[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 4602, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4602) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. It is my understanding that there are 50 minutes----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Equally divided between the proponents and the opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Bradley] for an amendment, has 50 minutes which will be 
equally divided.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Yesterday, we had a good day. We disposed of several amendments. I 
believe there were three rollcalls on amendments and one procedural 
vote. I had hoped we might be able to dispose of more amendments on 
yesterday. But ``life is a shuttle,'' and we are busy just as everybody 
else is busy. There does not seem to be time enough in the day.
  I hope that we will be able to complete the work on this bill today. 
It is unfortunate, in a way, that we have to be interrupted from 10:30 
a.m. until 2 o'clock p.m. On the other hand, there is much rejoicing in 
the progress that is being made in connection with Middle East peace, 
and that, of course, is related to the interruption of what will occur 
here, so we will not get very much done until 2 o'clock p.m. But ``what 
cannot be eschewed must be embraced,'' and we are here ready to do 
business. I see other Senators are on the floor.

       I can keep honest counsel, ride, run, mar a curious tale in 
     telling it, and deliver a plain message bluntly: that which 
     ordinary men are fit for, I am qualified in, and the best of 
     me is diligence.

  So I am here. I see that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bradley, is 
also here and ready to expound his views on his inimitable amendment--
in my view, something else. But for now I shall take my seat and listen 
with great interest to his efforts to persuade Senators, who, I hope, 
will not be persuaded.
  The distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] is here to 
plead my cause and to unsheathe his sure sword in an effort to 
dismantle the amendment and dismount the author of the amendment.
  So let us go about our business.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], is 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, let me say parenthetically before I offer 
the amendment that I do not think that an amendment has had such an 
introduction, or anything like such an introduction, since Governor 
Cuomo introduced President Clinton at the convention in 1992.
  Let me say that I appreciate the chairman's highlighting of the 
amendment, and I appreciate his courtesy in arranging for it to come at 
this time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator is 
always very courteous. He has always been very courteous to me. I 
appreciate that fine quality in him.
  I will say no more except as Wolsey said to Henry VIII, ``Be just and 
fear not.''


                           Amendment No. 2401

   (Purpose: To reduce the amount appropriated for the Department of 
           Energy for fossil energy research and development)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2401.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. 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 62, line 1, strike out ``$436,451,000,'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$426,451,000,''.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to cut 
$10 million from the Interior appropriations bill. The Department of 
Energy has proposed funding a new program. The Advanced Computational 
Technology Initiative is its title. This effort is an attempt to put 
the supercomputer programmers at the national laboratories at the 
service of oil and gas producers to develop new technology and reduce 
the costs of production.
  Last year, the program was funded at $7 million for fiscal year 1995. 
The Department recommended $50 million in funding. Already in the 
Senate-passed energy and water bill $30 million has been included for 
this program. Within the Interior appropriations bill another $10 
million has been added.
  My amendment would simply strike this additional $10 million. In 
other words, $40 million has been provided. This would cut back $10 
million.
  The ACTI Program has been an evolving concept. Originally, it was 
designed to use national lab supercomputers to enhance 3-D seismic 
capabilities. This proposal was attacked by the major oil field service 
industries, who feared that these public funds would take away their 
business. In fact, they have so stated in no uncertain terms.
  DOE responded to the criticism, I think, by simply blurring the 
program's goals. It has now been redesigned and broadened to include 
any possible application of new computer and supercomputer capability 
to the oil and gas industry. So, instead of being very precise--this is 
about 3-D seismic capabilities--they have made the program vague, so 
that they do not have quite as strong opposition from the major oil 
field service industries.
  I would like to make several points in defense of this spending cut. 
First, it is important to note that my amendment will not eliminate 
this program. Instead, the amount will only limit the increase in the 
size of the program to roughly 350 percent. So this amendment is 
modest. It limits the increase of the program to 350 percent.
  When the House considered this program within the Interior bill, only 
$3 million was included for ACTI. My amendment would simply move us 
closer to the House position. Then the difference between the House and 
the Senate would be narrower in conference.
  Second, Mr. President, in cutting discretionary spending, we have to 
look closely at any funding for what obviously could be commercial 
application. There is the clear risk that this funding will merely 
offset private sector R&D money that would be spent otherwise. One of 
DOE's principal measures of program success is ``level of customer 
satisfaction.'' Indeed, the whole project is described as part of ``the 
administration's development of a consumer-oriented industrial 
policy.''
  Mr. President, while the oil and gas industry has been struggling 
domestically, it is hard to see that this initiative will do much to 
lift these firms that are struggling economically. What they need, and 
what they seek, is a higher price for their product. Without a clear 
demonstration of the purpose and targets of this program, this 
Government effort, it is one more unnecessary subsidy, one more Federal 
intrusion into the marketplace, and one more attempt to use the 
political process to steer public funding to benefit a narrow part of 
the economy.
  Last, although there is nominally a 50-50 cost sharing requirement in 
the ACTI program, in reality, the Government can pick up the whole tab. 
DOE documents state the following:

       The overall average cost participation is targeted at 50 
     percent. * * *  However, most projects have had in-kind cost 
     participation. This is where DOE funds the national 
     laboratory or university for its efforts on a project, and 
     industry covers its costs of staff, data, facilities, and 
     wells.

  In other words, just about anything an oil and gas company does as 
part of its day-to-day operations could qualify against this cost share 
requirement. So where is the 50-50 cost share?
  The oil and gas industry is not the only domestic industry in 
trouble. This program, especially in view of its sudden increase in 
size and scope, will invite imitators; we will have every industry that 
wants to be at the public trough in here trying to get their version of 
this program. Those imitators will cost us millions and millions more 
that we do not have to spend.
  Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor numerous times about 
the need for principles to guide our attempts to cut spending. Without 
a set of principles to guide our actions, we will continue to argue in 
circles about the merits of every program on the chopping block, yet, 
eliminate none of it. This is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 
spending that has caused the American people to become cynical about 
Congress and, frankly, I do not blame them.
  That is why I ask myself two simple questions each time I set out to 
cut spending. The first question is: Does it provide something that is 
in the general interest and is essential to American public life? The 
second is: Is taxpayer funding the only and most cost-effective way 
that this specific important public purpose will be met?

