[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 86 (Thursday, June 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2128

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to move to table and that upon making that motion, the vote occur 
at 5 p.m. on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Is the Senator from Iowa objecting?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Now, Madam President, in the 30 minutes prior to that 
vote--I know of no other major amendments--we have a number of agreed 
to amendments, and I hope we can wrap up all the details so that we can 
have the vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment and follow 
that by third reading.
  Madam President, I will send a group of amendments to the desk after 
I describe them, and I will ask for consideration en bloc.
  The first is a Burns amendment that provides that within the funds 
made available for the Water Management Conservation Program, $300,000 
shall be available for a Western regional drought mitigation center 
located within the Great Plains region through a competitive grant 
process.
  The second amendment is an amendment by Senator Nickles which 
provides that within the funds available for hydrogen research $250,000 
shall be made available to an institution with expertise in 
electrochemical fuel cells, thermochemical and photochemical reactions 
to hydrogen production may be synergistically studied and the 
application of gas storage and alternate vehicle technology may be 
integrated.
  The next amendment is on behalf of Senator Kempthorne which provides 
that not less than $1,500,000 shall be available for hydropower 
research and development, of which $1 million shall be available on the 
advanced hydropower turbine program for design activities conduct and 
funded jointly by the Secretary of Energy and one or more appropriate 
entities from the private sector for an energy-efficient turbine that 
reduces the environmental impact on fish species.
  The next is an amendment by Senator Domenici that provides that of 
the total amount appropriated $4.827 million shall be available for 
transfer to the State of New Mexico Irrigation Works Construction Fund 
for settlement of all claims associated with the Costilla Dam;
  The next is on behalf of Senator Ford which provides that the 
Secretary of Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall not 
collect fees at boat launching ramps located in undeveloped or lightly 
developed shorelines with minimum security and illumination.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Amendments Nos. 2129 through 2133

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I send those amendments to the desk 
and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2129 through 2133.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, all those amendments have been cleared 
on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered and agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 2129 through 2133) were agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2129

  Mr. JOHNSTON offered an amendment No. 2129 for Mr. Burns.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 18, line 19 insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That within the funds made available in 
     this Act for the Water Management and Conservation Program, 
     $300,000 shall be available for any western regional drought 
     mitigation center located within the Great Plains through a 
     competitive grant process''

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I offer an amendment to the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill, H.R. 4506, which would allow existing funds 
for establishing a drought mitigation center within the Great Plains 
region of the Bureau of Reclamation.
  This amendment allows for a competitive grant to be awarded for a 
drought mitigation information center. The Water Resources Center at 
Montana State University has designed a program with help of 
representatives from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 
Conservation which would serve as a clearinghouse of drought 
information which could be utilized by States in the region. The center 
would address problems unique to the great plains. I am pleased that 
the managers of this bill have agreed to accept this amendment, and I 
look forward to Montana competing for this competitive grant.


                           amendment no. 2130

  Mr. JOHNSTON offered an amendment No. 2130 for Mr. Nickles.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the sentence on page 22, line 7, after the 
     word ``Act'', insert the following new provision:
       ``Provided further, That within funds available for 
     hydrogen research, $250,000 shall be made available to an 
     institution where expertise in electrochemical (fuel cells), 
     thermochemical and photochemical reactions for hydrogen 
     production may be synergistically studied and the application 
     to gas storage and alternate vehicle technology may be 
     integrated.''

  Mr. NICKLES. I would like to thank both Senator Johnston and Senator 
Hatfield for agreeing to include my amendment on hydrogen research in 
the 1995 energy and appropriations bill. It is my understanding that 
this bill provides $10,000,000 for hydrogen research.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. The University of Oklahoma has expertise in 
electrochemical, thermochemical, and photochemical reactions for 
hydrogen production. In light of this expertise, I would strongly 
encourage the Department of Energy to provide at least $250,000 in 
funding to the University for research on the economical production of 
hydrogen.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I join with Senator Nickles in encouraging the 
Department of Energy to provide the University of Oklahoma at least 
$250,000 in funding for hydrogen research.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I concur.


                           amendment no. 2131

  Mr. JOHNSTON offered an amendment No. 2131 for Mr. Kempthorne.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 22, line 7, insert before the period the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That not less than $1,500,000 shall be 
     available for hydropower research and development, of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be available under the Advanced Hydropower 
     Turbine program for design activities conducted and funded 
     jointly by the Secretary of Energy and one or more 
     appropriate entities from the private sector for an energy-
     efficient turbine that reduces the environmental impact on 
     fish species''.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, the amendment I offer increases the 
DOE hydropower budget by $500,000 from within available funds under 
DOE's $3.3 billion energy supply, research, and development budget; $1 
million of the total, $1.5 million, amount is then set aside for DOE's 
effort to develop an advanced hydropower turbine.
  The purpose of DOE's current advanced hydropower turbine effort is to 
develop an energy efficient, fish friendly turbine. In the past couple 
of years, we have become especially aware of the distinct environmental 
problems associated with hydropower projects. These include problems of 
fish passage, which have been such a crucial issue in salmon recovery 
in the Pacific Northwest, dissolved oxygen and cavitation.
  Hydropower engineers and scientists believe that breakthroughs are 
now possible. Not only can we now resolve the environmental problems, 
they believe we can increase energy production and maintain that 
production over a wider range of flows. As anyone will tell you in the 
Pacific Northwest, stream flows are a critical issue.
  The current Department of Energy effort is being carried out on a 
cost-share basis with the private sector, including hydropower 
interests from every region of the country. Industry has committed 
$500,000 to match $500,000 now being provided by DOE. My amendment 
would simply invest an additional $500,000 in this program.
  The administration has included hydropower R&D in its sustainable 
energy budget proposal, backed by industry and major environmental 
groups. It has also formed a technical oversight committee. 
Participants include: Corps of Engineers, NMFS, Bureau of Reclamation, 
Bonneville Power, private sector companies in the Pacific Northwest and 
the East, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Interior 
Department.
  This project is important for the Pacific Northwest, where we are 
engaged in a multimillion dollar salmon recovery effort. This research 
and development is also important for the Eastern States where the 
Atlantic salmon is listed, and it is important for every State that has 
hydropower as a part of its energy mix.
  Madam President, this is an idea whose time has come. DOE recognizes 
this and has taken the initiative with basic seed money. Congress needs 
to step up to the plate, also, and give its solid endorsement by 
accelerated funding. With over 100 hydropower facilities due to be 
relicensed in the next decade, and the salmon problems, this work will 
prove crucial to the continuing viability of hydropower. This work will 
also be important to U.S. technological leadership in the export market 
for mass power generating renewable energy sources.
  I understand that the chairman, Mr. Johnston, and ranking member, Mr. 
Hatfield, have agreed to accept the amendment, and we will work on this 
further between now and conference.


                           amendment no. 2132

  Mr. JOHNSTON offered an amendment No. 2132 for Mr. Domenici.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 17, at the end of line 13, before the period after 
     the word ``Act'' and add the following new proviso: ``: 
     Provided further, That of the total appropriated, $4,827,000 
     shall be available for transfer to the State of New Mexico 
     Irrigation Works Construction Fund for settlement of all 
     claims associated with Costilla Dam''.


                           amendment no. 2133

  Mr. JOHNSTON offered an amendment No. 2133 for Mr. Ford.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 14 after line 8, add the following:
       Sec. 102. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, shall not collect fees at boat launching 
     ramps located in undeveloped or lightly developed shorelands 
     with minimum security and illumination.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         mountain park project

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, Senator Boren and I have been working 
with several of our colleagues to offer an amendment allowing the 
Mountain Park Conservancy District to prepay, or refinance, its 
obligation to the Bureau of Reclamation for the Mountain Park project. 
The prepayment authorized by our amendment would be equal to the fair 
market value of the district's debt, and is necessary to prevent a 
possible default by the district on their obligation.
  Since our amendment does constitute authorization language, we have 
worked closely with the leaders of the authorizing committees, Senator 
Johnston, Senator Wallop, Senator Bradley, and Congressman Miller. 
Unfortunately, we were unable to gain everyone's approval to move the 
amendment on this appropriations bill.
  Therefore, Madam President, I will not offer the amendment today, but 
will instead introduce it as a freestanding bill later this week. It is 
my understanding that Senator Bradley's authorizing subcommittee will 
be holding hearings in late July, and that he has committed to working 
with Senator Boren and I to hold hearings and move our bill as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, several years ago, Congress passed 
legislation allowing the Mountain Park Conservancy District to 
restructure debt owed to the Bureau of Reclamation. Unfortunately, the 
legislation that passed did not give the desired relief.
  Today, the communities of the district are faced with a tough choice. 
Either default on the loan to the Federal Government or face 
bankruptcy. Neither of these choices will benefit the community nor the 
Federal treasury.
  Both the House and Senate have recognized the need to provide relief 
to the district and protect the financial investment made by the Bureau 
of Reclamation. Congressional action is needed this year to modify the 
original legislation and prevent default by the district.
  I would have preferred to solve this problem on the energy and water 
appropriations bill, as it is most likely guaranteed of passing both 
the House and Senate this year. However, I do understand the reluctance 
to approve authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill. I would 
like to thank Senator Bradley for his pledge to work out a solution in 
the energy committee and his subcommittee on water and power as soon as 
possible. I also appreciate his understanding of the urgency of this 
matter and his commitment to work together and pass a solution before 
Congress adjourns for the year.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senators from Oklahoma for their comments. I 
regret that we cannot accommodate their amendment at this time. The 
need for assistance at the Mountain Park project is great, and I will 
work with them to move legislation through the authorizing committee as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I, too, thank the Senators from Oklahoma for 
withholding their amendment. As the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, I am sensitive to the Senators' problem, and I 
hope to work with them to solve it.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senators from Oklahoma make a strong case to help 
the Mountain Park Conservancy District in Oklahoma. I, too, will work 
with them on this matter in the authorizing committee.


