept for tritium production,
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary notes that the Department of Energy is
currently analysing the technical, environmental, political, and fiscal
implications of a range of new tritium production technologies.
Secretary O'Leary also notes that the ongoing departmental analysis,
including a programmatic environmental impact statement, is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Secretary O'Leary further
notes that the analysis in nearing completion and will support the
selection of a preferred technology and site for tritium production.
H.R. 1530 selects the tritium-producing reactor utilizing the ABB
combustion engineering concept and allows the contractor to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising $6 billion in private
financing and concluding multiple power purchase agreements for the
sale of power to be generated. Secretary O'Leary indicates that such a
contract, with its 3-year feasibility study and business plan, will
delay by 3 years the development of a new tritium production source.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign
amendment because it provides the funding level requested by the
Department of Energy and withholds any funding for actual tritium
production until the Department of Energy has completed its analysis
and reached a decision on a tritium production program and, most
importantly, ensures that the Congress will be able to hold hearings on
any such Department of Energy decision.
Because the establishment of a long-term source of tritium touches
upon various national security, nuclear nonproliferation, and
environmental issues, the Congress must play a role in the debate on
tritium production. The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment ensures such
a role for the Congress.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose quickly we need to correct a
couple of things. The gentlewoman from Hawaii should know that the
Savannah River site is in South Carolina. This is not a discussion
about where we will build tritium but how. I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts in recognizing that we in fact do need to build tritium,
and we are going to do it, need to be doing it by 2001, not 2017.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and often has little, if
anything, to show for it in many cases. A perfectly good example of
that, a recent example includes the high level waste repository in
Nevada.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues stated in a news conference
last week in regards to a proposal of the elimination of DOE, the
Department suffers from problems of communication and contracting and
management and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology [[Page
H5994]] and siting has many of the same problems.
This is a very complicated technical issue, but let us try to simplify
it just a little bit.
We know how to make a reactor. We have been doing that now for 30
years. The technology is there. If we go with a triple play reactor, we
know we can privatize the construction of it. In a country that has 5
trillion dollars' worth of cash flow problems, that is important.
We know for a fact that this reactor will burn plutonium and help get
rid of waste. We also know it will produce electricity, which will
help, indeed, cut the cots.
What we absolutely must consider here is that the cost of using an
accelerator, technology that we do not know for sure will work, will be
considerably more expensive, to the tune of about $10 billion. We talk
about $50 million, and this is a $10 billion project, if we do not go
with the triple play reactor.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against the Markey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and has little, if anything,
to show for it in many cases. A recent example of this includes the
high level waste repository in Nevada.
As some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week
regarding the proposed elimination of the DOE: The Department suffers
from problems of communication, contracting, management, and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology and siting has many of the same problems.
I believe the action taken by the House National Security Committee
to authorize funding for a privatized multipurpose reactor technology
is the only logical approach for the success of the next tritium
production mission. This reactor would consume our excess plutonium,
produce tritium and generate electricity. The resale of this
electricity would generate revenues that would directly reduce the
total cost to the taxpayer. The logical siting of such a reactor is the
Savannah River site in South Carolina. The site has been the leader in
tritium production and other related missions for more than 30 years.
The taxpayer has payed billions of dollars over these 30 years building
the tritium infrastructure I speak of. Mr. Chairman, it would not be
prudent to rebuild a new tritium infrastructure elsewhere at an even
higher cost to the taxpayer, just to satisfy the political motives of
DOE.
The action by the committee represents, Mr. Chairman, it represents
sound judgment to reverse the poor decisions DOE has been making for
years and to ensure we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons
stockpile. It is imperative that we continue to produce tritium no
later than the year 2011. If we do not, our nuclear weapons stockpile
will not be maintained at the level necessary to maintain our nuclear
deterrence.
Mr. Chairman, the committee's decision also represents one that will
cost the American taxpayer far less money, and ensure we start
producing tritium no later than the year 2011.
There is a general concern by many that disposing of excess weapons
grade plutonium in this reactor is a proliferation concern. This
concern is unwarranted. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty contains
specific provisions which allow the use of this material in nuclear
reactors for peaceful purposes. Ridding ourselves of excess plutonium
is definitely a peaceful purpose.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we allow the DOE to select an
accelerator to produce this tritium; a decision I believe they have
already made, we run a high degree of risk of not having a nuclear
capability in the year 2011. Assuming it did work, and there is no
evidence that an accelerator of the magnitude required will work, the
lifecycle costs would amount to billions of dollars more than a
multipurpose reactor. I am not prepared, and I am sure many of my
colleagues are not prepared to take that risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity
in yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. Before I go
the arguments, let us define the term ``earmark'' so everyone
understands, who is in this debate or observing this debate, what that
is about.
The way the Congress of the United States earmarks is if it
authorizes and appropriates dollars so it can only go to one place.
Very simple. You do not have to be a brilliant rocket scientist to
understand that you can write a piece of legislation in this
legislative body in such fashion that there is no competition, that it
goes specifically to one place. That is part of this.
Mr. Chairman, last year, as a matter of high principle, after
negotiations with the other body we agreed as a group that we would
move beyond the practice of earmarking, because we felt it so
thoroughly distorted and perverted the legislative process that we need
to be beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically this is the mother of
all earmarks. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who
represents a district in southern California, has a firm that does
reactor business. Whether I agree or disagree with reactor or
accelerator, put that esoteric discussion for a moment off to the side.
We are talking earmarking here.
The gentleman from California could not even get it modified so that
there would be more than one reactor firm in the business, Mr.
Chairman. this is a $14 million earmark to a Swedish firm in one
district, ultimately to the tune of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this approach on substance, because I
have learned from some of my regional colleagues that ``I do not have a
dog in this fight,'' so I can stand back objectively, at arms' length,
and debate this matter with clean hands.
In working with the gentleman from California, back and forth, trying
to figure out whether he and I could reach some accommodation that
would allow the option to open up, so that his district could be
represented in this matter, and this gentleman, who was raising broader
issues that I will discuss a little later in my presentation, any
effort that we had to try to dialog on this matter was resisted. The
Committee on Rules did not even allow the gentleman on that side of the
aisle to offer an amendment to open up competition just on the reactor
side.
Mr. Chairman, we understand it has been stated that somewhere down
the road, this is supposed to come down the pike in November from the
Secretary of Energy, someone briefed somebody in the Congress and said
``We do not think it is going to be a reactor, we think it is going to
be the accelerator.'' So suddenly there was a rush to judgment before
we could hear from informed scientific, knowledgeable sources what are
the options that are available which would still allow us to exercise
our responsibilities to agree or disagree.
Apparently someone said ``Wait a minute, let us not wait until the
Secretary gives us this informed judgment. Let us jump the gun. We are
legislators. We are in control of the process.''
So what happened? Earmark, Mr. Chairman, the mother of all earmarks,
$14 million to a Swedish firm to the tune ultimately of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is an obligation of the
American taxpayer to tens of millions of dollars and potentially, down
the pike, it could even achieve billions.
On that basis it ought to be rejected, just on the integrity of the
process itself, having nothing to do with the substantive issues like
nonproliferation and these kinds of things, just the fact that we ought
to reject that approach to how we do our business.
We talk here about clean hands and fair play and openness and above
board. This is inappropriate. With this gentleman in the last Congress,
when I stood as chairman of the former Committee on Armed Services, we
stood up publicly and said ``We will resist earmarking.'' We tried to
legislate in the authorizing process to end that, because all of us in
here at one time or another have been burned by the process of
earmarking.
Our dignity and our self-respect and our integrity as legislators
dictate that we do not go down this road, Mr. Chairman. It may be right
at the end of the day, but let it be right because the process led us
there, not because we exploited or manipulated it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be rejected on that basis alone.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
[[Page
H5995]]
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to say that this
authorization defense bill does not earmark where we produce tritium.
