[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 101 (Tuesday, September 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7985-S7991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the bill.
  The bill clerk read the title as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and this has 
been approved by the other side--that the committee amendment to H.R. 
4733 be adopted and that the bill as amended be considered as original 
text for the purpose of further amendments, provided that no points of 
order are waived by this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Committee on Appropriations 
favorably reported H.R. 4733 by a vote of 28 to 0 on Tuesday, July 18.
  Senator Reid and I have worked very hard this year to put together a 
fair bill under extremely difficult circumstances. As reported by the 
committee, the recommendation would provide $22.470 billion in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 2001. That total is broken out between 
a defense allocation that is pretty good, and a non-defense allocation 
that is extremely limited.
  The Defense BA allocation is $13.484 billion. That is $400 million 
over the President's request and $1.384 billion over last year. The 
committee requested the additional money to address some very serious 
needs in the nuclear weapons complex, defense environmental clean-up, 
and in ongoing international nonproliferation programs.
  However, the BA allocation on the non-defense side of the bill is 
much more difficult--it provides $8.986 billion, which is $603 million 
below the President's request and $73 million below the current year 
level.
  In order to accommodate some serious shortfalls in the President's 
request, and some very legitimate requests from Members, we have had to 
cut a significant amount more than the $603 million we are short from 
the request.
  The allocation has also forced the committee to make very difficult 
choices, and we have tried to do that on as fair a basis as possible. 
We have followed certain criteria. In the water accounts for example:
  No. 1, we have tried to focus available funding, to the greatest 
extent possible, to ongoing studies and construction projects.
  No. 2, we have included no new construction starts or new initiatives 
in fiscal year 2001, and only a very limited number of new studies or 
planning projects.
  No. 3, we have not included unauthorized projects or water and sewer 
infrastructure projects contained in the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999.
  No. 4, numerous projects budgeted at or near the Corps' capability 
have been reduced in order to pick-up funds for congressional 
priorities and to restore funding not requested by the administration 
for flood control and inland navigation projects.
  No. 5, given these constraints, we have been limited to accommodating

[[Page S7986]]

