[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9009-S9015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 WHY AFRICA MATTERS: EMERGING DISEASES

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, when I became chairman of the 
Subcommittee on African Affairs in 1981, I was asked what I knew about 
Africa. I responded, ``Not much.'' But since that time, either as 
chairman or ranking member, I have spent considerable time working on 
African issues and have developed a deep affinity for the continent.
  It is a region that is beset with many difficulties, but it also 
holds great

[[Page S9010]]

promise and possibilities. I am not going to speak today, Mr. 
President, about current tragedies in Burundi or Rwanda or other places 
on the continent. But I have been questioned more and more, as I get 
ready to retire and will leave this chairmanship of the African 
subcommittee, why should we care about Africa? In this era of budget 
difficulties and domestic challenges, why devote resources and 
diplomatic energies to a region of great needs, unfamiliar cultures, 
and limited strategic value to the United States?
  Mr. President, I, for one, believe that Africa does matter to 
Americans, and perhaps in ways that we do not necessarily think about 
when we see the current headlines that emerge regarding Africa.
  The United States does have significant national interests on the 
continent. The events in Africa directly affect American citizens. In 
this age of instant communications, international travel, and world 
trade, we simply cannot afford to ignore a continent of over 660 
million people and 54 countries.
  From infectious disease to environmental destruction, narcotics 
trafficking to terrorism, we live in a world where boundaries have less 
and less meaning. As a world leader, the United States has a 
responsibility--and a self-interest--in promoting peace, stability, and 
development in Africa.
  Mr. President, over the next few weeks, I will deliver a series of 
statements on United States interests in Africa. As I travel around the 
country I find a great amount of skepticism among the American public 
regarding foreign policy and international engagement. Those of us who 
believe that events on the African Continent affect United States 
interests must begin to make the case for why Africa matters.
  Today, I will begin with an issue of particular concern to me--
emerging infectious diseases. Last year, I chaired a hearing of the 
Senate Labor Committee on Emerging Infections: A Threat to the Health 
of a Nation. The focus of the hearing was on domestic vulnerability to 
disease, but international issues--especially those involving Africa--
surfaced again and again.
  It is impossible to isolate the domestic epidemiological situation 
from a larger global context. Microbes simply do not observe political 
boundaries.
  Mr. President, the sheer volume of human contact at the approaching 
turn of the century creates a situation in which no country or class is 
immune from the threat of disease. In 1993, over 27 million people 
traveled from the United States and Canada to developing countries. The 
incubation period of most epidemic diseases far exceeds the duration of 
most international flights. No state can test all entering persons for 
every known disease. Even secure borders cannot stop contaminated 
water, food, or animal vectors from transmitting microbes across 
boundaries.
  For example, international trade was the mechanism by which a strain 
of the Ebola virus, previously confined to central Africa, surfaced in 
Reston, VA, in 1989, and in Texas in 1996. The devestating effects of 
Ebola's hemorrhagic fever, and the mysteries surrounding its 
transmission, have created a sense of fear and insecurity around the 
world since the 1995 outbreak in Zaire. Yet Ebola represents only one 
of a number of new diseases which present a threat to all of mankind--
at least 30 new infectious diseases have emerged in the last 20 years.
  Even more familiar diseases like malaria present a cause for concern, 
as poor medical practices in Africa result in new, antibiotic-resistant 
strains of previously treatable infections. Consider this: each year, 
over 1,000 Americans return to the United States with malaria after 
spending time abroad. The mosquito that transmits malaria is still 
present on both coasts of the United States. Moreover, precisely 
because malaria has not been endemic in our country or in Europe in the 
late 20th century, it will be far more lethal in those regions than it 
is in Africa today should it be reintroduced.
  Our national interest in Africa's emerging and reemerging diseases 
extends beyond the most immediate and urgent concern of international 
transmission.
  AIDS in Africa exemplifies the economically draining impact of 
disease. It primarily affects young adults, the most productive segment 
of society, leading some experts to estimate that AIDS could cause a 2- 
to 3-percent reduction in the growth rates of developing countries' 
economies over the next 20 years. In turn, diminished purchasing power 
in developing country will result in diminished trade revenues and 
economic opportunities here at home.
  Traditionally, U.S. interest in tropical infectious disease has 
varied according to the extent of our political and military 
involvement overseas. It seems clear that today's heightened volume of 
civilian human contact makes this an obsolete strategy. We should all 
be conscious of the risks that are presented to us.
  Yet in 1989, a meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine 
and Hygiene revealed that neither American agencies nor the World 
Health Organization were adequately prepared for an epidemic emergency. 
Prepackaged disease hospitals and overseas high-security laboratories 
do not exist, nor does a clear chain of command in such an emergency. 
In the 1990's, a review of CDC surveillance systems determined them to 
be woefully inadequate within the United States, and so haphazard as to 
be nonexistent abroad.
  Yet, information is one of the most critical elements of our 
epidemiological security, and surveillance and monitoring mechanisms on 
the African Continent are crucial to American interests.
  Mr. President, at the Labor Committee hearing last year, Dr. David 
Satcher, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
indicated that CDC received the first report of the 1994 Ebola outbreak 
in Zaire in May of that year, but the first case probably occurred in 
January.
  Early warning systems simply did not exist. Likewise, the National 
Science and Technology Council reported that African doctors saw ``slim 
disease,'' probably a herald of the AIDS epidemic, as early as 1962, 
but the dearth of technical and financial resources, as well as an 
absence of engaged, international cooperation, prevented the disease 
from being identified before the AIDS epidemic in the United States was 
well underway.
  For all of these reasons, the emergence and proliferation of disease 
on the African Continent should concern Americans. Population shifts, 
urban overcrowding, eroding health and sanitation infrastructures, 
inadequate public education initiatives, and environmental 
mismanagement all contribute to disease proliferation in Africa, and in 
turn, that proliferation affects the United States
  Mr. President, in this post-cold-war era, many in the policy and 
academic community are reassessing American vulnerabilities and global 
priorities. For example, I have strongly believed that nuclear, 
chemical, and biological weapons proliferation presented a clear threat 
to our Nation and have supported efforts to combat those dangers.
  But traditional perceptions of national security do not encompass 
many of the new threats facing our nation. As I have argued, emerging 
infectious diseases in Africa are one such threat--presenting serious 
dangers to United States citizens abroad and at home.
  American engagement, both explicitly through international disease 
prevention and control initiatives, and indirectly through 
encouragement of stability, social service reforms, and environmental 
responsibility, helps fight these emerging diseases, keeping both 
Africans and Americans strong, healthy, and secure as we prepare to 
enter the 21st century.
  This is just one reason, Mr. President, why Africa does matter to us. 
I suggest it is a security threat, as well as a personal threat, and 
one that we should care about with interest and compassion, as we look 
to our own budgets, and as we look to our own strategists.
  I yield the floor.
  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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9011]]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, together with the distinguished chairman 
of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I came to the 
floor today to help deal with any proposals or amendments that might 
come up during the course of today's activities. In fact, I was in the 
President's chair last Friday when the majority leader asked for a 
unanimous-consent agreement listing almost an entire column in the 
Congressional Record of amendments that might be proposed to this bill. 
A handful were debated on Friday afternoon. All of the rest must be 
offered between now and noon, or between 2 and 5 this afternoon.
  Obviously, we have not dealt with a lot of business at this point. It 
seemed to me appropriate to speak about this bill and about its 
importance in general terms and, perhaps, to ask for some comments from 
the chairman, my friend from New Mexico, who knows so much about it, to 
whom it is so vital, both for his own State of New Mexico and for the 
entire country, and for our national defense and for our 
infrastructure.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. I am happy to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to state one more time for 
Senators that we did receive 46 amendments. The Senator was alluding to 
them. The unanimous-consent agreement recognized these amendments as 
the only amendments that can be offered in the first degree, and many, 
many of them are to the water resources portion of this bill--we are 
beginning to ascertain, that is--the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps 
of Engineers. We very much want to attempt to work out some of these 
amendments.