It does imply how we should produce tritium, and that is because the
Department of Energy has made up their mind that they want to use a
faulty process in the accelerator that may not let us have the tritium
we need to have a nuclear proliferation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the report language
specifically refers to location. Everyone in here, and I would say,
sir, we may disagree politically, but I choose not to insult the
gentleman's intelligence. I hope he does not choose to insult mine.
I have been on the Committee on Armed Services for 20-some-years. I
think that I have enough experience to know an earmark when I see one.
This is in the report. We all understand it. I would tell the gentleman
to ask the gentleman standing next to him. He knows it is an earmark,
because his reactor company has been left out of the process.
I am 59 years old and do not have my glasses, so it is a little
difficult to read here, but let me just refer the gentleman to page 305
of the report dealing with section 3133, tritium production, and about
a half of the way down the page, with the paragraph starting ``On March
1, 1995,'' there the gentleman will see the earmark.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the
distinguished gentleman from California, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me mention what the gentleman mentioned first, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] mentioned. That was
technological earmarking.
There is probably no bill that is a perfect bill, but my objection to
the idea of having this record of decision come down on the technology
is, to my colleague, and he is a realist and I am a realist, is it is
politically impossible, in my estimation, for the Clinton
administration to come down on behalf of anything except an
accelerator. I think that is what they feel is politically doable, and
even though everybody agrees we have to build tritium, they are non-
nuclear enough to say that we do not want to be building it with a
reactor.
I think the gentleman would be just as insulted by a record of
decision that comes down this fall that will supposedly be based on
scientific merit, but in fact it will not be based on scientific merit.
It will be based on the decision that at least is implied as having
already been made by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Smith, in
his letter, where he says ``Our program is to go with what is,'' and I
am paraphrasing, ``the lead technology,'' and then there is a backup
technology, which is the reactor, implying obviously the lead
technology is an accelerator.
Of course I want to have my people participate and have a chance to
participate in any work that is done, but I think there is an
overriding goal here that in my estimation is very compelling. That is
to continue to produce tritium, to do it in a reliable way, and I think
everyone would agree that the only reliable way we have done it in
large quantities is with a reactor.
Last, all of these arguments have been made about how scientifically
we can do this with an accelerator. The director of the laboratory that
would benefit from the accelerator said these words: ``I cannot support
the accelerator for the sole purposes of producing tritium because it
is too expensive, too uncertain, and there is a better way to provide
for the requirement while satisfying 3 needs,'' and that is
electricity, tritium, plutonium.
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman has made that point, Mr. Chairman. It is a
little redundant.
Mr. HUNTER. My point is there is just as bad earmarking on the part
of the administration, earmarking technology that flies in the face of
what the scientists say is needed.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, the bill reads
``$14 billion shall be made available to private industry to begin
implementation of the private advertised multi-purpose reactor program
plan submitted by the Department of Energy,'' et cetera, et cetera, to
the Department.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentleman's major assertion, the
amendment provides the opportunity for the Congress of the United
States to weigh in. This is a triumvirate form of government. The
executive branch will make an option. The gentleman may disagree with
it, but the gentleman and I together can hold hearings, we can make
judgments, we can make determinations, we can legislate in this area. I
am simply saying when we read that and we read the report language, it
is an earmark.
Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying, A, the Department of
Defense opposes this provision in the bill. The Department of Energy
opposes this provision in the bill. The Arms Control Agency opposes
this provision in the bill. Why does it? It opposes it because part of
our nonproliferation strategy has been that we would not breach the
firewall between civilian and commercial use of nuclear power.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, an important part of our nonproliferation strategy is
that we would not breach the firewall that exists between commercial
and civilian use of nuclear power and military use of nuclear power for
the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. That is the moral high
ground upon which we stand. That is the moral high ground that allows
us to challenge North Korea and it allows us to challenge the Iranians:
Do not breach that firewall.
How noble are we, then, if we embrace this approach in this bill,
multipurpose reactor? It speaks to breaking that firewall. At that
point, where is the high ground that allows us to say to the North
Koreans, or to the Iranians, ``You are doing a bad thing?'' All they
have to do is turn around and say ``Do as you say, don't do as you
do,'' because this is exactly what we are doing.
This is too precious for our children, too precious for the future,
for us to be violating this incredible approach to nonproliferation.
That is our fundamental strategy. It is for those and many other
reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I argue that my colleagues support the
Markey amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair tell us how much time we
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 6
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would remark, the gentleman mentioned that a number
of authorities in the Clinton administration are against this approach.
Let me just say that in my estimation, the guy who was the leading
authority on the validity of reactors versus accelerators endorses this
approach, and the last of his letter says ``With respect to an
accelerator, it is too uncertain, and there is a better way for the
requirement, while satisfying three needs for the price of one.'' That
is, the leading authority, in my estimation, on this technology
endorses the idea of a triple play.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most important debates that
I have followed in Congress, because I am from South Carolina, and the
men and women of the Savannah River site have for the last 40 to 50
years produced tritium by reactor in my district to help win the cold
war. We want to continue to do it for the country, not because I am
from South Carolina, but because we have the infrastructure, we have
the community commitment, we have the will to do it, and I want to do
it in the most fiscally sound and conservative manner.
{time} 1145
I will tell you when this administration and DOE will prefer a
reactor to do anything. That is when hell freezes [[Page
H5996]] over.
It will not be 2011. If you want to produce tritium to maintain a
national defense structure, you need to start now. Not 2011 when START
II is implemented.
What I am asking my colleagues who are fiscally conservative to do is
look at the numbers. This is not about millions, it is about billions.
The Clinton DOE will never prefer a reactor that we know will work,
that will save the construction costs. The energy costs alone are $10
billion over the life of the reactor.
This is about politics and spending billions of dollars on technology
that is pie in the sky and not going to something we know that works
that can make plutonium that works and create energy and is privately
financed. It is about politics.
The men and women of my district understand tritium. We understand
politics and I hope my colleagues will call the National Taxpayers
Union and talk to Mr. Paul Hewitt. I have. They have information about
millions. That does not consider the billions. They will consider the
billions.
This is politics at its worst. Let's get on with defending America.
2011 is here today. How long does it take to get any technology going?
Never, with an accelerator, because it never produced tritium.
The reactor has produced tritium in this country. We need to start
now because it takes a long time, because we want to be safe and we
should be safe. But we need to start now to give our children a secure
future financially by saving billions of dollars with technology that
works.
And a secure future with the threat of Iran and Iraq is not looking
at will they follow our lead, but will we have the resources to
implement American policy? And not ask them to follow our lead, but we
will be the biggest guy with the biggest stick on the block all the
time. That is what this debate is about.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one thing that my
friend from San Diego mentioned. The Los Alamos Laboratory wants the
accelerator made. The gentleman has been referring to Harold Agnew, an
official of the labs.
Harold Agnew has been out of office for 15 years and he is now a
contractor with one of the companies trying to get the contract. So let
me be clear. The Los Alamos Laboratory, which is an expert in this
area, would like to be involved in this process, as would the States of
Texas, Idaho, Nevada, and Tennessee. And because of this specific
earmark, all of these States are locked out and we have a Swiss-Swedish
firm getting a benefit over American companies.
That is not right. These States, and my labs in Los Alamos, are
experts. Why are we making decisions that scientists should be making?
These are thousands of scientists. Ph.D's at Los Alamos, at DOE, at
Savannah River. They should be making these decisions. And I think a
Swiss-Swedish firm, they may be very competent, I don't think they
should be barred, but what this Markey amendment is doing, and I must
say it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Ensign] and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. My name is
on it. We just want an open process.
We think that this process by which there was a specific mention, an
earmark, is flawed. We are saving the taxpayers money, $50 million. But
let me be absolutely clear. I represent Los Alamos. They are in my
district. They are for the Markey-Ensign amendment because they want
science and scientists to have a chance.
So, my good friend should not mention Harold Agnew who is a good
public servant. But he was 15 years ago. He is a contractor now. Of
course, he has an interest. We respect that.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Would the gentleman tell me what contracting firm Mr. Agnew is
supposed to be working for now?
Mr. RICHARDSON. General Atomics.
Mr. HUNTER. General Atomics is excluded from being able to
participate in this amendment.
I would ask how much time we have remaining, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] to whom we always give plenty of
time.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. With all
due respect, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
Since 1992, the Department of Energy has been working on this
alternate source for producing tritium and they tell us they are 3 to 4
years away from doing that. It is going to cost taxpayers more money.
I want to remind the body that the Department of Energy is the same
agency that the Vice President told us in the National Performance
Review misses 20 percent of its milestones and is 40 percent
inefficient. That means that their estimates could be longer than
expected and overrun in cost.
But if we use the multipurpose reactor for the production of tritium,
it represents a tried and true technology. This technology would also
be the least cost to the American taxpayer and it would guarantee that
we are going to produce tritium on time.
Mr. Chairman, I, along with my other colleagues on the Committee on
National Security, are concerned--but not surprised--about the lack of
progress that the Department of Energy has been making toward this
long-term source of tritium and it is essential if we are going to
maintain our nuclear weapons for nuclear defense.
But we cannot allow our nuclear weapons capability to diminish just
to satisfy an antinuclear coalition in the administration and in the
Department of Energy. We need to do what is right for the American
people and for the national defense.
Time is running out. And we cannot afford to wait on the Department
of Energy to get its act together. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. First of all the
multipurpose reactor, that technology has not been developed as well.
We have never produced with the reactor the amount of tritium that we
are talking about developing today.
Also, the tritium, as far as technologically, has been produced from
an accelerator. This is false when my colleagues say it has not.
Granted, I will admit that the accelerator technology is not as far
along, but we have the time to see whether we can develop this
technology with an accelerator. No question about it. It is
environmentally the safest thing to do.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have the right to close the
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has the
right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Vucanovich-
Ensign amendment. What this bipartisan amendment does is very simple:
It allows the existing search for the best site and the best technology
for the provision of tritium to go forward. The Department of Energy
has been engaged in an evaluation of five different technologies and
five different sites and a decision is expected in late summer or early
autumn.
H.R. 1530 threatens to derail that process. It would add $50 million
to the administration's request for tritium work and would choose a
winning site--Savannah River--and a winning technology--the so-called
triple play reactor proposal led by Ansea, Brown & Boveri. In choosing
a winner,
H.R. 1530 short-circuits [[Page
H5997]] the process of
technology and environmental evaluation that was intended to guarantee
that the taxpayers get a tritium facility that minimizes its nuclear
proliferation potential, is environmentally sound and cost effective.
I am not saying that I know that the ABB proposal is the most
expensive or least attractive or that Savannah River is an inferior
site. The fact is I don't know that. But that is precisely the point:
No one in this body knows which technology, which consortia and which
site offers the best deal for the taxpayer. There is no record of
judgment by impartial experts that we can turn to for guidance because
the experts are still doing their work. There are no hefty hearing
volumes documenting the full and exhaustive review of this billion
dollar deal to explain why we must intervene to stop that impartial
review and pick or own winner.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that
bureaucrats aren't good at picking winners and losers among
technologies; I would suggest that when it comes to choosing winning
technologies, Congress makes bureaucrats look like geniuses.
There is general agreement that we need a new tritium facility. But
let us give our citizens a facility that is the best that their money
can buy. To do that, we need to repudiate a pork-driven decision, we
need to let the selection process go forward to let these technologies
and sites compete. Support good government and a fair process. Vote for
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this. Using the words of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], Massachusetts does not have a
dog in this fight. This is not a battle that I certainly have any
interest in.
My only problem with this whole debate is that after a day of
sanctifying the whole concept of procurement reform just 2 days ago, we
now come back out here on the floor and we allow for a single Member to
earmark a specific technology that does not even exist to be the
exclusive way that we are going to produce one of the most important
defense technologies in our country.
Now, we keep hearing about a 3-in-1 technology. It is good for
plutonium. It is good for electricity. It is good for this. It is good
for that. It sounds like you are listening to an ad for a chopomatic at
3 a.m. in the morning on channel 43.
This technology does not exist. And, in fact, although we are talking
about $50 million out here, the truth is it triggers $6 billion worth
of reactor that has to be built. By the way, a reactor which has never
produced tritium before.
The technology which they are selecting has never, in fact, performed
this task before. Now, you hear the word linear accelerator. What does
that mean? Well, it is just another fancy word for saying atom smasher.
That is what a linear accelerator is.
Right now the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Defense, are evaluating linear accelerators as
opposed to this new reactor which has never been tested with regard to
which is the better way of going to produce tritium in this country.
Now, I do not care which technology they select, but I do know that
this bill should not have $50 million in it for a Swedish firm for a
technology that ultimately triggers $6 billion worth of expenditures
before we have had a technical evaluation. That is what this whole
debate is about.
And the $50 million is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, by
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], by the gentlewoman from Nevada
[Mrs. Vucanovich], and a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans
that want a balanced budget, fairly done, with logical assessment done
of each and every item. This provision violates every one of those
principles.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Idaho the gentleman from [Mr. Crapo].
(Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the committee's
product. We in Idaho are doing some critical research under this
proposal that will help us to develop this program.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Texas panhandle is a long way from
either Savannah River or from Nevada where the accelerator would be
built, but I think it is very important to make these basic points.
We have no choice on tritium. Everyone has agreed with that. And we
need it quickly. Now, this is a gas that deteriorates at a rate of
approximately 5 percent a year. We have built none in this country
since about 1988. And the longer we take, particularly with an unproven
technology, the worse off it is for the security of this country.
I think the key point, however, that I want to make is this. The
committee version advances both options. Currently, the Department of
Energy is only looking at one option and that is an accelerator. They
are not considering in any manner the sort of reactor that would be
considered under this bill.
Now, I will tell my colleagues that in my district we have got a lot
of excess plutonium that is building up as we dismantle weapons that we
are bringing back from Europe. We have got to figure out what to do
with that plutonium and the reactor is one option that we ought to
consider as a way to dispose of that excess material.
The Department of Energy will not even consider it and there are no
other technologies that are even close to being considered at the
current time. The committee bill gives approximately the same amount of
money toward the accelerator as the gentleman's amendment would do, but
it adds to that. It doubles the amount of money because of how
important this gas is and it gives us another option to look at.
We are not bound to any option forever, but it does push forward the
process on both counts so that we can find the best, most economical,
safest way to produce tritium and that can accomplish our other
security goals as well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee position
and in opposition to the Markey amendment which would cut funding for a
new tritium production source by 50 percent. The Markey amendment would
also erect additional barriers not in even the administration's request
to achieving a low-cost, reliable supply of tritium.
Tritium is needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. Because tritium decays at a rapid rate, it
must be regularly replenished. However, the United States currently has
no capacity to produce tritium and therefore a new production source
has been in the works for years.
H.R. 1530 directs the Department of Energy to pursue the lowest cost,
most mature technology to accomplish this mission--and that is a
reactor. Reactor technology has produced all of the tritium currently
used in U.S. nuclear weapons.
The committee also endorsed using reactor technology to burn
plutonium and to generate electricity. The prospect of private sector
financing could also dramatically reduce the cost of the American
taxpayer of this critically important undertaking.
The Markey amendment would cut the funds added by the committee for
future tritium production, and would give the Department of Energy the
final say over which tritium production technology should proceed. We
fear that the Department is headed in the direction of actually
selecting the less mature, more costly accelerator option.
Let us do what's right to most cost-effectively ensure our ability to
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. Let's get on with this
innovative cost-saving approach to producing tritium. The only way to
do this is to support the committee and vote ``no'' on the Markey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
AYES--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra [[Page
H5998]]
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Cardin
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Ki
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
(House of Representatives - June 15, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H5990-H6021]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Pursuant to House
Resolution 164 and rule XXIII, the chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1530.