  Mr. President, I believe these two principles reflect basic American 
values and take into account the obvious limitations we have on Federal 
spending. And clearly, on the second question--are taxpayers' funds the 
only and best way to support this program? I think the answer is 
unambiguous. The answer is, no, this is not the best way to support 
this program.
  The oil and gas industry should not be a ``customer'' to the national 
labs, as DOE states--a customer for which taxpayers foot the bill. It 
is as if this industry is not already getting significant taxpayer 
support. The tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry are $2 billion 
annually, in that neighborhood. So industry has been at the trough 
before, and often, and remains.
  Commercial research, which is by its nature enriching a particular 
private sponsor, is almost always best left to the private sector. If 
the profits are there, the work will be done.
  I never will forget the debate we had about the R&D tax credit of a 
few years back. Some major research-based companies came to see me and 
said, ``We need the R&D tax credit.'' Others came in and said, ``No 
matter whether you give us the tax credit or not--and we would like to 
have it--we are going to continue to do our research, because we see 
that our long-term interests are to be served if we are on the cutting 
edge of research. We have always devoted x percent of our sales budget 
to research, and we will continue to. If you want to give us this 
credit, we are going to make more money.'' It was a direct subsidy to 
the bottom line of firms already engaged in research.
  If the profits are there, the research will be done. It is not 
advisable for us to add to the $2 billion that the taxpayers already 
provide the oil and gas industry, with an increase of over 350 percent 
for this particular program that has a rather ambiguous definition of 
what is supposed to be accomplished.
  So, Mr. President, as I stated earlier, my amendment will not 
eliminate the program; it will merely reduce its expansion. This is not 
a bold step, but I think it is an appropriate one. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator has 14 minutes 15 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the distinguished Senator need?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I will use about 9 minutes at this point.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the time from the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Let me make a few points in response to the amendment. I obviously 
oppose the amendment. People need to understand what this program is a 
little better, I believe, before they vote. Let me describe what it is. 
This advanced computational program is intended to assist the oil and 
gas industry and the domestic energy industry by use of the technology 
we have developed in our national laboratories to allow us to put off 
the abandonment of domestic oil and gas wells, to increase production 
from those wells, since it is generally recognized that under present 
practices about one-third of the oil in those wells is actually 
produced, absent some change in our practice. And, of course, the other 
purpose is to increase the recovery of known resources and expand our 
knowledge about the oil and gas resources available to us domestically. 
The larger purpose is to create jobs and tax revenue for the country.
  Clearly, in my view, this is a funding item in the bill before the 
Senate today which helps to accomplish that objective. The Senator from 
New Jersey has proposed in his amendment to delete the money involved 
here, the $10 million, on a variety of grounds.
  Before I get to those, let me clarify what the facts are as I 
understand them. The bill which is before us--the Interior 
appropriations bill--contains $10 million for this program. It does not 
contain $30 million, it contains $10 million. And the proposal by the 
Senator from New Jersey would eliminate that $10 million. There is 
funding also in other parts of the Department of Energy for pursuit of 
the same initiative. But the only funding in this bill that is 
supportive of the initiative would be stricken by this Senator's 
amendment.
  The Senator from New Jersey claims one of his bases is that the oil 
and gas industry is not the only domestic industry in trouble. He says 
that in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter. Clearly, that is true. There are 
other domestic industries in trouble, and I, for one, think we should 
look for ways to assist some of those other industries as well. But 
there is a serious problem in the domestic oil and gas industry, 
particularly as it relates to independent producers, who are the ones 
that go out and find the additional oil and gas that is needed.
  Assisting this industry is not inappropriate at this time. We have 
lost tremendous employment in the oil and gas industry. The Senator 
from Oklahoma, who is here on the floor, can expound better than I can 
on the devastation which that industry has seen in recent years because 
of the low price of energy, because of the competition of the foreign 
sources.
  A second of the objections or bases that the Senator from New Jersey 
has raised: He says in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter that the proposal 
has been attacked by the oil field service industries.
  Mr. President, we had a hearing on this exact initiative in my home 
State at Roswell, a hearing of the Energy Committee. Senator Domenici 
and I were both present at that hearing. We took testimony on the 
initiative, and we talked to members of the industry. Particularly, we 
had testimony from a Mr. Robert Lowe, who is a vice president of 
Western Geophysical, which is the largest seismic exploration company 
in the United States. It is one of the so-called oil field service 
industries which supposedly objects to this funding. It is his 
testimony, and I will quote here, that:

       The Department of Energy initiative is an exciting 
     opportunity. It offers the opportunity for developing 
     technology that may enable the American seismic exploration 
     business to be more competitive vis-a-vis foreign 
     competitiveness, and it could lead to increased domestic 
     reserves and production which we all desire.

  Another example is from Clinton County, KY. Oil in that part of the 
Appalachian is found in fractured seams, and the scientists in my home 
State, in Los Alamos at the national laboratory there, are working with 
independent producers in Clinton County, KY, to map those fractures so 
that when a well is drilled instead of a one-in-five chance that they 
will strike the fracture, they are able to pinpoint exactly where to 
drill.
  This is a county that has, I would point out, a per capita income of 
$6,800 per person. Only 16 counties in the country are poorer.
  So this is something which the industry supports. It is something 
which will help us create jobs and help us to deal with the growing 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Another of the arguments made by the Senator from New Jersey is that 
there is a risk that this is merely paying for work that the industry 
can and will do anyway.
  Mr. President, the argument that this is work that the industry would 
do anyway is just not accurate and does not reflect the significant 
technological capabilities that reside in our national laboratories. 
This is not work that the private sector has been able to do on its 
own. This is work which is only now becoming possible because of the 
great computational capability that we have developed in our national 
laboratories, primarily for our defense needs. But we are finding that 
this same computational capability has great application and can be 
used with those same engineers and scientists to pursue much better 
development and production of our oil and gas resources.
  So, this is not something which the industry was doing on its own. 
This is something which the laboratories can make a very real 
contribution in and have been making a very real contribution in.
  I think there is a strong case to be made for going ahead with this 
requested funding. This, I would point out, is the level of funding 
that was requested by the administration. The Appropriations Committee 
here has not requested any increase from the administration request. 
They are merely trying to maintain the level of funding that was 
requested in the administration's bill.
  This is one of the most cost-effective programs that we have. Instead 
of trying to prop up the price of oil, this is an opportunity to lower 
costs through increased productivity. In my view, it is a win-win for 
the country. Consumers benefit because it will generate additional 
domestic resources at lower cost; taxpayers benefit because additional 
taxpaying economic activity will be generated for each dollar invested 
in the oil and gas industry; and industry itself benefits through lower 
cost of production.
  Obviously, the environment also benefits because the better job you 
can do at pinpointing where to drill, the fewer wells you have to 
drill. It reduces the so-called footprint of oil and gas production.
  In my view, this is a major benefit to the domestic energy security 
of our country, and I hope that the amendment of the Senator from New 
Jersey will be defeated by the Senate.
  I appreciate very much the time that the Senator from West Virginia 
has yielded.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles]--how much time would he need?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me 7 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Byrd, the chairman 
of this committee, for his leadership in opposition to this amendment.
  One, I wish to give different information to my colleague from New 
Mexico. I appreciate his statement. But he said that the committee is 
just following the administration's budget request of $10 million. That 
is not actually accurate. I believe the facts are the administration in 
the Interior bill has requested $20 million, and the committee has only 
funded $10 million. I will say again it is because this committee has 
been faced with some very difficult budget choices.
  We are actually spending $336 million in BA less this year than we 
did the previous year. The administration had requested a total for 
this initiative of $50 million, $30 million of which is in the energy 
bill, and $20 million of which is in the Interior bill; and the 
Interior bill was only able to fund $10 million.
  Let me just touch on the issue. My colleague from New Mexico is 
exactly right when he says that this industry, the oil and gas 
industry, is going through some very difficult times. That is not the 
sole reason why this amendment is here. It is not the sole reason why 
the administration is trying to move forward to try to do some things 
to enhance domestic production. But it is a fact that the oil and gas 
industry has lost about 450,000 jobs over the last decade.
  But even more importantly is what can we do to help protect our 
national interests. We have some problems of national interest, not so 
much to bail out small producers. I think this technology may enhance 
domestic production. That is the key, not to assist or subsidize 
particular producers but what we do on it from a national perspective 
to help our country.