only the highest priority requests of Members where possible.
  Having said that, the recommendation for the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers totals $4.104 billion. This is $41 million above the budget 
request and $22 million below the FY 2000 enacted level. The following 
is a highlight of the recommendation of the Corps Budget for FY 2000:
  General Investigations totals $139 million, down $23 million below 
the current year.
  Construction General totals $1.361 billion, down $24 million below 
the current year.
  Operation and Maintenance totals $1.862 billion which is $8 million 
over the current year.
  Moving on to the Bureau of Reclamation, the recommendation before the 
committee totals $753 million. This is $48 million below the budget 
request and $13 million below the current year level. The 
recommendation includes:
  Six hundred and fifty-five million dollars for Water and Related 
Resources which includes both construction and operation and 
maintenance of Bureau projects. This is $50 million over the current 
year level.
  None of the $60 million requested for the California Bay-Delta 
Restoration program is provided in the bill, as the authorization for 
this program expires in fiscal year 2000.
  Thirty-eight million dollars for the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund a reduction of $4 million from the current year.
  For the Department of Energy's non-defense accounts, we have proposed 
some substantial reductions from the President's request. However, in 
many cases, those reductions appear large only because the President 
proposed large increases we will not be able to accommodate, given our 
non-defense allocation.
  In other accounts such as Nuclear Energy R&D, the administration 
request was 4 percent below current year. Therefore, the committee has 
tried to balance the Department's research efforts by providing 
reasonable increases to these important research efforts.
  For the Science programs at the Department of Energy, the committee 
recommends $2.870 billion, an increase of $82 million over last year, 
but still $292 million below the request.
  Over half of the total proposed increase to Science was in one 
construction project, the Spallation Neutron Source in Tennessee. The 
committee strongly supports this project and has provided $240 million, 
an increase of $140 million over current year.
  The allocation forced the committee into some very difficult 
decisions regarding many otherwise outstanding programs and initiatives 
under the Office of Science. For example, although the committee has 
traditionally provided strong support to High Energy Physics, Nuclear 
Physics and Fusion Energy, all are funded at below last year's level.
  Within the defense allocation, we have been able to add significant 
funds to some very pressing problems.
  Within Weapons Activities, the committee has provided $4.883 billion, 
an increase of $244 million over the budget request. The committee is 
very concerned about the state of the science based Stockpile 
Stewardship Program. As it is now, the program is not on schedule, 
given the current budget, to develop the tools, technologies and skill-
base to refurbish our weapons and certify them for the stockpile. For 
example, we are behind schedule and over cost on the production of both 
pits and secondaries for our nuclear weapons. The committee has 
provided significant increases to these areas.
  Furthermore, DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities and our 
production complex is in a terrible state of disrepair. To address 
these problems, the mark provides an increase of over $100 million for 
the production plants in Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, and South 
Carolina.
  But it is not just the physical infrastructure that is deteriorating 
within the weapons complex, morale among the scientists at the three 
weapons laboratories is at an all-time low. For example, the last two 
years at Los Alamos have witnessed security problems that greatly 
damaged the trust relationship between the government and its 
scientists. Additionally, research funds have been cut and punitive 
restrictions on travel imposed.
  As a result, the labs are having great difficulty recruiting and 
retaining America's greatest scientists. To help address this problem, 
the bill has increased the travel cap from $150 million to $200 
million, and increased Laboratory Directed Research and Development. 
And I intend to offer additional amendments to increase LDRD and 
travel.
  For security, the committee recommends $336 million for the 
Department's security office, an increase of $213 million over last 
year. This is in addition to the $45 million for increased Cyber 
Security that was just enacted as part of the fiscal year 2000 
Supplemental. In addition, the committee has made sure General Gordon, 
as the new head of the NNSA, will have the resources and the authority 
to take care of security throughout the weapons complex.

  The Department has experienced tremendous difficulty in constructing 
its special experimental and computational facilities within budget and 
within schedule. The National Ignition Facility is only the most recent 
example, and on that issue, Senator Reid and I have agreed to recommend 
at this time only the $74 million requested by the administration, 
recognizing that much more money will be required this year if this 
project is to continue.
  Regarding accelerator production of tritium, the committee has 
combined that with other programs to begin an exciting new program 
called Advanced Accelerator Applications. The committee recommendation 
includes $60 million to continue the important work on a back-up 
tritium source for defense purposes, but will also fund important work 
on accelerator transumutation of waste and other accelerator 
applications.
  The committee continues its strong tradition of support for nuclear 
nonproliferation issues. We recommend $909 million, an increase of $43 
million over the request, and $180 million more than last year.
  For Defense Environmental Management, the committee recommends $6.042 
billion, a $326 million increase over last year. To the extent 
possible, we have tried to address the needs of Members with 
environmental management sites. We have provided increases at Savannah 
River and the Hanford site, and provided additional funds for 
environmental science and technology research at Idaho and other labs.
  In summary, the recommendation before you is for $22.47 billion, a 
reduction of $225 million from the request. Within that amount, non-
defense programs are reduced $603 million while defense accounts 
increase $400 million. This is going to be a difficult year, but I look 
forward to consideration by the full Senate.
  It is our intention to work hard over the next few evenings to 
complete work on the bill. It is my intention to seek a unanimous 
consent that all amendments be filed by noon on Wednesday. We will be 
here all evening, and I urge my colleagues to bring any amendments they 
may have to the floor so we can consider them. It is my intention, 
shortly after all amendments have been filed, to act on a package of 
managers amendments.
  Before I yield back, I would like to thank Chairman Stevens for the 
strong support he has given to the energy and water bill, particularly 
on the defense funding side. I would also like to thank my ranking 
member, senator Reid, for all the effort he has put forth in working 
together on this bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico 
will allow me to add a glowing statement about the bill he is about to 
speak to?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to do that even if it were not 
glowing but, since it is, I am delighted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the managers of 
this bill for their commitment to renewable energy. I particularly want 
to thank Senator Harry Reid for his leadership in bringing additional 
funding to advance the cause of clean energy in this nation.
  Earlier this year the Senate renewable energy caucus, led by Senators 
Roth, Bingaman, Allard and myself, sent a letter to the bill managers 
asking that they put the U.S. Senate on

