Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Hampshire retain the floor or is it open?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand the next order of business is the amendment I offered.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business and that the time not be counted against the time reserved for the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague from Washington for her courtesy in allowing me to speak for a few minutes on a very important matter that is of great significance to parts of my State and other States, as well. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2755 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will bring focus to an issue that concerns the long-term economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland: the southern High Plains stretching from the middle of Kansas through Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle and including eastern portions of the State of Colorado, and the eastern counties of my home state of New Mexico. This is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater supply, the Ogallala aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture. The Natural Resource & Conservation Service estimates that there are over six million acres of irrigated farmland overlying the southern Ogallala. These farms use between six and nine million acre-feet of water each year. The problem is that current use of the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. As shown on this U.S. Geological Survey Map, the High Plains Aquifer, which is mostly the Ogallala Aquifer, starts in South Dakota, encompasses most of Nebraska and parts of Wyoming, and then continues down into the southern High Plains. This next chart shows the change in water levels in the aquifer over a seventeen year period from 1980 to 1997. As shown by the gray and blue markings on this map, the northern portion of this aquifer is in pretty good shape. The rate of water recharge from rainfall and irrigation water from the Platte River, for the most part matches or is greater than the rate of water depletions. However, the story is quite different in the southern High Plains. In just the 17 years characterized on this map, we have seen large areas of the southern aquifer experience a 10 to 20 foot drop in their water table. That is shown in the dark orange areas on the map. More alarming is that for an almost equal area, as depicted in red on the map, the drop in the water table has been 40 feet or greater. These changes in the level of the water table mean that it takes more wells at a greater pumping cost to produce the same amount of water, and that's if the wells don't go completely dry. This raises the serious question about the viability of continued farming on the southern High Plains. However, while irrigated agriculture uses the lion's share of the water, farm viability is only part of the economic story. This aquifer is also the primary source for municipal water on the southern High Plains. Diminishing productivity from municipal wells and the increased cost of pumping can place huge strains on local and county resources. The insecurity of groundwater resources on the southern High Plains is a multi-state issue with significant economic and social consequences for America as a nation. We must act now to help steer the communities on the southern High Plains toward a sustainable use of the Ogallala aquifer. Ignoring the problem and allowing continuing uses to go unabated invites tremendous economic dislocation for a large section of our country. To address this issue I am introducing the Southern High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act. This bill creates three levels of approach to the problem. First, it recognizes that to guide government decision makers and private investors, accurate, up-to-date, scientific information about the groundwater resources in their area is necessary. Therefore it calls upon the United States Geological Survey to initiate a comprehensive hydrogeologic mapping, modeling, and monitoring program for the Southern Ogallala, to provide a report to Congress and to the relevant states with maps and information on a county by county basis, and to renew and update that report every year. Second, it acknowledges that an effective water conservation plan can only be measured against a multi-year goal. Also, modeling by the U.S.G.S. indicates that groundwater conservation is not economically effective if implemented on a small scale basis. Measures must be implemented over a sufficiently large area in order to see a long-term groundwater savings, and return on the investment in conservation. To ensure groundwater savings over an appropriate area, this bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide planning assistance, on a cost-share basis, to states, tribes, counties, conservation districts, or other local government units to create water conservation plans designed to benefit their groundwater resource over at least 20 years. Finally, if the Secretary certifies that such a plan is in place, this bill would provide two primary forms of assistance for groundwater conservation on individual farms. They are a cost-share assistance program to upgrade the water use efficiency of farming equipment, and the creation of an ``Irrigated Land Reserve.'' The cost-share program is based on the knowledge that, while significant water savings could be made from moving farms from historical row or center-pivot irrigation to more modern techniques, the upfront cost is often prohibitive to family farmers. However, estimates by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock, Texas, are that an initial $20,000 in Federal investment in equipment on a cost- share basis would save between 325 to nearly 490 acre-feet of water over a ten year period. A bargain price, considering water prices on the West. The Irrigated Land Reserve in this bill, is designed to convert 10 percent, or approximately 600,000 acres, of the irrigated farmland on the southern High Plains to dryland agriculture. Dryland agriculture, obviously, is less productive than irrigation. So this bill would provide for a rental rate to farmers to ease the economic impact of changing over. It is estimated that when fully implemented this program would save between 600,000 and 900,000 acre-feet of water per year at a cost of $33 to $50 per acre-foot. These two programs, the cost-share program for water conservation, and enrollment in an Irrigated Land Reserve are completely voluntary. However, from the interest I have received in discussions with farmers on the southern High Plains, I expect that there will be no shortage of participants. The program outlined in this bill would cost $70 million per year if fully implemented. Given the opportunity to move the southern High Plains communities to a sustainable use of their groundwater without massive dislocations in their economy, I think it will be an investment worth making. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will bring focus to an issue that concerns the long-term economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland: the southern High Plains stretching from the middle of Kansas through Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle and including eastern portions of the State of Colorado, and the eastern counties of my home state of New Mexico. This is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater supply, the Ogallala aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture. The Natural Resource & Conservation Service estimates that there are over six million acres of irrigated farmland overlying the southern Ogallala. These farms use between six and nine million acre-feet of water each year. The problem is that current use of the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. As shown on this U.S. Geological Survey Map, the High Plains Aquifer, which is mostly the Ogallala Aquifer, starts in South Dakota, encompasses most of Nebraska and parts of Wyoming, and then continues down into the southern High Plains. This next chart shows the change in water levels in the aquifer over a seventeen year period from 1980 to 1997. As shown by the gray and blue markings on this map, the northern portion of this aquifer is in pretty good shape. The rate of water recharge from rainfall and irrigation water from the Platte River, for the most part matches or is greater than the rate of water depletions. However, the story is quite different in the southern High Plains. In just the 17 years characterized on this map, we have seen large areas of the southern aquifer experience a 10 to 20 foot drop in their water table. That is shown in the dark orange areas on the map. More alarming is that for an almost equal area, as depicted in red on the map, the drop in the water table has been 40 feet or greater. These changes in the level of the water table mean that it takes more wells at a greater pumping cost to produce the same amount of water, and that's if the wells don't go completely dry. This raises the serious question about the viability of continued farming on the southern High Plains. However, while irrigated agriculture uses the lion's share of the water, farm viability is only part of the economic story. This aquifer is also the primary source for municipal water on the southern High Plains. Diminishing productivity from municipal wells and the increased cost of pumping can place huge strains on local and county resources. The insecurity of groundwater resources on the southern High Plains is a multi-state issue with significant economic and social consequences for America as a nation. We must act now to help steer the communities on the southern High Plains toward a sustainable use of the Ogallala aquifer. Ignoring the problem and allowing continuing uses to go unabated invites tremendous economic dislocation for a large section of our country. To address this issue I am introducing the Southern High Plains Groundwater Resource Conservation Act. This bill creates three levels of approach to the problem. First, it recognizes that to guide government decision makers and private investors, accurate, up-to-date, scientific information about the groundwater resources in their area is necessary. Therefore it calls upon the United States Geological Survey to initiate a comprehensive hydrogeologic mapping, modeling, and monitoring program for the Southern Ogallala, to provide a report to Congress and to the relevant states with maps and information on a county by county basis, and to renew and update that report every year. Second, it acknowledges that an effective water conservation plan can only be measured against a multi-year goal. Also, modeling by the U.S.G.S. indicates that groundwater conservation is not economically effective if implemented on a small scale basis. Measures must be implemented over a sufficiently large area in order to see a long-term groundwater savings, and return on the investment in conservation. To ensure groundwater savings over an appropriate area, this bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide planning assistance, on a cost-share basis, to states, tribes, counties, conservation districts, or other local government units to create water conservation plans designed to benefit their groundwater resource over at least 20 years. Finally, if the Secretary certifies that such a plan is in place, this bill would provide two primary forms of assistance for groundwater conservation on individual farms. They are a cost-share assistance program to upgrade the water use efficiency of farming equipment, and the creation of an ``Irrigated Land Reserve.'' The cost-share program is based on the knowledge that, while significant water savings could be made from moving farms from historical row or center-pivot irrigation to more modern techniques, the upfront cost is often prohibitive to family farmers. However, estimates by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock, Texas, are that an initial $20,000 in Federal investment in equipment on a cost- share basis would save between 325 to nearly 490 acre-feet of water over a ten year period. A bargain price, considering water prices on the West. The Irrigated Land Reserve in this bill, is designed to convert 10 percent, or approximately 600,000 acres, of the irrigated farmland on the southern High Plains to dryland agriculture. Dryland agriculture, obviously, is less productive than irrigation. So this bill would provide for a rental rate to farmers to ease the economic impact of changing over. It is estimated that when fully implemented this program would save between 600,000 and 900,000 acre-feet of water per year at a cost of $33 to $50 per acre-foot. These two programs, the cost-share program for water conservation, and enrollment in an Irrigated Land Reserve are completely voluntary. However, from the interest I have received in discussions with farmers on the southern High Plains, I expect that there will be no shortage of participants. The program outlined in this bill would cost $70 million per year if fully implemented. Given the opportunity to move the southern High Plains communities to a sustainable use of their groundwater without massive dislocations in their economy, I think it will be an investment worth making. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is a chimney. The people did not have time to even arrange to drive their cars out of town. Of course, all their personal belongings were in the houses. The damage was total. The loss was total for the families who were burned out. Another photo makes the case, a photo of the rubble that was left at one of the sites. Here is a bicycle. I might add, the water lines in these houses were still running. As we drove up and down the street, we saw water spurting out of the water lines, but there would be no house. Clearly, the devastation was enormous. The people of Los Alamos and Senator Domenici made this point, and it has been made many times: The people of Los Alamos were heroic in their response to this tragedy. They pulled together as a community. They helped each other. They worked together to get their community back up and running. The people of the entire State came together and rallied to help the people who were injured. This was a period, and we are still in it to some extent, a period where we have lots of fires going on in New Mexico. It was not just the people who were injured in the Cerro Grande fire who were requiring assistance. We had other fires in our State, including the Scott Able fire in southern New Mexico which was very devastating, the fire at Ruidoso, the Viveash fire near Pecos. Our job now, and what Senator Domenici and I are trying to do in this legislation, is to put in place a mechanism so people can get as full a relief as possible. We recognize you are not ever in a position to compensate someone for all of this loss, but we want to compensate people as fully as the Government can. We also, of course, want to do so as quickly as possible. The reason this legislation is important, I believe--and I think this was something which the administration officials, and Jack Lew with the Office of Management and Budget agreed with entirely--is that the time it takes to go through the Tort Claims Act is extensive. History has shown that in many cases it is not satisfactory, that process has not been satisfactory. It was our conclusion, and the conclusion supported by the administration, that we should do a separate bill which would set up a different procedure that, hopefully, would give better compensation to people, and do it much more quickly than is otherwise possible. Senator Domenici pointed out we have gone to great lengths to not interfere with the right of people to pursue their remedies under current law, if they choose to do that. We have not changed the rules for that. We have not in any way impeded that. But people have to make a judgment after they consult with everyone involved--their attorneys if they have attorneys, or anyone else with whom they want to consult-- make a judgment as to whether to use the remedy, the process we are setting up in this legislation, once this becomes law, or to use the process that is available to them under current law under the Tort Claims Act. My own hope is that we have come up with a better alternative. That is my belief. That has certainly been our purpose. We hope people will see it that way and that this legislation will result in more full compensation, much more rapidly than would otherwise be possible, and that people will be able to get on with their lives because of that. The legislation has many aspects to it, which I discussed in detail. Senator Domenici went into some of that. Let me just say, the main thrust of it is to compensate people for injuries they receive, for loss of property, compensate businesses for losses they incurred, compensate businesses and individuals, both, for financial losses that are directly traceable and attributable to this fire. Clearly, we want this to be a fair process for those involved. At the same time, we are anxious that it be done in a responsible way, so once it is over with, we can have an accounting for what compensation was provided and the justification for it. I think the American people will want that and should be entitled to that. I believe this will substantially improve the chances of folks getting fully compensated, as fully compensated as possible, as early as possible. For that reason, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici in cosponsoring this legislation. I do think we have several steps, several hoops to jump through between now and when this becomes law. There will be opportunities for us to fine-tune this as we go forward. I hope we can do that, but I hope we can go forward very quickly. He indicated our desire to have it included in some appropriations legislation--the military construction appropriations bill--which is pending now. I hope very much that can happen, and I hope that bill can get to the President very quickly with this included and can become law. Mr. President, on May 4, 2000, a decision by the National Park Service to conduct a prescribed burn in the Bandelier National Park changed the lives of Los Alamos residents forever. What started as a prescribed burn of approximately 1,000 acres, turned into a fire that roared for 18 days and in the end charred over 47,000 acres. Soon after the fire raged out of control, the National Park Service assumed responsibility for the damage caused by the fire. While we need to take another look at the Park Service's policy concerning prescribed burns, we first need to take care of those that were injured by the Park Service's actions. There will be time for hearings and investigations. But first, there are people that must be clothed, homes that must be rebuilt, and businesses that must pay their bills. We need to make sure our children are settled again before the 2001 school year begins in 2 months. We need to clean up the debris and hazardous waste so families can think about rebuilding. The Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act that I am introducing with Senator Domenici today is what we believe represents the Government's responsibility to the citizens of Los Alamos and the surrounding pueblos. The Cerro Grande fire didn't just burn 47,000 acres of national forest. This fire was so intense that it traveled several miles from the point of origin to the town of Los Alamos, New Mexico. When the fire roared up the canyons in Los Alamos, it completely destroyed 385 dwellings and seriously damaged another 17 dwellings. Over 60 homes were burned on 46th, 48th and Yucca Streets alone. Keep in mind that Los Alamos is not a large community and these numbers reflect a large majority of the residents in those areas. This chart shows what used to be single family homes on Arizona Avenue. It was one of the 50 homes destroyed along Arizona Avenue. This second picture shows the damage done along Alabama Avenue. The fourplexes across the street were spared but many of the fourplexes along Alabama are no longer standing. Most of these fourplexes were built between 1949 and 1954 by the federal government for the first workers of the national laboratory. In the late 1960's the federal government sold these homes to the residents of Los Alamos. On May 4th, many of these homes were occupied by the original residents-- individuals who are now retired from the lab and enjoying their golden years. Ten percent of the households destroyed belonged to senior citizens. One such couple showed up to a town meeting to show me all they had left of their former home--the wife had the burned door handle and the husband had the key in his pocket. Other fourplexes that were destroyed were occupied by young families and the most recent generation of lab employees. 35% of the housing units destroyed were being rented and 92 of those tenants were without any form of insurance. Many of these people are now without a home for their young families. One of the couples I spoke with after the fire was a young couple expecting a child who lost their home and their adjoining rental unit. And I was recently informed that over 200 school children were burned out of their homes. Driving through these neighborhoods that are now filled with blackened trees, melted swing sets and burned bicycles is a difficult thing to witness. This fire grew out of control so quickly, mostly because of the 60 mph winds that swirled through the controlled burn area, that most families had less than an hour to gather their belongings and evacuate the mesa. Many others didn't have even that much time. As you can see by the numerous burned cars, many families were unable to get both of their cars down the hill before the fire hit. In the end, 5% of the housing units in Los Alamos was destroyed by this fire. Despite the personal tragedy many of them suffered, the residents of Los Alamos came together and helped one another and supported the efforts of the hundreds of firefighters who fought long and hard to control this monstrous blaze. Several Los Alamos restaurant owners returned to Los Alamos during the height of the fire and donated their inventory and services to cook up meals at the local Elks Lodge for the firefighters, police and National Guardsmen who were sent to this remote community. In addition, the outpouring of support from the nearby communities in setting up shelters and offering food and clothing was something I was proud to witness firsthand. This support also included the shelters and individuals who volunteered to take in the hundreds of animals that belonged to the over 20,000 residents evacuated from Los Alamos and White Rock. The citizens of Los Alamos were heroic throughout this fire. Residents, like engineer Tony Tomei, were single-handedly trying to help save their neighborhoods from spreading wildlife. Tomei used his garden hose to douse small spot fires and used a rake and shovel to extinguish burning debris. His all night efforts saved his own house and the house of one neighbor, much to the neighbor's surprise. After returning from Los Alamos and viewing the extent of damage, I began work with Senator Domenici on legislation that would compensate the people of Los Alamos, the surrounding pueblos, and the national laboratory for the damages sustained. We have been working for over 3 weeks now with the Office of Budget and Management, the White House, and the citizens of New Mexico to come up with legislation that will provide those who suffered personal and/or financial injury the most expedient and thorough compensation possible. We have received input from a number of individuals who lost their homes, from business owners who were shut down for up to a week, from the Los Alamos County Council and the governors of the San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos. While no one can truly be made whole after such a devastating experience, the role of the federal government in this situation is to ensure that people are adequately compensated for the losses resulting from the fire. Senator Domenici and I worked to come up with legislation that would compensate New Mexicans as fully as possible, while still being something acceptable to the entire Congress. Based on the numerous meetings we held with the people mentioned above, we have come up with categories of damages that are compensable, including: property losses, business losses and financial losses. The goal is to compensate individuals for losses that were not otherwise covered by insurance or any other third party contribution. For example, compensable property losses will include such things as uninsured property losses. This should address the problem many individuals