  We are now spending over half of our trade imbalance on oil--over 
half. It is not just with Japan. People talk about trade imbalance and 
they talk about, look how large it is with Japan. Over half of our 
entire negative trade balance is because we import a lot of oil. We are 
spending a lot of dollars overseas to import oil. Oil imports today are 
right at 50 percent of our domestic consumption, and that makes us very 
vulnerable for all kinds of problems.
  Most of us remember the shortages we had in 1973 and also in 1979 
because our imports were fairly large at that time, and we were 
curtailed because of political reasons. Countries were upset with us 
because of our policies in the Middle East or toward Israel, or for 
whatever other reason. So they curtailed their production, and their 
production caused shortages in this country. We had hundreds of 
thousands of jobs that were lost, and we had tremendous inflation as a 
result.
  I might mention that in 1973, if my memory serves me correct, we were 
importing about 34 percent of our oil. With the shortage in 1979, we 
were importing about 43 percent of our oil. Today we are importing 50 
percent.
  So it is a national issue that says: Wait a minute. What can we do to 
arrest that increase in demand on oil, or what can we do to slow down 
the increase in import percentages?
  One of the things that this administration said is, let us do what we 
can to enhance domestic production.
  Most of our colleagues who are not that familiar with the oil and gas 
industry are not aware of the fact that when you produce oil out of a 
reservoir you usually leave the majority of the oil in the ground. You 
do not produce that reservoir totally dry. You take your rig and move 
elsewhere. In most cases you quit producing when it is no longer 
economic. We have thousands and thousands of wells that are no longer 
economic, so we end up leaving a lot of oil in the ground which we will 
never produce.
  The purpose of the advanced computational technology initiative is 
twofold. The national laboratories are a national asset, a strategic 
asset, primarily designed for defense purposes. But they also have 
enormous capability, computer technology and capability to enhance our 
strategic interests. And one of our strategic interests is production 
of oil and gas so we do not end up becoming so dependent on imports.
  The Advanced Computational Technology Initiative Program would 
include reservoir and geologic modeling, and that is reservoir 
characterization, geophysical images 2-D and 3-D, seismic 
interpretation, and information science that deals with networking data 
storage, high-speed input and output.
  This information will be available for all persons to enhance 
domestic production. Is it a subsidy for Exxon? No. Exxon has the 
technology. Is this a subsidy to Mobil or big companies? No, not 
really. They are not really interested in developing--I am going to say 
domestic resources beyond a certain point. When they are no longer 
economic most of the big companies get out.
  There are some small producers, and I will just mention in my State, 
because I am more familiar with the figures. In our State we have 
something like 100,000 wells, 70,000-some of hole wells, marginal 
wells, that average about 2.2 barrels per day. At today's prices they 
are hardly economically viable. They are barely viable.
  Well, one of the things that we hoped to be able to do with this 
enhanced technology to get this out into the hands and into the field 
is to be able to make some of those fields, or at least make some of 
the information, available to producers in the areas to where, one, 
they can do a better job, be better for the environment, so we can 
enhance our production and not have to spend so many dollars overseas 
on imported oil and make our country more vulnerable; and, two, the 
case of curtailment of production overseas.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished colleagues from New Mexico and from Oklahoma. I would 
like to address the points that they raised.
  First, on the issue of the oil and gas service industry, I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from Inside 
Energy, August 1993, that describes the opposition of the oil and gas 
service industry.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From Inside Energy, August 1993]

                 DOE Mulls Alternative Oil/Gas Options

                           (By Bill Loveless)

       A non-profit research organization in Houston is offering 
     itself to DOE as an intermediary that would match the 
     department and its national laboratories with industrial 
     partners in oil and gas research projects. The Houston 
     Advance Research Center maintains that under its plan DOE 
     would be assured of investing in the best possible 
     collaborations and of seeing the results disseminated quickly 
     to industry.
       But HARC's proposition is competing for DOE's attention 
     with a different approach being taken by a group of major oil 
     companies, which contend that no such middle man is necessary 
     to forge projects between the department and industry.
       In a proposal submitted to DOE in July and discussed during 
     a meeting convened by the department in Houston last week, 
     HARC depicted a program that would receive $4 million in 
     federal funds in FY-94, $50 million in FY95 and 
     $100 million in FY-96.
       Under a contract with DOE, HARC would organize and manage 
     the so-called ``Partners for Energy Research Leadership'' 
     (PERL) as an ``arm's length mechanism'' for directing DOE 
     funding to industry-picked research projects. PERL would 
     function through an advisory board whose members would 
     include representatives of DOE, HARC and industry.
       ``No coordinating body linking the nation's research talent 
     to the research needs identified by industry currently 
     exists,'' HARC said in its written proposal to DOE. ``* * * 
     PERL will substantially reduce the time it takes research to 
     get into the hands of users and will make better collaborate 
     use of the research talent available for the task of keeping 
     America at the forefront of energy research and technology.''
       HARC submitted the proposal to DOE in response to the 
     department's ongoing Domestic Energy Initiative, an exercise 
     launched by Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary earlier this year 
     to search for ways of promoting domestic oil and gas 
     production without endangering the environment. While DOE 
     does not intend to submit its findings to President Clinton 
     until September, officials there have already said one of 
     their goals is to provide more support for new exploration 
     and production technologies.
       Deputy Secretary William White, who is spearheading the 
     initiatives for O'Leary, reiterated that interest in a letter 
     inviting about 25 individuals to a meeting in Houston Tuesday 
     to discuss the oil and gas industry's needs in two-and three-
     dimensional seismic technology DOE's Los Alamos and Sandia 
     national laboratories already are using their unparalleled 
     expertise in super computing built to support their nuclear 
     weapons say those labs and others in the department's complex 
     could do even more of the industry.
       ``The laboratories possess tremendous capabilities in 
     geophysical modeling, atmospheric modeling, high performance 
     computing, and related activities that can be used to enhance 
     seismic technology development and application,'' White said 
     in an Aug. 10 letter inviting representatives from major and 
     independent companies to the Houston meeting.
       White and other officials involved in the DOE initiative 
     could not be reached last week for their views on the HARC 
     proposal. An official with the Independent Petroleum Assn. of 
     America said that group had not yet taken a position on the 
     plan.
       But one major player among the independents, Mitchell 
     Energy Corp., the Woodlands, Texas, has endorsed HARC's plan. 
     ``Organizations such as the Houston Advanced Center can serve 
     as a model for a partnership between the private and public 
     sector and academia to engage in realistic, cost-shared, 
     market-oriented, research and technology transfer.'' John 
     Watson, Mitchell's senior vice president for governmental and 
     regulatory affairs, wrote Elena Subia Melchert, an official 
     in DOE's Fossil Energy division, Aug. 13.
       Vying for DOE's attention is the so-called ``Committee of 
     Majors,'' a group of 10 major oil companies attempting to 
     develop a plan to expand the DOE labs' involvement in r&d 
     partnerships with industry. While led by majors, the group 
     has involved independent producers and service companies, as 
     well as DOE labs, in discussions, according to Frank Kovarik, 
     director of the Institute for Improved Oil Recovery at the 
     University of Houston, who is serving as the group's staff 
     director.
       The committee arose from a meeting of majors, independents 
     and about six DOE labs in Santa Fe, N.M., in June, which 
     Kovarik said he organized at the request of Los Alamos and 
     Sandia, as well as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
     DOE's third nuclear weapons research center. Another meeting 
     was to be held today (Aug. 23) in Houston, with Chevron 
     Technology Co., one of the participants, as the host, he 
     said, White was expected to attend the meeting.
       ``I think the consensus of the group is they don't want any 
     third party or technology broker wedged between the producers 
     and DOE,'' Kovarik said, ``* * * In the past, the producers 
     feel, that's been one of the problems--there's been too may 
     brokers between the producers and the key people at DOE.''
       The majors' committee has not yet arrived at a specific 
     recommendation for DOE. But Kovarik said, ``My bet is that 
     we'll look for the cleanest and most direct way to deal with 
     DOE, without any third parties.''
       Others are not so eager to see the national labs broaden 
     their involvement in 3-D and other seismic technology. The 
     International Assn. of Geophysical Contractors recently 
     notified of its ``strong opposition'' to any such plan. In an 
     Aug. 6 letter to DOE, IAGC Chairman Louis Schneider Jr. 
     described 3-D as a ``mature technological'' that is already 
     used widely by industry and does not require federal support 
     in order to be improved.
       Moreover, Schneider maintained, the more work the national 
     labs do in seismic technology for the oil and gas industry, 
     the less there will be for geophysical businesses and other 
     members of the Houston-based organization.

  Mr. BRADLEY. I would like to quote from that article. It says: ``The 
International Association of Geophysical Contractors recently notified 
its `strong opposition' to any such plan.'' That was referring to the 
plan under consideration. Quoting further:

       In an August 6 letter to DOE, IAGC Chairman Louis Schneider 
     described 3-D as a ``mature technology'' that is already used 
     widely by industry and does not require Federal support in 
     order to be improved.
       Moreover, Schneider maintained, the more work the national 
     labs do in seismic technology for the oil and gas industry, 
     the less there will be for geophysical businesses and other 
     members of the Houston-based organization.

  So, Mr. President, there was strong and clear opposition to the kind 
of research in 3-D seismic technologies that was proposed initially.
  Mr. President, I have here a Christian Science Monitor article of 
June 20, 1994, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Looking for Oil

                          (By Scott Pendleton)

       San Antonio.--Pink blobs surrounded by blue swirls--the 
     rendition might appear to be nothing more than abstract art. 
     But it's actually an image of the earth beneath 13,500 acres 
     of South Texas ranch land, as mapped using three-dimensional 
     seismic technology.
       To Steve Gose, it's a treasure map of unprecedented 
     precision, showing previously undetectable natural-gas fields 
     waiting to be drilled.
       ``I've never seen anything that good [from geophysical 
     data],'' he cheers. Mr. Gose is chairman of The Exploration 
     Company, a small San Antonio natural-gas concern that holds 
     an exploration lease on that and other nearby land totaling 
     50,000 acres.
       That acreage is typical of the United States: It has been 
     picked over by oil companies for six decades or longer. In 
     the US, the most heavily drilled country in the world, most 
     remaining undiscovered fields are small and costly to find.
       Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in the oil industry 
     when the price of oil collapsed in the 1980s from more than 
     $30 a barrel to less than $10. Companies could no longer 
     expect to recover their high exploration costs, and domestic 
     exploration slowed dramatically. Gose lost his own $500 
     million fortune in the crash.
       Now, by giving oil companies a way to lower their costs, 3-
     D seismic imaging and other relatively new technologies, such 
     as horizontal drilling, are making it economically feasible 
     for oil companies to explore the US again.
       ``Obviously, I'd like oil to be $35 a barrel,'' says 
     William Wilbert, an independent oilman in San Antonio. ``But 
     I'm not an idiot. I know that was a way-inflated price. To 
     make a long story short, I can make money at $15 a barrel.'' 
     Spot market prices rose last week to more than $19 a barrel, 
     the highest price in more than a year.
       Seismic data are acquired by sending vibrations into the 
     ground and then recording them as they bounce back from the 
     tops of different rock layers. A geophysicist can interpret 
     the processed data and produce a contour map of the 
     subsurface, showing rock formations that might contain oil 
     and gas. He can also map seismic attributes that may indicate 
     the presence of hydrocarbons.
       In 3-D seismic studies, the data are collected on a much 
     finer grid than ordinary 2-D seismic surveys and yield an 
     image with far better resolution. Three-dimensional seismic 
     imaging has been used for more than 15 years by large oil 
     companies hunting for big discoveries in coastal waters and 
     onshore.
       The results are impressive. When Exxon Corporation examined 
     its exploration efforts for the Gulf of Mexico between 1987 
     and 1992, it found that 43 percent of the wells drilled based 
     on two-dimensional data had encountered hydrocarbons, while 
     wells that were based on 3-D data had a 70 percent success 
     rate.
       Sharp declines in the cost of computers to compile the data 
     from 3-D seismic surveys and the improvement in 3-D software 
     have allowed small firms like The Exploration Company to take 
     advantage of 3-D technology to pinpoint reserves that 
     previously only larger companies would have had the resources 
     to extract. Three-dimensional surveys collect far more data 
     than 2-D surveys; the effective spacing of seismic lines may 
     be very small--only 110 feet, rather than more than \1/4\ 
     mile in 2-D seismic studies.
       Since 87 percent of oil and gas discovery wells in the US 
     are drilled by small companies, the growing use of 3-D 
     seismic technology means more domestic oil and gas will be 
     found even as the number of costly, unproductive wells, or 
     ``dry holes'' will decline, trends that industry date show 
     are already under way.
       ``In the last year, there has been an absolute explosion'' 
     of interest in 3-D seismic imaging by independent companies, 
     says Linda Ewing, a San Antonio geophysicist who owns 
     Frontera Exploration Consultants. Mrs. Ewing interprets 3-D 
     seismic data, turning out finely detailed maps of the 
     subsurface.
       ``Three-D is expensive, but a dry hole is much more 
     expensive,'' she adds. ``If you save yourself from one bad 
     [drilling] location, you've paid for four [3-D] surveys.''
       Barry Brooner, president of the South Texas Geological 
     Society in San Antonio, recalls a demonstration of 3-D 
     seismic imaging to his members last year. The technique 
     revealed a buried stream channel filled with sand far below 
     the surface of the land, the kind of geologic structure that 
     can contain natural gas.
       Normal seismic studies can spot subsurface details as small 
     as 25 feet thick, Mr. Brooner says. But this channel was only 
     10 feet thick.
       ``The audience was pretty stunned,'' he says. ``Everybody 
     became believers at that point.''
       Adds Mr. Wilbert: ``Just about everybody who's drilled a 
     well in the last year has used 3-D.''
       As valuable as 3-D seismic technology can be, it isn't 
     always cost effective. ``If my target is never going to pay 
     off a $500,000 3-D survey, there's no application.'' Brooner 
     says. Adds Ewing: ``On a shallow well [costing] $60,000, you 
     might as well just go drill the well.''
       One additional advantage of 3-D seismic data is that 
     investors like it, notes David Coover, an independent oilman 
     in Corpus Christi, Texas. If two companies are trying to 
     raise money for drilling, investors will buy into the deal 
     that is based on 3-D, he has found.
       The results obtained for The Exploration Company illustrate 
     the technology's benefits. Five years ago, the company 
     acquired exploration leases on the 33,000-acre Paloma Ranch 
     and the 17,000-acre Kincaid Ranch in Maverick County, which 
     borders Mexico.
       Gose was interested in the Pearsall rock formation, which 
     contains high-pressure gas underneath and entire lease. But 
     the geological formation is broken into compartments by 
     fractures in the rock. Poor permeability between compartments 
     prevents a vertical well from recovering a profitable amount 
     of gas.
       His plan was to try to link multiple compartments with a 
     horizontal well, greatly boosting the production potential 
     relative to the cost of the well. However, the drilling fluid 
     used in the initial well was too heavy and choked the rock 
     pores, preventing production. The company will try again 
     later.
       Meanwhile, a geophysicist had drawn the company's attention 
     to a seismic phenomenon related to the shallower Glen Rose 
     rock layer. Since the 1930s, oil companies drilling into it 
     had occasionally found gas when they penetrated ancient coral 
     reefs. Since both the reef and the surrounding rock are 
     limestone, it is difficult for seismic data to indicate where 
     the reefs are. But the geophysicist pointed out what appeared 
     to be a signature in the seismic data that correlates with 
     the high-porosity characteristic of reefs. A test confirmed 
     his hunch.
       Suddenly, the company could see the ancient reefs, 
     structures which on adjacent acreage had produced 45 billion 
     cubic feet of natural gas. However, it was still necessary to 
     spot the highest point of the reef. Otherwise a well might 
     penetrate at a lower point and find water, which usually lies 
     below the gas.
       In the lease acreage, the rock layers tend to tilt to the 
     south, making the north end the likely high point of a 
     hydrocarbon reservoir, says Robert Scott, the geologist who 
     works with The Exploration Company on the Maverick County 
     leases. That made it important to know the shape and extent 
     of a potential field.
       Last December and January, The Exploration Company 
     commissioned a 3-D survey for $500,000. Ewing at Frontera 
     Exploration Consultants interpreted the data and produced the 
     color map, with pink representing dozens of areas of high 
     porosity--the reefs. ``It looks like the Bahamas,'' Gose 
     says.
       When Scott saw the map, he raised his arms in triumph. 
     ``You can see why the early people out here randomly drilling 
     had such poor success,'' Scott says.
       Nothwithstanding the rattlesnakes just emerging from their 
     winter nests, last spring The Exploration Company and a 
     partner paid $400,000 to drill a well based on the 3-D map. 
     They were rewarded with a potential 44 million cubic feet per 
     day, confirming the 3-D seismic map.
       ``If you believe what that seismic [map] shows, we've got 
     dozens of locations [to drill],'' Gose says. The company has 
     already picked 35 drill sites. Now it must raise drilling 
     money from outside investors. [See story, right.]
       The income from the recent discovery well, Gose explains, 
     will not be enough to finance additional wells as fast as 
     he'd like to drill. To prevent reservoir damage and maximize 
     production, the company plans to limit the well to 2 million 
     cubic feet per day. But production so far has been limited to 
     half that because of the small size of another company's 
     pipeline that gathers the gas from the well. That means it 
     will take up to 300 days of production just to recover the 
     money spend drilling the well.
       Meanwhile, Ewing has pointed out to Gose that the 3-D 
     survey indicates another potentially gas-bearing zone that 
     was previously unknown, lying below the Pearsall. And a 
     shallow zone, the Georgetown, is proving productive over the 
     entire lease.
       ``It's not spectacular, but it's good bread and butter. 
     We'll probably drill several hundred of those before we're 
     through,'' Gose say.