                          central utah project

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, those of us involved in completion of the 
Central Utah project anticipate that, in the near future, President 
Clinton will appoint the members of the Utah Reclamation and Mitigation 
Commission, which was established with passage of the Central Utah 
Project Completion Act [CUPCA] of 1992, Public Law 102-575. This 
Commission will administer millions of dollars included in this year's 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fish and wildlife 
enhancement measures associated with the Central Utah project. I would 
like to engage Senator Johnston, who chairs the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, which passed CUPCA, in a brief colloquy, 
with my colleague Senator Bennett, with respect to the use of these 
funds.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I would be happy to discuss this matter with my two 
colleagues from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. According to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, what guidance has been provided to members of the Utah 
Reclamation and Mitigation Commission with respect to how the fish and 
wildlife funds in the bill now before the Senate are to be used?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. These funds have been appropriated for specific 
purposes. The provisions of title III of CUPCA govern the activities of 
the Commission with respect to the expenditure of funds provided in 
this appropriations bill. While title III of Public Law 102-575 
identifies a number of fish and wildlife related projects, which are 
eligible to receive funding, section 301(f)(3) of that law directs the 
Commission to expend funds on a priority basis. In essence, that 
section states that the Commission shall provide funding on a priority 
basis for environmental mitigation measures adopted as a result of 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA] 
for projects built under titles II and III of CUPCA.
  Mr. BENNETT. According to my colleague's understanding of Public Law 
102-575, how will the Commission determine which projects meet the 
requirements of section 301(f)(3)?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I expect that the Commission will work closely with the 
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, which has been given the 
authority by Congress to complete the features of the Central Utah 
project, and is responsible for future NEPA compliance on the project. 
In this process, the Commission should also consult with resource 
agencies and local environmental groups. As mitigation measures are 
developed by the district under compliance with NEPA, it is my 
understanding the Commission will include funding for priority items in 
its annual budget requests for these measures.
  Mr. BENNETT. I concur with the Senator from Louisiana and thank him 
for his clarification on this matter.
  Mr. HATCH. I, too, concur with the statements made by the Senator 
from Louisiana on this point. Senator Bennett and I believe that it is 
important to reiterate how funds provided in this bill will be utilized 
now that members to the Utah Reclamation and Mitigation Commission will 
soon be appointed. I thank my colleague for his responses of these 
questions.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, the chairman and I have discussed a 
problem facing communities in my state which currently are burdened 
with the Wayne and Maywood Superfund sites containing thorium 
contaminated soil. The Department of Energy had proposed that the soil 
be treated with a new and still experimental technology called soil 
washing. The residents of the two communities oppose that. And, as I 
told the chairman, I was just informed by the Department of Energy that 
they have agreed to abandon efforts to conduct soil washing on site or 
in those communities. They will--and I support this decision--continue 
to test the soil washing technology, but they will not be doing it in 
Wayne and Maywood.
  While this is obviously good news, I do want to make sure that the 
contaminated soil in the communities will, in fact, be cleaned up 
expeditiously in order to protect human health. In that context, I want 
to make sure that enough of the money the Department of Energy was 
going to use to test soil washing will be reserved for alternative 
methods of cleanup in these communities. I have a letter from the 
Department, which I want to submit for the Record, which makes it clear 
that is their understanding and I simply want to ask the chairman if he 
shares that understanding.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, the Senator from New Jersey and I have 
discussed the problem facing these communities in his State at great 
length over the past few months. I understand his concerns and the 
concerns of the residents of those communities. I am delighted that he 
has been able to make an arrangement with the Department to conduct 
soil washing tests at other locations.
  I am aware of the Department's understanding about reserving 
sufficient funds for alternative treatment of the contaminated soil in 
these communities.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. 
Grumbly be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Department of Energy,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing in response to your 
     June 24, 1994, letter expressing concerns about the 
     Department of Energy's proposed soil washing test in Wayne 
     and Maywood, New Jersey. I understand your position that we 
     not proceed with the soil washing proposal because of 
     community opposition and questions about its effectiveness. 
     Given that concern, the Department of Energy has decided not 
     to go forward with our proposed soil washing test in Wayne or 
     Maywood, consistent with your concern.
       I know that you are concerned with resolving outstanding 
     issues in Wayne and Maywood and moving forward with an 
     acceptable and effective clean up plan. I am committed to 
     this goal as well as pledge that the Department of Energy 
     will continue to review options to protect the public health 
     and environment in Wayne and Maywood. DOE is investigating an 
     alternative site for the soil washing pilot test.
       As you know, DOE plans to use $4 million for action at the 
     Wayne site if the Fiscal Year 1995 budget is approved as 
     requested. Also, we continue to be committed to begin removal 
     of the pile from the Maywood site in 1994.
       If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,

                                            Thomas P. Grumbly,

                                           Assistant Secretary for
                                         Environmental Management.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to compliment the 
subcommittee chairman and ranking minority member on H.R. 4506, the 
fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. It 
has been my pleasure as a member of the subcommittee to work with them 
both.
  I would ask the distinguished subcommittee chairman if he would 
engage in a colloquy.
  Significant funding is provided through this appropriations bill and 
through the Department of Energy for the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, located in my State. Less than 10 air miles also separates 
LANL from the pueblos of Cochiti, Santa Clara, and Jemez, and the 
pueblo of San Ildefonso has the distinction of being the only tribe in 
the country to share a common boundary with a Department of Energy 
facility. These four pueblos are affected by LANL activities impacting 
surface and ground waters, ground water, transportation of hazardous 
wastes, and air emissions.
  This spring, representatives of the pueblos came to Washington to 
meet with DOE Under Secretary Curtis, and to request his assistance to 
provide DOE funding to enable these pueblos, known as the Los Alamos 
Pueblos project, to be able to discern more about whether and how 
activities at LANL may be impacting the land, water, air, and wildlife 
in the area, and the health and safety of pueblo members. While the 
Department does not support a specific earmark of funds for the Los 
Alamos Pueblos project, Under Secretary Curtis has indicated that the 
Department is eager to work to establish a long-term relationship with 
the pueblos, and to develop a long-range plan to address tribal 
concerns about activities at LANL.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I express my support as well for a comprehensive 
strategy developed jointly by the pueblos and DOE. Such a strategy is a 
natural next step toward implementation of the accords the Department 
of Energy has signed with these four pueblos to ensure their 
participation in long-term planning and management processes affecting 
LANL.
  I commend the Department, Secretary O'Leary, and Under Secretary 
Curtis, for their expressions of a commitment to work with the LAPP 
pueblos. I note, too, that the pueblo governors have requested a 
meeting with the director of LANL, in the hopes that they may work with 
officials at the laboratory level to raise visibility about concerns of 
the pueblos and to participate in decisionmaking at LANL in the future.
  May I count on the subcommittee chairman's support for a dialog 
between the Department of Energy and the Los Alamos Pueblos project 
toward a cooperative agreement which would facilitate pueblo 
participation in environmental, health and safety, and other issues 
affecting them at LANL?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senators may surely count on my support. While the 
administration and the subcommittee do not support the specific 
earmarking of funds within the Department of Energy budget for LANL, as 
the Los Alamos Pueblos project requested, we encourage the Department 
and the pueblos to work together.