[[Page S7987]]

record in support of wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and other 
renewable energy resources.
  Mr. President, 54 of our colleagues signed that letter and they 
should know that the bill before us today boosts funding for renewable 
energy by $87 million over last years levels. This is a great 
achievement. And unlike in past years, I come to the Senate floor 
without the annual renewable energy funding amendment but with what 
will hopefully be an annual effort praising the managers of this bill.
  We thank you Senator Reid for your vision and commitment to reducing 
this nation's reliance on foreign oil and advancing our investment in 
clean, domestic energy resources.
  This increase puts our country back onto the path of a sustainable 
energy policy.
  In recent years, the U.S. trade deficit has soared. The number one 
contributor to the trade deficit is imported foreign oil--and its 
contribution has reached record levels.
  Since the oil embargo of 1973-74, imports of foreign oil have risen 
from a little over 30 percent to 55 percent, and will hit 65 percent in 
a decade. By then, most of the world's oil will come from potentially 
unstable Persian Gulf nations.
  These imports account for over $60 billion. That is more than 36 
percent of the U.S. trade deficit. These are U.S. dollars being shipped 
overseas to the Middle East when they could be put to better use here 
at home.
  In 1976, myself and a number of freshmen Members of the House of 
Representatives proposed such a provision and nearly passed it to the 
exact same 10 percent. Unfortunately, that failed. But at that time we, 
a number of us working together, did start the wind energy program, 
which is now blossoming, with Vermont being the leader in that field, 
and also, with a very good amendment I was able to get on, we started, 
really, the solar voltaic program at that particular time. During the 
period since that time, a couple of times we have come very close to 
putting into a mandatory situation where we would decrease the 
consumption of oil by 10 percent through renewables.
  Now we are on our way, finally. Hopefully, this bill will pass.
  We are lowering our balance of payments.
  We are providing an invaluable insurance policy to enhance our 
national security.
  And we are protecting our environmental and reducing air pollution.
  Federal support for renewable energy research and development has 
been a major success story in the United States. Costs have declined, 
reliability has improved, and a growing domestic industry has been 
born.
  Through this boost in the renewables budget, we are building upon our 
successes. We are helping to develop industries which reduce our trade 
deficit and boost national security. We are helping farmers, ranchers, 
rural communities, and small businesses.
  The 54 Senators who signed this letter--and in particular--Senator 
Reid, deserve a great deal of credit for protecting the environment, 
promoting job growth, and advancing America's future.
  Again, I thank the two sponsors of the bill, Senators Reid and 
Domenici. I praise them for their efforts and helping in any way 
possible. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can respond before the Senator from 
Vermont leaves the floor, this has been a very difficult issue for 
Senator Domenici and me for a number of years. We acknowledge the 
leadership of the Senator from Vermont on this issue. But for him, we 
probably would not be in the position we are now. I appreciate his nice 
words and recognize his leadership on this issue over the many years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. 
Reid, for what he has said, and I echo the compliments. I think the 
Senator from Vermont understands the delicate position we are in this 
year in that the nondefense portion of this appropriations bill is 
inadequate to cover the nondefense research and water projects we ought 
to be covering in the bill.
  I believe when we were able to almost match the Senator's and his 
cosponsors' request on solar and wind, they understand we are hopeful 
when we get to conference of getting some additional money from the 
budget and the appropriators for the nondefense portion of this bill 
which will make it easier for us to keep this and hold it all the way 
through. I have been sure and careful to explain that to the Senator 
from Vermont. I am sure he is aware of it. I wanted to put it in the 
Record.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I agree with 
him 100 percent, and I am going to do all I can to assist him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while Senators are going to talk about 
projects, programs, activities, and amendments to add $5 million here 
or $7 million there, I want to break this appropriations bill into two 
parts--I wish I had it on a chart, and maybe I will have it the next 
time we are on this bill--so that when anybody offers an amendment that 
costs money, if it is in the nondefense part, whatever it is for, maybe 
some science research, maybe a water project that we did not fund, 
maybe operation and maintenance for some part of the Mississippi, a 
levy system, we are going to try to show you where we are really 
hurting for money is the nondefense part of this budget, the water 
projects and the nondefense science.
  As a matter of fact, the allocation is about $604 million below the 
President's request in the nondefense part of this appropriations bill. 
That is $73 million less than last year's appropriations. It is not a 
question only of not being able to meet the President's request. We 
are, in essence, below last year's appropriated number, which many 
people say isn't realistic unless you are prepared to take some 
programs out of the Department--and we can hardly do that. That is a 
negative $73 million.
  Fortunately, on the defense side, we have talked our way through all 
these different hurdles of how much defense money is available, and I 
am very appreciative of the fact that through the efforts of our 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the appropriators who spend 
defense money--that is the big defense bill, the smaller bill on 
military construction and a very small bill on Commerce that spends 
some money on defense--they have left, as part of the increase, 
sufficient money to cover the defense in this bill, which is $13.5 
billion.
  I regret to say the problem we have is when we go to the House, we 
have to raise the House's number because they are about $600 million 
below us on the defense side of their bill. It is a difficult problem.
  I do believe the allocation that both chairmen of the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees are going to ultimately come up with 
will make us whole at the Senate level on defense. I just explained 
why. The money is there, and I hope before this is over, we will 
convince everyone we are in an area where we have to be very concerned 
how much money we are spending on the defense side because the morale 
and capability of our National Laboratories to maintain our nuclear 
weapons activities is getting very close as to whether it can continue 
in a manner we have expected over the years.