  I just say to Senators who have amendments that the time is going to 
run out, and I know come 4 o'clock this afternoon, or even tomorrow, 
there are going to be Senators who will be somewhat upset. But we have 
now, through the good graces of the leader in this unanimous-consent 
request, had time since 9:30 this morning until 12. There are 2 hours, 
1 hour on each side, on some additional matters, unrelated to this. We 
will come back at 2 on this bill, and we will have 3 more hours. At 5 
o'clock, we are off this bill. So anybody who has not offered their 
first-degree amendments will have no opportunity. The Senate has just 
agreed that they are out.
  Now, I know there are four or five amendments that address issues 
that are not water resource issues. I think I know what all of those 
amendments are, although I have not seen them. I ask, especially, that 
the Senators who have these serious amendments, let us see them as soon 
as possible. So if Senators have amendments that are not water resource 
amendments that they are going to offer, we ask that the Senators' 
staffs and their offices attempt to get us those amendments so that we 
have an opportunity to work with the Senators on them, or to adequately 
make our presentations.
  I thank the Senator for yielding the floor. I am delighted that he 
wants to talk about the importance of this bill in many, many aspects 
of our future life in this country.
  (Mr. COCHRAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend from New Mexico. Mr. President, each of 
these appropriations bills with which we deal is long and very much 
detailed. Sometimes it is difficult even for Members, much less the 
general public, to have a true understanding of what is contained in 
them.
  For this reason, I have asked my staff to prepare a series of charts 
or graphs on the appropriations for those subcommittees of the 
appropriations bills on which I serve.
  Unfortunately, I only have a page-size one here for energy and water. 
It is for the bill for the current year, 1996. Due to the efforts of 
the Senator from New Mexico, we now have an allocation for 1997 that is 
roughly equivalent of that for 1996. So the distribution of the money 
for the current year is, I think, relevant to what we are dealing with.
  Mr. President, I am sure your eyes may not be quite good enough to 
see anything on this chart other than the colors. But the red and pink 
portion of the chart show that the lion's share of this bill goes to 
the Department of Energy, which is not surprising. This is the energy 
and water appropriations bill. What, perhaps, is not visible to you is 
the fact that only about a quarter of it appears on the top of the 
chart, and that goes to the civilian activities of the Department of 
Energy for energy supply research and development--obviously important 
to our future--and for general science research and development. The 
Federal Government, through the Department of Energy, is one of the 
most important single sources of research for both energy purposes and 
for some other purposes as well.
  All of the rest, close to three-quarters of this red and pink line, 
goes to defense activities, because it is the Department of Energy that 
is in charge of our nuclear defense. Curiously enough, of that defense 
activity, Mr. President, half really goes to the past. Half is 
continuing to pay for the triumph of the United States of America in 
World War II and in the cold war against the Soviet Union, because we 
built so rapidly our nuclear capacity, our nuclear defense capacity, 
that we did not learn at the time the dangers that nuclear waste would 
impose on this country. And we have stored most of our nuclear waste in 
a way that clearly is not permanent in nature and, clearly, threatens 
the environment--very particularly, in my own State of Washington, 
where at Hanford, the great majority of this nuclear waste is located, 
and all across many other nuclear facilities in the rest of the country 
as well.

  So a good portion--maybe a third of this entire appropriation--really 
looks to the past, to taking care of the nuclear waste that we have 
already created, and that which will be created in the future. That is 
a very important part of this appropriation. It is a payment for past 
triumphs of this country, and it is a payment which is obviously due to 
those who are concerned with the environment of the United States and 
to those locations in which it is found. I spoke at greater length on 
Friday on the subject of Hanford and the beginning of a very real 
success on the part of the engineers and the others who work there at 
doing something about this waste.
  Once again, Mr. President, this Department of Energy portion here is 
maybe a quarter for research into the future for the energy needs of 
the country, almost three-quarters for defense work, of which roughly 
half is really a payment for the past, rather than for our present 
security. This much shorter green line, Mr. President, is the Army 
Corps of Engineers. I believe I can say that every single Member of 
this body will have some interest in the work of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, as it works on all of our river systems, most notably in the 
State of the present occupant of the chair, my State, and all other 
States as well, in projects to control floods, to conserve water, to 
use it for agricultural purposes and the like.
  Yet, this entire green line here includes not only the operations and 
maintenance activities of the Corps of Engineers, but a very small 
portion for our future. The top tiny little green line here is 
Mississippi flood control, Mr. President. But look at that in 
comparison with all of the other activities of this appropriations 
bill--an an extremely modest investment in a vitally important 
activity. But some of it, a portion that all of us are interested in, 
is for the construction of future projects on the part of the Corps of 
Engineers to make our ports deeper and safer; to create new areas in 
which we can conserve water for various public purposes, and the like.

  Finally, the tiny orange line over here, insofar as the Department of 
the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation for a similar project; and, 
lastly, a handful of independent agencies like the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, the Delaware River Commission, the Interstate Commission on 
the Potomac, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the like.
  Yet, we tend to think of all of these things in the sense of 
equivalents. They are not equivalents with respect to the amount of 
money that we put into it. A very, very large portion, probably close 
to half, of this entire appropriations bill is for defense activities 
both past and future, and much of it is for research.

[[Page S9012]]

  As a consequence, it is important. It is a matter of interest to all 
of the Members of this body. It is probably the reason, as the chairman 
pointed out, that we have some 46 theoretically pending amendments to 
the bill even though the chairman has been very careful to listen to 
messages and requests from Members on behalf of their constituents. A 
significant number of projects, both in the research area and in the 
Corps of Engineers' operating area, are designed to build the 
infrastructure of this country, and, Mr. President, at a time in which 
we are properly and justifiably concerned with bringing our budget into 
balance, a duty that we owe to our children and to our grandchildren, a 
moral duty to pay today for the kinds of services and projects we want 
in government.
  As significant as that is, as significant as the views of this 
chairman are to that purpose, as he is, after all, the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, it is important that we continue to invest in 
the infrastructure of this country, whether it is a physical 
infrastructure from the point of view of energy and water projects or a 
research infrastructure in better and more efficient and more effective 
ways in which to use all of the energy resources that we have in the 
United States of America--one or the other. These investments in 
infrastructure are vitally important.
  So this is a really significant bill, Mr. President.
  I see the chairman returning to the floor at this point. I wonder if 
he would explain, for the Members who are still considering whether or 
not to come to the floor to offer their amendments but even more 
significantly for the people of the country as a whole, something of 
the dynamics of this bill.
  I say to the chairman of the committee, I believe that, due to his 
efforts, there is somewhat more money in this bill than there is in the 
bill passed by the House of Representatives. I also believe that this 
bill stays within the allocations which his subcommittee has been 
given, which in turn are a part of a set of allocations which could 
lead us to a balanced budget by the year 2002, if, but only if, we also 
show the courage and have the support from the President of the United 
States to deal with the overwhelmingly expensive entitlement programs 
of this country.
  So, if the chairman could tell us a little bit about how he made his 
choices in connection with this bill and emphasize the fact that it is 
a part of bringing the budget into balance and say what he thinks the 
differences between us and the House of Representatives are and how we 
propose to settle those differences, I would appreciate it. I think 
both our other Members and the country at large would appreciate having 
that knowledge as well.

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me first say to my friend from 
Washington that I thank him very much for the efforts he puts forth in 
every appropriations bill that he works on, but in particular I thank 
him for his knowledge and his effort in this one.
  The Department of Energy, obviously, is very misunderstood. I am not 
here defending mismanagement or any of the things we read about that we 
do not think would be in the best interests of maintaining this 
Department and maintaining a Cabinet position.
  But, first, in that regard with reference to the management of the 
Washington headquarters and the top-end governance of that Department, 
we have cut it 15.9--round numbers 16--percent. We believe, coupled 
with last year's reduction, that we are sending a very strong signal 
that the Department of Energy has too many people at the top end and, 
as a result, has an awful lot of regulations that are forthcoming with 
reference to the efforts out in the field that are duplicative, that 
are unnecessary.
  In fact, one of the major studies with reference to the laboratories 
that are owned by the Department of Energy and run under different 
management schemes--some run by the universities such as Livermore and 
Los Alamos, some run by management teams of the private sector such as 
Lockheed Martin, which runs Oak Ridge and Sandia--but one of the major 
reports was issued by the former chief executive officer of Motorola, 
Mr. ``Bob'' Robert Galvin. In that report the indication was that the 
laboratories are having a great deal of difficulty being efficient 
because there are too many rules and regulations.
  We are looking forward to the Department of Energy, which continues 
to say they are working at that, we are looking forward to their 
quantifying at some point and saying that laboratories can run without 
this enormous labyrinth of rules built one on top of the other.
  But in the end, what people must understand about the Department of 
Energy that I think is of utmost importance is that a very large piece 
of the Department of Energy is defense activities. There are some in 
this body, some in the other body, and some within the Department of 
Defense, and some former Cabinet people within the Department of 
Defense who frequently make the case that the Department of Energy does 
not do its defense work as well as some of them would like.
  Nonetheless, I must remind everyone that one of the things we can be 
most proud of by way of government doing a good job is how well we have 
succeeded throughout the confrontation with the Soviet Union in keeping 
the world from having a nuclear holocaust. What has happened is we 
created a stalemate, and we created such a vast array of information in 
these laboratories, the three that are the big ones that are determined 
to be in that business, along with Oak Ridge as a fourth one, we were 
always a step ahead. But all of the nuclear defense activities have 
been in the Department of Energy, or its predecessor, the civilian 
department, throughout the entire episode of the conflict with the 
Soviet Union. They have not been in the Department of Defense. They 
have been in the Department of Energy, or ERDA, its predecessor, or 
even the predecessor to that.
  In this bill for weapons activities and other defense activities--
there is $3.46 billion, more or less, for weapons activities in the 
budget request of the President, and we have funded that at $3.9 
billion, about $500 million higher than the President's request.
  Frankly, we believe that in funding that at about $500 million higher 
than the President, we have attempted to make sure that the goals and 
objectives of this President and his Department of Energy and his 
Defense Department, the goals and objectives with reference to a 
totally new way to handle our nuclear weapons is appropriately funded.
  Now, those who are critical of the Department of Energy should know 
that there is a very large portion of this budget that is Defense 
Department oriented. And is it an important function? This Senator 
assumes--and I think my friend from Washington supported this--that 
when we provided in the big budget $12 billion additional money for the 
Defense Department--and we did that, and we are willing to take the 
heat from that. That is an ongoing debate. We prevailed here, and we 
are funding defense overall at a higher level than the President asked 
for by about $12 billion. We assumed throughout this DOE defense 
function, which has to do with our nuclear weapons and the maintenance 
of them, which I will explain in a moment, we should give them a slight 
increase as we did the rest of DOD's work, so we assumed a comparable 
4.3 percent increase in those activities because that is how much we 
increased the Defense Department. Frankly, I believe every single bit 
of that is going to be used in an advantageous way with reference to 
our nuclear stockpile and our nuclear cleanup which I will talk about 
in a moment.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. GORTON. That $12 billion increase in defense as a whole is over 
how long a period of time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is fiscal year 1997, 1 year.
  Mr. GORTON. So $500 million is in this bill, and the remainder of it 
is in the bill that has already passed?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. Two bills, military construction, 
commonly known as MilCon, and the defense appropriations bill. The rest 
of it is in there. But $500 million of the $12 billion went to DOE 
defense. And that can include nuclear weapons activities, but it can 
also include nuclear cleanup, which, incidentally, the Senator has so

[[Page S9013]]

described here that everybody should look at.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In 1989, this pink portion of the Senator's chart 
called ``Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management'' was 
$800 million. It is now in excess of $5.5 billion. And actually, 
everybody understands that we must clean up the leftovers in the 
Senator's State, in the Savannah River area, in a couple of other areas 
in the United States, we must clean them up because that is our 
responsibility, and it is a leftover defense activity. So we pay for it 
here. So whenever we talk about defense money, unless somebody wants to 
take that out and say it is no longer a defense function, in which 
event I assume we would reduce defense spending by that amount and put 
it in some other civilian funding, that amount is in this 
appropriations bill and in every other one.
  Now, I want to comment on two other things.
  When we were involved in the confrontation with the Soviet Union, we 
had a number of things that we have since decided we would not do. 
First, we did underground testing. For some--and I am not attaching any 
quality to this debate--we should have stopped them a long time ago. 
But for those who have to be accountable for the quality of the 
weapons, they were very reluctant to give up underground testing. We 
finally voted that in here in the Senate. It was a Hatfield amendment 
to stop nuclear testing other than in case of an emergency, subject to 
the certification of the President, it might start again.

