While we are thinking of these questions, I would suggest to my friend from California, in terms of ERDA's interest, to protect ERDA's interest, if I let my imagination wander for a minute and put this hearing in the context of the Senate Public Works Committee, for instance, where we have primary and statutory jurisdiction of TVA as a Federal agency, this hearing might well have asked has TVA protected itself in this negotiation with ERDA. Because, after all, TVA finally, very well, may ask for an appropriation from the general treasury to bear part of the cost of this demonstration. It is a Federal agency, and it has that authority. It would go to the same OMB that ERDA would. The essence of the situation is demonstrated by that relationship. Both of them are instrumentalities of the Federal Government. The fact we have not supplied those numbers is not significant in that context. Representative Moss. I would just like to observe, I think the Senator has carefully pinpointed one of the very reasons why we should with great care make certain that these agreements are spelled out, that they are much more definitive. We have a skeleton here and nothing else. Aside from the mere fact that the Committee on Public Works might have considerable concern over the TVA commitments, we should certainly have an equal concern over the ERDA commitments, and I think that requires that we take the care and the time now to insure that those agreements are sufficiently definitive to know what we are doing. I certainly don't know. Chairman PASTORE. Now, didn't we have that same problem at the time of the original contract? Are we addressing ourselves to the modification, or the very substance of the contract that has been in existence and that we approved and that the Congress approved? It is not the questions that are being raised now, but questions that were raised before at the time of the original contract. I thought, here, the thrust was going to be on modifications. Now we are looking at the whole contract, and what we are doing is tearing apart the original contract. We have gone by that a long, long time ago, before either one of you two gentlemen came on this committee. Now we are opening up this whole matter over again. Now, at some point, we have to come to a decision, gentlemen. I don't care whether you are for Clinch River or against Clinch River. It is irrelevant. It is your personal business to feel any way you want, but at some point, as the chairman of the committee, I have to culminate this matter. I can't rest here forever. We have discussed this in the other room at some length. Mr. Moss was here. Mr. Tunney could not be here, and for that reason, we postponed the whole thing, hopefully, that we could get a quorum and be able to resolve this matter. I would hope we would not go on forever. Just make your motions and let's have a will of the committee. Representative HORTON. I move we approve the report. Chairman PASTORE. I would want to reserve it first for Mr. Moss to make any motion he would like to make, and if he wants a vote on it, I think we should have a vote. Representative Moss. I am agreeable to having a vote held promptly. I am prepared to vote against approval. Representative HORTON. I move we approve. Chairman PASTORE. You heard the motion. Do I hear a second? Senator BAKER. Second. Senator TUNNEY. One final statement, because I want it to be clear for the record what my position is. For 10 months they have been attempting to negotiate the contract. There has been no delay on the part of this committee that has not been predicated by a delay between the two Government agencies involved. I think that it is wrong to buy a pig in a poke. I think that it is so easy to negotiate the contract we ought to wait until that contract is negotiated before we make our decision. It is not our delay. It is their delay, and I do not see why it is necessary for us to approve a contract that is not even in existence yet. Representative Moss. I just want the record to show I concur completely. That is the problem, and I have not been responsible for delay either. Representative HORTON. We are not approving the contract. We are approving the criteria. Representative ANDERSON. Exactly what is the motion approving? Chairman PASTORE. Mr. Parler, you tell these gentlemen what we are approving. Mr. PARLER. The committees has to either approve or disapprove the criteria for the cooperative arrangement. As I responded at the last hearing, if there is any difficulty with the criteria which leads to a difficulty in the contractual arrangements obviously, both could be explored by the committee, I should say, until the committee approves the criteria. If the committee disapproves the criteria, ERDA cannot proceed with implementation of the modification to the contract. Representative HORTON. It is my understanding we are approving the criteria and we can certainly come back and take a look at the contract at a later date. Chairman PASTORE. Can we, Mr. Parler? Mr. PARLER. If the criteria are approved, there is nothing in my opinion that would stand in the way of ERDA executing the modifications to the contracts. Senator BAKER. As long as they are consistent with the criteria? Mr. PARLER. And with the justification data which ERDA supplied to the committee. Chairman PASTORE. Are you telling us in essence that Mr. Moss is right and so is Mr. Horton right? As a matter of fact, the negotiation of the contract has to be consistent with the criteria because once it is negotiated that is it and we are giving that authorization today. There is no question about that. Mr. Moss is right. We did this before, did we not, originally? Mr. PARLER. The criteria were originally approved in Public Law 91-273 and thereafter the committee did get involved in the negotiations and the approvals of the contracts in 1973. Chairman PASTORE. The question before the committee is, shall the criteria be approved. Mr. Murphy will call the roll. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Symington. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Montoya. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Tunney. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Pearson. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Young. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. McCormack. Representative Moss. No. Mr. MURPHY, Mr. Anderson. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Horton. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Price. Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Pastore. Chairman PASTORE. Aye. Mr. PARLER. Seven aves, present, two ayes, proxy, two noes. Chairman PASTORE. The vote is 9 to 2. Let the record show it. Whereupon at 3:10 p.m. the Joint Committee adjourned. APPENDIX 1 For reference to the following material see p. 395, text. Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: As you know, for the past several months ERDA has been carrying out a comprehensive effort to review the emphasis and balance of its overall energy research and development program. We have also been working to develop the the Energy Research and Development Plan which is to be provided to the Congress by June 30, 1975, as required by the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974. As a result of these efforts, we have in process at this time a request to the Office of Management and Budget for several changes in our 1976 Budget. The President, of course, must finally decide whether any changes in our budget request are to be presented to the Congress. We do not anticipate that a Presidential decision can be made until he has had an opportunity to review all our recommendations and our Energy R&D Plan. Prior to the President's decision, we cannot disclose all the specific budget figures we are recommending. At the same time, we recognize the need of the Joint Committee for information concerning major changes so that Congress can proceed with an authorization bill for our programs. Accordingly, the information in the following paragraphs is submitted for this purpose with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget. With regard to nuclear energy programs, we continue to support strongly the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program (LMFBR) and believe that it will play an important role in the long-term energy independence strategy of the United States. However, delays have occurred in key elements of the program, such as: The completion and issuance of the LMFBR environmental impact statement, The construction and initial operation of supporting facilities such as the FFTF, The scheduled construction and initial operation of the CRBR demonstration plant. These delays are to a considerable extent outside ERDA control, reflecting the additional time that is being required to address key licensing questions and environmental concerns. In addition, as discussed with the Committee, we need to strengthen overall program management and project control to enable us to better predict and meet our performance goals. As a consequence of these delays, we are proposing a change in the 1976 budget which would result in a reduction of $43.0 million in Operating Expenses and $17.5 million in Selected Resources for the LMFBR program. A table showing details of the changes is attached. The proposed change in LMFBR funding reflects a decision by ERDA management to adjust the schedule and pace of the program to better assure its successful development. The LMFBR has the potential to provide a source of energy for hundreds of years. Its successful development is more important than the exact date of its commercial introduction, as long as it can be completed within the time frame dictated by available uranium resources. The intent is to proceed on an expeditious but orderly, basis with a program directed more effectively to all of the various problems that must be resolved to assure a viable commercialization option. The change in funding that we are considering for the LMFBR program reflect prudent management actions to carry out the program more effectively. However, it is important to point out that further reductions would impair the viability of the program, as for example, in the loss of highly skilled technical personnel currently employed on the program. We also have under consideration and discussion with OMB possible programs to support additional R&D efforts for the nuclear fuel cycle for present light water reactors. We believe that additional efforts are needed on assessing uranium resources, improving the on-line availability of existing nuclear plants, and closing the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e., fuel reprocessing of "spent" fuels). We recognize, of course, that there are issues which will have to be resolved on the relative roles of government and industry in these areas. In addition, we have under consideration changes of smaller magnitude relating to the levels for the Light Water Breeder Reactor, the Gas Cooled Reactors, and the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor. These proposed changes may require a modification of our authorization request, or a reprogramming, depending on the levels finally approved by the President. I hope that the above information will be helpful to the Committee in its deliberations on our 1976 budget request. 1 Utility funding was increased from $18,200,000 to $49,300,000 after the fiscal year 1976 congressional budget submission. Current estimate is $53,000,000 from utility funds for fiscal year 1976. Committee note: Total effect of above schedules: |