  Mr. BRADLEY. It says clearly: ``Just about everybody who's drilled a 
well in the last year has used 3-D.''
  So you have opposition from the oil and gas service industry. You 
have an investment in research in a technology that is already mature 
and that is widely used by the oil and gas industry. And so some red 
lights went off for the proponents of investing heavily in 3-D seismic 
technologies. They recognized they could not successfully push a 
proposal that was confined only to 3-D seismic.
  And so, what did they do? They broadened the proposal at that point, 
and they broadened the proposal by making it more ambiguous.
  For example, there was a public hearing in Ohio at the end of this 
past June. There, it was clear that the initiative will be used to 
address any type of oil and gas production problems, computational or 
engineering; in other words, the kitchen sink.
  Many of the problems identified at the workshop are problems 
currently being addressed in the DOE and the GRI programs, the Gas 
Research Institute programs. Such things as nationally fractured 
reservoirs, reservoir chracterization, directional drilling, some of 
the things the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma enumerated. They are 
already being pursued not only in the private sector but in existing 
Federal research.
  So, Mr. President, what is clear is that the original proposal, which 
was initially criticized by the oil and gas services industry and 
supported what was acknowledged to already be a mature technology and 
widely used by the industry as a whole, was set aside and a much more 
ambiguous, wide-ranging set of goals and possible ways to spend the 
money were put in the language of the bill.
  I can appreciate those who are strong supporters of the national labs 
wanting an additional $40 million to come into the labs for producing 
programs that will yield customer satisfaction on the part of the oil 
and gas industry. But it is a very ambiguous concept.
  It would be better, however, if we had a very clear idea of what the 
money was going to be spent on. I think the national labs are a 
national resource. I think it is important that they do research. I 
think it is even important that we give them some money to do research 
in this field--there already is $30 million in the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill--just not another $10 million in this Interior 
appropriation.
  And that then brings us to the point of the majors versus the small 
independents. As the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has said, the 
majors have been doing this kind of drilling for a long time to mature 
technology. They have also been using computers in a very sophisticated 
way.
  But then they get to the point of cost share. I would argue that the 
majors might be able to cost share, but the only way the small 
independent would be able to cost share is if we blurred the definition 
of what cost sharing means. And indeed that is what has happened in 
this amendment.
  The DOE document states:

       The overall average cost is targeted at 50 percent. 
     However, most projects have had in-kind cost participation. 
     That is where DOE funds a national laboratory university for 
     its efforts on a project, and industry covers its cost of 
     staff, data, facilities, and wells.

