[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.
____________________