  When somebody says it is only $7 million and I need it for a levy and 
I need to start a program even though we said no new starts, I want to 
keep in front of everybody that we are $604 million below the President 
on nondefense, and the House is $600 million below ours on defense, and 
we are $500 million higher than the President's on defense. Those will 
be put up here for everybody to see.
  If anybody wants an interpretation of what is in this bill, I tried 
very hard in a nonpartisan way to explain it in my earlier statement. I 
have given full credit to the magic of bipartisanship when it comes to 
writing a bill like this. We have to try to work together. Maintaining 
our nuclear capacity through science and research and nonproliferation 
should not be a partisan issue. Thanks to Senator Reid, it is not. 
There are a few disagreements he and I have. We will iron them out on 
the floor.
  I want to make sure everybody understands that right now, this day, 5 
weeks before the new fiscal year, the nuclear defense laboratories, 
which essentially are made up of a piece of the

[[Page S7988]]

National Laboratory in Tennessee called Oak Ridge, called Y-12, plus 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories in 
Albuquerque and Livermore, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
are the laboratories that maintain our nuclear weapons activities that 
measure the performance and ability of our nuclear weapons, and their 
safety and reliability.
  Right now, they are fragile because the morale is low. Throughout 
this short debate, I will keep mentioning to Senators that we better be 
careful with reference to the scientists who have done the big defense 
work who we must retain at these laboratories to perfect our Stockpile 
Stewardship Program, which allows no weapons testing while we are still 
going to protect the reliability of our weapons. We need to retain the 
old heads who have done this work for so long. At Los Alamos there are 
about 40 of them who are in the X division, including NEST or the 
Nuclear Emergency Search Team.
  Their morale is very low because, my colleagues will recall, that is 
the area where that hard drive was found behind a machine, and they did 
not know how it got there. They have now been under investigation for 
14 weeks. Fourteen weeks is a long time to have the very best 
scientists in the world who have maintained our nuclear capacity, some 
of them for 30 years, some for 25, some more 40, under investigation. 
We do not want them to leave the laboratories, and we want to attract 
the best new scientists to follow in their footsteps and have them 
educated by the other scientists. We are not succeeding at either.
  The new recruits of the very best scientists are at an all-time low, 
and that is measurable. In other words, we know how many scientists we 
invited to work and how many accepted. I will put that in the Record. 
It is very low compared to 5 years ago. We also know how many are 
planning to leave, and it is very high compared to other years.
  Everybody knows I have a parochial interest. At least they would 
assume that. If one of my colleagues had a laboratory like Los Alamos 
in his or her State, I say to any Senator, I assume they would be 
concerned about it. If they had a Sandia National Laboratory, which is 
the engineering laboratory for nuclear weapons, I assume they would be 
concerned.
  I am concerned, and I have to try to convince the Senate that we have 
to put back some money in terms of morale builders, and we have to 
start telling those great scientists that they have done a wonderful 
job for America.
  So something got messed up. If you can't prove there is spying or 
espionage, pretty soon you ought to get off their backs and you ought 
to say to them: We are going to fix this administratively.

  I could go on tonight and tell you how we are going to do that 
because we have a new administrative approach to running the nuclear 
weapons activities of America. We have a great man, General Gordon, 
heading it. Give him a chance. Give him a chance to restructure. At the 
