Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman and appreciate his leadership. u.s. army corps of engineers' operation and maintenance funding for noxious weed control at lake sakakawea, garrison dam, nd

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Chairman Domenici knows I have been concerned about DOE's high-level waste cleanup program from its inception. Shortly after our committee concluded action on the bill, the GAO issued a report, entitled, ``Challenges to Achieving Potential Savings in DOE's High-Level Waste Cleanup Program.'' In light of the language in our committee report on the program, the GAO provides a valuable and timely perspective on the nuclear waste clean-up program and confirms many of my concerns, as well as those expressed by our committee during our hearings. Mr. President, as stated in our committee's report: The Committee notes with concern the recent notification by the Department that the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, Richland, Washington, construction project baseline would increase from $4,350,000,000 to $5,781,000,000, an increase of over $1,400,000,000. The relative lack of outrage over a baseline change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what the Congress and public have come to expect from the Department's clean-up program. The tank waste treatment project has a long and sordid history that indicates both the magnitude of the task before the Department, as well as the Department's historic combination of overly optimistic cost estimates coupled with consistent project mismanagement. The Committee notes its concern in the demonstrated pattern of Departmental officials announcing reform of some aspect of the clean-up program, only to depart and be replaced by a new set of officials coming before the Committee to describe dramatic cost overruns on the project baselines promised by their predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the assumptions underlying those previous commitments. The Department is now into the second year of entering into new acceleration and reform agreements consistent with the policy conclusions of the Secretary's 2001 top-to-bottom review of the environmental clean-up program. The efforts is commendable in its success in focusing the Department and its stakeholders on the importance of completing clean-up activities decades earlier than planned. The acceleration agreements entered into at the various clean-up sites have allowed the Department to book huge paper out-year savings and acceleration of completion dates. For example, the Department is claiming savings of $12,000,000,000 and 20 years at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina; $30,000,000,000 and 35 years at Hanford, Washington; $2,000,000,000 and 6 years at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and $19,000,000,000 and 35 years at Idaho. In many cases the savings are based on assumed changes in law, yet- to-be reformed regulatory environments, contractor savings, and other highly optimistic assumptions. The Department has had its successes, most notably Rocky Flats, Colorado, and should be commended. But even with such highlights, the weight of the historical record leaves the Committee to question who will be around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these estimated cost savings will inevitably be revised. Mr. President, I respect Secretary Roberson's efforts to encourage innovation in the program. Last February, she proposed a new initiative aimed at accelerating cleanup at DOE's sites and focusing on more rapid reduction of the considerable environmental risks. She projects this will cut years off the program and produce $63 billion in savings. Now that GAO has issued its first report on the acceleration initiative, I hope the chairman will join me in examining their findings and recommendations and identifying actions that we may recommend to the conference.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman and urge that he give special attention to the following GAO recommendation: DOE's accelerated cleanup initiative should mark the beginning, not the end, of DOE's efforts to identify other opportunities to improve the program by accomplishing the work more quickly, more effectively, or at less cost. As DOE continues to pursue other management improvements, it should reassess certain aspects of its current management approach, including the quality of the analysis underlying key decisions, the adequacy of its approach to incorporating new technologies into projects, and the merits of a fast-track approach to designing and building complex nuclear facilities. Although the challenges are great, the opportunities for program improvements are even greater. Therefore, DOE must continue its efforts to clean up its high-level waste while demonstrating tangible, measurable program improvements. This recommendation underscores my view that DOE should continue to develop and test new technologies, which may have the potential to provide price and schedule savings. Since 1996, our committee has recommended that DOE investigate alternative melting technologies, including the advanced vitrification system, to back-up the baseline system. These recommendations came from the National Academy of Sciences and from DOE's own sponsored studies. Pursuing backup systems has always made sense. As GAO points out, the risks inherent in the chemical composition of the tanks require a backup approach as insurance. As our committee report explains, ``the weight of the historical record'' often requires us to ask ``who will be around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these estimated cost savings will inevitably be revised.''