  I am not going to talk much about why testing was important to those 
who make bombs and keep them safe. Let me say those are goals without 
any serious contention. Almost everybody says that was a benefit in 
that regard.
  Now, this Department, starting about 2\1/2\ years ago, is involved in 
a whole new way to maintain our nuclear weapons. And as I have said 
before, when we talk about keeping this new inventory of nuclear 
weapons, it would be wonderful to come to the floor and say we do not 
need them anymore; we are not going to have any. But we are going to 
have them for quite a long time, and it is a rather large number--not 
nearly as large as before. It is coming down dramatically in number.
  But a new charge was placed on the laboratories by the Department of 
Energy and agreed to by DOD. It is called the science-based stockpile 
stewardship. We are now being asked to maintain a stockpile of a given 
number of thousands of weapons in a trustworthy, safe, secure, and 
deliverable mode without any testing underground and without 
manufacturing any weapons, for we are not making any new nuclear 
weapons. In this bill, we do not have money to make new nuclear 
weapons, and all the money for nuclear weapons is in this bill. If it 
is not here, it is nowhere.
  But the stockpile stewardship program based on science will require 
new facilities, new science techniques to make sure that we know 
whether, in some of these weapons which are 25 and 30 years old, 
certain parts have to be replaced. And they are not all nuclear 
related. There is a huge number of parts that are just related to the 
mechanics of a good weapon, of a weapon that is appropriately safe and 
trustworthy. To do that we need more resources, and we need to convert 
our major laboratories to that work.
  We believe it is a real challenge. We believe it is imperative that 
we give these scientists the same kind of recognition that we give to 
our defense people. When we say we need the best defense people, we 
need to pay our military men and women the best, we need to give them 
the best opportunity to serve us well, we have to, in my opinion, say 
the laboratories that are preserving this healthy situation are akin to 
our military people.
  They are not military people. And I think many say, thank God, they 
have not been, for we have never since Harry Truman's time wanted to 
put the maintenance of a nuclear weapons compound and all that goes 
into it in the Defense Department. We said you give us the criteria; we 
will deliver them; you make sure that in fact they are what we say they 
are but let civilians do that. So we chose in this bill to put more 
money in various functions of the stockpile stewardship program.
  Mr. President, none of us are thrilled with the efficiency of the 
nuclear cleanup activities. The distinguished Senator from Washington, 
who has millions of dollars being spent to clean up Hanford, has 
regularly indicated his great displeasure at how long it is taking and 
how we are standing in place instead of running. But the point of it is 
we have to put money in that. We have $200 million more in that overall 
program than the House did. We will have to defend that in conference. 
We are going to maybe defend it on the floor. I do not know of an 
amendment yet, but I can see in that amendment a reduction in the 
cleanup. There is an amendment offered by Senator Bumpers which would 
cut back on the stockpile stewardship in its broadest sense as I 
understand the amendment.

  Now, I want to make one last observation. I said I had two. We have 
put together in the national laboratory systems of the Department of 
Energy a huge labyrinth of great equipment to do research projects. And 
probably it is fair to say that over 40 years there was assembled in 
the nuclear deterrent laboratories and the others, including Oak Ridge, 
the biggest science talent in a group in an institution, science and 
engineering talent of anywhere in the world. And certainly in America 
with 7,000 or 8,000, 9,000 scientists with all those that support them 
at some of these institutions, we were always able to get the very 
best, phenomenal in terms of their research. So there developed within 
that system research on major deep science and physics issues, and in 
this budget we have maintained an effort in high-energy physics, 
nuclear physics, biological and environmental research second to none 
in the world. It is not a huge portion, as my colleague pointed out, 
but high-energy physics and nuclear physics are among the premier 
efforts at finding out the nature of matter, the real nature of atoms 
and every part of atoms, the atomic structure and everything within it, 
to find out clearly what is in this universe of ours. We should never 
stop that research. America is the leader there, and we should continue 
to be the leader.

  We do biological and environmental research. Incidentally, the 
greatest wellness health research program, one-third of it, is in the 
Department of Energy. That is the program called genome research, which 
will map the entire chromosome structure of the human body, map it and 
hand it to the scientific community so they can then proceed to effect 
cures over time of the great diseases. That is in here for about one-
third of $189 million, whatever that number is, for national programs, 
about $189 million, and we have a third of it here.
  We have geothermal and fusion research. We have solar and renewables. 
There will be an amendment on the floor to add some money to solar and 
renewables. That amendment will add about $23 million. The Senator 
asked what some of the amendments are about. That has been put 
together, we understand. Senator Jeffords has been the leader on that, 
and we will try to work that out with him.
  Obviously, since I spent the last 10 minutes talking about the 
Department of Energy, then I must spend a few moments on the other 
aspect of this bill. Because, as the Senator's chart so adequately 
depicts, this bill also covers the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of 
Engineers, the Appalachian Regional Commission, Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, Tennessee Valley Authority, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. These are 
nondefense activities that are in this bill that are very important. 
Almost all of the 47 amendments that I alluded to awhile ago that were 
at least reserved by Senators, almost all of them had to do with these 
functions that I just elaborated; in particular, the corps and the 
Bureau, for the most part. I did not say all of them, but for the most 
part.
  So, when we have to fund this at a freeze for nondefense, it is not 
possible for us to grant an awful lot of new program startups and the 
like for the Bureau of Reclamation or the corps. We have done our best 
in the bill. If we can save some money in some of the amendments that 
are being offered in that area, we will try to accommodate some of the 
States' desires, as evidenced by the reserved amendments from Senators 
who are seeking to continue projects or to take an authorized

[[Page S9014]]

project and fund it in this bill. I think that is very important.
  Obviously, there are many who wonder about the Federal Government's 
involvement in flood protection--until there is a flood. Then everybody 
thinks the Federal Government should be involved. If that is the case, 
when there is a known flood potential, when there is a situation with a 
high propensity for floods, why shouldn't we be part of preventing it 
on some kind of a match basis? We have done that for a long time.
  There is not as much money going into flood protection, but there is 
some, and there is a match required at the State level and a cost-
benefit ratio, meaning it must be found to be beneficial and that the 
risks far exceed the costs that we are going to put into the project. 
That is what we are trying to do there. So this is an interesting 
little bill. It is not the biggest appropriation bill, but it is pretty 
important.
  I want to repeat for those who are very concerned about the defense 
of our country, I am trying my best, the Senator from New Mexico is 
trying his best, every chance that he can, to explain that there is a 
major defense activity in this subcommittee. It is not all in that 
Defense appropriation and MilCon bill. If we want to be certain about 
how we are handling the nuclear stockpile, we ought to make sure we are 
adequately funding the stockpile stewardship program. At the same time, 
we have to maintain some of the facilities that are not part of the 
stockpile stewardship, but rather part of ``if we have to go back to 
the old way,'' we have some facilities that are there on a conditional 
basis, ready to be used. That has been insisted upon by the defense 
leaders of our country. So that means we cannot abandon the State of 
Nevada's testing facilities because, in fact, what if we need to use 
them again?
  I note today, as we speak, China is undertaking an underground test, 
as I read about it. They say it is the last, and they will soon sign a 
big international treaty. On the other hand, you do not have to 
believe, when they say that is the last one, that they are going to 
abandon all their facilities. I do not believe that is the case. Russia 
is trying to build down, but their facilities are not being abandoned. 
So there is a little bit of added expense there, but I think it is very 
important expense.
  The last thought has to do with nonproliferation. It is related to 
what has been going on in our country in terms of the recent bombing 
and TWA flight 800 that fell out of the skies. The whole issue of 
nonproliferation is no longer simply a nuclear nonproliferation issue. 
But, in that regard, this bill espouses a concept. The concept is, if 
we can spend some money helping Russia make sure that their nuclear 
devices and the science that goes into them are not shipped around the 
world but rather are dismantled in an orderly manner and their 
scientists put to work at something else, it is in our security 
interests. That is not foreign aid. That is security aid for us.
  The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment, which was adopted here in the 
Senate in the armed services bill and partially funded in this bill, 
has a lot to do with trying to move ahead with making Russia's 
dismantlement more secure, more certain, and safer for the world. It 
has a couple of interesting projects--partnership with laboratories 
here and business in an effort to keep some of their great scientists 
from succumbing to the offer of money to move to other countries to 
become bomb builders.
  The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici bill has some civilian defense in it with 
reference to disasters that might be forthcoming from chemical and 
biological incidents. There is a new interagency coordination, a new 
National Security Council position to coordinate responses to 
terrorism, international crime, and nonproliferation. There is a major 
effort, some of which is vested in the laboratories of the Department, 
to come up with the best approach to containing chemical and biological 
weapons of mass destruction from the very bottom up: Identifying how 
they are made, identifying ways that they can be prevented in some 
generic ways. So we are slightly ahead of the curve in getting that 
started and getting it funded. That took a little of the extra money 
that is in this bill.
  In summary, we have succeeded, in the U.S. Senate, in getting $200 
million more in the nondefense parts of this bill than the House has in 
theirs, and $700 million more in all of the Department of Energy's 
defense activities from cleanup, which we call defense, to the science-
based safeguards new system, and other needs to maintain a dual track 
with reference to our nuclear weapons.
  I thank my colleague very much for raising the issue about the bill 
and for the discussion that ensued. Since there is no one here to offer 
an amendment, I assume this was worthwhile.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
comment on the bill which is before us.
  First, I salute the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from 
Louisiana who are the leaders on this particular measure. I think they 
have done, by and large, an outstanding job. I hope we can move ahead 
as quickly as we can to approval of the measure before us, although I 
am certain some amendments will be in order.
  Once again, I emphasize that over the years, as has been alluded to 
by the Senator from New Mexico in his remarks, his excellent remarks 
just concluded, the Energy Department has played a much larger role in 
national defense and national security than is generally recognized.
  One of the problems that I have seen in this area, of course, is that 
generally we refer to the $260 to $270 billion annual appropriations 
for national defense. To give us a true picture of that, we should add 
on the billions of dollars included in the Energy Department under the 
discretion of the appropriators who have, for many years, taken a very 
close look at the operations of the Department of Energy. I urge them 
to continue that effort, as we in the Armed Services Committee do.
  Generally speaking, there has been excellent cooperation between the 
authorizers of these funds, the Armed Services Committee, on which I 
have the honor to serve, and the appropriators, working in close 
cooperation with the appropriators, especially in the Energy 
Department, with regard to a whole scope of international relations and 
international security.
  I emphasize, once again, the excellent remarks made by the Senator 
from New Mexico with regard to the excellent job that is done by two of 
the national laboratories that are located in his State. Certainly, I 
agree with him completely that the new challenges that we have placed 
on the Department of Energy, and especially under the laboratories that 
they oversee, with regard to the safety and reliability of our nuclear 
stockpile is very important.
  I have been one of the leaders from the very beginning to end, if we 
possibly can, nuclear testing of any type, but, of course, that remains 
to be seen as to whether or not we can get the rest of the nuclear 
communities around the world, other nations, to agree, because 
certainly, although I have pressed hard for the nuclear test ban 
treaty, I recognize and realize that we cannot go it alone forever, 
which brings me to a matter that I call to the attention of the Senate.
  Today in Geneva, Switzerland, the world peacekeepers, the 
negotiators, in an attempt to end the testing of nuclear weapons, are 
going into a fateful 2 or 3 days. Evidently, although there has not 
been a great deal of attention paid to this, unfortunately, I think it 
is one of the most meaningful international negotiations that we have 
ever seen, and I believe the success or failure of those negotiations, 
which are reopening today in Geneva, Switzerland, will go a long way to 
assure, if we can get the nuclear test ban treaty extended and signed, 
man's humanity for mankind more than anything else that we can do.
  I will say that I am very pleased to read in the newspapers this 
morning that evidently all nations that are considered nuclear states, 
or possibly nuclear states in the future, have agreed to sign on to a 
continuation of the nuclear test ban treaty with the exception of 
India. India, of course, is pursuing a course that is most difficult 
for most of us who have followed this with great interest to 
understand: Their continuing to say to the international

[[Page S9015]]

community that they will not sign on to any kind of an extension of the 
nuclear test ban treaty so long as the nations of the world, the five 
big nations, primarily, and others, agree to dramatically reduce and 
get on a course to end the stockpile of nuclear inventory.

  While that would, of course, be something that might be good for 
peace, on the other hand, it might not be. The whole drive today is not 
to eliminate nuclear weapons from those nations that now have it. The 
whole concept of a nuclear test ban treaty is to put roadblocks in the 
way for new states, particularly Third World nations coming aboard and 
being part of the nuclear inventory states.
  That can only be very foreboding, as far as the future of peace is 
concerned, and especially the future of peace on the basis of not 
having and relying primarily--and I emphasize the word ``primarily''--
on nuclear inventories.
  Suffice it to say, Mr. President, a lot of very important things are 
going on today. I happen to feel that, by and large, the measure that 
has been advanced to the floor of the Senate by the appropriate 
subcommittee, in this case energy, is a good bill. I think it is an 
important step in the right direction, with some modifications and lots 
of compromises.
  In closing, I compliment, once again, the two Senators who are 
managing this bill on the floor for the excellent understanding that 
they have, the grasp that they have with regard to the whole complex 
matter of not only national security but international security. I 
thank them for their attention and thoughtfulness on this particular 
measure.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________