are facing after realizing that they were under insured for their homes or their personal property. The goal is this legislation is to provide individuals with the funds needed to repair or replace their real and personal property using ``replacement value'' as a determining factor. This means that individuals should receive the dollar amount needed to rebuild their homes using current construction methods and materials, in line with current zoning requirements, and without a deduction for depreciation. It also means that individuals should be provided with the funds necessary to allow them to replace their damaged personal property with property that provides them equal utility. Moreover, we realize that homeowners will need funds to cover the cost of stabilizing and restoring their land to a condition suitable for building after the debris is removed. The legislation will also compensate public entities for the damage to the physical infrastructure in the community. The county and other governmental entities will be able to seek compensation for the cost of rebuilding community infrastructure damaged by the fire, such as power lines, roads and public parks. Compensable business losses will include such things as damage to tangible business assets, lost profits, costs incurred as a result of suspending business for one week, wages paid to employees for days missed during the fire, and other business losses deemed appropriate by the Claims Office. This provision is intended to help business owners who were forced to evacuate Los Alamos for up to 5 days. For people like the local nursery owner, closing shop during Mothers' Day weekend and the short planting season in northern NM was devastating. While the residents of Los Alamos disappeared from the community, the fixed overhead costs of the small business owners did not disappear. Compensable financial losses will include economic losses for expenses such as insurance deductibles, temporary living expenses, relocation expenses, debris removal costs, and emergency staffing expenses for our governmental entities. The intent is to assist victims in rebuilding and recovering incidental expenses that they would otherwise not have incurred, had it not been for the Cerro Grande Fire. This includes costs incurred by the claimant in proving his losses, including the cost of appraisals where necessary. In addition, the pueblos will be eligible to seek compensation for the damage to the forest lands on the pueblo and the impact of the fire on their subsistence hunting, fishing, firewood, timbering, grazing and agricultural activities. Individual tribal members and wholly-owned tribal entities will be eligible to seek reimbursement through this claims process for quantifiable losses. This means that the BIA will not serve as a conduit for any settlement to an individual tribal member or a tribe. This legislation also intends to provide resources for the remediation that will be necessary to prevent future disasters because of flooding and mudslides. While we have experienced an unusually dry summer in the Southwest, forecasters predict an earlier than usual monsoon season and efforts must be made to shore up the burned hillsides and 70 foot canyon walls. The remediation effort will have to be undertaken by several federal agencies, including the Department of interior, the Agriculture Department and other entities with experience in this regard. In order to expedite an individual's recovery, we have designed an administrative claims process that will allow injured parties to seek compensation for the expenses that were incurred, and were not otherwise covered by a third party, as a result of the Cerro Grande fire. This legislation authorizes that claims process and establishes an Office of Cerro Grande Fire Claims which will be under the authority of the Director of FEMA. FEMA is directed to compensate the victims of the Cerro Grande fire for injuries resulting from the fire and to settle those claims in an expeditious manner. FEMA will be given authority to hire an independent claims manager or other experts in claims processing to oversee this large project. We feel that FEMA is the best federal agency to handle this responsibility as they are capable of the task and are familiar with the damages that are common in a disaster. I trust that the FEMA Director will assemble a team that the community of Los Alamos can have confidence in and that will strive to settle claims to the benefit of those injured. The Director of FEMA has 45 days to design this claims process and promulgate regulations for the claims office to follow. The regulations should not be overly burdensome for the claimants and should provide an understandable and straight forward path to settlement. In the event that issues arise concerning a settlement amount, the claimant will be able to enter into binding arbitration to settle any disputes with the claims office. If a claimant would rather have the Director's decision reviewed by a judge, the claimant will be able to seek judicial review of the Director's decision in federal court. Claimants who believe they need legal assistance as they proceed through this process should know that attorneys' fees are provided for in this legislation, with a cap of 10%. And while we believe this administrative claims process is the most efficient and reliable route for those seeking compensation, we are leaving the option of a federal tort action open to this legislation. Mr. President, there is nothing Senator Domenici or I can do to replace the personal items and sentimental possessions that were consumed by the Cerro Grande Fire. This federal compensation will do nothing to replace a coin collection collected over a lifetime or an heirloom inherited from a great-grandmother. However, the federal government has the responsibility to try and restore the lives of the people impacted by this horrible tragedy. The federal government started this mess and it is time the federal government started cleaning up this mess and fixing what was damaged. Congress can start the recovery process by passing this legislation. I ask that my colleagues act quickly on this legislation as the season for rebuilding this community is a short season for this city that sits high above the valley. I thank my colleagues for their support and for their willingness to do the right thing in this very unique situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I toured the community and the neighborhoods with James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA, and with our Governor, Governor Johnson. We saw the devastation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici. I also want to state how much I have enjoyed working with him on this terrible subject. I think the ability of our offices to work together has been admirable. We have come up with a plan that moves the process forward and closer to some real relief for the people who were damaged by this incident. Mr. President, this was a disaster. This was a catastrophe. Let me show three photos that make the case. This is a photo from space, from a very high altitude, that shows the fire while it was burning, with the smoke plume coming through northeastern New Mexico into Colorado, into Oklahoma, and into west Texas. The photo shows the magnitude of what was involved. This was clearly the largest forest fire we have ever had in our State of New Mexico since they have been keeping records. It is very unfortunate that it was started by a controlled burn to which the Park Service agreed. That clearly makes this the responsibility of the Federal Government. As a country, we need to step up and compensate people for their losses. Let me show two other photos that make the case as to what was done. This is a photo of one of the houses in Los Alamos with a car out front. These people in Los Alamos were advised they needed to leave their homes, get in cars or on buses, and go down to Santa Fe to escape the danger. They did. This is what they came back to a couple of weeks later. Clearly, this is not the kind of a circumstance of which anyone can be proud.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is a chimney. The people did not have time to even arrange to drive their cars out of town. Of course, all their personal belongings were in the houses. The damage was total. The loss was total for the families who were burned out. Another photo makes the case, a photo of the rubble that was left at one of the sites. Here is a bicycle. I might add, the water lines in these houses were still running. As we drove up and down the street, we saw water spurting out of the water lines, but there would be no house. Clearly, the devastation was enormous. The people of Los Alamos and Senator Domenici made this point, and it has been made many times: The people of Los Alamos were heroic in their response to this tragedy. They pulled together as a community. They helped each other. They worked together to get their community back up and running. The people of the entire State came together and rallied to help the people who were injured. This was a period, and we are still in it to some extent, a period where we have lots of fires going on in New Mexico. It was not just the people who were injured in the Cerro Grande fire who were requiring assistance. We had other fires in our State, including the Scott Able fire in southern New Mexico which was very devastating, the fire at Ruidoso, the Viveash fire near Pecos. Our job now, and what Senator Domenici and I are trying to do in this legislation, is to put in place a mechanism so people can get as full a relief as possible. We recognize you are not ever in a position to compensate someone for all of this loss, but we want to compensate people as fully as the Government can. We also, of course, want to do so as quickly as possible. The reason this legislation is important, I believe--and I think this was something which the administration officials, and Jack Lew with the Office of Management and Budget agreed with entirely--is that the time it takes to go through the Tort Claims Act is extensive. History has shown that in many cases it is not satisfactory, that process has not been satisfactory. It was our conclusion, and the conclusion supported by the administration, that we should do a separate bill which would set up a different procedure that, hopefully, would give better compensation to people, and do it much more quickly than is otherwise possible. Senator Domenici pointed out we have gone to great lengths to not interfere with the right of people to pursue their remedies under current law, if they choose to do that. We have not changed the rules for that. We have not in any way impeded that. But people have to make a judgment after they consult with everyone involved--their attorneys if they have attorneys, or anyone else with whom they want to consult-- make a judgment as to whether to use the remedy, the process we are setting up in this legislation, once this becomes law, or to use the process that is available to them under current law under the Tort Claims Act. My own hope is that we have come up with a better alternative. That is my belief. That has certainly been our purpose. We hope people will see it that way and that this legislation will result in more full compensation, much more rapidly than would otherwise be possible, and that people will be able to get on with their lives because of that. The legislation has many aspects to it, which I discussed in detail. Senator Domenici went into some of that. Let me just say, the main thrust of it is to compensate people for injuries they receive, for loss of property, compensate businesses for losses they incurred, compensate businesses and individuals, both, for financial losses that are directly traceable and attributable to this fire. Clearly, we want this to be a fair process for those involved. At the same time, we are anxious that it be done in a responsible way, so once it is over with, we can have an accounting for what compensation was provided and the justification for it. I think the American people will want that and should be entitled to that. I believe this will substantially improve the chances of folks getting fully compensated, as fully compensated as possible, as early as possible. For that reason, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici in cosponsoring