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a year ago, with the support of American agriculture, Congress approved legislation granting trade promotion authority to President George W. Bush. The President has demonstrated a strong commitment to expanding the American economy by actively engaging in an aggressive trade strategy. This strategy includes negotiations with Chile and Singapore, regional efforts with the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement talks, and with the World Trade Organization. Congress has had unprecedented access and consultation with negotiators, resulting in agreements without hidden compromises or concessions. Public hearings in the Senate and the House have enabled agricultural groups and others who have a stake in these negotiations to make their views and interests known. Both the Chile and Singapore agreements passed the other body last week by a substantial margin. It is now time for the Senate to approve the agreements. The U.S./Chile agreement provides important new opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers. Chile is a market of more than 15 million people with an open and progressive economy. Both the European Union and Canada already have free trade agreements with Chile. Our negotiators were successful in their efforts to eliminate duties on more than three-quarters of American agricultural products within the first 4 years. The agreements also contain a safeguard provision which will help prevent surges in trade volumes. To discourage the use of nontariff barriers, a sanitary and phytosanitary working group will ensure that standards of inspection and food are based on sound science. The U.S./Singapore agreement has the positive effects of freer and fairer trade and they make this agreement worthy of support as well. Singapore has become our 11th largest trading partner and provides the U.S. services sector with fair and immediate increase in market access. I urge my colleagues to vote for both the Chile and Singapore free- trade agreements.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is imperative that the Senate act on this measure now. The Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response disaster relief fund has been depleted to a dangerously low level. This is due to nearly $300 million in unexpected expenses related to the Shuttle Columbia disaster recovery effort, and another $200 million because of the tornadoes and floods that have affected many States this year. On July 7, 2003, the President submitted an emergency supplemental request to Congress totaling $1.9 billion. Emergency supplemental appropriations fully funding the President's request are included in the Senate-passed fiscal year 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. However, the House approved for the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response disaster relief fund only $983.6 million. Not only does this bill not meet the needs of wildland fire management and NASA, but it does not include all that is needed in the Emergency Preparedness and Response disaster relief fund. The House bill is not sufficient to meet the needs for disaster relief outlined by the President in his request. I received from my state's Emergency Management Agency a specific request that illustrates why this supplemental is needed now. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from Robert Latham, Jr. be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am concerned about the recent efforts by the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission, commonly known as FERC, to make RTOs mandatory. Recently, FERC released a white paper describing their intentions to mandate Regional Transmission Organization participation by utility companies. A Regional Transmission Organization, or RTO, would act as a third party which sets the rules for power companies about pricing and delivering power in a given region. These RTOs are being formed around the country. There may eventually be one in the South. But, that should not give FERC the authority to strip State Public Utility Commissions of their right to decide whether their states enter into these types of arrangements. I understand that entering into an RTO may be a good choice for some companies and Public Utility Commissions to make. I believe that is who should be deciding these issues--not the FERC. I have a letter from the Mississippi Public Service Commission which I would like to submit for the Record. It clearly states the problems which would beset my state if it were forced into an RTO. Currently, the FERC is attempting to force utilities to enter into RTOs. There was a federal court case in Atlantic City about this. Some groups point to that case and say that since the utility won its right to withdraw from the RTO, that every other utility can simply file a suit if they are mandated into an RTO. This is not a sensible way to make policy. We should not equate the right to file a lawsuit with the voluntary ability to join one of these organizations. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached to amend the Federal Power Act, not just this Energy Bill, to make it clear that FERC cannot mandate participation in an RTO. Unfortunately, this language expires on December 31, 2006. While I wish that there was no expiration to this provision, I am glad that the bill includes language to clarify that when this provision expires the FERC does not have authority to mandate participation into RTOs. I am hopeful that the FERC will follow Congressional intent and allow states and utilities to decide when and if they wish to enter into an RTO. I thank Senator Domenici and his staff for their work on this provision and I am glad to have a commitment that this provision will be included in the final bill during the energy bill conference.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend the hard-working members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee for assisting in the passage of the Homeland Security appropriations bill last night. For over 3 days we were on the floor debating the bill and considering amendments. They did a masterful job helping guide those of us who were in charge of managing the bill along the path toward final passage. I also thank the President pro tempore, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his active involvement in helping to bring that bill to final passage. And my friend from West Virginia, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and his able staff all worked hard to help guide this bill through the subcommittee, the full committee, and then, even though we had disagreements on a number of subjects during the consideration of the bill on the floor, the Senate worked its will. We passed the bill, and I know we will go to conference with the House. But those members of the subcommittee staff I particularly want to single out for praise and my expression of appreciation this morning are: Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, James Hayes, Les Spivey, Rachelle Schroeder, Josh Manley, and our intern Ferriday Mansel. I am deeply grateful to them.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XVI that the amendment constitutes general legislation on an appropriations measure and is not in order.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. COCHRAN. I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides funding in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we reviewed the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. The operative language of the amendment is as follows: The Secretary of Homeland Security . . . shall report to the Committee on Appropriations . . . on the feasibility of providing access to State and local law enforcement agencies to the database of the Department of State on potential terrorists . . . including the process by which classified information shall be secured from unauthorized disclosure. We discussed the amendment with the distinguished Senator and are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1383

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from Texas has an amendment. The Senator from Texas has indicated she is not going to offer the amendment. I told several Senators she was, but she is going to speak after the vote. federal law enforcement training centers

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I join in the request of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1382

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment suggesting that historically black colleges and universities be considered as appropriate recipients of certain funds under the Homeland Security Department. The amendment has been cleared on this side of the aisle, as well as on the other side.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to advise my good friend from Michigan that I am prepared to accept the amendment and recommend it be approved.