  In other words, for a small producer to qualify for a cost sharing, 
all he has to do is to continue to do what he would do anyway.
  I think the ambiguity of the program generally, combined with the 
extreme ambiguity and generosity on what consists as a cost share, 
basically says that this program is simply meant to, on the one hand, 
enhance the efforts of the national lab and, on the other hand, act as 
a direct gift to the oil and gas industry.
  Mr. President, in times where we have tight budgets, in times where 
people stand on this floor and make arguments about cutting spending to 
education and cutting spending to children and cutting spending on the 
environment, to come to the floor and say that we need to have more 
spending on top of the $2 billion that we already give the oil and gas 
industry through tax subsidies for some vaguely worded research program 
at the national labs where there is no strong cost share portion, I 
think is a big mistake.
  I hope that we would just pare it back a little. I was respectful 
enough of the Senators involved and also the national labs not to seek 
to eliminate the program, but to just pare back $10 million.
  I hope that we could find it within the Senate's reach to understand 
that reducing something by a marginal amount sends a powerful signal 
that we are willing to cut some spending. Refusing to do so simply 
means that we are in the old game of putting some money in this 
appropriations bill, some money in that appropriations bill, like roads 
converging on a city from many different directions. And in this case, 
the city is the national labs getting money from this road and then 
that road and another road.
  I believe that it is very important that we cut spending, cut the oil 
and gas spending in this bill, with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Jersey. Senator Bradley's amendment 
would eliminate funding recommended by the committee in this bill for 
the Administration's Advanced Computational Technology Initiative 
[ACTI].
  The Department of Energy included a total of $50 million for the 
Advanced Computational Technology Initiative in its fiscal year 1995 
budget request to the Congress, $30 million of which is included in the 
Senate version of H.R. 4506, the fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill, which passed the Senate on June 30 and 
is now in conference with the House. Because of budget constraints and 
significant increases requested in other program areas within the 
Interior bill, the committee was able to include only $9,670,000 of the 
$20 million proposed by the Department in fiscal year 1995 for the 
Advanced Computational Initiative. The committee has, therefore, 
already reduced the Department's request for this initiative by 
approximately one-half.
  Mr. President, the Advanced Computational Technology Initiative is 
designed to develop, enhance, and apply advanced exploration and 
production technologies available through the National Laboratories to 
help natural gas and oil producers lower exploration, development, and 
processing costs. Specifically, this initiative would utilize the 
supercomputing capabilities and advanced mathematics applications 
developed by the National Labs for weapons research to perform three-
dimensional seismic processing and reservoir modeling and simulation 
needed to lower the costs and improve the efficiency of oil and gas 
reservoir management.
  Mr. President, I believe this is an important initiative. After 
suffering through two major oil embargoes and a war in the Persian 
Gulf, this Nation continues to depend on foreign sources to meet 44 
percent of our daily energy requirements. The Energy Information 
Administration [EIA] estimates that the United States currently 
produces 8.6 million barrels of oil a day and the EIA projects that 
U.S. production will decrease to 7 million barrels a day by the end of 
this decade. The Energy Information Administration also predicts that 
imports of oil to the United States will rise to 56 percent of our 
daily energy requirements by the year 2000 and continue increasing to 
60 percent of our daily requirements by the year 2010.
  Mr. President, this Nation is losing its ability to produce oil and 
natural gas. Historically, the United States has relied on major oil 
companies to explore for and produce our domestic supplies of oil and 
natural gas. During the past decade, however, we have witnessed a 
massive exodus of these companies to offshore sources for energy 
production. Independent oil and gas producers now drill 85 percent of 
the wells in the United States and account for 64 percent of gas 
production and 49 percent of oil production. But, the number of 
domestic oil and gas producers is declining. Rig counts have gone from 
3,970 structures in 1981 to 768 rigs operating today. In 1981, there 
were 681 geophysical crews working in the United States. Today, there 
are 87 geophysical crews working in the United States.
  In a mature producing region like the United States, advanced 
technologies are critical for the continued development of our energy 
resources. As we become increasingly dependent on the smaller 
independent oil and gas producers, we must recognize that the ability 
of these producers to invest in the necessary research and development 
of advanced technologies that will enable independents to find and 
produce oil and gas reserves is limited.
  The Department's proposed Advanced Computational Initiative will 
allow the National Laboratories to enter into partnerships with 
independent oil and gas producers--on a 50-50 cost-shared basis--so 
that the small producer can gain access to the data and technologies 
that will enable the small producer to manage more effectively existing 
reservoirs and find new reserves.
  Mr. President, I indicated earlier that budget constraints limited 
the committee's recommendation for this initiative. But, let me be 
clear: I support this initiative. As a result, I oppose the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Jersey. At the appropriate time, I will 
move to table this amendment.
  I know that there are other Senators who perhaps would like to speak 
in opposition to this amendment.
  I thank Senator Bingaman and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma 
for their remarks and I will, therefore, yield the floor at this time 
so any other Senators may be heard on this amendment.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I just make a few concluding comments. 
Then if the distinguished chairman would like, I am prepared to yield 
back the remainder of my time until the vote.
  Let me just make two final points. One is that the ACTI Program has 
been referred to primarily as a technology transfer activity--
transferring technology from the national labs to the oil and gas 
industry. I think the fact is that the initiative goes far beyond the 
idea of technology transfer.
  It is one thing to make generally available to an industry, analysis 
that stems from either Federal science or from defense initiative 
research. That is a technology transfer. You are going to do this work 
anyway and as a byproduct of the work, certain things are learned and 
you agree to share them with the American industry affected that could 
benefit from this technology that you have stumbled onto in the course 
of your defense research. You have found out the nondefense uses. It is 
another thing entirely to do customized, essentially commercial 
collaborative research with a single firm or group of firms--the 
customer in this case--especially where the firm or firms can retain 
proprietary rights over the joint product. The later, not the former, 
is the more accurate description of ACTI.
  So this is not technology transfer. This is a direct effort to 
subsidize a particular industry, giving $10 million of taxpayer money 
to this industry which is already heavily invested in research.
  One last thought. The proponents will assert that there is an 
extraordinary industry interest and excitement about the program. I do 
not think there is anything extraordinary about it. You can gin up very 
strong indications of industry support for just about any or all 
programs in which a particular industry is going to get money. Of 
course, everybody is for it if they are going to give money. That is 
what this program is all about. But I think the chairman of the 
committee made a very interesting point when he commented about the 
Interior appropriations bill. He has run a very tight ship. Virtually 
every program in this Interior appropriations bill--I will not say all, 
but virtually all; many, many of them--have been cut in this 
appropriations bill.
  He has demonstrated great fiscal restraint and said we have to spend 
less. He has told petitioner after petitioner, ``Sorry, you're going to 
have to use less money, not more money.''
  But that is not the case with this program. Last year, this program 
was $7 million. In this bill, combined with the energy and water bill, 
it goes to $40 million, nearly a 500-percent increase in 1 year in this 
program. This runs contrary to the whole effort of the bill to cut back 
on spending.
  Program after program has been told, ``Sorry, you're going to have to 
take less this year.'' ``Sorry, you want 10, you get 7''--cutting back, 
cutting back, cutting back. And along comes this program, and it gets 
nearly a 500-percent increase in 1 year.
  All I am saying, Mr. President, is let us only increase it 350 
percent, not 500 percent. I think that that is a modest suggestion, a 
modest effort to say let us actually cut some spending; let us not just 
give speeches about cutting spending, but let us cut spending; let us 
treat this program as we have treated other programs that have 
sustained cuts in times of budgetary stringency.
  So, Mr. President, it is a very simple argument. And it is asking the 
American taxpayers: Where do you want to have this $10 million spent? 
Do you want to save it and reduce the deficit? Or do you want the $10 
million to go into the coffers of the national labs for customized 
research for an oil and gas industry that is already spending millions 
and millions on research, with only a very vague definition of what 
research it could be spent on? It is a waste of money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey, and I thank Senator Nickles and all Senators who have 
participated. I am prepared to yield back my time. But before I do, I 
ask unanimous consent that I may make the motion to table but that the 
vote thereon occur at 2 o'clock p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object, is there any chance the 
distinguished chairman of the committee can make the motion to table 
either earlier or later than 2 o'clock?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senate reconvenes at 2 o'clock p.m., and I was hoping 
we would have a vote at 2 o'clock p.m. on the motion to table.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. All time has been yielded back, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; all time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my hope that during the interval, when 
the House and Senate meet in a joint meeting, our staffs on both sides 
may be able to work through some of the amendments. It may be possible 
that we could find ourselves agreeing on some of the amendments, and 
that upon our return this afternoon to session and following the vote 
that has been ordered on the motion to table the Bradley amendment, we 
could move through some of those amendments quickly.
  Would the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma care to respond?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I concur with the chairman of the 
committee. We have about 60 amendments that are on the list, but many 
of them I do not expect to be called up. Senator Helms has notified us 
he will not be calling up his amendment. We can strike that amendment. 
There may be other amendments reserved in case he was successful with 
his amendment.
  I also urge our colleagues that if they intend to offer their 
amendments to notify us so we can work with them and possibly accept 
them, if possible, and if not, schedule them for debate and votes and, 
hopefully, be able to bring this longer list down into something we can 
get a handle on and possibly finish the bill later today.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, then, in accordance with the indications that have 
been made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments that are shown on the list as 
being authored by Senator Helms be stricken from the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope that we will go late in the effort to 
complete action on this bill. Other than this bill, there are still 
waiting in the wings the VA-HUD appropriations bill, the Labor, Health 
and Human Services appropriations bill. The Defense appropriations bill 
will be marked up in full committee tomorrow. I believe that will 
complete the list.
  I am also advised that the amendment on the list, which was expected 
to be offered by Senator Feinstein, will not be offered. I ask 
unanimous consent that that amendment be stricken from the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and I may offer an amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2402