same time, let somebody who knows their problems lead this effort. He 
is about as knowledgeable as anyone we could get to head the NNSA, the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. It is hard to remember that 
name, but it will not be hard in a couple years because this general is 
going to make sure we know about it.
  He is already showing some real leadership in terms of our 
understanding what NNSA is. It is the entire package of activities for 
our nuclear safety as far as our weapons and nonproliferation. We know 
he is going to fix this morale issue if we give him a chance.
  For now we have to be very careful. For instance, the House limits 
their travel again, even lower than the President recommends. Does it 
ever occur to anyone that the great scientists travel? Was that ever an 
astonishing conclusion? If you did not know it, let me tell you: Great 
scientists travel. They love to go to conventions and conferences to 
share ideas. And if you say to a young crop of the best scientists in 
America: Come and work at Los Alamos, but you had better remember that 
you can only make one trip a year--well, what they are telling us 
already is: Hey, I have a company that doesn't limit me. They are 
offering me some stock options. They want me to come.
  Pay isn't a problem. We pay our scientists pretty well at these 
laboratories, as a matter of fact. I must tell you, if they like their 
work they will stay there.
  So my concern is a very serious one. We could not do what I think we 
must do and live with the House number on defense in this bill. We are 
$600 million higher than the House. We tell the Senate that with much 
pride because you have to give these laboratories what they need.
  Let me give you just one area. The National Laboratory structure, 
with reference to nuclear weapons, is in need of an entire new, let's 
say, 10-year plan for rebuilding ancient buildings. I use the word 
``ancient'' because some of them are so old that if you could apply the 
historic preservation statutes in the State of New Mexico, some of them 
would be untouchable because they are too old. That is how old they 
are. I do not want to tell you how old. But it is not very old to be 
labeled ``old'' anymore if you are a building.
  But we started a plan. We started an approach for $100 million in 
this bill, to start some of that--for lack of a better word, we will 
call it infrastructure. But it is buildings; it is equipment. We must 
go on beyond that for a few years and get the nuclear weapons complex, 
so to speak, built up or decide we are going to have an inferior one. 
We would not be able to tell Americans the best people work there.
  The best brainpower of America is devoted to making sure our nuclear 
weapons are right and safe. As we lower the numbers--which we are going 
to be doing; that, we can all say--even with lower numbers, we know 
what we are doing. We do not have to have tests because we know they 
are safe.
  If we do not, I am going to support people who come to the floor and 
say: Let's start testing again. Have no doubt about it. We voted in the 
Mark Hatfield amendment to start a moratorium. We are doing it 
unilaterally. They are saying: Why don't we sign the treaty? We are not 
doing any testing by statute right now.
  So these great scientists have to substitute brainpower and equipment 
for what underground testing used to give them, with information about 
the adequacy, the safety, the reliability.
  Now we have to do it by computers, by new machines, new, fantastic x-
ray machines that look inside bombs. We had better have the very best 
people in America working there, wouldn't you think? I would.
  My distinguished friend from Nevada wants to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Maine wishes to 
make a relatively short statement. I do not want to impose upon her 
time because we have to be here anyway.
  I believe the Senator from New Mexico wishes to be recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I had indicated I wanted to send an amendment to the 
desk so we have one pending.


                           Amendment No. 4032

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4032.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

       Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66, 
     line 7.

  Mr. DOMENICI. The amendment removes from the bill an environmental 
provision that I had put in there prior to a successful discussion of 
the issues and termination of the issues temporarily in the State of 
New Mexico. So I do not need the amendment. Senator Reid knows about 
it. That is what this amendment is.
  Mr. REID. The amendment is pending; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside so the Senator from Maine can speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7989]]

  The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 4033

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, the 
Senator from Nevada, and most particularly, the Senator from Maine for 
helping arrange time so she and I can discuss the amendment that we are 
about to send to the desk. I request its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and 
     Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 4033.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 4____. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of 
     America's energy consumption;
       (2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled 
     1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural 
     gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
       (3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories 
     totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year 
     average of 334,000,000 barrels;
       (4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel 
     fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent 
     below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
       (5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude 
     oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased 
     demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely 
     have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
       (6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
       (b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among 
     a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by 
     the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader 
     of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist 
     of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following 
     categories:
       (i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
       (ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
       (iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
       (iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
       (v) Environmental groups.
       (vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and 
     demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
       (vii) The Energy Information Administration.
       (B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for 
     the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission 
     shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original appointment.
       (D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall 
     appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the 
     Commission.
       (E)  Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which all members of the Commission have been 
     appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (2) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall--
       (i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and 
     natural gas industries, of--

       (I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil, 
     and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends 
     and projections for those inventories;
       (II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply 
     disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in 
     particular regions;
       (III) ways in which the United States can become less 
     dependent on foreign oil supplies;
       (IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and 
     utilize its domestic energy resources;
       (V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used 
     to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
       (VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy 
     consumption;
       (VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--

       (aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy 
     resources to locations throughout the United States;
       (bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United 
     States; and
       (cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other 
     energy-related petroleum product storage in the United 
     States; and

       (VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission 
     considers pertinent; and

       (ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that 
     contains--

       (I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 
     the Commission; and
       (II) the recommendations of the Commission for such 
     legislation and administrative actions as the Commission 
     considers appropriate.

       (B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted, 
     conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the 
     Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph 
     (A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date 
     of the report.
       (c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use 
     $500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to 
     fund the Commission.
       (d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall 
     terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which 
     the Commission submits its report under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(ii).

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from New Mexico and 
Nevada for making time. I am proud to join with Ms. Collins, the 
Senator from Maine, in offering this amendment.
  The amendment is a very simple one. It calls for a Presidential 
commission to study and propose, hopefully, consensus recommendations 
on how to deal with the impending crisis we have in energy.
  The crisis is easy to document. U.S. inventories of natural gas, 
crude oil, heating oil, and diesel fuel are all at or near 25-year 
historic lows. Motorists in my State of New York and throughout the 
country are paying gasoline prices that are hovering near record highs 
in absolute terms and are increasing at record levels.
  The current price of heating oil is higher than consumers typically 
pay in the dead of winter. Natural gas prices are at twice their 
typical price and are the highest in history at a time when warm 
weather keeps demand for natural gas low.
  We are on the precipice of the most serious, most expensive, and most 
economically devastating energy crisis since spiraling prices sent our 
economy into a tailspin in 1976, and, of course, in terms of 
electricity as well. We have real problems with greater and greater 
demand and not enough supply.
  Alan Greenspan said last July that the high price of oil has been 
putting inflationary pressure on our economy and that any further 
market impact ``would pose a risk to America's economic outlook.''
  With crude oil selling for more than $33 a barrel and natural gas 
selling for a record nearly $5 per billion cubic feet, we are at the 
point that Chairman Greenspan warned about.
  This is on top of a very expensive energy season where American 
consumers spent more than $75 billion on energy costs over the previous 
year.
  Everyone has their own solution to the energy crisis. I have listened 
to the chairman of the Energy Committee and some on that side who say 
we should simply pump more oil. And, in the opinion of others, we 
should do that despite what we do to the environment.
  I have heard many on this side say we have to do many things to 
reduce demand, such as raise CAFE standards and include SUVs and 
minivans under the designation of automobiles and raise the average 
miles per gallon.
  I have heard others talk about new types of energy sources and how we 
need to explore them. Probably every one of the 100 Members in this 
Chamber, particularly after the last 6 months, has an idea. There is 
one problem. Our ideas are so fractured and so lacking consensus that 
we have done nothing. This is not blame on the Democrats or 
Republicans, on the White House or the Congress. Basically, there is 
enough blame to go around so that everybody can point a finger.
  The bottom line is simple: Our demand for energy is increasing. Our 
supply of energy, particularly domestic supply, is decreasing. Unless 
we come to some kind of national consensus, the problems we faced last 
winter with home heating oil and this early summer with gasoline will 
cause new problems.
  I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary of Energy. I think 
he has

[[Page S7990]]

done a very good job under trying circumstances. I don't blame him. I 
don't blame the President. I don't blame the majority leader. I don't 
blame the chairman of the energy committee. But we have a problem. Thus 
far, we have been unable to deal with it.
  The amendment Senator Collins and I have offered to the energy and 
water appropriations bill will create a national energy commission. The 
energy commission will be established jointly by the President and the 
majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and will bring 
together representatives from the energy producing States, energy 
consuming States, oil and natural gas industries, consumer groups, 
environmental groups, and experts and analysts in the energy field. It 
is just the kind of group needed to bring about the consensus we so 
sorely lack. There may not be a consensus, but I believe we ought to 
try.
  I, for one, am dubious of many commissions. In this case it is needed 
because of the paralysis in Washington in terms of addressing this 
issue, because of the lack of consensus throughout the land in how to 
deal with something that at the very least is going to cost Americans a 
lot more money and at its worst could take our fine economic recovery 
and send it into a tailspin.
  The commission was designed by the Senator from Maine and myself to 
have a broad consensus of parties, branches of government and views and 
constituencies. It will conduct a study and provide a report to us on 
the following: the status of inventories of our energy sources; the 
cause for and consequences of energy supply disruption and energy 
product shortages nationwide and in particular regions; ways in which 
the United States can become less dependent on foreign oil supplies; 
ways in which alternate energy sources can be used to reduce demand on 
traditional energy sectors; ways in which the U.S. can reduce energy 
consumption; and ways to improve refinery capacity, utilization, and 
storage in the United States of natural gas, crude oil, and distillate 
fuel.
  The commission shall provide a report within 6 months of enactment 
that shall include an assessment of our problems and recommendations on 
how to solve them.
  In conclusion, last year New Yorkers and New Englanders paid more 
than $2 a gallon for heating oil. Home owners paid up to $1,000 more to 
heat their homes in my State, not because of weather but because of 
shortages. Motorists, people going on vacation, people driving cars and 
trucks for a living also paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars more 
out of their pockets this year.
  As Chairman Greenspan warned, this is one of the few things that 
looms on the near horizon that could throw our economy off kilter.
  Let us not get caught unprepared again. This amendment is the start 
of an energy policy that will protect consumers and protect our 
economy.
  I thank the Chair and my colleagues from New Mexico and Nevada for 
their generosity and most particularly the Senator from Maine who is 
always a pleasure to work with on these and other issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I first want to thank the managers of 
this bill, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, for bringing this 
appropriations bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion and for making 
this time available to us tonight.
  I am very pleased to join with my good friend and colleague from the 
State of New York, Senator Schumer, in offering this important 
amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. As my colleague 
has explained, this amendment is straightforward. It would establish a 
Presidential commission to help us develop a comprehensive, sustainable 
energy policy. The time is long overdue for this Nation to have an 
energy policy. Unfortunately, the current administration has failed to 
develop one.
  Last year when the home heating oil crisis gripped the Northeast, the 
Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, was very forthright. He admitted 
that the Federal Government had been caught napping and said that we 
simply were not prepared.
  Due largely to OPEC's anticompetitive manipulation of our oil 
markets, we have been experiencing dramatic price increases that have 
rippled throughout the four corners of this Nation. This year consumers 
have paid 47 percent more for gasoline. Truckers have paid 46 percent 
more for diesel fuel. And Northeasterners have paid 81 percent more for 
home heating oil than they did just one year earlier.
  In my home State of Maine, this problem is reaching crisis 
proportions. Seventy-five percent of all Maine households use home 
heating oil, consuming an average of 800 gallons per year. Last year, 
the average Maine household spent $320 more than it did the previous 
year simply to heat with oil. Of course, heating with natural gas 
provided little relief as natural gas prices have also soared. And the 
outlook for this year is even worse.
  Meanwhile, although OPEC countries sold 5 percent less oil in 1999, 
their profits were up by 38 percent.
  Today, as a year ago, we find ourselves turning the corner toward 
cooler weather and another looming home heating oil price crisis. All 
signs indicate that this one will be even worse than last year's. 
Consider that crude oil closed Friday at $33 per barrel, up from $22 a 
year ago. Last week heating oil futures hit their highest level since 
October of 1990. At the same time, as my colleague has pointed out, 
home heating oil and natural gas inventories are down. Indeed, 
distillate stocks are roughly 10 million barrels lower than the 
administration predicted just last month. In fact, stocks of crude oil, 
gasoline and heating oil in the United States have not been at levels 
this low since the mid-1970s, when our economy was thrown into turmoil 
due in large measure to a volatile oil market. Compounding the problem, 
the demand for distillate fuel is predicted to increase significantly 
this winter.
  In short, the fast approaching winter looks bleak. And judging from 
the most recent comments of OPEC officials, it is clear that we cannot 
expect any real relief from the cartel.
  As my colleague has pointed out, there is no consensus in the 
Congress or in the administration about what approach we should take in 
developing a national energy policy. Policymakers differ on what can be 
done to provide relief to American consumers.
  My friend from New York and I have been advocating for some time that 
the administration implement a responsible plan to swap oil from our 
well-stocked Strategic Petroleum Reserve to satisfy market demand and 
provide some price relief to American consumers. Others in this Chamber 
advocate different approaches. But I believe we can all find common 
ground with the notion that, in the long term, we need to conduct a 
comprehensive study of our oil and natural gas industries in order to 
develop a strategy to stabilize fuel prices, to explore alternative 
energy sources, and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil supplies. Our 
amendment would take an important first step in accomplishing these 
goals through the creation of a bipartisan energy commission.
  I very much appreciate the fact that the managers have been working 
with us on this legislation, which I hope they will accept. With that, 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and with the 
concurrence of the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that during 
the consideration of the energy and water appropriations bill on 
Wednesday, it be in order for the minority leader, or his designee, to 
offer an amendment to strike relating to the Missouri River. I further 
ask consent that there be 3 hours for debate equally divided in the 
usual form on that amendment, and further, no amendments be in order to 
the language proposed to be stricken by a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as soon as there is a unanimous consent 
agreement, it is my understanding that what we are going to try to do--
there appear to be no more amendments tonight. 
As soon as there is something

[[Page S7991]]

from the staff putting us out tonight, I will withhold.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________