this legislation. I do think we have several steps, several hoops to jump through between now and when this becomes law. There will be opportunities for us to fine-tune this as we go forward. I hope we can do that, but I hope we can go forward very quickly. He indicated our desire to have it included in some appropriations legislation--the military construction appropriations bill--which is pending now. I hope very much that can happen, and I hope that bill can get to the President very quickly with this included and can become law. Mr. President, on May 4, 2000, a decision by the National Park Service to conduct a prescribed burn in the Bandelier National Park changed the lives of Los Alamos residents forever. What started as a prescribed burn of approximately 1,000 acres, turned into a fire that roared for 18 days and in the end charred over 47,000 acres. Soon after the fire raged out of control, the National Park Service assumed responsibility for the damage caused by the fire. While we need to take another look at the Park Service's policy concerning prescribed burns, we first need to take care of those that were injured by the Park Service's actions. There will be time for hearings and investigations. But first, there are people that must be clothed, homes that must be rebuilt, and businesses that must pay their bills. We need to make sure our children are settled again before the 2001 school year begins in 2 months. We need to clean up the debris and hazardous waste so families can think about rebuilding. The Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act that I am introducing with Senator Domenici today is what we believe represents the Government's responsibility to the citizens of Los Alamos and the surrounding pueblos. The Cerro Grande fire didn't just burn 47,000 acres of national forest. This fire was so intense that it traveled several miles from the point of origin to the town of Los Alamos, New Mexico. When the fire roared up the canyons in Los Alamos, it completely destroyed 385 dwellings and seriously damaged another 17 dwellings. Over 60 homes were burned on 46th, 48th and Yucca Streets alone. Keep in mind that Los Alamos is not a large community and these numbers reflect a large majority of the residents in those areas. This chart shows what used to be single family homes on Arizona Avenue. It was one of the 50 homes destroyed along Arizona Avenue. This second picture shows the damage done along Alabama Avenue. The fourplexes across the street were spared but many of the fourplexes along Alabama are no longer standing. Most of these fourplexes were built between 1949 and 1954 by the federal government for the first workers of the national laboratory. In the late 1960's the federal government sold these homes to the residents of Los Alamos. On May 4th, many of these homes were occupied by the original residents-- individuals who are now retired from the lab and enjoying their golden years. Ten percent of the households destroyed belonged to senior citizens. One such couple showed up to a town meeting to show me all they had left of their former home--the wife had the burned door handle and the husband had the key in his pocket. Other fourplexes that were destroyed were occupied by young families and the most recent generation of lab employees. 35% of the housing units destroyed were being rented and 92 of those tenants were without any form of insurance. Many of these people are now without a home for their young families. One of the couples I spoke with after the fire was a young couple expecting a child who lost their home and their adjoining rental unit. And I was recently informed that over 200 school children were burned out of their homes. Driving through these neighborhoods that are now filled with blackened trees, melted swing sets and burned bicycles is a difficult thing to witness. This fire grew out of control so quickly, mostly because of the 60 mph winds that swirled through the controlled burn area, that most families had less than an hour to gather their belongings and evacuate the mesa. Many others didn't have even that much time. As you can see by the numerous burned cars, many families were unable to get both of their cars down the hill before the fire hit. In the end, 5% of the housing units in Los Alamos was destroyed by this fire. Despite the personal tragedy many of them suffered, the residents of Los Alamos came together and helped one another and supported the efforts of the hundreds of firefighters who fought long and hard to control this monstrous blaze. Several Los Alamos restaurant owners returned to Los Alamos during the height of the fire and donated their inventory and services to cook up meals at the local Elks Lodge for the firefighters, police and National Guardsmen who were sent to this remote community. In addition, the outpouring of support from the nearby communities in setting up shelters and offering food and clothing was something I was proud to witness firsthand. This support also included the shelters and individuals who volunteered to take in the hundreds of animals that belonged to the over 20,000 residents evacuated from Los Alamos and White Rock. The citizens of Los Alamos were heroic throughout this fire. Residents, like engineer Tony Tomei, were single-handedly trying to help save their neighborhoods from spreading wildlife. Tomei used his garden hose to douse small spot fires and used a rake and shovel to extinguish burning debris. His all night efforts saved his own house and the house of one neighbor, much to the neighbor's surprise. After returning from Los Alamos and viewing the extent of damage, I began work with Senator Domenici on legislation that would compensate the people of Los Alamos, the surrounding pueblos, and the national laboratory for the damages sustained. We have been working for over 3 weeks now with the Office of Budget and Management, the White House, and the citizens of New Mexico to come up with legislation that will provide those who suffered personal and/or financial injury the most expedient and thorough compensation possible. We have received input from a number of individuals who lost their homes, from business owners who were shut down for up to a week, from the Los Alamos County Council and the governors of the San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos. While no one can truly be made whole after such a devastating experience, the role of the federal government in this situation is to ensure that people are adequately compensated for the losses resulting from the fire. Senator Domenici and I worked to come up with legislation that would compensate New Mexicans as fully as possible, while still being something acceptable to the entire Congress. Based on the numerous meetings we held with the people mentioned above, we have come up with categories of damages that are compensable, including: property losses, business losses and financial losses. The goal is to compensate individuals for losses that were not otherwise covered by insurance or any other third party contribution. For example, compensable property losses will include such things as uninsured property losses. This should address the problem many individuals are facing after realizing that they were under insured for their homes or their personal property. The goal is this legislation is to provide individuals with the funds needed to repair or replace their real and personal property using ``replacement value'' as a determining factor. This means that individuals should receive the dollar amount needed to rebuild their homes using current construction methods and materials, in line with current zoning requirements, and without a deduction for depreciation. It also means that individuals should be provided with the funds necessary to allow them to replace their damaged personal property with property that provides them equal utility. Moreover, we realize that homeowners will need funds to cover the cost of stabilizing and restoring their land to a condition suitable for building after the debris is removed. The legislation will also compensate public entities for the damage to the physical infrastructure in the community. The county and other governmental entities will be able to seek compensation for the cost of rebuilding community infrastructure damaged by the fire, such as power lines, roads and public parks. Compensable business losses will include such things as damage to tangible business assets, lost profits, costs incurred as a result of suspending business for one week, wages paid to employees for days missed during the fire, and other business losses deemed appropriate by the Claims Office. This provision is intended to help business owners who were forced to evacuate Los Alamos for up to 5 days. For people like the local nursery owner, closing shop during Mothers' Day weekend and the short planting season in northern NM was devastating. While the residents of Los Alamos disappeared from the community, the fixed overhead costs of the small business owners did not disappear. Compensable financial losses will include economic losses for expenses such as insurance deductibles, temporary living expenses, relocation expenses, debris removal costs, and emergency staffing expenses for our governmental entities. The intent is to assist victims in rebuilding and recovering incidental expenses that they would otherwise not have incurred, had it not been for the Cerro Grande Fire. This includes costs incurred by the claimant in proving his losses, including the cost of appraisals where necessary. In addition, the pueblos will be eligible to seek compensation for the damage to the forest lands on the pueblo and the impact of the fire on their subsistence hunting, fishing, firewood, timbering, grazing and agricultural activities. Individual tribal members and wholly-owned tribal entities will be eligible to seek reimbursement through this claims process for quantifiable losses. This means that the BIA will not serve as a conduit for any settlement to an individual tribal member or a tribe. This legislation also intends to provide resources for the remediation that will be necessary to prevent future disasters because of flooding and mudslides. While we have experienced an unusually dry summer in the Southwest, forecasters predict an earlier than usual monsoon season and efforts must be made to shore up the burned hillsides and 70 foot canyon walls. The remediation effort will have to be undertaken by several federal agencies, including the Department of interior, the Agriculture Department and other entities with experience in this regard. In order to expedite an individual's recovery, we have designed an administrative claims process that will allow injured parties to seek compensation for the expenses that were incurred, and were not otherwise covered by a third party, as a result of the Cerro Grande fire. This legislation authorizes that claims process and establishes an Office of Cerro Grande Fire Claims which will be under the authority of the Director of FEMA. FEMA is directed to compensate the victims of the Cerro Grande fire for injuries resulting from the fire and to settle those claims in an expeditious manner. FEMA will be given authority to hire an independent claims manager or other experts in claims processing to oversee this large project. We feel that FEMA is the best federal agency to handle this responsibility as they are capable of the task and are familiar with the damages that are common in a disaster. I trust that the FEMA Director will assemble a team that the community of Los Alamos can have confidence in and that will strive to settle claims to the benefit of those injured. The Director of FEMA has 45 days to design this claims process and promulgate regulations for the claims office to follow. The regulations should not be overly burdensome for the claimants and should provide an understandable and straight forward path to settlement. In the event that issues arise concerning a settlement amount, the claimant will be able to enter into binding arbitration to settle any disputes with the claims office. If a claimant would rather have the Director's decision reviewed by a judge, the claimant will be able to seek judicial review of the Director's decision in federal court. Claimants who believe they need legal assistance as they proceed through this process should know that