                            dry straits, AK

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like the Corps of Engineers to continue the 
reconnaissance report of Dry Straits/Wrangell Narrows by developing a 
detailed mathematical model of Dry Straits. I also would like the Army 
Corps to go ahead with physical modeling of Dry Straits once a 
mathematical model is available.
  In Alaska, our livelihood stems from the sea. Southeast Alaska, where 
Wrangell Narrows and Dry Straits are located, depends on safe 
navigation for its people and commerce. The Corps of Engineers is 
presently looking at improving navigation across Dry Straits near 
Wrangell, AK. The lack of depth of present navigational channels 
prevents most large vessels from plying the most convenient routes of 
the protected waters of the Inside Passage. Without improved 
navigational passages, large vessels are prevented from connecting with 
the rest of the ocean-going commercial network.
  Thus, the Army Corps should continue its study of Dry Straits by 
conducting needed modeling studies to determine the viability of 
improving this channel to accommodate larger vessels. I had been 
prepared to offer an amendment to provide funds for this purpose. 
However, the managers have noted concern with the December 1993 interim 
reconnaissance report on Dry Straits/Wrangell Narrows which estimates a 
benefit-cost ratio less than the Corps considers necessary.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I understand that the Senator from Alaska does not feel 
that this benefit-cost ratio is accurate and would like to have a more 
detailed assessment of the economic benefits of this project.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, that is the case. I have lived in southeast 
Alaska and I think that this project has a much greater economic 
benefit than was estimated by the corps.
  In its economic analysis, the corps investigated the following 
benefit categories for an improved navigation route through Dry 
Straits: reduction in delay for log tows; improvements in the Alaska 
Marine Highway ferry schedule; increased tourist spending; increase in 
number of general cargo vessels through the strait; reduced casualties 
to commercial vessels; and reduction in vessel operating cost (fuel). 
While I am not sure that the economic analysis exhausts all categories 
that needed to be considered in this list, I am sure that the economic 
analysis did not evaluate the benefits of these categories thoroughly 
enough. The National Economic Development [NED] benefits were only 
estimated for the last of these six categories. I think that the NED 
benefits should have been performed for all of these categories.
  I also feel the corps was remiss in not doing any analysis of two 
options--a shallower channel project that could provide limited 
benefits at a substantially lower cost, and a larger channel project 
that would open the passage to even the largest cruise ships that 
frequent these waters.
  I believe that if all of the potential benefits were figured into the 
equation that the annual costs of Dry Straits may be offset and that 
even the high initial cost of construction may be worth the investment. 
I seek the assistance of the chairman in directing the corps to 
reconsider its economic analysis of benefits to costs by taking into 
account the benefits of all categories and any other benefits that may 
be realized from this project.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I urge the Army Corps to address the concerns of the 
Senator related to the benefit-cost calculation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank Senator Johnston. Taking all of this into 
account, I think that this project warrants further studies. I 
anticipate that a more thorough evaluation of the benefits to costs 
will result in the next needed step of a detailed modeling.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to be able to accommodate the Senator from 
Alaska in the way for now. I am willing to work with the Senator in the 
future on this project.


                    new boat harbor at wrangell, AK

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I once had the privilege of managing 
a bank in the city of Wrangell, in southeast Alaska. Wrangell is a 
small but thriving community of approximately 3,000 people--active in 
the Alaska fishing industry, a destination for the State's marine 
highway ferry system, the hub of a thriving river trade with Canada, 
and the site of an important lumber mill. Like most Alaskan coastal 
communities, its welfare is closely tied to the sea. Unfortunately, the 
current boat harbor, constructed in the 1930's, is unable to satisfy 
today's boating needs. It suffers from limited depth, inadequate wave 
protection, and overcrowding. It needs moorage for local commercial 
fishing and pleasure craft, moorage for transient vessels, space for an 
expanding tugboat fleet, and room for needed upland facilities to 
support water-related uses.
  The Corps of Engineers in Alaska has indicated that it would be 
receptive to evaluating the need for new harbor construction in 
Wrangell, but because of the press of other business and limited 
funding, it was unable to include this project in the general 
investigations category of its appropriation request for fiscal year 
1995.
  I would like to inquire of the distinguished floor managers if they 
would be amendable to supporting the addition of language to the 
conference report which urges the Corps to consider the need for 
evaluation of this project when it prepares its request for fiscal year 
1996.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague, the junior Senator from Alaska, 
for his question. I understand that the corps has previously explored 
this project, but that it has been several years since it has done so, 
and that corps staff in Alaska concur that additional growth in the 
community has brought impacts and needs that did not exist in the past.
  As long as it is understood that we are in no way binding the Corps 
of Engineers to a specific request, but merely requesting that it give 
due consideration to the matter, I would be pleased to explore 
addressing the project in the conference report.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I certainly have no objection to suggesting that this 
project be considered by the corps for inclusion in the fiscal year 
1996 request.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the managers for their consideration, and will 
have my staff contact the committee staff on this matter.


 department of energy report on exporting alaskan north slope crude oil

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, today the Energy Department released 
its detailed report and analysis of the economic effects of lifting the 
ban on exporting Alaska North Slope [ANS] crude oil. The DOE report 
presents a compelling case for immediately lifting the 21-year old ban. 
Lifting the ban will stimulate the economy, enhance our Nation's energy 
security, and have important beneficial effects on the environment.
  After reading this report, the only conclusion that a reasonable 
person can reach is that the export ban makes absolutely no sense and 
continuation of the ban is inconsistent with our national interest. The 
study found that ``exporting ANS crude oil would result in a 
substantial net increase in U.S. employment.'' If the ban is lifted 
this year, at least 11,000, and possibly as many as 16,000 new jobs 
would be created in 1995 alone. And by the end of the decade, as many 
as 25,000 new jobs would be generated from ANS exports. And nearly all 
of those jobs would be created in two States that have yet to recover 
from the recession--California and Alaska.
  Ending the export ban, according to DOE, will stimulate oil 
production activity in California and Alaska, thereby enhancing our 
Nation's energy security. DOE estimates that California oil producers 
could be producing an additional 100 to 110 thousand barrels a day if 
the ban is lifted. Moreover, the higher returns resulting from exports 
would stimulate exploration and development activities in major North 
Slope fields such as Point McIntyre or Endicott. As a result of this 
activity, DOE estimates that Alaskan oil reserves could increase by 200 
million to 400 million barrels.
  Madam President, for more than two decades, the export ban has been 
glutting the California oil market, driving the price of oil in 
California far below the world market and making it impossible for 
independent oil producers to survive. DOE's study confirms the impact 
of this market glut: ``California refiners today purchase the State's 
indigenous crude for prices that are between $0.90 and $2.50 per barrel 
lower than its refined value relative to ANS crude oil.''

  Despite glut-induced low-crude prices in California, consumers 
receive none of the benefits in the form of lower prices for gasoline. 
As DOE notes: ``The low cost of acquiring crude oil is not shared with 
consumers of refined products.'' Who benefits from the glut? The 
refiners in California who, according to DOE, operate on the highest 
margins in the country--31 percent higher than the U.S. average. And 
these margins have been widening in recent years. DOE found that in 
1988 refiners' gross margins in the United States averaged $7.21 per 
barrel in 1988 whereas gross margins in California were $9.82--$2.61 a 
barrel higher. Last year, when U.S. average refiners' margins were 
$8.17 a barrel, refiners in California enjoyed margins averaging 
$12.39--$4.12 a barrel higher or 50 percent higher than margins 
received by other U.S. refiners.
  What the study concludes is that California refiners could easily 
absorb the higher crude prices that would result from lifting the ban 
but that ``refined product price increases would be minimal or 
nonexistent.'' In other words, Madam President, consumers in California 
will not see a price increase if ANS exports are permitted.
  One aspect of the report that I found most interesting concerns the 
environmental implications of lifting the ban. DOE concluded that there 
is ``no plausible evidence of any direct negative environmental impact 
from lifting the ANS export ban.'' In fact, DOE found that there would 
be positive effects on the environment if the ban is lifted because 
increased onshore production in California would decrease the need for 
tankers shipments into the State. Moreover, sulfur-related emissions 
from refineries and automobiles would decline in California because 
some crude that replace ANS crude would have a lower sulfur content 
than ANS crude.
  Moreover, lifting the ban would raise royalty revenue for the Federal 
Government and would increase tax and royalty revenues for Alaska and 
California. The study estimates that Federal receipts would increase 
from $99 million to $180 million, while Alaska royalties and severance 
income would increase from $700 million to $1.6 billion. For 
California's State government, returns from royalties and State and 
local taxes would add $180 million to $230 million to the State's 
coffers. And three-fourths of these financial benefits could accrue in 
the next 2 years.
  Madam President, the export ban is an outdated relic of the world of 
20 years ago and should be ended. Senator Stevens and I have introduced 
legislation (S. 1993) that would end the ban and require that ANS 
exports be transported on Jones Act tankers. DOE's study concludes that 
using Jones Act tankers in the ANS export trade would mitigate maritime 
job losses that would occur if the exports could be shipped on foreign 
flag vessels. I believe it is in our Nation's national security 
interest to maintain a healthy, competitive, and viable merchant 
marine. It is for that reason that S. 1993 requires the use of Jones 
Act vessels.
  In recent weeks, the issue of requiring that Jones Act vessels be 
used to transport ANS crude has raised some concerns within the 
administration and with some international trade organizations. I am 
baffled by those who raise concerns about using Jones Act tankers 
because there is no basis to conclude that this requirement would 
violate our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade [GATT].

  The recently concluded Uruguay round of multilateral trade 
negotiations reached no agreement on maritime services. The GATT 
members agreed to continue to negotiate on trade in maritime services 
and agreed to a standstill on current restrictions on trade in maritime 
services. Requiring the use of U.S. flag vessels on ANS exports does 
not violate the standstill commitment. In fact, permitting such exports 
actually represents a liberalization of our existing export control 
policy which currently prohibits any exports of ANS crude.
  Moreover, the requirement to ship ANS crude on U.S. flag vessels 
would not affect trade in maritime services since no foreign-flag 
vessels currently carry any Alaskan oil. Therefore requiring ANS crude 
to be shipped on Jones Act vessels would not adversely affect foreign 
flag vessels since no foreign flag vessels would be displaced as a 
result of the Jones Act requirement.
  As DOE noted in its report, a portion of the ANS crude exported will 
have to be replaced by U.S. imports of crude oil. These imports are 
likely to be transported on foreign-flag vessels. As a result, allowing 
ANS crude to be exported will result in an increase of foreign-flag 
shipments of crude--or refined products--into the United States.
  Madam President, I would also note that there is precedent for 
extending the Jones Act to foreign trade without any concern that it 
would violate GATT. Under section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act 
of 1979, as amended to implement the United States-Canada Free-Trade 
Agreement, 50,000 barrels per day of ANS crude may be exported for 
consumption in Canada provided that ``any ocean transportation'' of 
such crude be on Jones Act vessels.
  Some members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development [OECD] have also expressed concerns that using Jones Act 
tankers in this trade will upset the trade talks on shipping subsidies. 
Madam President, it is not clear where the OECD talks are headed. 
They've been on-going for more than 5 years with no real progress 
having been made.
  The OECD's goal is to eliminate all government preferences for 
domestic merchant fleets. That may be a laudable goal for some, but for 
this Senator it is an unrealistic and dangerous aim. This Nation needs 
a strong merchant fleet as part of our overall national defense. If 
OECD had its way, the Jones Act would disappear. And if that happened, 
there would be no U.S. flag merchant marine by the end of the century. 
Maybe that is what some of our trading partners desire. But it is not 
what the negotiating position should be for the United States.
  Madam President, I would note that today the Export Administration 
Act [EAA] will expire. That is the primary law that bans the export of 
ANS crude. Later this summer we will consider legislation extending the 
EAA. When the Senate considers the EAA, I hope all of my colleagues 
will support our effort to finally eliminate this irrational export 
ban. In the face of this report, there seems no reason for the ban to 
last another day.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, we have some other amendments that 
have been agreed to by Senator Hatfield, the ranking minority member 
and myself, but which I believe there may be either an objection or a 
request for a rollcall vote from Senator McCain.


                           Amendment No. 2134

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I will send this to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. I am offering this amendment on behalf 
of Senator Dole, our Republican leader, which would identify $500,000 
for general investigations, provided for Wichita, Kansas, the Equus 
Beds project.
  Madam President, we also have a request by Senator McCain that this 
be adopted by rollcall vote without objection.


                           Amendment No. 2134

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Dole, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2134.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 16, line 2, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for 
     General Investigations, $500,000 is provided for the Wichita, 
     Kansas, Equus Beds project''.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask in behalf of Senator McCain for 
the yeas and nays on this.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, will the Senator withhold at this 
time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Oregon yielding the floor?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I withhold my request.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, if I may say a word about this, and 
then hope that we would not require the yeas and nays because we are 
going to have to stay here tonight until the defense bill is finished. 
I submit that there is no reason in the world to have a vote on this 
amendment.
  Senator Dole proposes a study on a demonstration project which is 
authorized which would commit $500,000 on a ground water recharge 
study. That is all it is.
  Madam President, we have a huge number of these kinds of studies in 
this bill. We have a huge number. If we had to vote on every one, we 
would be here for weeks. Most of them are already contained in our 
report. I invite my colleagues to look at these. These are studies. 
They go on for pages. This is no different from that. Look at this, 
Madam President. I do not know how many page pages this is. It is 
single spaced, over 10 pages, several hundred of these. This is no 
different from those.
  It has been approved by Senator Hatfield and myself. I would hope 
that the Senator would not ask for the yeas and nays. I could put in a 
quorum call so this could be explained to the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain]. If we have a vote on this, this is not the last one. We have 
some others we would have to vote on. There is just no reason to do 
that.
  So I hope we would not have to do that.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I withhold the request, Madam President, in asking for 
the yeas and nays. I have indicated to the staff that I would like to 
have Senator McCain on the floor to make a determination on this. I say 
to the Senator from Louisiana that there are three other amendments 
that we have here to deal with: One by Senator Chafee, one by Senator 
Levin, as well as one by Senator Dole; a total of three that at this 
point I understand the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] wishes to have 
a rollcall.
  So that would be in effect three rollcall votes unless there is some 
way of doing them en bloc; to have one rollcall, if he demands that. 
But I would at this time suggest the absence of a quorum, unless there 
are other items that the Senator would like to dispose of and set aside 
this first Dole amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, while we are waiting, 
Senator Chafee has an amendment which involves $67,500 for an 
investigation of the Allendale Dam in Rhode Island; another one of 
several hundred of these kinds of things.
    
    
  Here is another one by Senator Levin with the Grand Marais Harbor in 
Michigan, a $100,000 investigation.
  Madam President, the Senate has done nothing to warrant the 
punishment of having to come over here and vote on these. If every 
Senator wanted a rollcall vote, do you know how many weeks we would be 
here on every one of these kinds of things?
  Madam President, I hope the Senator from Arizona will come over, and 
look at these. And then we have a couple of others that we have agreed 
to with explanation that I think he would agree to.
  So I hope he will not insist on a rollcall vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I understand what the chairman of our 
subcommittee said. I can understand his concern, and I share that 
concern. But I must also say the flip side of that coin is obviously 
that any Senator has a right to have a rollcall vote on any amendment 
on any matter pending in this Senate on which an agreement must be 
reached. I must in that respect defend the right of the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain's right, to have such a rollcall. I hope it is not 
necessary. But I agree with the Senator that until we find that out 
directly, I am still under such instructions and a request from the 
Senator from Arizona to ask for such rollcall votes.
  I will restrain myself at this time in doing that pending his arrival 
on the floor to speak for himself.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I am advised we are going to need 
these rollcall votes. I wonder if we could just set--I know we also 
have a Lautenberg amendment which you and I have cleared and whether we 
could just set like 5 votes in a row.
  Mr. HATFIELD. It would be fine with me. We have a vote now scheduled 
for 5 o'clock. My only point is there are other matters we can dispose 
of in the meantime, and then stack these votes after the 5 o'clock vote 
that is being requested by Senator McCain?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I think so. I think we could get one vote out of the 
way now and the others.
  Madam President, is the Dole amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.


                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order that, upon the yeas and nays being requested on the Dole 
amendment, a rollcall vote occur on that immediately; that immediately 
thereafter, we have a vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment; 
that if that amendment is not tabled, immediately thereafter there be a 
vote on the Harkin amendment; that immediately thereafter, a vote occur 
on the Levin amendment, and that it be in order at this time to submit 
an amendment on behalf of Senator Levin; that immediately thereafter, 
there being a vote on the Chafee amendment, and that it be in order to 
submit that amendment at this time; that immediately thereafter, there 
be a vote on the Lautenberg-Bradley amendment, and that it be in order 
to submit that amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator will yield, there is also a Stevens 
amendment on the electrical generator in Alaska which he indicated he 
would like to take up as soon as possible after the 5 o'clock vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, that would be in order.
  If I may, I amend that request to have the first vote on the motion 
to table the Harkin amendment, followed by the vote on the Harkin 
amendment, if not tabled, followed by the Dole amendment, the Levin 
amendment, the Chafee amendment, and the Lautenberg amendment, in that 
order, and that no second-degree amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendments Nos. 2135, 2136 and 2137, en bloc

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I send a group of amendments, en bloc, 
on behalf of Senators Levin, Chafee, and Lautenberg to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] proposes 
     amendments, en bloc, numbered 2135, 2136, and 2137.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:

                           amendment no. 2135

    (Purpose: To fund an economic study of Grand Marais Harbor, MI)

       On page 3, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following: 
     ``Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan, $100,000''.


                           amendment no. 2136

       On page 9, line 15, before the ``:'', insert the following: 
     ``Allendale Dam, Rhode Island, $67,500''.


                           amendment no. 2137

    
    
       On page 21, line 25, after ``expended'' insert: ``, of 
     which $45,000,000 is to initiate construction of the Tokamak 
     Physics Experiment (TPX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics 
     Laboratory, subject to subsequent enactment into law of 
     specific authorizing legislation.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank 
the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for 
working with me and the senior Senator from New Jersey on this 
amendment. As my colleagues know, he is chairman of this subcommittee 
and is also chairman of the full Energy Committee. He is clearly the 
leader in the Senate on energy legislation.
  Specifically, he has also been a big supporter of the fusion program. 
He has stated publicly his support for the TPX fusion machine that is 
scheduled to be built at Princeton University and the ITER project, 
which is designed to be an international collaborative fusion effort 
between the United States, Russia, Japan, and the European Community. 
The ITER machine is being designed to lead to a commercial fusion 
reactor in the next century.
  Madam President, this amendment adds $45 million for the construction 
of the TPX fusion machine at Princeton University. However, it makes 
the construction funds contingent upon authorization by the Congress. 
Now, I would let my colleagues know that the Senate has already passed 
a fusion authorization bill that includes authorization for building 
TPX at Princeton and ITER. This bill is sponsored by the distinguished 
manager of the bill, Senator Johnston. The House also has a fusion 
authorization bill pending in the House Science Committee.
  Madam President, it would be my preference that this contingency 
provision not be included in the amendment. There are many other energy 
research projects funded in this bill that are not contingent upon 
authorization.
  However, I agree with the chairman that we need a roadmap for where 
we are going with the fusion program. I believe that we should either 
enact this authorizing legislation or require the administration to 
present the Congress with a plan for the future of the fusion program.
  But this amendment does represent good news for the fusion program. 
It means that we are moving forward on construction of TPX and ITER. It 
means that the international fusion effort will continue.
  Madam President, there are approximately 1,000 hard working 
scientists and technicians at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 
They have dedicated their lives to try to make fusion energy a reality. 
If we are successful in the development of fusion energy, our 
grandchildren may inherit an abundant source of clean energy that does 
not have the radioactive waste problems associated with nuclear 
fission.
  Madam President, at this time I would also like to make my colleagues 
aware of some recent developments at the Princeton Laboratory. Last 
December, Princeton scientists achieved world record bursts of fusion 
during experiments on the existing TFTR machine.
  The TFTR machine's peak output was 6 million watts, triple the output 
of a similar effort in England 2 years earlier. This event was met with 
worldwide news coverage and I ask unanimous consent to have printed a 
front page New York Times article that summarizes this event in the 
Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 10, 1993]

    Scientists at Princeton Produce World's Largest Fusion Reaction

                         (By Malcolm W. Browne)

       Plainsboro, N.J., Dec. 9--A huge experimental reactor 
     embodying the process of the hydrogen fusion that fuels the 
     sun unleashed a burst of energy tonight that broke all 
     records and appeared to pave the way for eventual 
     exploitation of abundant, cheap fusion energy.
       The achievement crowned a day of lesser landmarks, in which 
     the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory gradually increased 
     the power of its Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor by mixing 
     increasing proportions of tritium into the machine's fuel.
       In the final ``shot'' of the night, the machine achieved a 
     fusion power equivalent to about three million watts--double 
     the power achieved two years ago by the Joint European Torus, 
     a somewhat similar machine in England.
       As the vast power of the seven-second burst manifested 
     itself on computer screens in the control room and 
     auditorium, it became apparent that the experiment was a 
     success, about 500 scientists who had worked on the project 
     for up to 20 years cheered and applauded, a few with tears in 
     their eyes.
       In the next several months, the Princeton group expects to 
     increase the power of its reactor to five megawatts, and by 
     the end of next year, to 10 megawatts. The machine consumes 
     about twice as much energy as it produces, but this ratio is 
     a vast improvement over previous types of fusion experiment.
       Physicists and engineers had packed the huge control room 
     of Princeton's tokamak fusion test reactor to run the machine 
     on a fuel never before used in a reactor: a full-strength 
     mixture of deuterium and tritium.
       Fusion is the joining together of the nuclei of hydrogen 
     atoms, each of which contains one proton. The fused nucleus 
     resulting from this reaction is that of helium, which 
     contains two protons. This process is the opposite of 
     fission, the phenomenon that powers conventional nuclear 
     reactors; fission involves breaking apart heavy nuclei, like 
     those of plutonium atoms.
       Although radioactive tritium fuel is used in the tokamak 
     reactor, scientists say there is no danger of any accidental 
     release of the tiny quantity used in the experiment--five 
     grams. Unlike nuclear fission reactors, a fusion reactor 
     cannot melt down, and if anything goes wrong, the fusion 
     reaction, which is very difficult to keep going, simply 
     stops.
       Physicists believe that if the current series of high-power 
     experiments is successful--and two more advanced fusion 
     reactors are completed--the first commercial fusion power 
     reactors could begin operating around the year 2030.


     new age of cheap energy is seen as fusion experiment succeeds

       The atmosphere in the huge control room here was 
     reminiscent of a control room at the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Agency preparing for a major space launching. As 
     occasional snags in the countdown for the main fusion 
     ``shot'' developed, scores of news reporters, officials and 
     scientists watched the tense proceedings from the windows of 
     a balcony surrounding the control room.
       Before trying a full-strength shot using the full charge of 
     deuterium and tritium, the physicists conducted several 
     lesser shots, each one more powerful than the last, and each 
     ``exploring a virgin field of physics,'' according to Dr. 
     Dale M. Meade, deputy director of the laboratory. Onlookers 
     heard a loud whine with each shot, as the 50-foot-high 
     machine vibrated after being suddenly exposed to a powerful 
     magnetic field.
       The audience, which included officials of the Department of 
     Energy, was also treated to spectacular views of the interior 
     of the reaction chamber. Closed-circuit television vividly 
     displayed the white-hot fuel confined in the machine, and 
     could see the bright flash swiftly fade as the temperature 
     rose above that at which visible light is emitted.
       Dr. Meade said a crucial goal of tonight's series of runs 
     was the measurement of the number and energy of neutrons 
     emitted by the fusion reaction, which are an indication of 
     the reaction's power. In a commercial reactor, these neutrons 
     would be harvested by an external metal ``blanket,'' which 
     would heat up as neutrons hit it. This heat would be 
     transferred to a gas that would turn the turbines of electric 
     generators.
       Scientists said that the deuterium-tritium fuel used in the 
     current experiment would achieve a temperature of several 
     hundred million degrees--modest by fusion standards, but far 
     higher than the temperature at the core of the sun.
       In the last 10 years, it has cost about $1.4 billion to 
     build the tokamak reactor at Princeton's Plasma Physics 
     Laboratory and conduct dry runs using deuterium fuel. Nearly 
     all the money was provided by the Federal Department of 
     Energy. The Princeton laboratory hopes to gain financing for 
     a new tokamak reactor in which a continuous fusion reaction 
     could be maintained.
       The term tokamak is derived from a Russion acronym for 
     toroidal magnetic chamber, which describes the design of the 
     device.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Since then, Princeton scientists have achieved even 
greater levels of fusion power--9 million watts of power. I am proud of 
these accomplishments and working together with my colleagues, I trust 
that there will be many more as we ultimately move towards commercial 
fusion energy.
  Once again, I would like to thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
offering this amendment. I urge the Senate to adopt it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I have described previously the 
Chafee, Dole, and Levin amendments.
  The Lautenberg amendment provides that with respect to the TPX 
project at Princeton, the tokamak physics experiment, that--the House 
has provided that we proceed with that project for a new start, and $45 
million is committed for a new start of that project.
  What this amendment says is that the new start of the TPX project be 
subject to subsequent enactment into law of specific authorizing 
legislation. The reason for that, as I explained when we opened the 
bill this morning, is that the TPX project, in my view, should not 
begin until the Congress understands what the mortgage is of the TPX 
project, and what the mortgage is on the either project, or the 
international tokamak experiment, which would follow on that, and 
understands the scope of this and makes a decision to go ahead, which 
the authorizing legislation would allow.
  We have already passed in the Senate a bill which deals with TPX and 
ITER and it now reposes in the House. So it would be up to the House to 
act on that. In other words, it would be possible to get that 
authorizing bill passed this year, or, if not this year, early next 
year. It provides, in effect, that the $45 million as provided by the 
House may not be used to commence the project until and unless it is 
authorized. I think this is very prudent, Madam President.
  I favor the TPX project and I favor the ITER project. But the 
combined U.S. obligation under those two projects could be as high as 
$15 billion--$15 billion. It is not something that you do without being 
authorized. It may be the answer to all of our energy problems. It may 
produce energy cleanly and safely, with an unlimited supply of fuel; 
that is the promise of fusion energy. That promise would probably not 
be realized, if realized, until 2050, or beyond.
  But the Congress needs to debate and consider this fusion program. It 
is not all upside. I am hopeful that it would work. I believe we ought 
to go into this $15 billion crusade. However, there are those who think 
it will never work, that it is too expensive and too long-term, and 
that we do not have the resources to do it.
  Madam President, having been burned on the SSC Program, having seen 
us invest, together with termination costs, almost $3 billion in SSC 
and then decide to terminate that program, we should not proceed with 
what could be a program three times or four times that big without at 
least an authorization. That is all this amendment does. From somebody 
who favors the program, TPX, it says let us proceed, but subject to 
authorization. And there is every ability to authorize that project 
this year, with a bill that reposes in the House. I understand there 
have been hearings in the House already. So it can proceed.
  So, Madam President, that is what this Lautenberg-Bradley amendment 
would do. I do not know why anybody would oppose that. Senator 
Lautenberg and Senator Bradley are for it, and the floor managers are 
for it. It seems to me that everybody ought to be for that. In any 
event, we will be voting on that.
  Madam President, beginning at 5 p.m., we have a long series of votes. 
I ask the floor staff whether it would be in order to ask that all 
votes after the first be 10-minute votes? I am advised that no, it 
would not be. We will ask the majority leader to come and make that 
request. There are now stacked up, I believe, five votes, commencing at 
5 o'clock.
  Madam President, I am advised if we table, then it is five votes; if 
we do not table it is six votes. Only one or two of those are 
necessary.
  I hope we can expunge the order for those other votes because nobody 
objects to them. It is just sort of a caning of the Senate.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. As I understand then the remaining agenda we have to 
complete this bill will be an amendment to be offered by Senator 
Stevens following the series of votes, then the action on the one 
committee amendment, and then we could go to third reading; is that 
correct?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. So far as I know that is correct. The Stevens amendment 
would be eligible for consideration at that time. It is not involved in 
the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. HATFIELD. It is not in the mix of votes, no. But he wanted to 
have the opportunity to offer his amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct. I think so far as I know our 
business is done other than the Stevens amendment if offered. That is 
all we know about it. So I hope we can go to third reading.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask 
for the yeas and nays, en bloc, on all those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All right.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Is that one vote for all?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No. Madam President, the unanimous consent would be to 
ask for the yeas and nays on each of the amendments not en bloc but on 
each of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without object, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on all the 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Why ask for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I am advised that it is the wish of 
some Senators to expunge the order for the yeas and nays on everything 
other than the first two Harkin amendments in hopes that Senator McCain 
will not ask for them, but he will obviously be here and be able to ask 
for the yeas and nays and they will be stacked.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the order for the yeas and nays on 
all amendments other than the motion to table the Harkin amendment, and 
the motion to pass the Harkin amendment, if not tabled, be expunged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 2128

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5 p.m. having arrived, the 
question now occurs on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2128, offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on this vote I have a live pair with the 
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan]. If he were present, he would vote 
``aye.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' I, 
therefore, withhold my vote.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] is 
absent because of attending funeral.
  On this vote, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] is paired with the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor].
  If present and voting, the Senator from New York would vote ``aye'' 
and the Senator from Arkansas would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mitchell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Reid
     Robb
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pressler
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                   PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS

                         PREVIOUSLY RECORDED--1

                             Pryor, against

                             NOT VOTING--1

       Bryan
       
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2128) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I 
believe we now have four consecutive rollcall votes; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Chair will say to the Senator that there are four consecutive 
votes, not necessarily rollcall votes, unless they are called for.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has consented to allow one 
rollcall vote on the Lautenberg amendment and, thereafter, we can 
accept the other amendments.
  So I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, are there any other rollcall votes that 
have been ordered at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are not.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider the Lautenberg amendment and after that, a rollcall 
vote occur at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Can the Senator explain to me what happened to the 
other three or four votes?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. We are going to have voice votes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. The Senator is going to accept those?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. We already accepted them, and we will have voice votes 
on those pending amendments.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. That is what I mean, the pending amendments on which 
we thought we were going to have rollcall votes, the yeas and nays were 
never ordered?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Never ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. So it is only a discussion if there might be rollcall 
votes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2137

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2137 offered by Senator Lautenberg.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] is 
absent because of attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--30

     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Reid
     Roth
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       Bryan
       
       
  So the amendment (No. 2137) was agreed to.


              Amendments Nos. 2134, 2135, and 2136 en bloc

    
    
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces that, without objection, 
amendments Nos. 2134, 2135, and 2136 are agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to move en bloc to reconsider and lay on the table the motions 
for each of the last four amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the motion to lay on the table for each of the 
amendments is agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, for the edification of my colleagues, I 
believe what we will do now is as follows: Senator Wellstone has an 
amendment that, speaking for the majority, we can approve. And I am in 
good hopes that the minority would do that as well.
  Senator Stevens has an amendment. I know of no other amendments. We 
have a request for a rollcall vote on final passage.
  So my guess is that in the next 15 minutes or so we will have a vote 
on final passage. If anybody knows anything to the contrary to that, 
please let us know.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I just wanted to build on comments of the Senator from 
Louisiana. We are right now looking over the language and negotiating 
on this amendment. We hope to get back to the Senator very soon, and 
hopefully we can reach agreement. We still are just looking at the 
language.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator offer it? I will be speaking.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will offer it as soon as I take a look. I am now 
taking a look at what the Senator suggested. We will try to evaluate 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2138

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. 
     Inouye, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2138.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the Committee amendment on page 32 insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided, The Secretary may expend up to $25 million in 
     unobligated funds for the formulation and implementation of a 
     program to provide Alaska villages with reliable and 
     affordable electrical generation systems, and, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, may use any such 
     unobligated funds to provide fuel for electrical generation, 
     at market prices to any village in Alaska that is unable to 
     obtain such fuel from commercial vendors: Provided further, 
     That the State of Alaska will provide a dollar-for-dollar 
     match of the Federal share.''

    
    
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for myself, the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye] and my colleague, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], I 
offer this amendment.
  It is necessary to take the time of the Senate to discuss this 
amendment. Let me tell you the background of this amendment. Just 2 
days ago a delegation came to my office from the northwest Eskimo 
villages and asked me if I could get my good friend from Hawaii, as 
chairman of the Indian Committee, to listen to this problem. Senator 
Inouye consented to do that, and we met with them for about 2 hours. 
They explained to us the problem.
  This amendment attempts to start the Federal Government on a process 
of trying to help solve that problem.
  Just so there is no question about it, let me read again what the 
amendment would do. It would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
expend up to $25 million in unobligated funds for the formulation and 
implementation of a program to provide Alaska villages with reliable 
and affordable electric generation systems, and notwithstanding any of 
the provisions of law, the Secretary would be authorized--it says she 
may use--to use any such unobligated funds to provide fuel for 
electrical generation at market prices to any village in Alaska that is 
unable to obtain fuel from commercial vendors; provided further that 
the State of Alaska will provide a dollar-for-dollar match of such 
Federal share.
  In my State, there are a great many rural villages. This map of 
Alaska shows some of those villages. They are spread throughout the 
State. Mainly, however, the Senate will note they go up the west coast 
of Alaska and up the eastern portion of Alaska.
  In these areas, there are individual villages. They have individual 
diesel fuel generators. And they have individual tanks to store diesel 
fuel.
  Mr. President, these 120 villages, or more, use small generators; 
they are independent stand-alone systems used to provide electric power 
for the people who live in these villages. This is diesel generation. 
The villages pay very high for that power that is generated. Their cost 
is up to $1 per kilowatt hour. In comparison, the people of the area we 
are in right now pay about 8 cents per kilowatt hour. The basic cost is 
roughly 12 times the cost of power in the Washington area.
  The tanks that store this diesel fuel were installed by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs in the 1940's and 1950's. They have now been cited by 
the Coast Guard as being hazards, safety hazards to the navigable 
rivers. Almost all the villages are located on navigable rivers. These 
tanks need to be repaired or replaced because of the designation by the 
Coast Guard under the Oil Pollution Act. Resolving that tank problem 
alone, to replace the tanks will cost roughly $240 million.
  Mr. President, in Public Law 1024-86, enacted in 1992, is this 
provision:

       It is to promote energy resource development and vertical 
     integration on Indian reservations.

  These are all Indian villages, recognized tribes of the United States 
now.
  The provision states, in section 2603:

       The Secretary shall provide grants not to exceed 50 percent 
     of the project cost for vertical integration projects. For 
     the purpose of this project, the term ``vertical integration 
     project'' means a project that promotes the vertical 
     integration of energy resources on an Indian reservation so 
     that the energy resource is used or processed on such Indian 
     reservation. The term includes but is not limited to projects 
     involving solar, wind, or refineries, electricity, 
     hydroelectricity, cogeneration, natural gas distribution, and 
     clean, innovative uses of coal.

  That term Indian reservation in section 2601 specifically includes 
``native groups, regional corporations, and village corporations that 
are organized in Alaska.''
  What I present to the Senate is an amendment to start the process of 
trying to place these villages in compliance with the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990. That act has now made it almost impossible to deliver oil to 
those villages because the fuel tanks do not meet Federal standards. 
Delivery of oil to those tanks will be in violation of the Oil 
Pollution Act unless the tanks are replaced.
  Another provision of the Oil Pollution Act requires that companies 
that transport oil products carry $150 million in financial 
responsibility in cases of spills. Even if they are just transporting 
100 gallons of fuel, they are subject to a $150 million financial 
responsibility requirement for each shipment. What that means is that 
the oil companies going to deliver oil to these tanks face the 
potential liability of up to $150 million if there is a spill from the 
tanks that have already been found to be a safety hazard.
  These tanks, and the aging diesel generators used by these villages, 
must be replaced with new ones, and emerging technologies such as wind, 
hydro power, coal, or natural gas, are needed to replace the dependence 
on diesel fuel.
  As I just mentioned, the DOE has the authority to develop 
demonstration projects which use local fuels as an alternative to these 
diesel tanks. The problem we have that I am trying to present to the 
Senate is that we must spend well over $240 million to replace the 
tanks, and yet even after they are replaced, the problem is that the 
ever-increasing cost of diesel fuel in the area is such that it is 
going to mean these people will be out of electric energy anyway.
  I suggest that we should have some demonstration projects from the 
Department of Energy to show how Alaska's energy, the energy located in 
these areas, where these villages exist, is safe, reliable, and 
efficient, and renewable energy could be developed. That is possible 
only through cooperation between the Federal and State Governments and 
these local villages.
  This amendment of mine specifically requires that the State of Alaska 
must meet, dollar for dollar, the expenditures of the Federal 
Government in developing these new systems. A systems approach needs to 
be taken to meet these needs. We can, for instance, use hydroelectric 
power in conjunction with other power sources. We can produce other 
forms of electricity through wind and other types of generation, and we 
can stop some of the pollution in the area at the same time.
  The great difficulty is, and I will show the Senate--the basic 
problem is this: This map shows the State of Alaska superimposed on the 
United States. It also has the parks, refuges, and forests that are 
withdrawn. Basically, the areas where the villages exist were withdrawn 
in 1980 by the Federal Government, and it is impossible for these 
villages to get to and develop the natural gas and geothermal power in 
the area. Even the wind power potential cannot be developed without 
using Federal lands that are already withdrawn and not available.
  What we want to see is a task force developed to deal with this basic 
problem. Spanning the chasm between the present and future energy self-
reliability is going to cost a lot of money. The bridge between what 
exists now, that must be replaced now, and the situation that must be 
developed for tomorrow, out into the future so these people will have 
available energy, is great. It will cost, as I said, over $200 million 
just to replace the tanks that have been condemned already by the Coast 
Guard.
  I believe that the amendment we have presented is a beginning. It 
provides that the Secretary of Energy can spend up to $25 million from 
funds available, provided the State matches it dollar-for-dollar to 
help provide affordable electric generation systems to these village 
people.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that there is energy there. I 
travel throughout the area. There is known gas, geothermal, and coal 
resources in the area; yet, these people are paying substantial amounts 
to bring diesel into the area. Sometimes when their fuel deliveries do 
not take place and bulk fuels have to be flown in, the cost per gallon 
to fly diesel fuel into these areas is up to $3 a gallon.
  I do believe that there is discretion in the Secretary of Energy to 
use money, pursuant to the existing authority, to provide for these 
demonstration projects on these village corporation lands, and that we 
should have the authority for her to proceed now to develop this.
  The program that was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 has 
never been implemented. It is not implemented by this bill. But I 
believe there are moneys there that are available, that have not been 
obligated, that could be used to develop a solution to this problem.
  The main thing I want to bring to the Senate's attention is that this 
is a Federal problem. These are 120 separate native tribes. They have 
been designated as Indian tribes by the Department of the Interior. 
They have come to us for assistance. My good friend from Hawaii 
listened to them. I have to tell you that the sincerity of these people 
is just fantastic. They believe the system that was authorized in the 
law. They believe that they are going to get assistance from their 
Federal and State government.
  (Mr. DeCONCINI assumed the chair.)
  Mr. STEVENS. They came to us with a mission statement developed by 
the Alaska Rural Energy Program, and they need to have assistance now. 
They want to bring the government of Alaska and the Federal Government 
together to work with each of these villages as individual governments 
to try and solve the problem that they face without additional 
pollution and to try to bring about some permanent solution to them.
  Let me point out that again these are individual villages. The total 
number of people that are in those villages is roughly 30,000 people. 
They have no way to get assistance without some form of assistance 
developed. I think that is the reason for the demonstration program for 
Indian tribes we enacted in 1992. That was the solution that was 
authorized at the time.
  There is not any money available so far to proceed with this. That is 
why there is the provision in our amendment which would authorize the 
use of moneys that are already available.
  I will ask unanimous consent that the summary that was presented by 
the Alaska Rural Energy Task Force to Senator Inouye and me when they 
came to meet with us this week be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I want to call on my friends who are the managers of 
this bill to respond to our problem. I know they are reluctant to 
consider my amendment. But I would ask them, if they represented a 
State like ours what would you do?
  We had a group of people that came down here all the way, 5,000 
miles, to consult with us, to ask us for help.
  This bill is on the floor. Why can we not help them? Why cannot we 
authorize the Secretary to use her discretion? It does not mandate 
anything. Why cannot we authorize the use of funds that may not be 
obligated under this bill in 1995?
  If something is not done we are going to have a serious problem of 
pollution of navigable waters because of these tanks which were 
installed by the Federal Government, have been maintained by the 
Federal Government. And the question is, how do we deal with it?
  I am not here to beg. I am here to ask. I think they have taken this 
trip down to visit us and to seek a solution. And I would like to see a 
solution start on its way.
  This is not asking for the full amount. As I said, the full amount 
would be over almost $250 million to replace the tanks. We are looking 
for $25 million to be matched by the State government making $50 
million to be the initial demonstration phase of a program to meet a 
very critical problem in rural Alaska, a problem brought to us by a 
series of representatives of these rural utilities that use costly 
diesel generation today at exorbitant prices they must pay.
  We used to have, by the way, Mr. President, a Federal tanker that 
delivered that oil. That does not happen anymore. They do not buy it in 
bulk down in Seattle the way they used to deliver it once a year up to 
these villages. They must contract to buy it once a year to fill up 
those tanks. The tanks have now been condemned. I think we have to have 
a solution.
  Incidentally, I want to again publicly thank my great friend from 
Hawaii, who has been to my State. He has been north of the Arctic 
Circle many times. He has come and listened to our people in Alaska, 
and he is literally the unchallenged hero of the Alaska Native people 
in terms of his willingness to come and listen to them, visit with 
them, and get to know them as chairman of the Indian committee. So I 
pay tribute to my friend from Hawaii and thank him for being with me at 
the time this delegation came to visit us.
  Mr. President, I again renew my request that this executive summary 
of the mission outlined by these people when they came to us be printed 
in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Alaska Rural Energy--Executive Summary

       Mission statement: develop safe, reliable and efficient 
     energy systems in rural Alaska that are financially viable 
     and environmentally sound.
       Providing electric power in rural Alaska is difficult 
     because of its size, terrain, climate and sparse population.
       Most of the 120 electric utilities--more than the Pacific 
     Northwest states combined--in Alaska are small, stand-alone 
     operations servicing individual communities.
       Virtually all of Alaska's rural utilities depend primarily 
     on costly diesel generation--up to $1.00 per kilowatt hour in 
     some cases--with its attendant delivery, storage and 
     environmental constraints.
       Economic and infrastructure development can only be 
     achieved by lowering energy costs, developing greater 
     efficiencies in management and operation, and in developing 
     renewable alternatives to diesel generation.
       Alaska has made major investments in rural energy and has 
     embarked on a regionalization program to help rural utilities 
     achieve greater efficiencies.
       Rural Alaska's problems with bulk fuel storage and water 
     and waste water facilities are not the responsibility of a 
     single entity; both state and federal agencies were and are 
     involved.
       Solving these problems and complying with air, water and 
     pollution laws and regulations will require a collaborative 
     effort between state and federal agencies and the utilities 
     and communities involved.
       In order to bring Alaska's rural electrical systems up to 
     standards set by the Rural Electrication Association, it is 
     estimated that $60 million--exclusive of bulk fuel needs 
     estimated at $200 million--would be required.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has not only 
a great deal of sympathy for Alaska but he demonstrated sympathy for 
what are real problems of the people of Alaska. And I think the Senator 
from Alaska knows that I have demonstrated that time and time again.
  I am sensitive to this problem, first, of the inability of people in 
these remote villages to get electric generating systems and, second, 
the inability to get fuel. These are real problems that I would like to 
find a solution to.
  Now, I would suggest to my friend that this bill at this time is not 
the time and place to do it, first of all because we do not have the 
unobligated funds here; second, because a site specific amendment such 
as this I believe would set a bad precedent; third, I believe there 
would be other Senators who would object because we have told all 
Senators that a site specific amendment we would not accept; and 
fourth, it really needs some study.
  From what we know, there are great needs, and I concur with the 
Senator from Alaska. But how many generating systems, and how many 
villages, at what cost, from what account, how does the administration 
budget for it? It is the kind of issue on which I think we ought to 
have hearings and we ought to probably have some supplemental 
legislation. I understand there is some authorization for this already 
passed, but it ought to be considered in the context of a budget 
request.
  I will tell the Senator, as I say, my demonstrated record is one of 
sympathy for his projects, and I hope he would give us time to study 
this in the cool light of day, consider it in light of budget requests 
and where the funding might come from, and that would probably be a 
better solution even then to pass this amendment, because this 
amendment, first of all, would surely run into deep trouble in the 
conference committee and even if passed into law it would be 
discretionary with the Secretary of Energy who would not have the money 
with which to fund the program.
  So I think it would be a pyrrhic victory at best. I would urge the 
Senator to give us some time to work on this and I will, as I have on 
other matters of his concern, try to work it out in the ensuing months.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not mean in any way to infer that 
the managers of the bill and particularly my friend from Louisiana has 
not also been to Alaska and is not familiar with the issues.
  As a matter of fact in this bill is a $5 million appropriation, which 
the managers of the bill have already authorized, for the Tazimina 
hydro project. It is in near Nondalton, AK. It is one of the rural 
villages. It is to a point where it can be developed. It will provide a 
substantial boost for several villages if it can be fully constructed.
  I understand what the Senator is saying.
  Let me first, however, yield the floor to my friend from Hawaii, and 
then I will come back to the comments of the Senator from Louisiana, if 
I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, soon this Nation will adopt a policy to 
make health universal, that every American, man, woman, and child will 
receive health care. When this will come about no one seems to know, 
but I hope it is soon.
  Second, we have a very important measure pending before us which 
would build an informational highway throughout the United States and 
will send messages to and from all Americans, to colleges, to 
libraries, schools, hospitals, cities, villages. This is the great 
American dream that will soon become a reality.
  But, Mr. President, may I share with you a picture of a few Americans 
who have been forgotten all these years and decades. They are the 
Natives of Alaska. My good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, pointed 
out there are 120 villages. Most of these villages are north of the 
Arctic Circle, and it may interest my colleagues to know of the 120 
villages only 4 have running water. None has sewer systems. Every 
morning some child from each household has to carry a honey bucket to a 
dumping site, and in case we do not know what a honey bucket is call up 
the Alaskans and they will tell you what it is.
  The fastest selling commodity in the village store is Pinesol to 
clean the honey buckets.
  During my most recent visit to the Natives of Alaska, I was asked not 
to visit one of the villages. Why? Because 92 percent of the residents 
had hepatitis.
  This is a picture throughout these villages of over 100,000 people. 
There are no highways, so you cannot go by automobile from one village 
to another. You have to fly in. And during the wintertime maybe a 
dogsled, if you want to risk your life.
  And so what happens? We here in Washington would pay at the highest 
$1.25 a gallon for diesel oil. In Alaska, these natives have to pay up 
to $5 a gallon. That is not an American way of sharing the bounties of 
this democracy.
  Yes, I suppose a study should be made. Yes, I think a hearing should 
be held.
  But, Mr. President, if we look through the records of this Senate, we 
have had many studies, many, many hearings. I think the time has come.
  If we are to have a hearing, fine. But let us hope that we will have 
the strength of conviction to come out with a solution. It is about 
time these Natives got the promise that all of us have been able to 
live with all these years. I think we owe them something.
  So I support the amendment of my friend. It is a good amendment. It 
should be passed.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do thank my good friend for his support 
and interest and his knowledge of our people. I hope that we can find 
some way to proceed.
  My good friend from Hawaii is chairman of the Indian Affairs 
Committee. Our friend from Louisiana is chairman of the Energy 
Committee. I hope that we can find some way.
  The Senator from Louisiana has mentioned a hearing. Is it possible we 
might have a hearing sometime before the supplemental comes along, so 
that we could explore the possibilities of getting some specifics in 
terms of a plan and maybe call the BIA and energy people to come listen 
to our friends from these villages, to let them hear the plight of 
their circumstance?
  This circumstance was brought about by an act of Congress we passed 
in 1990 intended to protect the navigable waters of the United States. 
It is going to place a severe burden on them already in order to 
replace the tanks which are found to be defective. I am glad the survey 
was made.
  We do need some help in doing what the Senator from Louisiana has 
suggested in coming forth now with a plan before this becomes a crisis.
  If these people have to fly in oil, it is going to cost us three 
times as much. These basic costs are paid by the taxpayers of the 
United States now. The tanks that were put in were paid by the 
taxpayers of the United States. There is very little basic income out 
there to pay for high-priced diesel and electricity. The State does 
provide some income; so does the Federal Government. We are willing, as 
a State, to meet half of the cost of providing for these people who are 
wards of the United States, basically, as basic members of the Indian 
communities of our country.
  I ask my friend if we could have a hearing sometime before we get to 
the next supplemental so we might see if we could find a way to start 
this plan and to put it in action sometime this coming year. Is that 
possible?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I would certainly 
want to do that. But since we do not know when the next supplemental 
will be, we cannot say for sure exactly when this would be. But I will 
explore this problem at the earliest time with the Senator from Alaska.
  There may be other committees also involved with this. My staff and I 
have been talking about the problem. Perhaps the BIA would be one 
source here with the loan guarantee programs, perhaps the Department of 
Agriculture, rural electric, REA.
  But I will explore all of those avenues with the Senator with a view 
to finding a solution and having a hearing, I hope, at the earliest 
practicable time. I think we ought to be able to work on a solution 
prior to the supplemental. I cannot guarantee that, because I am not 
sure when it would be. But I think we could.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not want to seem like I am pressing 
my friend from Louisiana. Both the Senator from Louisiana and the 
Senator from Hawaii have demonstrated their friendship to my State, as 
I said.
  But I am going to have to bring people down again from this area, 
some 5,000 miles. Can we plan sometime in July or early August? Can we 
get together and find a date where we can tell them to come back to try 
to organize a group that will listen to them?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I say to my friend, we have the mining law conference 
going on right now, which is entering its crescendo. That pretty well 
takes me out of being able to preside.
  I would have to find out when the committee room is available and 
what Senators can preside.
  There is no hesitation in trying to help the Senator. I just cannot 
say at this point when it might be. Obviously, we do not know what the 
schedule will be, but at the soonest practicable time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Louisiana believe that could be 
this year?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I hope so.
  Mr. STEVENS. And might I inquire from my friend from Hawaii whether 
it would be possible to work in conjunction with the Indian Affairs 
Committee on that matter?
  I am just inquiring whether it would be possible that we might work 
these two committees together, and it may even take, as my friend from 
Louisiana said, the Agriculture Committee, too. But could we get 
together to see if we could get a senatorial task force to work on 
working with this task force? Would the Senator from Hawaii be willing 
to work with me in that matter?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from 
Alaska. You just give me the marching orders and I will walk in step.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to say that I had hoped 
that it might be possible to start today. But if it takes another 
hearing or meeting to get us the coordination of the Senate that is 
required to start funding on the way before we close in October of this 
year, I am prayerful, really, that we can get that done, with the 
assurance of my friend from Louisiana that he will work with us to try 
to do that, and the cooperation of the Senator from Hawaii with regard 
to the Indian Affairs Committee.
  I want to thank them both for their courtesy and willingness to 
listen to me today and to urge the Members of the Senate who have heard 
this debate to also see what we might be able to do to help these 
people.
  As the Senator from Hawaii said, if there are any people that have 
been left behind in the developments and technology in this generation 
that we all enjoy, it is the people of the Native villages of Alaska.
  I invite any Member of the Senate to join me in the trips that I take 
when we have these recesses. As a matter of fact, I will go again this 
year to the Yukon River and visit some villages along the Yukon. Last 
year, I visited the people along the Kuskokwim River. The year before, 
we also went up to visit the villages up in this area of the North 
Slope. I think it is necessary to visit the areas to see what the 
Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Louisiana have seen to 
understand the plight of these people who still inhabit their 
traditional areas of rural Alaska.
  I think I am experienced enough to know that it would do me no good 
to offer this amendment now, in view of the fact that it is not 
supported by my friend from Louisiana under the circumstances.
  And so, based upon his willingness to work with me to work out 
something, I will withdraw this amendment at this time. But I shall be 
back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to withdraw his 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have not done that yet, but I will.
  But I will be back. And on each succeeding bill that I can find any 
way to find some money to start solving this problem for my people, I 
am going to come back to the Senate and ask for its consideration.
  So I do withdraw the amendment at this time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to withdraw his 
amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2138) was withdrawn.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for doing so. I hope 
we will be able to work out his problem soon.
  Mr. President, I know of only two amendments, both of which we are 
prepared to take. There may be a third one which I hope will not 
require a rollcall vote.
  I tell my colleagues that one of our colleagues is in the middle of a 
root canal. He has Novocain in his mouth and is waiting to go back to 
the dentist as soon as this debate is over with. So I urge Senators to 
be very brief in their debate since we are going to take your 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Upon hearing the comments of my colleague from the 
State of Louisiana I am tempted to speak very fast like this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendment will be set aside.

                          ____________________