{time} 1103
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 1530) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. [[Page
H5991]]
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on
Wednesday, June 14, 1995, amendment 37 printed in part 2 of House
Report 104-136 offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]
had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in subpart F
of part 1 of the report.
amendment offered by mr. markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: In section 3133:
Page 528, line 17, strike out ``Funds'' and all that
follows through page 529, line 9, and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
(1) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in section
3101(b), not more than $50,000,000 shall be available for a
project to provide a long-term source of tritium, subject to
paragraph (2).
(2) The amount made available under paragraph (1) may not
be used until such time as the Secretary of Energy has
completed a record of decision on a tritium production
program and congressional hearings have been conducted to
determine the appropriate option, in light of the national
security needs and nonproliferation and environmental
consequences, for establishing a long-term source of tritium.
Page 530, strike out lines 1 through 9.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment being considered right now is a quite
technical one because once the word ``tritium'' is uttered, I can see
minds and attention spans drifting off onto other subjects. But it is a
very important subject, because tritium is a gas which is used in order
to ensure that we can derive the maximum potential from our nuclear
weapons.
It is a critical subject, in fact. It is so critical that this
amendment has been put in order, because it is important that this
Congress and this country select the best way, the most economical way,
the best proliferation resistant way, of producing this very important
gas.
Now, this body and all who listen to it should understand some very
fundamental facts. No. 1, the National Taxpayers Union supports the
Markey-Ensign-Vucanovich-Dellums-Skeen-Richardson amendment. This is
bipartisan, and it is the National Taxpayer Union's blessing having
been placed upon it because they have determined that this is nothing
more than radioactive pork which has been built into this bill. Not
because we do not want or need the tritium, we do. That is agreed upon
by Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative.
What is not agreed upon, however, is that the committee should be
able to select a particular technology and to build from $50 million
more than the Department of Energy wants, than the Department of
Defense wants, than the National Taxpayers Union thinks is necessary.
The decision which has been made is one which runs completely
contrary to the proposition that there should be no specific earmarking
of technology or location, but rather each of these decisions should be
open to full competition amongst all of those who are interested in
providing the best technology for the defense of this country.
That is why we bring this amendment out on the floor. It cuts out $50
million that no one wants and cannot be justified. It is a specific
earmark which benefits a Swedish company trying to get a specific
earmark into this bill for South Carolina. I will have to say a word.
But that is not good policy. This company ABB, the Swedish company,
might as well be called, instead of ABB, just A Big Boondoggle. That is
what ABB stands for. You are voting for $50 million for a Swedish
company for a technology that neither the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, nor the National Taxpayers Union can support.
So we are going to be out here having this debate. It will be
bipartisan. But if you want to find money that you can vote for that is
not justified in this budget, this is it. This cannot be justified on
any basis, either defense, energy, budgetary, or proliferation. It
violates every one of the principles that we are concerned with. But
most of all, it violates the principle against earmarking specific
technologies with extra money that cannot be justified technologically
until the Departments of Energy and Defense have gone through the
process of evaluating them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am glad that the gentleman from
Massachusetts has stated that there is no dispute as to the requirement
for tritium. The ranking member of the full committee has mentioned
during our debate on the ABM treaty that we still, at least with
respect to the Soviet Union, rely on our deterrents, on our strategic
arsenal, our nuclear arsenal, to deter nuclear conflict. Tritium is an
important component of that arsenal, and it deteriorates. The half-life
of tritium is 5\1/2\ years. That means you have to keep making it. So
the Clinton administration agrees with the committee that you have to
keep making tritium, and they themselves put some $50 million into this
program.
The difference is, and my colleague has said you should never have
earmarking of technology, the difference is for political reasons in my
estimation, and this comes from conversations with many people in the
administration, people who are pro-strategic weapons. The
administration has decided already not to build a reactor.
Now, there are several ways to make tritium. The way that we have
used in the past, the reliable, proven method, whereby we have made our
tritium in the past for our strategic weapons, is a reactor, a nuclear
reactor. there have been no invitations from Massachusetts. The
gentleman has mentioned that South Carolina is the place where they
make tritium, have made it, have had reactors, and presumably would
invite reactors in the future. We have got so similar invitation from
Massachusetts to build a nuclear reactor.
But nuclear reactors are the way you make tritium in a reliable
fashion. There is a chance that you can make tritium with an
accelerator, but it is risky, and it is not proven. Let me tell you
that I personally relied on the word and the testimony of arguably the
best authority in this country on the validity or the viability of
reactors versus accelerators, and that is the former head of the Los
Alamos Lab, who was in charge of Los Alamos during a large part of the
accelerator program, who is very, very understanding of the accelerator
program, a person who is on the various commissions, who has been asked
to evaluate this. And let me recite to you the words of Harold Agnew, a
former director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which would get the
accelerator work or a large part of it, and he is writing to the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the other body, and he says
this:
Dear Pete: I have been serving as a member of the Joint
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety. Recently we
were asked to assess the feasibility of using an accelerator
to produce the tritium required for our future nuclear
weapons stockpile. Because the accelerator would presumably
be designed at Los Alamos, I particularly wanted you to have
my thoughts on the issue firsthand.
My concern is that while it is technically feasible, it is
not economically rational. I fear that Los Alamos may come to
rely on a full blown accelerator program to produce tritium
only to be disappointed when the economic realities are
better understood. In these days of severe budgetary
constraints, a program of this magnitude will certainly
receive heavy scrutiny.
Simplified, the reality is that an accelerator producing
tritium would consume about $125 million per year in
electricity . . . while a reactor producing tritium would
produce for other purposes about $175 million per year. . . .
In other words, a reactor makes electricity, an accelerator uses
electricity, and the difference, according to Mr. Agnew, is a
difference of $300 million per year.
He continues:
[[Page
H5992]]
Over a lifetime of 40 years, that's a $12 billion
consideration. It is simply counter intuitive to believe a
difference in energy consumption of this magnitude will be
sustainable. This is particularly true when the cost of
facilities--accelerator or reactor--are roughly the same.
Given a projected capital cost of $3.2 billion for the
accelerator and a declining requirement for tritium, the
tritium imperative is a thin reed upon which to lean.
He concludes, and this is one of the paragraphs that I think is very
critical for this House to consider. He talks about an accelerator
having some value if you used it for other purposes. That is to consume
plutonium when it is hooked up with a reactor. So an accelerator and a
reactor hooked together could do the whole thing. He says:
The accelerator is unique and can totally destroy virtually
all weapons plutonium. It can do so extremely economically
when combined in tandem with a deep burn reactor. The deep
burn reactor using a surplus weapons plutonium as fuel could
consume 90 percent of the plutonium 239 in a once through
cycle. The depleted fuel element with the remaining plutonium
would then be transferred to a subcritical assembly
irradiated with an accelerator. The accelerator would destroy
the remaining plutonium. Because there are large amounts of
electricity produced when the plutonium is destroyed, there
is no cost for the plutonium destruction. In fact, it makes
money. The same assembly would also be able to produce
tritium at the same time and at no additional cost if tritium
is needed.
{time} 1115
The gentleman who cited the taxpayer groups, I wish they had had a
chance to sit down with one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project,
Harold Agnew, the director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and a
gentleman whose colleagues would benefit and profit from an
accelerator, has looked at this thing and has said, listen, if you can
build a triple play reactor, that is, you can build a system that not
only makes tritium but consumes plutonium and makes electricity at the
same time that you can sell, thereby mitigating your costs, why not do
it?
He concludes: ``I could and would get firmly behind a reactor program
with this objective in mind.'' That is, this combination with the
reactor and an accelerator. ``I cannot support the accelerator for the
sole purpose of producing tritium because it is too expensive, its need
too uncertain and there is a better way to provide the requirement
while satisfying the three needs, electricity, plutonium, and tritium
production for the price of one.''
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the
gentleman's argument and the gentleman and I have had an ongoing dialog
on this matter. I understand that the gentleman believes that the
Department of Energy at the end of the day will come out on the side of
the accelerator.
My distinguished colleague from California believes very strongly in
the superiority of the reactor approach. But let me read very briefly
from the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
because I think it addresses the gentleman's concern by placing the
Congress in the loop to make a decision in the event that they disagree
with the Secretary.
I will read very quickly. It says,
The amount made available under paragraph 1 may not be used
until such time as the Secretary of Energy has completed a
record of decision on the tritium production program and
congressional hearings have been conducted to determine the
appropriate option in light of the national security needs
and nonproliferation and environmental consequences for
establishing a long-term source of tritium.
So it provides the opportunity for my distinguished colleague, this
gentleman, and others, to weigh in after the findings have been given
by the Secretary.
Unless the gentleman feels that we are in some way impotent or
incompetent to carry out our responsibilities, this is the way that we
can address the gentleman's concern.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Let me just respond in this way before I yield to other Members. The
administration, in my estimation, has already done the earmarking.
Members of the administration, folks who are inside the administration,
I think have made it fairly clear that they have already decided, this
record of decision is down the road.
They have made the decision at this point to go with the accelerator.
Let me cite to my friend the letter from the Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Harold P. Smith, who basically sent us a letter that gave, in
my estimation, the smoking gun.
He says, ``The funding request made by the Department of Energy was
formulated in support of their production strategy,'' that is, an
existing production strategy, ``of primary and backup--light water
reactor.''
Well, if the backup is a light water reactor, what is the existing
primary production strategy? It is an accelerator.
I would say to my friend, I have spent some time on this. I have had
discussions with folks in the administration. The essence of it is,
they do not think it is politically possible in this administration to
come through with what Harold Agnew thinks is a scientifically
meritorious decision, and that is a reactor.
My feeling is, they have already done the earmarking. I think this
letter shows that. There has already been an earmarking by the
administration. And because of that, I think we are going to waste
valuable time, if we wait for them to come down with a paper decision
that merely records a decision they have already made at this time,
when the people that I rely on, and I think the committee justifiably
relies on, like Harold Agnew, who was the director of the facility that
would benefit from an accelerator, I think to go with what we see on
the merits from a scientific way and not wait for this paper decision
to
come down months from now that has already been made. That is the
point I would make to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my first response is that I think it is hyperbole to refer to the
Department of Energy's judgment as an earmark. All they can do is
recommend. We can earmark in legislation. We write the laws.
So it is not earmarking. They may come to an option you do not agree
with, but earmarking is hyperbole.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an important political
principle here. When you know that an agency of the Government, of the
executive branch, is going to come out with what is on the face of it a
decision made on the merits, but you know and you have been told has
already been made and is a political decision, I think it is wrong to
wait and have them utilize this decision that they have already
basically broadcast to us, they telegraphed to us, it is going to be an
accelerator, not for science reasons but for political reasons, to wait
for that to come out months from now where that will then be used as an
argument to try to weight this very important decision, where I think
the scientists like Harold Agnew have already made a very clear and
convincing case. That is my point.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
He has been very generous.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Vucanovich-Ensign amendment. Let me also agree on the importance of
maintaining tritium production in this country and how critical that is
to our national security.
I come from a State that in the interest of national security was
willing to allow bombs to be blown up underneath our ground because we
care so much about national security. So I do not come at this as
somebody who is antinuclear or anything. I am coming here in support of
the amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do.
First of all, we are cutting out $50 million in earmarked spending
that will go to a Swedish company. Second of all, we have enough
tritium to last approximately the year 2011 with current supplies, and
if we recycle those, we can get it out to about the year 2015, 2017. So
we have enough time to be able to research some of the other
options. [[Page
H5993]]
I think there are legitimate differences within the scientific
community on whether a reactor or an accelerator is the best way to go
here. And what I am saying is that we should take that time and
research truly what is in the best interest of national security as
well as with environmental concerns.
Everyone agrees an accelerator is the best for environmental because
it does not produce high-level nuclear waste. It produces low-level
nuclear waste. So we are talking about accelerator technology, clearly,
it is the best from an environmental standpoint.
You also mentioned that when taken into effect, the reactor could
downgrade plutonium and reuse that and that an accelerator needs a
reactor. That is discounting that there is other technology on the
drawing board out there that is possibly developable in the future.
That is using the transmutator. And that would no longer produce the
high-level nuclear waste as well. It would actually recycle a lot of
the nuclear waste that is out there. So there are other options out
there that we can explore.
The point is that we do have some time to explore this without taking
the next few years and using those years just to raise money to build
this reactor. We can actually take the years and develop the technology
that we will need.
The other problem that I have with this is that we have not built a
reactor and the reactor that you are talking about is just as
theoretical as the accelerator is. We have never built a reactor like
this that can produce the tritium in the quantities we need, just like
we have not built the accelerator to produce the tritium in the
quantities we need. We know an accelerator will produce tritium. There
is no question about that. In Los Alamos they have proven that as far
as on the bench there.
The other problem that I have is that we cannot store the nuclear
waste that we are producing at this time. Obviously the whole issue on
Yucca Mountain on a temporary interim nuclear storage facility is
because the people that are producing the nuclear waste all want to
ship it to my State because they cannot house it now. The linear
accelerators are, there is no question, they are proven technology.
They are out there and the x-ray machine is basically a linear
accelerator. They use it with radiation technicians for cancer, and
Stanford has a very large linear accelerator. The linear accelerator
technology is there. It is just a question of applying this technology
to what we need. And I think it is the right thing to do, and I think
this is the right amendment.
I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to support it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment that has been offered by our
colleagues. As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent or
by $50 million a program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and by doing so presumptively directs the Department
of Energy to use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific
technology but to award the contract to begin work on the reactor which
will utilize the ABB combustion engineering concept to be built in
Savannah River, Georgia to a particular contractor. This amendment
eliminates these provisions and ensures that the decisionmaking process
will remain open. That is the critical reason that I have come to the
floor to urge that this amendment be adopted.
Secretary O'Leary noted that the Department of Energy is currently
analyzing the technical, environmental, political, fiscal implications
of this production technology and that, further, the analysis is
nearing completion. As the previous speaker has indicated, the supply
is not the issue. There is at least 15 or perhaps more years of
available supply.
Therefore, it seems to me very, very persuading that we permit the
Department of Energy to continue with this analysis and to come up with
their recommendations.
The second aspect of the amendment, which is critical, is that rather
than forestall the opportunity of Congress to have a critical role in
making this decision, if we do not adopt this amendment, there will be
a preemption of this opportunity by the selection of a contractor
without due consideration of all of the aspects.
Furthermore, we are told that if this amendment is not approved, that
the contractor, by provisions in the bill, will be allowed to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising the funds for this project.
It seems to me, therefore, that this amendment should be passed to
restore the decisionmaking to the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to
H.R. 1530
offered by Representatives Ed Markey, Barbara Vucanovich, and John
Ensign.
As currently written,
H.R. 1530 increases by 100 percent--or $50
million--the program in the Department of Energy to develop a new
source of tritium, a radioactive gas used to enhance the power of
nuclear warheads and presumptively directs the Department of Energy to
use the additional funds to not only pursue a specific technology to
produce tritium, but to award the contract to begin work on a tritium-
producing reactor that will utilize the ABB combustion engineering
concept and be built in Savannah River, GA to a particular contractor.
The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment eliminates these provisions and,
ensures that the decisionmaking process related to tritium production
will remain open.
WIth respect to
H.R. 1530 directing the Department of Energy to
pursue the ABB combustion engineering concept for tritium production,
Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary notes that the Department of Energy is
currently analysing the technical, environmental, political, and fiscal
implications of a range of new tritium production technologies.
Secretary O'Leary also notes that the ongoing departmental analysis,
including a programmatic environmental impact statement, is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Secretary O'Leary further
notes that the analysis in nearing completion and will support the
selection of a preferred technology and site for tritium production.
H.R. 1530 selects the tritium-producing reactor utilizing the ABB
combustion engineering concept and allows the contractor to spend 3
years to study the feasibility of raising $6 billion in private
financing and concluding multiple power purchase agreements for the
sale of power to be generated. Secretary O'Leary indicates that such a
contract, with its 3-year feasibility study and business plan, will
delay by 3 years the development of a new tritium production source.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign
amendment because it provides the funding level requested by the
Department of Energy and withholds any funding for actual tritium
production until the Department of Energy has completed its analysis
and reached a decision on a tritium production program and, most
importantly, ensures that the Congress will be able to hold hearings on
any such Department of Energy decision.
Because the establishment of a long-term source of tritium touches
upon various national security, nuclear nonproliferation, and
environmental issues, the Congress must play a role in the debate on
tritium production. The Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign amendment ensures such
a role for the Congress.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
(Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose quickly we need to correct a
couple of things. The gentlewoman from Hawaii should know that the
Savannah River site is in South Carolina. This is not a discussion
about where we will build tritium but how. I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts in recognizing that we in fact do need to build tritium,
and we are going to do it, need to be doing it by 2001, not 2017.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and often has little, if
anything, to show for it in many cases. A perfectly good example of
that, a recent example includes the high level waste repository in
Nevada.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues stated in a news conference
last week in regards to a proposal of the elimination of DOE, the
Department suffers from problems of communication and contracting and
management and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology [[Page
H5994]] and siting has many of the same problems.
This is a very complicated technical issue, but let us try to simplify
it just a little bit.
We know how to make a reactor. We have been doing that now for 30
years. The technology is there. If we go with a triple play reactor, we
know we can privatize the construction of it. In a country that has 5
trillion dollars' worth of cash flow problems, that is important.
We know for a fact that this reactor will burn plutonium and help get
rid of waste. We also know it will produce electricity, which will
help, indeed, cut the cots.
What we absolutely must consider here is that the cost of using an
accelerator, technology that we do not know for sure will work, will be
considerably more expensive, to the tune of about $10 billion. We talk
about $50 million, and this is a $10 billion project, if we do not go
with the triple play reactor.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against the Markey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced
many projects, spent huge amounts of money and has little, if anything,
to show for it in many cases. A recent example of this includes the
high level waste repository in Nevada.
As some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week
regarding the proposed elimination of the DOE: The Department suffers
from problems of communication, contracting, management, and mission.
Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production
technology and siting has many of the same problems.
I believe the action taken by the House National Security Committee
to authorize funding for a privatized multipurpose reactor technology
is the only logical approach for the success of the next tritium
production mission. This reactor would consume our excess plutonium,
produce tritium and generate electricity. The resale of this
electricity would generate revenues that would directly reduce the
total cost to the taxpayer. The logical siting of such a reactor is the
Savannah River site in South Carolina. The site has been the leader in
tritium production and other related missions for more than 30 years.
The taxpayer has payed billions of dollars over these 30 years building
the tritium infrastructure I speak of. Mr. Chairman, it would not be
prudent to rebuild a new tritium infrastructure elsewhere at an even
higher cost to the taxpayer, just to satisfy the political motives of
DOE.
The action by the committee represents, Mr. Chairman, it represents
sound judgment to reverse the poor decisions DOE has been making for
years and to ensure we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons
stockpile. It is imperative that we continue to produce tritium no
later than the year 2011. If we do not, our nuclear weapons stockpile
will not be maintained at the level necessary to maintain our nuclear
deterrence.
Mr. Chairman, the committee's decision also represents one that will
cost the American taxpayer far less money, and ensure we start
producing tritium no later than the year 2011.
There is a general concern by many that disposing of excess weapons
grade plutonium in this reactor is a proliferation concern. This
concern is unwarranted. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty contains
specific provisions which allow the use of this material in nuclear
reactors for peaceful purposes. Ridding ourselves of excess plutonium
is definitely a peaceful purpose.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we allow the DOE to select an
accelerator to produce this tritium; a decision I believe they have
already made, we run a high degree of risk of not having a nuclear
capability in the year 2011. Assuming it did work, and there is no
evidence that an accelerator of the magnitude required will work, the
lifecycle costs would amount to billions of dollars more than a
multipurpose reactor. I am not prepared, and I am sure many of my
colleagues are not prepared to take that risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generosity
in yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. Before I go
the arguments, let us define the term ``earmark'' so everyone
understands, who is in this debate or observing this debate, what that
is about.
The way the Congress of the United States earmarks is if it
authorizes and appropriates dollars so it can only go to one place.
Very simple. You do not have to be a brilliant rocket scientist to
understand that you can write a piece of legislation in this
legislative body in such fashion that there is no competition, that it
goes specifically to one place. That is part of this.
Mr. Chairman, last year, as a matter of high principle, after
negotiations with the other body we agreed as a group that we would
move beyond the practice of earmarking, because we felt it so
thoroughly distorted and perverted the legislative process that we need
to be beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically this is the mother of
all earmarks. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], who
represents a district in southern California, has a firm that does
reactor business. Whether I agree or disagree with reactor or
accelerator, put that esoteric discussion for a moment off to the side.
We are talking earmarking here.
The gentleman from California could not even get it modified so that
there would be more than one reactor firm in the business, Mr.
Chairman. this is a $14 million earmark to a Swedish firm in one
district, ultimately to the tune of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this approach on substance, because I
have learned from some of my regional colleagues that ``I do not have a
dog in this fight,'' so I can stand back objectively, at arms' length,
and debate this matter with clean hands.
In working with the gentleman from California, back and forth, trying
to figure out whether he and I could reach some accommodation that
would allow the option to open up, so that his district could be
represented in this matter, and this gentleman, who was raising broader
issues that I will discuss a little later in my presentation, any
effort that we had to try to dialog on this matter was resisted. The
Committee on Rules did not even allow the gentleman on that side of the
aisle to offer an amendment to open up competition just on the reactor
side.
Mr. Chairman, we understand it has been stated that somewhere down
the road, this is supposed to come down the pike in November from the
Secretary of Energy, someone briefed somebody in the Congress and said
``We do not think it is going to be a reactor, we think it is going to
be the accelerator.'' So suddenly there was a rush to judgment before
we could hear from informed scientific, knowledgeable sources what are
the options that are available which would still allow us to exercise
our responsibilities to agree or disagree.
Apparently someone said ``Wait a minute, let us not wait until the
Secretary gives us this informed judgment. Let us jump the gun. We are
legislators. We are in control of the process.''
So what happened? Earmark, Mr. Chairman, the mother of all earmarks,
$14 million to a Swedish firm to the tune ultimately of $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is an obligation of the
American taxpayer to tens of millions of dollars and potentially, down
the pike, it could even achieve billions.
On that basis it ought to be rejected, just on the integrity of the
process itself, having nothing to do with the substantive issues like
nonproliferation and these kinds of things, just the fact that we ought
to reject that approach to how we do our business.
We talk here about clean hands and fair play and openness and above
board. This is inappropriate. With this gentleman in the last Congress,
when I stood as chairman of the former Committee on Armed Services, we
stood up publicly and said ``We will resist earmarking.'' We tried to
legislate in the authorizing process to end that, because all of us in
here at one time or another have been burned by the process of
earmarking.
Our dignity and our self-respect and our integrity as legislators
dictate that we do not go down this road, Mr. Chairman. It may be right
at the end of the day, but let it be right because the process led us
there, not because we exploited or manipulated it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it should be rejected on that basis alone.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
[[Page
H5995]]
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to say that this
authorization defense bill does not earmark where we produce tritium.
It does imply how we should produce tritium, and that is because the
Department of Energy has made up their mind that they want to use a
faulty process in the accelerator that may not let us have the tritium
we need to have a nuclear proliferation.