attorneys' fees are provided for in this legislation, with a cap of 10%. And while we believe this administrative claims process is the most efficient and reliable route for those seeking compensation, we are leaving the option of a federal tort action open to this legislation. Mr. President, there is nothing Senator Domenici or I can do to replace the personal items and sentimental possessions that were consumed by the Cerro Grande Fire. This federal compensation will do nothing to replace a coin collection collected over a lifetime or an heirloom inherited from a great-grandmother. However, the federal government has the responsibility to try and restore the lives of the people impacted by this horrible tragedy. The federal government started this mess and it is time the federal government started cleaning up this mess and fixing what was damaged. Congress can start the recovery process by passing this legislation. I ask that my colleagues act quickly on this legislation as the season for rebuilding this community is a short season for this city that sits high above the valley. I thank my colleagues for their support and for their willingness to do the right thing in this very unique situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I toured the community and the neighborhoods with James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA, and with our Governor, Governor Johnson. We saw the devastation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici. I also want to state how much I have enjoyed working with him on this terrible subject. I think the ability of our offices to work together has been admirable. We have come up with a plan that moves the process forward and closer to some real relief for the people who were damaged by this incident. Mr. President, this was a disaster. This was a catastrophe. Let me show three photos that make the case. This is a photo from space, from a very high altitude, that shows the fire while it was burning, with the smoke plume coming through northeastern New Mexico into Colorado, into Oklahoma, and into west Texas. The photo shows the magnitude of what was involved. This was clearly the largest forest fire we have ever had in our State of New Mexico since they have been keeping records. It is very unfortunate that it was started by a controlled burn to which the Park Service agreed. That clearly makes this the responsibility of the Federal Government. As a country, we need to step up and compensate people for their losses. Let me show two other photos that make the case as to what was done. This is a photo of one of the houses in Los Alamos with a car out front. These people in Los Alamos were advised they needed to leave their homes, get in cars or on buses, and go down to Santa Fe to escape the danger. They did. This is what they came back to a couple of weeks later. Clearly, this is not the kind of a circumstance of which anyone can be proud.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his work on this amendment, and Chairman Shelby and Senator Lautenberg for adding this important funding to the Transportation Appropriations Bill. Our amendment provides funding for a new program to help rural communities with inadequate or uneconomical commercial air service to attract new air carriers or to improve their existing service. Mr. President, for a number of years, as I traveled around New Mexico, I heard from many of our community and business leaders about the importance of commercial air service to support economic development and attract new employers to rural parts of my state. To help address this problem, last year I worked with the Commerce Committee, and especially Senators Rockefeller and Dorgan, to authorize a new program to help rural communities to improve their commercial air service. The authorization for this new program was included in the Wendell Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which Congress passed and the President signed earlier this year. At the same time, the New Mexico State Legislature, lead by Senators Altamirano, Ingle, Jennings, Kidd, and Leavell, established a $500,000 state program to provide matching funds to communities that wanted to improve their commercial air service. Almost immediately, agreements were signed and new air service was made available to Taos and Los Alamos--cities that previously had no commercial air service. More recently, agreements have been signed with a consortium of cities in Southeastern New Mexico, including Roswell, Carlsbad, Hobbs and Lea and Eddy Counties. These are exactly the kinds of communities this program we are funding today is designed to help. Mr. President, I am pleased the committee has found a way to fund this important program for rural communities. I want to work with the committee as the bill goes to conference to ensure that this funding is retained. I again thank Chairman Shelby and Senator Lautenberg for their help.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Under guidelines developed by the HHS and used in this amendment, if your radiation does was high enough to make it at least as likely as not that your cancer was DOE-work-related, you would be eligible for compensation for lost wages and medical benefits. The HHS-based method will work for many of the workers at DOE sites. But it won't work for a significant minority who were exposed to radiation, but for whom it would be infeasible to reconstruct their dose. There are several reasons why reconstructing a dose might be--this infeasibility might exist. First, relevant records of dose may be lacking, or might not exist altogether. Second, there might be a way to reconstruct the dose, but it would be prohibitively expensive to do so. Finally, it might take so long to reconstruct a dose for a group of workers that they will all be dead before we have an answer that can be used to determine their eligibility. One of the workers who testified at my Los Alamos hearing might be an example of a worker who could fall into the cracks of a system that operated solely on dose histories. He was a supervisor at what was called the ``hot dump'' at Los Alamos. All sorts of radioactive materials were taken there to be disposed of. It is hard to reconstruct who handled what. And digging up the dump to see what was there would not only be very expensive, it would expose new workers to radiation risks that could be large. There are a few groups of workers that we know, today, belong in this category. They are specifically mentioned in the definition of Special Exposure Cohort. For other workers to be placed in this special category, the decision that it was infeasible to reconstruct their dose would have to be made both by HHS and by an independent external advisory committee of radiation, health, and workplace safety experts. We allow groups of workers to petition to be considered by the advisory committee for inclusion in this group. Once a group of workers was placed in the category, it would be eligible for compensation for a fixed list of radiation-related cancers. The program in this amendment also allows, in section 3515, for a lump-sum payment, combined with ongoing medical coverage under section 8103 of title 5, United States Code. This could be helpful, for example, in settling old cases of disability. It may be a good deal for survivors of deceased workers whose deaths were related to their work at DOE sites. The provisions of the workers' compensation program in this amendment are largely modeled after the Federal Employee's Compensation Program or FECA, which is found in chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code. In many parts of the amendment, entire sections of FECA are incorporated by reference. In other sections, portions of FECA are restated in more general language to account for the fact that the specific language in FECA would cover only Federal employees, while in this amendment we are covering Federal contractor and subcontractor employees, as well. In some instances, we modified provisions in FECA to address known problems in its current implementation or to reflect current standards of administrative law. One example of this is a decision not to incorporate section 8128(b) of title 5, United States Code, into this amendment. That section absolutely precludes judicial review of decisions concerning a claim by the Department of Labor. Since such decisions involve the substantive rights of individuals being conferred by this amendment, and since they are made through an informal administrative process, it seems appropriate to the sponsors of this amendment that there be external review to guard against, for example, arbitrary and capricious conduct in processing a claim. The amendment also had numerous administrative provisions to ensure a fair process and to guard against double compensation for the same injury. As the sponsors were developing this amendment, we received a lot of interest in federal compensation for exposure to other toxic substances. This amendment does not provide federal compensation for chemical hazards in the DOE workplace, but does authorize DOE to work with States to get workers with adverse health effects from their exposure to these substances into State worker compensation programs. It also would commission a GAO study of this approach so that we can evaluate, in the context of a future bill, whether such an approach is effective. We have a duty to take care of sick workers from the nuclear weapons complex today. It is a doable task, and a good use of our national wealth at a time of budget surpluses. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Exhibit 1 Examples of DOE and Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities That Would Be Included Under the Definitions in This Amendment (Not an Exclusive List of Facilities) Atomic Weapons Employer Facility: The following facilities that provided uranium conversion or manufacturing services would be among those included under the definition in section 3503(a)(4): Allied Signal Uranium Hexafluoride Facility, Metropolis, Illinois. Linde Air Products facilities, Tonowanda, New York. Mallinckrodt Chemical Company facilities, St. Louis, Missouri. Nuclear Fuels Services facilities, Erwin, Tennessee. Reactive Metals facilities, Ashtabula, Ohio. Department of Energy Facility: The following facilities (including any predecessor or successor facilities to such facilities) would be among those included under the definition in section 3503(a)(15): Amchitka Island Test Site, Amchitka, Alaska. Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho and Illinois. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York. Chupadera Mesa, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Fermi Nuclear Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois. Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, Ohio. Hanford Works, Richland, Washington. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Burlington, Iowa. Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri. Latty Avenue Properties, Hazelwood, Missouri. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, including related sites such as Acid/Pueblo Canyons and Bayo Canyon. Marshall Islands Nuclear Test Sites, but only for period after December 31, 1958. Maywood Site, Maywood, New Jersey. Middlesex Sampling Plant, Middlesex, New Jersey. Mound Facility, Miamisburg, Ohio. Niagara Falls Storage Site, Lewiston, New York. Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nevada. Oak Ridge Facility, Tennessee, including the K-25 Plant, the Y-12 Plant, and the X-10 Plant. Paducah Plant, Paducah, Kentucky. Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. Pinellas Plant, St. Petersburg, Florida. Portsmouth Plant, Piketon, Ohio. Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado. Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico. Santa Susanna Facilities, Santa Susanna, California. Savannah River Site, South Carolina. Waste Isolation Pilot Project, Carlsbad, New Mexico. Weldon Spring Plant, Weldon Spring, Missouri. Exhibit 2 Determining ``Causation'' for Radiation and Cancer Different cancers have different relative sensitivities to radiation. In 1988, the White Office of Science and Technology Policy endorsed the use by the Veterans Administration of the concept of ``probability of causation'' (PC) in adjudicating claims of injury due to exposure to ionizing radiation. Given that a radiogenic cancer cannot be differentiated from a ``spontaneously'' occurring one or one caused by other dietary, environmental and/or lifestyle factors, the PC--that is, the ``likelihood'' that a diagnosed cancer has been ``caused'' by a given radiation exposure or dose--has to be determined indirectly. To this end, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was tasked to develop radioepidemiology tables. These tables, which are currently being updated by the NIH, include data on 35 cancers compared to the 13 cancers in the original tables from 1985. These tables account for the fact that different cancers have different relative sensitivities to ionizing radiation. The determination of a PC takes into account the radiation dose and dose rate, the types of radiation exposure (external, internal), age at exposure, sex, duration of exposure, elapsed time following exposure, and (for lung cancer only) smoking history. Because a calculated PC is subject to a variety of statistical and methodological uncertainties, a ``confidence interval'' around the PC is also determined. Thus, a PC is calculated as a single, ``point estimate'' along with a 99% confidence interval which bounds the uncertainty associated with that estimate. If we have 99% certainty that the upper bound of a PC is greater than or equal to 0.5 (i.e., a 50% likelihood of causality), then the cancer is considered at least as likely as not to have been caused by the radiation dose used to calculate the PC. For example, for a given worker with a particular cancer and radiation exposure history, the PC may by 0.38 with a 99% confidence interval of 0.21 to 0.55. This means that it is 38% likely that this worker's cancer was caused by their radiation dose, and we can say with 99% confidence that this estimate is between 21% and 55%. Since the upper bound, 55% is greater than 50%, this person's cancer would be considered to be at least as likely as not to have been caused by exposure to radiation, and the person would be eligible for benefits under the proposed program.

Mr. BINGAMAN. For beryllium workers, there are tests today that can detect the first signs of trouble, called beryllium sensitivity, and also the actual impairment, called chronic beryllium disease. If you have beryllium sensitivity, you are at a higher risk for developing chronic beryllium disease. You need annual check-ups with tests that are expensive. If you develop chronic beryllium disease, you might be disabled or die. This amendment sets up a federal workers' compensation program to provide medical benefits to workers who acquired beryllium sensitivity as a result of their work for DOE. It provides both medical benefits and lost wage protection for workers who suffer disability or death from chronic beryllium disease. For radiation, the situation is more complex. Radiation is proven to cause cancer in high doses. But when you look at a cancer tumor, you can't tell for sure whether it was caused by an alpha particle of radiation from the workplace, a molecule of a carcinogen in something you ate, or even a stray cosmic ray from outer space. But scientists can make a good estimate of the types of radiation doses that make it more likely than not that your cancer was caused by a workplace exposure. This amendment puts the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in charge of making the causal connection between specific workplace exposures to radiation and cancer. Within the HHS, it is envisioned by this amendment that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (or NIOSH) take the lead for the tasks assigned by this amendment. Thus, the definition section of the amendment specifies that the Secretary of HHS act with the assistance of the Director of NIOSH. This assignment follows a decision made in DOE during the Bush Administration, and ratified by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, to give NIOSH the lead in identifying levels of exposure at DOE sites that present employees with significant health risks. HHS was also given a Congressional mandate, in the Orphan Drug Act, to develop and publish radioepidemiolog- ical tables that estimate ``the likelihood that persons who have or have had any of the radiation related cancers and who have received specific doses prior to the onset of such disease developed cancer as a result of those doses.'' I would like to ask unanimous consent that a more detailed discussion of how the bill envisions these guidelines would be used be included as an exhibit at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Thompson and others in offering this strongly bipartisan amendment. It addresses occupational illnesses scientifically found to be associated with the DOE weapons complex, that have occurred and are now occurring because of activities during the cold war. This amendment is a joint effort of a bipartisan group of Senators. Specifically, it has been put together by staff for myself, Senator Fred Thompson, Senator George Voinovich, Senator Mike DeWine, and Senator Ted Kennedy. We have worked with the administration, with worker groups, and with manufacturers. The staff have met with Armed Services Committee staff during the development of this amendment, and I want to acknowledge the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their support for this amendment. The workers in the DOE nuclear weapons complex, both at the production plants and the laboratories, helped us win the cold war. But that effort left a tragic environmental and human legacy. We are spending billions of dollars each year on the environmental part-- cleaning up the physical infrastructure that was contaminated. But we also need to focus on the human legacy. This amendment is an attempt to put right a situation that should not have occurred. But it proposes to do so in a way that is based on sound science. The amendment focuses federal held on three classes of injured workers. The first group is workers who were involved with beryllium. Beryllium is a non-radioactive metal that provokes, in some people, a highly allergic lung reaction. The lungs become scarred, and no longer function. The second group is workers who dug the tunnels for underground nuclear tests and are today suffering from chronic silicosis due to their occupational exposures to silica, which were not adequately controlled by DOE. The third group of workers are those who had dangerous doses of radiation on the job. These workers were employed at numerous current and former DOE facilities. We have included a general definition of DOE and other type of facilities in the legislation, in lieu of including a list that might be incomplete, but for purposes of helping in the implementation of this amendment, if enacted into law, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a non-exclusive list of the facilities intended to be covered under this amendment be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which reauthorizes appropriations for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In addition to extending the authorization for the museum and the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the bill makes several clarifying and conforming changes to the 1980 enabling legislation to incorporate the recommendations of a recently completed review of the museum and the council by the National Academy of Public Administration. As described in the museum's mission statement, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of Holocaust history, and serves as this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust. The Museum's primary mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge about this unprecedented tragedy; to preserve the memory of those who suffered; and to encourage its visitors to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. Since the museum was opened to the public in 1993, it has been one of the most heavily visited sites in our nation's capital, with more than 2 million visitors last year. Previous bills authorizing appropriations for the museum have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and I am pleased that this bill is no exception, with over 17 original cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, identical legislation has already been introduced in the other body. Given the broad support for the museum and the memorial council, it is my hope that the Senate will approve this legislation expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which reauthorizes appropriations for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. In addition to extending the authorization for the museum and the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the bill makes several clarifying and conforming changes to the 1980 enabling legislation to incorporate the recommendations of a recently completed review of the museum and the council by the National Academy of Public Administration. As described in the museum's mission statement, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of Holocaust history, and serves as this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust. The Museum's primary mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge about this unprecedented tragedy; to preserve the memory of those who suffered; and to encourage its visitors to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. Since the museum was opened to the public in 1993, it has been one of the most heavily visited sites in our nation's capital, with more than 2 million visitors last year. Previous bills authorizing appropriations for the museum have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and I am pleased that this bill is no exception, with over 17 original cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, identical legislation has already been introduced in the other body. Given the broad support for the museum and the memorial council, it is my hope that the Senate will approve this legislation expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici. It is a pleasure to work with him in trying to solve some of these imminent problems that afflict our State. We hope very much we can do that in an effective way, with the help of the rest of the Senate and the rest of Congress. Mr. President, on May 4, National Park Service officials set a fire in Bandelier National Monument to clear brush and deadwood that had accumulated in one corner of the monument, known as the Cerro Grande. We all know now what happened next. That fire became an uncontrollable wildfire as high winds fanned the flames over the next several days. Its smoke plume stretched across New Mexico and into Texas and Oklahoma--a plume that was visible from outer space. The fire spread across the Santa Fe National Forest and torched the northern and western parts of the City of Los Alamos, destroying 260 homes and other residential units that had housed over 400 families. The fire has, as of yesterday evening, consumed over 44,000 acres. Its perimeter last night was 85 miles. The City of Los Alamos and the neighboring community of White Rock evacuated a total of over 20,000 people. A voluntary evacuation of 3,000 persons also took place in the next closest city, Espanola The fire has damaged over 10 percent of the Santa Clara Pueblo Indian Reservation, where 1,500 people live, and threatens both the water supply and economic lifeline for that community. On Saturday, President Clinton declared a Major Disaster in 12 New Mexico counties, as a result of the Cerro Grande fire and wildfires in several other locations in the State. This week, and perhaps next week as well, we will be considering appropriations bills that contain emergency supplemental spending for a variety of disasters that have occurred over the past several months. I believe that it is important for the Senate to make some critical adjustments to these spending bills to mitigate the effects of the Cerro Grande fire, and to prevent the occurrence of other catastrophic fires in the West this spring and summer. As a first step, we should consider additional defense emergency spending to mitigate damage that has occurred at Los Alamos National Laboratory due to the fire. Thankfully, the laboratory was spared major destruction. At the same time, the damage to the laboratory was not zero. A number of buildings and trailers were destroyed, and the fire pointed up some systemic weaknesses in some of the laboratory's