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2402.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       ``: Provided further, That funds provided pursuant to this 
     authority may not exceed $10,000 per employee.''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to provide 
a cap on the amount of funds which may be provided for the payment of 
burial costs and related out-of-pocket expenses. Authority for the use 
of funds for such purposes was approved by the Senate yesterday. This 
amendment would modify that language to provide a cap of $10,000 for 
employee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
express my thanks to the chairman for his amendment providing for the 
burial expenses for those brave firefighters who lost their lives 
protecting this Nation's natural resources. It is indeed a tragedy that 
such people should be taken from us in this manner, and we will always 
remember them for their service to our country. Although we cannot 
possibly repay the families for the loss of a loved one, I think that 
it is fitting that we provide for expenses incurred during this 
difficult time.
  The Senate recently passed a resolution in the memory of those who 
lost their lives in nearby Glenwood Springs, CO. I joined Senator 
Bingaman in cosponsoring a similar resolution in memory of the three 
men who died in a helicopter crash near Silver City, NM, and the Senate 
agreed to this resolution just last night. It is my hope that we can 
draw from these tragedies the resolve to ensure that we have done all 
that we can do, to maintain our Federal lands in such a manner that the 
risks of future catastrophic fires are minimized.
  I am certain that my Senate colleagues will join me to do whatever is 
possible to avoid further disasters of this nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  So the amendment (No. 2402) was agreed to.


              mount st. helens national volcanic monument

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday I offered an amendment to shift 
resources within the bill to ensure that an ongoing project in my State 
is completed as intended. I am pleased it has been adopted.
  The committee bill provides roughly $4.2 million for completion of 
the Johnston Ridge Observatory and associated roads at Mount St. Helens 
National Volcanic Monument. The problem we have is technical; of the 
funds provided for this project, there is too much money in the roads 
account and not enough in the facilities account.
  All my amendment does is shift some funds into the facilities account 
from the roads account to ensure the observatory itself is completed. 
Otherwise, come next spring, tourists visiting the monument will have a 
very nice road to drive on, but no observatory from which to view the 
volcano.
  I would like to emphasize that my amendment does not add any funds to 
this project. Nor does it cut any funds from any other project in the 
bill. It simply reallocates between two accounts resources already in 
the bill for this project.
  Mr. President, I have a letter from the Forest Service which affirms 
the need for this change. I ask unanimous consent that it appear in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. During the July 4 recess, I had an opportunity to visit 
the monument with my husband, my daughter, and her friend from northern 
Virginia. Believe me, she was as impressed by the volcano as I was by 
the amount of work the Forest Service, the State, and the county have 
done in turning this area into a world class recreational destination 
and geological research facility.
  The funds in this bill, if properly allocated, will allow the 
Johnston Ridge Observatory--named for the geologist who perished in the 
eruption--to be completed.

                               Exhibit 1

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                               Forest Service,

                                     Vancouver, WA, July 12, 1994.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
     Attn: Rick Ilgenfritz

       Dear Senator Murray; I am responding to a phone call from 
     Mr. Rick Ilgenfritz, of your office, to Mr. Larry Seekins, 
     our Public Services Staff Officer. Mr. Ilgenfritz's question 
     was, ``If a total of $4.2 million was made available in 1995 
     for the Mount St. Helens Coldwater/Johnston Project, how 
     would you split the funds between Recreation Facilities and 
     Roads?''
       Here is our recommendation:

Recreation Facilities Construction (CNRF)....................$2,400,000
Recreation Roads Construction (CNRF)..........................1,800,000
                                                       ________________

      Total...................................................4,200,000

       This would complete the Johnston Ridge Observatory. 
     However, there would still be a need of $1 million to 
     complete the planned viewpoints along SR 504 between 
     Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center and Johnston Ridge 
     Observatory. Also, $3.8 million would still be needed to 
     complete the Administrative Facilities at Chelatchie Prairie 
     and Pine Creek. And an additional $900,000 would be needed in 
     1996 for contract administration.
       We will be glad to answer any other questions you may have.
           Sincerely,
                                              Ted C. Stubblefield,
                                                Forest Supervisor.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, that seems to be about all we can do as of 
now.
  I ask unanimous consent that an amendment by Mr. Bond be removed from 
the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I hoped we might do more, but this seems to be about all we 
can do at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might take a minute to 
make a comment on the Bradley amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, indeed, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Advanced Computational Technology 
Initiative is the Clinton administration's $50 million proposal to 
assist the domestic oil and gas industry. The program is an expansion 
of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology Partnership I helped start.
  The ACTI Program will consist of collaborative computational projects 
undertaken by the national laboratories and industry participants. 
Universities and other research institutes can also participate.
  Topical areas initially identified by the ACTI Program include 
reservoir and geologic modeling reservoir characterization; geophysical 
imaging--2-D and 3-D seismic data acquisition and interpretation; and 
information science networking, data storage, high speed input and 
output.
  Projects will be funded by DOE and leveraged by industry cost-
sharing--average 50 percent. Cost participation includes both cash and 
in-kind contribution to assist smaller businesses.
  The United States consumes approximately 17.2 million barrels of oil 
per day. Of that, 8.6 million is produces domestically and 8.5 million 
is imported.
  That is a higher percentage than at any time since the early 1970's 
when the United States was subject to the Arab oil embargo.
  The majors are no longer exploring extensively for oil and gas in the 
continental United States. Where U.S. oil and gas reserves exist in 
large enough quantities to interest the majors; in places like the 
outer continental shelf and off the coast of Alaska, Federal 
regulations, or the threat or drilling bans, has forced the majors out.
  As the majors move their research and exploration activities 
overseas, they leave behind independents to squeeze what remains out of 
mature U.S. fields. Independents now drill 85 percent of the wells in 
the United States.
  Unfortunately, the independents are the least able to afford enhanced 
recovery technology needed to exploit what remains. As a result, the 
Energy Information Agency estimates that by the year 2000 imports will 
rise to 56 percent and to 60 percent by the year 2010.
  There were 3,970 rigs in place in the United States in 1981. That 
number has fallen to 768 today. However, more threatening for the long 
term is that, with the reduction in drilling rigs, has come a 
significant drop in the number of geophysical crews seeking new finds.
  ACTI is an effort to provide resources that otherwise simply would 
not be available to a small independent--maybe not even to the majors.
  Our national laboratories such as Sandia and Los Alamos have 
significant resources with applications to the oil and gas industry.
  As an example, the Enhanced Oil Recovery Partnership which serves as 
the basis for ACTI has pioneered the use of horizontal radar to provide 
down-hole imaging for drillers. The geophysical expertise at the labs 
developed from years of conducting underground tests at the Nevada test 
site is directly applicable to advanced reservoir management. Finally, 
the computer capabilities at the labs can process seismic data in ways 
never before available to the oil and gas industry.
  For example, supercomputers can provide 3-dimensional models of 
reservoirs so that drillers know precisely where to drill wells and in 
which direction to direct horizontal bore holes.
  Using these capabilities, independents will be able to drill fewer 
wells but increase production and continue production from existing 
marginal wells. That results in benefits for the environment and reduce 
our dependence on imported oil.
  Mr. President, I was not here during the debate on the Bradley 
amendment, which amendment would strike $10 million that the 
Appropriations Committee put in this bill to use advanced computer 
technology to help energy companies, in particular small and medium-
sized petroleum producers in this country, to use the computational 
skills and other techniques that are available through our national 
laboratories.
  Frankly, I think this is one of the most exciting programs we have. 
It is a real partnership in the exchange of technology to the 
betterment of many of our small and medium-sized companies that are 
trying desperately to compete in the world market in the production of 
oil and gas.
  Obviously, this program started a few years ago as a very small seed. 
The reason I know that is because during the Bush administration, the 
Secretary of Energy actually set aside a very small amount of money to 
start a technology transfer activity between energy-producing 
companies, those that drill wells and try to keep the oil and gas 
coming out of the ground. It was eminently successful. And from it, 
this President recommended $20 million for the program, for which our 
Appropriations Committee gave the Energy Department $10 million.
  I have discussed the effectiveness of this program and how much more 
effective it will be if the $10 million appropriated by this committee 
is put to work through the national laboratories with independent and 
medium-sized petroleum production companies. Obviously, they must put 
up a big share of money. It is not a gift. It is a matching program 
using our technology, our expertise in the laboratories, especially 
computer availability, to enhance our competitiveness in the production 
of oil and gas. It is a good thing. If we have an Energy Department, we 
ought to use it for this kind of thing. If we have big laboratories 
with big computer capacity that is devoted to energy and nuclear 
activities, they ought to be used for this kind of thing. I hope the 
Bradley amendment is defeated.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico for his statement. I join with him in hoping the Bradley 
amendment will be tabled.
  Meanwhile, Mr. President:

       We cannot but obey
       The powers above us. Could I rage and roar
       As doth the sea . . . yet the end
       Must be as 'tis.

  Therefore,

       until our stars that frown lend us a smile,

  I will desist and await future events.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2403

  (Purpose: To provide for costs associated with certain timber sales)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of 
Mr. Wofford and Mr. Cochran, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. Wofford 
     (for himself and Mr. Cochran), proposes an amendment numbered 
     2403.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. 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 61, line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
       The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to utilize 
     $10,600,000 taken from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated 
     National Forest System account to provide for all costs 
     necessary to prepare, offer and administer completely timber 
     sales other than those funded by the regular fiscal year 1995 
     timber sales program in regions 2, 3, 8, and 9 with a 
     contract term not to exceed 1 year: Provided: That the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall execute the contracts funded 
     with this authority so that these funds are offset fully in 
     the same fiscal year by increased receipts net of payments to 
     States, and that an amount not to exceed $10,600,000 is 
     returned by the Secretary to the account from which the funds 
     were drawn: Provided further, That any such sales shall 
     comply with all applicable laws and regulations: Provided 
     further, That transfer of purchaser credits shall not be used 
     in payment for timber sold under this initiative: Provided 
     further, That no timber sales authorized under this section 
     shall substitute for timber sales that would otherwise 
     generate receipts contributing to the Congressional Budget 
     Office February 1994 Timber Receipt Baseline for fiscal year 
     1995: Provided further, That funds shall be returned to the 
     account and available for spending as offsetting collections 
     only if and to the extent that total National Forest Fund 
     timber receipts of the Forest Service (excluding amounts for 
     deposit funds) in fiscal year 1995 exceed $420 million: 
     Provided further, That funds provided under this authority 
     remain available to the Secretary until expended.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and 
that any statements in explanation thereof be included in the Record as 
if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment. We have 
no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cochran and myself, 
I offer this amendment which will help protect the jobs of thousands of 
people who depend on the national forests for their livelihoods.
  In northwestern Pennsylvania, these families and the communities they 
live in depend on the Allegheny National Forest for work and revenue. 
According to a study by the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, 
almost 42 percent of the jobs in the area are linked to timber. A 
nearly 50-percent decrease in the Forest Service timber sales program 
for 1995 compared to 1994, will affect every citizen in Warren, Elk, 
Forest, and McKean Counties. The Allegheny National Forest is the 
economic foundation of the region. And we all know what happens to a 
house when it has a weak foundation.
  The amendment Senator Cochran and I are offering will allow the 
timber sale program of the Allegheny National Forest to operate at 1994 
projected levels. The amendment gives the Forest Service $10,600,000 to 
make timber sales in regions 2, 3, 8, and 9 of the Forest Service, with 
a contract term not to exceed 1 year. Region 8 includes Pennsylvania.
  The $10.6 million will not add to the deficit. It will be offset 
fully in the same fiscal year through increasing timber sales.
  The Allegheny National Forest is the most profitable hardwood forest 
in the United States. Among its wealth of different tree species, the 
most valuable is black cherry, a wood prized by manufacturers of solid 
lumber and veneer, and by their customers in the furniture, plywood, 
and architectural woodworking industries worldwide.
  This amendment will help keep hardwood lumber, veneer, particleboard, 
and papermills running throughout the Northeast, Appalachia, and the 
Midwest, where they are the economic backbone of many rural 
communities. And it will keep thousands of hard-working men and women 
on the job.
  Revenue from timber sales is critical for local communities in 
northwestern Pennsylvania. Under the Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of 
1908, 25 percent of gross receipts from Forest Service timber sales are 
returned to local governments to be used primarily for roads and 
schools. Last year nearly $4.5 million was returned to these rural 
communities to help educate our young people and maintain roads. I have 
heard the concerns of school superintendents, teachers, and parents who 
worry that a huge loss of funds would mean that children's education 
will suffer.
  Entire communities have been moved to action because of this proposed 
cutback in timber sales. School superintendents, business people, 
workers, and county commissioners all have been meeting with my staff, 
calling and writing to show their concern and frustration over the 
proposed cutbacks.
  Mr. President, the real issue of the Allegheny National Forest isn't 
about numbers or percentages, it's about people's lives. It is about 
their jobs, their children's education, and their future. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to add my name as a 
cosponsor to legislation offered today by my colleague, the Senator 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wofford], and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Cochran]. This legislation would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture 
to transfer up to $10,600,000 in funds from the National Forest System 
account to provide for timber sales costs not funded by the fiscal year 
1995 timber sales program in regions 2,3,8, and 9, which includes 
Pennsylvania.
  The administration's proposed 50 percent reduction in the Allegheny 
National Forest [ANF] timber sale budget would reduce the available 
timber from last year's level of 62 million board feet to 35 million 
board feet in fiscal year 1995. I find such a reduction in the 
allowable timber harvest of one of the most fiscally and 
environmentally well-managed national forests in the country 
disturbing. Lower ANF timber sales will reduce revenues to the U.S. 
Government and potentially lead to the overforestation of private 
lands. In addition to the impact that the proposed reduction would have 
on 5,540 regional jobs directly related to the industry, local 
jurisdictions would experience substantial budget shortfalls. Twenty-
five percent of gross timber sale revenue is currently used for 
education and road maintenance. Last year, ANF regional governments 
located in Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren Counties received 
approximately $4.6 in revenue from timber sales.
  The most important aspect of the ANF, however, is the fact that it is 
an above-cost forest. In other words, the revenues received from forest 
timber sales exceed the cost of conducting the timber program. After 
deducting timber program expenses and returning $4.5 million in 
payments to local governments, the ANF returned $9 million in net 
receipts to the U.S. Treasury last year. A reduction in the ANF timber 
sale budget would actually result in an increased loss of revenue for 
the Federal Government.
  I believe that in allocating resources to national forests for timber 
sales management, there is a need for regional forest service personnel 
to give preference to those national forests whose revenues from timber 
sales outweigh the costs of their timber programs. Future proposals 
concerning reductions in appropriations for timber sales management 
should be allocated on the basis of a below costs determination as 
opposed to reducing the budgets of forests such as the Allegheny that 
are classified as above-costs forests.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure 
sound environmental management practices that benefit both northwestern 
Pennsylvania and the Federal Government are maintained.
  The amendment (No. 2403) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________