Mr. DELLUMS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the report language
specifically refers to location. Everyone in here, and I would say,
sir, we may disagree politically, but I choose not to insult the
gentleman's intelligence. I hope he does not choose to insult mine.
I have been on the Committee on Armed Services for 20-some-years. I
think that I have enough experience to know an earmark when I see one.
This is in the report. We all understand it. I would tell the gentleman
to ask the gentleman standing next to him. He knows it is an earmark,
because his reactor company has been left out of the process.
I am 59 years old and do not have my glasses, so it is a little
difficult to read here, but let me just refer the gentleman to page 305
of the report dealing with section 3133, tritium production, and about
a half of the way down the page, with the paragraph starting ``On March
1, 1995,'' there the gentleman will see the earmark.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELLUMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the
distinguished gentleman from California, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me mention what the gentleman mentioned first, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] mentioned. That was
technological earmarking.
There is probably no bill that is a perfect bill, but my objection to
the idea of having this record of decision come down on the technology
is, to my colleague, and he is a realist and I am a realist, is it is
politically impossible, in my estimation, for the Clinton
administration to come down on behalf of anything except an
accelerator. I think that is what they feel is politically doable, and
even though everybody agrees we have to build tritium, they are non-
nuclear enough to say that we do not want to be building it with a
reactor.
I think the gentleman would be just as insulted by a record of
decision that comes down this fall that will supposedly be based on
scientific merit, but in fact it will not be based on scientific merit.
It will be based on the decision that at least is implied as having
already been made by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Smith, in
his letter, where he says ``Our program is to go with what is,'' and I
am paraphrasing, ``the lead technology,'' and then there is a backup
technology, which is the reactor, implying obviously the lead
technology is an accelerator.
Of course I want to have my people participate and have a chance to
participate in any work that is done, but I think there is an
overriding goal here that in my estimation is very compelling. That is
to continue to produce tritium, to do it in a reliable way, and I think
everyone would agree that the only reliable way we have done it in
large quantities is with a reactor.
Last, all of these arguments have been made about how scientifically
we can do this with an accelerator. The director of the laboratory that
would benefit from the accelerator said these words: ``I cannot support
the accelerator for the sole purposes of producing tritium because it
is too expensive, too uncertain, and there is a better way to provide
for the requirement while satisfying 3 needs,'' and that is
electricity, tritium, plutonium.
Mr. DELLUMS. The gentleman has made that point, Mr. Chairman. It is a
little redundant.
Mr. HUNTER. My point is there is just as bad earmarking on the part
of the administration, earmarking technology that flies in the face of
what the scientists say is needed.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, the bill reads
``$14 billion shall be made available to private industry to begin
implementation of the private advertised multi-purpose reactor program
plan submitted by the Department of Energy,'' et cetera, et cetera, to
the Department.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the gentleman's major assertion, the
amendment provides the opportunity for the Congress of the United
States to weigh in. This is a triumvirate form of government. The
executive branch will make an option. The gentleman may disagree with
it, but the gentleman and I together can hold hearings, we can make
judgments, we can make determinations, we can legislate in this area. I
am simply saying when we read that and we read the report language, it
is an earmark.
Mr. Chairman, let me finally conclude by saying, A, the Department of
Defense opposes this provision in the bill. The Department of Energy
opposes this provision in the bill. The Arms Control Agency opposes
this provision in the bill. Why does it? It opposes it because part of
our nonproliferation strategy has been that we would not breach the
firewall between civilian and commercial use of nuclear power.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, an important part of our nonproliferation strategy is
that we would not breach the firewall that exists between commercial
and civilian use of nuclear power and military use of nuclear power for
the purposes of developing nuclear weapons. That is the moral high
ground upon which we stand. That is the moral high ground that allows
us to challenge North Korea and it allows us to challenge the Iranians:
Do not breach that firewall.
How noble are we, then, if we embrace this approach in this bill,
multipurpose reactor? It speaks to breaking that firewall. At that
point, where is the high ground that allows us to say to the North
Koreans, or to the Iranians, ``You are doing a bad thing?'' All they
have to do is turn around and say ``Do as you say, don't do as you
do,'' because this is exactly what we are doing.
This is too precious for our children, too precious for the future,
for us to be violating this incredible approach to nonproliferation.
That is our fundamental strategy. It is for those and many other
reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I argue that my colleagues support the
Markey amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair tell us how much time we
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 6
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would remark, the gentleman mentioned that a number
of authorities in the Clinton administration are against this approach.
Let me just say that in my estimation, the guy who was the leading
authority on the validity of reactors versus accelerators endorses this
approach, and the last of his letter says ``With respect to an
accelerator, it is too uncertain, and there is a better way for the
requirement, while satisfying three needs for the price of one.'' That
is, the leading authority, in my estimation, on this technology
endorses the idea of a triple play.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most important debates that
I have followed in Congress, because I am from South Carolina, and the
men and women of the Savannah River site have for the last 40 to 50
years produced tritium by reactor in my district to help win the cold
war. We want to continue to do it for the country, not because I am
from South Carolina, but because we have the infrastructure, we have
the community commitment, we have the will to do it, and I want to do
it in the most fiscally sound and conservative manner.
{time} 1145
I will tell you when this administration and DOE will prefer a
reactor to do anything. That is when hell freezes [[Page
H5996]] over.
It will not be 2011. If you want to produce tritium to maintain a
national defense structure, you need to start now. Not 2011 when START
II is implemented.
What I am asking my colleagues who are fiscally conservative to do is
look at the numbers. This is not about millions, it is about billions.
The Clinton DOE will never prefer a reactor that we know will work,
that will save the construction costs. The energy costs alone are $10
billion over the life of the reactor.
This is about politics and spending billions of dollars on technology
that is pie in the sky and not going to something we know that works
that can make plutonium that works and create energy and is privately
financed. It is about politics.
The men and women of my district understand tritium. We understand
politics and I hope my colleagues will call the National Taxpayers
Union and talk to Mr. Paul Hewitt. I have. They have information about
millions. That does not consider the billions. They will consider the
billions.
This is politics at its worst. Let's get on with defending America.
2011 is here today. How long does it take to get any technology going?
Never, with an accelerator, because it never produced tritium.
The reactor has produced tritium in this country. We need to start
now because it takes a long time, because we want to be safe and we
should be safe. But we need to start now to give our children a secure
future financially by saving billions of dollars with technology that
works.
And a secure future with the threat of Iran and Iraq is not looking
at will they follow our lead, but will we have the resources to
implement American policy? And not ask them to follow our lead, but we
will be the biggest guy with the biggest stick on the block all the
time. That is what this debate is about.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me clear up one thing that my
friend from San Diego mentioned. The Los Alamos Laboratory wants the
accelerator made. The gentleman has been referring to Harold Agnew, an
official of the labs.
Harold Agnew has been out of office for 15 years and he is now a
contractor with one of the companies trying to get the contract. So let
me be clear. The Los Alamos Laboratory, which is an expert in this
area, would like to be involved in this process, as would the States of
Texas, Idaho, Nevada, and Tennessee. And because of this specific
earmark, all of these States are locked out and we have a Swiss-Swedish
firm getting a benefit over American companies.
That is not right. These States, and my labs in Los Alamos, are
experts. Why are we making decisions that scientists should be making?
These are thousands of scientists. Ph.D's at Los Alamos, at DOE, at
Savannah River. They should be making these decisions. And I think a
Swiss-Swedish firm, they may be very competent, I don't think they
should be barred, but what this Markey amendment is doing, and I must
say it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Ensign] and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. My name is
on it. We just want an open process.
We think that this process by which there was a specific mention, an
earmark, is flawed. We are saving the taxpayers money, $50 million. But
let me be absolutely clear. I represent Los Alamos. They are in my
district. They are for the Markey-Ensign amendment because they want
science and scientists to have a chance.
So, my good friend should not mention Harold Agnew who is a good
public servant. But he was 15 years ago. He is a contractor now. Of
course, he has an interest. We respect that.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Would the gentleman tell me what contracting firm Mr. Agnew is
supposed to be working for now?
Mr. RICHARDSON. General Atomics.
Mr. HUNTER. General Atomics is excluded from being able to
participate in this amendment.
I would ask how much time we have remaining, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] to whom we always give plenty of
time.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. With all
due respect, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
Since 1992, the Department of Energy has been working on this
alternate source for producing tritium and they tell us they are 3 to 4
years away from doing that. It is going to cost taxpayers more money.
I want to remind the body that the Department of Energy is the same
agency that the Vice President told us in the National Performance
Review misses 20 percent of its milestones and is 40 percent
inefficient. That means that their estimates could be longer than
expected and overrun in cost.
But if we use the multipurpose reactor for the production of tritium,
it represents a tried and true technology. This technology would also
be the least cost to the American taxpayer and it would guarantee that
we are going to produce tritium on time.
Mr. Chairman, I, along with my other colleagues on the Committee on
National Security, are concerned--but not surprised--about the lack of
progress that the Department of Energy has been making toward this
long-term source of tritium and it is essential if we are going to
maintain our nuclear weapons for nuclear defense.
But we cannot allow our nuclear weapons capability to diminish just
to satisfy an antinuclear coalition in the administration and in the
Department of Energy. We need to do what is right for the American
people and for the national defense.
Time is running out. And we cannot afford to wait on the Department
of Energy to get its act together. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. First of all the
multipurpose reactor, that technology has not been developed as well.
We have never produced with the reactor the amount of tritium that we
are talking about developing today.
Also, the tritium, as far as technologically, has been produced from
an accelerator. This is false when my colleagues say it has not.
Granted, I will admit that the accelerator technology is not as far
along, but we have the time to see whether we can develop this
technology with an accelerator. No question about it. It is
environmentally the safest thing to do.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have the right to close the
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] has the
right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Vucanovich-
Ensign amendment. What this bipartisan amendment does is very simple:
It allows the existing search for the best site and the best technology
for the provision of tritium to go forward. The Department of Energy
has been engaged in an evaluation of five different technologies and
five different sites and a decision is expected in late summer or early
autumn.
H.R. 1530 threatens to derail that process. It would add $50 million
to the administration's request for tritium work and would choose a
winning site--Savannah River--and a winning technology--the so-called
triple play reactor proposal led by Ansea, Brown & Boveri. In choosing
a winner,
H.R. 1530 short-circuits [[Page
H5997]] the process of
technology and environmental evaluation that was intended to guarantee
that the taxpayers get a tritium facility that minimizes its nuclear
proliferation potential, is environmentally sound and cost effective.
I am not saying that I know that the ABB proposal is the most
expensive or least attractive or that Savannah River is an inferior
site. The fact is I don't know that. But that is precisely the point:
No one in this body knows which technology, which consortia and which
site offers the best deal for the taxpayer. There is no record of
judgment by impartial experts that we can turn to for guidance because
the experts are still doing their work. There are no hefty hearing
volumes documenting the full and exhaustive review of this billion
dollar deal to explain why we must intervene to stop that impartial
review and pick or own winner.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to say that
bureaucrats aren't good at picking winners and losers among
technologies; I would suggest that when it comes to choosing winning
technologies, Congress makes bureaucrats look like geniuses.
There is general agreement that we need a new tritium facility. But
let us give our citizens a facility that is the best that their money
can buy. To do that, we need to repudiate a pork-driven decision, we
need to let the selection process go forward to let these technologies
and sites compete. Support good government and a fair process. Vote for
Markey-Vucanovich-Ensign.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this. Using the words of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], Massachusetts does not have a
dog in this fight. This is not a battle that I certainly have any
interest in.
My only problem with this whole debate is that after a day of
sanctifying the whole concept of procurement reform just 2 days ago, we
now come back out here on the floor and we allow for a single Member to
earmark a specific technology that does not even exist to be the
exclusive way that we are going to produce one of the most important
defense technologies in our country.
Now, we keep hearing about a 3-in-1 technology. It is good for
plutonium. It is good for electricity. It is good for this. It is good
for that. It sounds like you are listening to an ad for a chopomatic at
3 a.m. in the morning on channel 43.
This technology does not exist. And, in fact, although we are talking
about $50 million out here, the truth is it triggers $6 billion worth
of reactor that has to be built. By the way, a reactor which has never
produced tritium before.
The technology which they are selecting has never, in fact, performed
this task before. Now, you hear the word linear accelerator. What does
that mean? Well, it is just another fancy word for saying atom smasher.
That is what a linear accelerator is.
Right now the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy,
the Department of Defense, are evaluating linear accelerators as
opposed to this new reactor which has never been tested with regard to
which is the better way of going to produce tritium in this country.
Now, I do not care which technology they select, but I do know that
this bill should not have $50 million in it for a Swedish firm for a
technology that ultimately triggers $6 billion worth of expenditures
before we have had a technical evaluation. That is what this whole
debate is about.
And the $50 million is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, by
the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], by the gentlewoman from Nevada
[Mrs. Vucanovich], and a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans
that want a balanced budget, fairly done, with logical assessment done
of each and every item. This provision violates every one of those
principles.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Idaho the gentleman from [Mr. Crapo].
(Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the committee's
product. We in Idaho are doing some critical research under this
proposal that will help us to develop this program.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Texas panhandle is a long way from
either Savannah River or from Nevada where the accelerator would be
built, but I think it is very important to make these basic points.
We have no choice on tritium. Everyone has agreed with that. And we
need it quickly. Now, this is a gas that deteriorates at a rate of
approximately 5 percent a year. We have built none in this country
since about 1988. And the longer we take, particularly with an unproven
technology, the worse off it is for the security of this country.
I think the key point, however, that I want to make is this. The
committee version advances both options. Currently, the Department of
Energy is only looking at one option and that is an accelerator. They
are not considering in any manner the sort of reactor that would be
considered under this bill.
Now, I will tell my colleagues that in my district we have got a lot
of excess plutonium that is building up as we dismantle weapons that we
are bringing back from Europe. We have got to figure out what to do
with that plutonium and the reactor is one option that we ought to
consider as a way to dispose of that excess material.
The Department of Energy will not even consider it and there are no
other technologies that are even close to being considered at the
current time. The committee bill gives approximately the same amount of
money toward the accelerator as the gentleman's amendment would do, but
it adds to that. It doubles the amount of money because of how
important this gas is and it gives us another option to look at.
We are not bound to any option forever, but it does push forward the
process on both counts so that we can find the best, most economical,
safest way to produce tritium and that can accomplish our other
security goals as well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee position
and in opposition to the Markey amendment which would cut funding for a
new tritium production source by 50 percent. The Markey amendment would
also erect additional barriers not in even the administration's request
to achieving a low-cost, reliable supply of tritium.
Tritium is needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. Because tritium decays at a rapid rate, it
must be regularly replenished. However, the United States currently has
no capacity to produce tritium and therefore a new production source
has been in the works for years.
H.R. 1530 directs the Department of Energy to pursue the lowest cost,
most mature technology to accomplish this mission--and that is a
reactor. Reactor technology has produced all of the tritium currently
used in U.S. nuclear weapons.
The committee also endorsed using reactor technology to burn
plutonium and to generate electricity. The prospect of private sector
financing could also dramatically reduce the cost of the American
taxpayer of this critically important undertaking.
The Markey amendment would cut the funds added by the committee for
future tritium production, and would give the Department of Energy the
final say over which tritium production technology should proceed. We
fear that the Department is headed in the direction of actually
selecting the less mature, more costly accelerator option.
Let us do what's right to most cost-effectively ensure our ability to
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. Let's get on with this
innovative cost-saving approach to producing tritium. The only way to
do this is to support the committee and vote ``no'' on the Markey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
AYES--214
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra [[Page
H5998]]
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Cardin
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (R
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