emergency and security systems that need to be addressed Second, we need to deal with the aftermath of the destruction of dwellings for over 400 families in Los Alamos. The Administration and the Congress needs to act quickly to make them whole for the destruction of their homes and the loss of their belongings. I'm sure we have all seen pictures that show the total loss suffered by many families. Making these Los Alamos community members and their families whole is not simply a matter of fairness--the government, after all, set the fire that burned them out. What happens to the residents of the City of Los Alamos and the surrounding communities also affects our national security. The prime national security asset at Los Alamos, when you stop to think about it, is not some scientific facility at the lab or a stockpile of some special nuclear material. The most important national security asset at Los Alamos are the people who work there. It is their brains, their special expertise, and their detailed knowledge of nuclear security issues that won the Cold War. Without the continuance of this human resource, the long-term future of our nuclear deterrent will be in jeopardy, and we may find ourselves prone to unpleasant surprises in a world where nuclear proliferation is still an important threat. If we do not act quickly to help the scientists and engineers at Los Alamos rebuild their lives there, some of them may take their insurance money and go to rebuild their lives in other places where they can find high-tech employment. That would be a terrible loss to this country's national security. I believe that we have to especially worry about two populations at the laboratory who may find it hardest to rebuild there--the young scientists and engineers who have recently been hired at the lab, and the scientists and engineers who are nearing retirement. The young scientist or engineer who has been at the laboratory for only a few years has many other professional options in today's high- tech economy. For most of them, working at Los Alamos pays considerably less than working for the private sector. Many of these individuals may not be fully insured for their potential losses. If we face these younger investigators with a prolonged stay in temporary housing a substantial distance from the laboratory, or if we ignore their uninsured losses, they may wonder about our long-term commitment to their careers supporting the nuclear security of this country. Already, there have been concerns that the recent attrition rate for these investigators has been higher than the historical average. Another population at risk for loss to the lab is typified by the senior scientist or engineer who is close to retirement. It is hard for these individuals to start all over again, when they face the prospect of a potential second starting-over when they retire in a few years. These individuals are particularly needed over the next 4 to 5 years. That is the time period during which we will have to make the transition from a laboratory workforce with substantial experience in designing and conducting underground nuclear tests to a workforce that will have to maintain our nuclear stockpile without nuclear tests. According to an analysis carried out last year for my staff, much of the workforce at Los Alamos with substantial experience at the Nevada Test Site testing the primary components of nuclear weapons is aged 56 or older. The lab has an aggressive plan to capture and formalize their expertise in computer models over the next 4 to 5 years. We need to validate the computer codes that will be used in the long-term to certify the nuclear weapons stockpile before these weapons designers with direct test experience retire. As far back as 1955, laws like the Atomic Energy Communities Act stated that the continued morale of nuclear defense laboratory personnel ``is essential to the common defense and security of the United States,'' and that the federal government needed to maintain conditions in these communities ``which will not impede the recruitment and retention of personnel essential to the atomic energy program,'' as the nuclear weapons program was then called. These principles are still true today. They indicate that we quickly move to restore the homes, the community facilities, and the physical infrastructure of the communities around the laboratory. In addition to the workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Cerro Grande fire is also threatening some of the most economically vulnerable citizens of northern New Mexico. These are the rural residents and the Native Americans who depend critically on the land that is being burned and its resources for their livelihood. I am particularly concerned about the residents of the Santa Clara Pueblo Indian Reservation, who face the loss of their natural water supply and of numerous sacred and historic sites as the fire progresses. Native American firefighters have been at the forefront of battling this blaze, and have been unstinting in their time and efforts to protect the federal government's property and that of their neighbors. We need to make sure that they are not forgotten in any restitution and recovery plan. The Cerro Grande fire is one of several major fire disasters now facing the State of New Mexico. Down in Otero County, New Mexico, near the town of Cloudcroft, the Scott Able fire in the Lincoln National Forest has burned over 21,000 acres. The fire was started last Thursday by a downed power line and is still not contained. In Otero and Lincoln Counties, the Cree Fire, which started May 7 from a campfire, has burned over 8,700 acres. It has cost over $1.7 million to fight this fire to date. Up north in Mora and San Miguel Counties, the Manuelitas Fire in the Santa Fe National Forest, which also started last Thursday from an unknown cause, has burned approximately 1,400 acres. And yesterday, another fire broke out and closed a five-mile portion of Interstate 25 near Pecos, New Mexico. We need to make sure that we provide the persons and communities who have been damaged by these fires emergency relief and, where appropriate, compensation, as well. All of these fires, taken together, illustrate the broader danger that States like New Mexico face in this severe fire season from areas of our national forests and public lands that are very close to towns, but in need of management of their vegetation to remove or reduce the dangers of wildfire and to improve the health of the forests. The Forest Service has asked for funds for the past few years to support such activities. This kind of funding would reduce the risk to human life and property while providing a source of local jobs in the rural West. As part of the upcoming emergency appropriations, we need to make sure that we not only provide extra funds for fire fighting, but also for the type of vegetation management, including thinning the forests of certain small-diameter trees, that will help prevent catastrophic fires near cities and towns in the West that are bordered by public forests. I hope that all my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in making sure that the destruction caused by this fire is quickly remedied, and that the funds are rapidly made available to help prevent more repeats of that destruction this spring and summer out West. Mr. President, to reiterate, it is clear now, and acknowledged by the Park Service and by the Secretary of the Interior, that the fire was started by the Park Service on May 4 --well over a week ago--and was set as a so-called controlled burn, which got out of control. This is, unfortunately, not the only instance we know of right at this current time where we have fires out of control which started as controlled burns. So we have a serious problem here. Let me show you a couple of these photos that have been in the newspapers in New Mexico and in some of the national newspapers to show what we are talking about. As you can see from this photo, this is the smoke plume from the fire. From the photo, you can see the red. This is Los Alamos. This is the State of New Mexico. This is the State of Colorado above, and then Texas and Oklahoma. You can see this smoke plume extending to the east out of Los Alamos and out of New Mexico into Texas, into Oklahoma, and into Colorado. That gives you some sense of the size of this conflagration we have been trying to put out as a result of this so-called controlled burn. I have one or two other photos which I also would like to show, just to give you an idea. This is a picture of the perimeter. Last night the perimeter of this fire was 85 miles. The fire has now destroyed something over 44,000 acres. This photo shows the largest of the fires. As Senator Domenici has said, we have other fires going on in our State. Those have also been devastating for those communities. Let me just mention those and indicate that we hope that whatever we do here will also provide relief for those communities as well. The Cerro Grande fire is the largest in our State. But in Otero County, near Cloudcroft, we have the Scott Able fire which has burned over 21,000 acres. The fire started last Thursday by a downed power line. In Otero and Lincoln Counties, the Cree fire was started May 7 from a camp fire. It has burned nearly 9,000 acres. Up in Mora and San Miguel Counties, we have another fire that was started last Thursday that has burned approximately 1,400 acres. We have serious human tragedies resulting from each of these fires. We hope we can get it all addressed. The particular thing about this large Cerro Grande fire at Los Alamos, as Senator Domenici pointed out, is it was started by the Government. The laws we have passed, as I understand them, providing for Federal assistance in the case of disasters, do not contemplate a circumstance where the disaster was caused by Government action. They are generally disaster relief proposals and resources made available through those statutes, because the Government is stepping in to try to assist where there has been a hurricane or there has been an earthquake or there has been a flood or there has been a fire. Here we have all of that, but we also have the extra overlay and responsibility that I think comes with the fact that the Government set the fire. Los Alamos National Laboratory was spared major destruction. That is a very important fact. It was not spared totally. There have been some damages. I hope we can see to it that those damages are repaired. But fortunately for the country, as well as for our State and the community of Los Alamos, the major facilities of the laboratories were not burned. I do think this fire, though, reminds us of our national security assets located in Los Alamos. They are not just the facilities, and they are not just the nuclear material or equipment that has been developed there over many decades; the main asset we have there with a national security significance to it is the scientists and engineers and other people who work at that facility. For that reason, it is absolutely essential we step up, as Senator Domenici said, to make these people whole, do what can be done by way of resources at this point, to help them rebuild, help them get through this period of turmoil, and get back to work on our very important national security needs. We have various distinctions in our State. One that I have always enjoyed is that we have more Ph.D.'s per capita in New Mexico than any other State in the Union. People say, well, that is an unusual statistic. It is a statistic which relates directly to the Los Alamos National Laboratory and to the Sandia National Laboratory. We have many extremely well-trained, well-qualified people working there. These are people who have alternative careers they can pursue; these are not people who need employment there. They could go to any of a number of private firms and be compensated, probably substantially better than we are compensating them to do this very important national security work. We need to keep those people at our laboratory. We particularly need to keep those people, the young ones who have come in recently and those who are near retirement but who have very valuable information and very valuable expertise, in our nuclear-weapons-related work. I know there is an aggressive plan that the Department of Energy and the Los Alamos National Laboratory have developed for the next 4 to 5 years to try to capture some of that expertise and ensure that we retain that before some of these people retire. We cannot allow this fire and this disruption of activity in the laboratory and in the community of Los Alamos to interfere with our ability to keep that expertise at that laboratory. So that is an important reason why this needs to be done quickly, why we need to move aggressively to deal with this. Let me also mention the other populations in our State that have been very adversely affected by the fire. One, of course, is the Santa Clara Pueblo. If the fire continues--and it has already consumed some 10 percent of their reservation--it continues to threaten that pueblo and the livelihoods of many of those people. We need to see to it that whatever we are able to do benefits them and helps them to recover from the devastating effects of this fire, as well as other individuals in Rio Arriba County, Santa Fe County, and the community of Espanola. All of those factors need to be taken into account. There is a long list of needs that people will have and a long list of damages that people in the communities involved and the businesses involved will have suffered. I need to just say that, to my mind, we need to step up and accept responsibility. We, the Federal Government, we, the country, need to step up and accept responsibility for making those people whole. These natural disasters can result in extended litigation and efforts by people to try to get compensated. We hope that can be avoided to the extent possible in this case, because we hope that we can get a sufficiently effective and coordinated and rapid response from the Federal Government to allow that to happen. So I hope very much that all of this occurs. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Levin, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Biden, Senator Levin be recognized for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in my absence I would like to submit this statement for the Record. As you know, I make every effort not to miss votes in the Senate, and would not do so but for the fact that there is currently a massive wildfire that is raging out of control in my state. At this time a substantial number of homes have been destroyed or damaged, with more surely to follow. And there is no end in sight. Thousands of New Mexicans have had to leave their homes in Los Alamos and White Rock, and if the conditions stay the same there, many more will be leaving in other communities. This is a uniquely catastrophic situation, and I apologize for not being able to cast my vote. But since I cannot be here today, I want to submit for the record that if I was here I would have voted in the affirmative for the Africa/Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Bill. There has been considerable debate over this bill, and I have carefully considered the issues involved. I agree with my colleagues that this is not a perfect bill--questions concerning labor rights, human rights, corporate investment, the environment, transshipments, and so on linger, and they will do so until the provisions of the bill are implemented over time. But I am convinced that over the long run it begins a process that offers real hope for Africa, the Caribbean Basin, and the people who live in those regions. So while I am not present today, I state for the Record that I feel this is the right step to take. An initial step to be sure, but definitely the right one.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to give my perspective on this upcoming vote to override the President's veto. The question before the Senate is not whether the Senate supports the construction of a nuclear waste repository. Clearly, I support construction of a nuclear waste repository. The President has indicated he does. The Department of Energy has made significant progress on a repository in the time this administration has been in office. In fact, the Department of Energy has made much more progress in the past 7 years under President Clinton than during the preceding 10 years under Presidents Reagan and Bush. The President, according to the statement he issued, is ``committed to resolving the . . . issue in a timely and sensible manner consistent with sound science and protection of public health, safety, and the environment.'' This bill was not vetoed by the President because he does not want to solve the nuclear waste problem. He vetoed it because, as he stated in his veto message, this bill ``will do nothing to advance'' the program. That is a quote out of the statement that was issued. And secondly, instead of doing something to advance the program, the bill will be ``a step backward.'' What are the problems that face the nuclear waste program today? Let me go through those problems with a little bit of detail so we all understand what those problems are and we can assess whether or not there is anything in this bill that helps us address that. First, burying tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain and making sure it does not escape for tens of thousands of years--that is the goal we set for ourselves--raises very difficult scientific and technical questions. Only last month, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which Congress created to advise us on these matters, warned that ``a credible technical basis does not exist for the repository design.'' This is the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. This is a group that Congress established. This is not some left-wing environmental organization that made this statement. That report also went on to say, ``large uncertainties'' still exist in how the Yucca Mountain site will behave, and ``much work remains to be completed.'' That is an exact quote from that review board. The bill before us does nothing to advance the scientific program that is trying to resolve these issues. Instead, the bill will make it harder for the Department of Energy to resolve these issues by imposing substantial new requirements which will divert the limited resources they have away from the essential scientific work that needs to be done. A second problem facing the program is public confidence. People need to know that the repository will be safe and will not leak radiation into their water supply now or long into the future. Again, the bill will do nothing to advance public confidence in the repository's safety. Instead, it will undermine that public confidence. Under current law, the repository must meet radiation standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency to protect public health and the environment. The bill on which we are now voting to override a Presidential veto forbids the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing those standards until this administration leaves office. The proponents of the provision are plainly hoping Governor Bush will be elected President and that his administration will adopt more lax standards than the Clinton administration would adopt. Such a blatant attempt to manipulate the scientific review process is sure to undermine public confidence in the ultimate site suitability determination. A third problem facing the program is that it is behind schedule. Again, the bill does nothing to accelerate the program. On the contrary, the bill will delay the program further by forbidding the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing its radiation protection standards before June of 2001. Under current law, EPA will issue the standards this summer, in plenty of time for the Secretary of Energy to take the standards into account in determining whether Yucca Mountain is suitable in 2001. But by delaying the issuance of the standards by nearly one year, the bill is likely to delay the Secretary's suitability determination and his recommendation that the repository be built. A fourth problem facing the program is that the Department of Energy has not been able to begin moving waste from the States where it is now stored to Yucca Mountain. Again, the bill does nothing to begin moving waste to Yucca Mountain or to accelerate the date at which shipments can begin. On the contrary, the bill will probably obstruct shipments of waste by imposing a host of new obstacles to such shipments. The bill says no shipment can be made until the Secretary of Energy has determined that emergency responders in every State, every local community, and every tribal jurisdiction, along every primary and every alternative shipping route, have met certain training standards and until the Secretary has given all of those entities financial assistance for 3 years before the first shipment. That is what the bill provides. The transportation provisions of the bill are far more restrictive than those for shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in my State. They are an open invitation to opponents of the nuclear waste program to obstruct shipments to the repository. I think we are all familiar with the availability of the courts to assist in that obstruction, where we put unreasonable restrictions on the Department of Energy, as we have done in the case of transportation to the site. A fifth problem facing the program--this is the nuclear waste repository program--is the claims against the Government for failing to accept the utilities' waste by the original deadline. The bill permits the Department of Energy to settle these claims by paying the utilities compensation out of the nuclear waste fund--which the utilities said they did not want. This bill does not permit the Department of Energy to take title to the utilities' waste at the utilities' sites, which is the one near- term solution that was sought by the administration when we went into this debate. In fact, that provision was in the bill when we reported it out of the committee, which I think was a step forward. Moreover, the bill creates new unfunded liabilities for the Government. It does so by imposing new deadlines that the Department of Energy cannot meet and imposing substantial new requirements without providing funding mechanisms to meet those obligations. A sixth major problem facing the program is inadequate funding. Our current budget rules make it impossible to give the program the money it requires, even though the fees the utilities pay the Government far exceed what Congress appropriates to the program each year, and the nuclear waste fund has a $9 billion surplus in it. Yet, at the same time, the bill imposes substantial new unfunded spending requirements. So we are setting up and maintaining a prohibition against spending the money at the same time we are imposing new unfunded spending requirements on the program. These unfunded spending requirements are to provide relief to the utilities under the settlement agreements, to provide financial assistance for transportation planning and training, and to conduct research on alternative waste management technologies. Finally, the bill does nothing to help the one utility that is actually threatened with having to shut down one of its plants because of insufficient onsite storage capacity. Here I am talking about Northern States Power's Prairie Island plant in Minnesota. Nothing in this bill forestalls the shutdown of that plant in January of 2007. The bottom line is that this bill will not fix what is wrong with the nuclear waste program. On the contrary, it will make matters worse and move us further from a final solution. The question before the Senate is whether the bill should pass, ``the objections of the President notwithstanding.'' That is the question for us to vote on this afternoon. The President said he remains committed to solving the nuclear waste issue. The administration has made considerable progress toward that end and is close to completing the work needed for the site suitability decision next year. The President says the bill does not help; it does not advance the program's goals. On the contrary, in his view, it is a major step backward because it is likely to delay the site suitability determination, it undermines public confidence, and it is likely to create new unfunded liabilities for the Government--in fact, not likely, but it does create them. The President's objections to the bill are well taken, and, in my view, the Senate should not pass the bill over the objections that have been raised by the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor.