Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it was my hope that we could go immediately to the final vote on the conference report on the Defense appropriations bill. I make that recommendation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I advise the Senator from Iowa that these nominees are for the First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank and for a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 616 and 617; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from Georgia allowing me to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been negotiating with a number of our colleagues regarding the Defense appropriations conference report. I would like to propound a unanimous consent request, with an expectation that it may need further clarification. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, be recognized; that the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, be recognized; that the two subcommittee chairs, the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, also be recognized; and that the Senator from Michigan be recognized; that upon the recognition of those Senators and their remarks in regard to the Defense appropriations conference report, the Senate vote immediately on its final passage.

Mr. DASCHLE. The answer is yes. It is not necessarily in that order, I would clarify, Mr. President.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank all of my colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that is pending.

Mr. DASCHLE. I answer to the Senator from Montana it is the victims relief bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is my understanding we now have agreement to go directly to the vote on the conference report to H.R. 3338. I appreciate everyone's cooperation in that regard and I ask that the Senate proceed. For the interest of all Senators, this will be the last vote of the day.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request to propound at this time. There will be many other unanimous consent requests made over the course of this afternoon. We will certainly notify Senators as they are propounded so that those who have an interest in a particular issue can be in the Chamber when we make them. Let me begin. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 252, H.R. 3210, and the only amendment in order be a Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer substitute amendment, that the substitute be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the Republican leader and I have agreed that we would keep the remarks involving these unanimous consent requests to a minimum at this point to accommodate those Senators who are still waiting to speak on the Defense appropriations conference report. I would like to respect our earlier commitment to them that they would have the opportunity to make their remarks. But we will certainly entertain these unanimous consent requests without extended comments. I appreciate everyone's cooperation in that regard.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to entertain the modification.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate the recommendation and proposal made by the Senator from Kentucky. I know this has been the subject of a good deal of discussion. There is no doubt the issue of liability will be a matter that will have to be addressed. But if we open it up to any amendment at this late hour, there is little likelihood we can complete our work in time for us to be able to go to conference before the holidays begin. For that reason, I would have to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it was regrettable today that we were unable to gain unanimous consent to take up H.R. 3210, the House terrorism insurance bill, and amend it with a substitute offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. We made a good-faith effort to address a pressing need, but we found that some of our colleagues insisted on the consideration of amendments that would make it impossible to complete work on this issue in the short time this session of Congress had remaining. In the wake of September 11th, a number of insurance companies are declining to provide coverage from losses that would result from a terrorist attack. Those policies that are available are often priced so high that they are unaffordable. Senator Dodd's proposal would have given them the safety net they need to keep insuring against terrorist risks. In turn, that coverage would allow builders to keep building, businesses to keep growing, and, hopefully, prevent against further economic setbacks. Our amendment was the product of extensive bipartisan negotiations. It was developed with extensive consultation with a number of Senate Democrats and Republicans--including Senator Gramm--as well as the White House and the Treasury Department. I am especially appreciative of the enormous commitment of time and energy by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr. Sarbanes, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Hollings, the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, the junior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and many others from both sides of the aisle. While we were unable to reach agreement on every point, the proposal incorporated line-by-line suggestions by our colleagues from both sides of the aisle and the Administration. It represented a compromise. It requires substantial payments by insurance companies before the federal government provides a backstop. The proposal would require the insurance industry to retain the responsibility to pay for up to $10 billion in losses in the first year, and up to $15 billion in losses in the second year or around 7 percent and 10 percent of their annual premiums for each affected company. This legislation would ensure stability in the insurance market so that businesses can afford to purchase insurance. As this session of Congress drew to a close, and we were forced to operate in an environment that required unanimous consent agreements to do our business, I regret that we were unable to complete our work on this legislation. Accordingly, the Senate will keep a watchful eye on the insurance market in the coming weeks, and we will take the appropriate action to respond to any problems that arise from the failure to gain approval for the measure we sought to pass today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, unfortunately, during this holiday season there has been a decline in charitable donations. In the land of plenty, having children going hungry during the holiday season is simply heartbreaking. But today too many charitable organizations are facing new funding constraints and cutting back on items like food vouchers. Many of us in Congress have been interested in looking for ways to resolve these problems and strengthen the partnership between charities and the Federal Government. Senators Lieberman and Santorum have been working throughout the year to develop just such a solution. Throughout their process they have consulted with my staff and the White House to ensure that the final product would be a consensus bill that would enjoy bipartisan support. I am pleased that the outlines to an agreement are now within reach. Had the Senate had more time, I would be very interested in seeing the package that has emerged introduced and debated by the full Senate. The Lieberman-Santorum package is comprised of two limited components: one, a tax and technical assistance section; and two, a social services section that includes a title on equal treatment for non-governmental providers, authorization for a capital compassion fund, a program on mentoring for children of prisoners, and appropriations for funding Social Services Block Grants and Maternity Homes. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman and Santorum were able to resolve most of the problems that caused many to oppose H.R. 7. Their compromise package eliminated privatization and the voucherization of federal social service programs, as well as preemption of state and local civil rights laws. Their package also remained silent on Federal funding of pervasively sectarian organizations and expansion of the Title VII exemption. I also support many of the tax and spending provisions that have been proposed. In particular, research shows that provisions like the IRA- rollovers and food and book donation provisions are effective in inducing new charitable giving. Additionally, increased funding for the Social Services Block Grant is an important provision to ensure that at long last we fulfill our commitment to providing adequate resources for community programs. While much hard work has already been done on all sides to get a bill that can pass, some concerns remain with provisions of this package. Given the slowing economy and OMB Director Daniels' statement that the budget will be in deficit this year and for several years to come, the Senate must be careful about any new tax and spending measures that are unpaid for. Therefore, while I strongly support increasing funding to charities, the changing economic outlook demands that fiscal responsibility be adhered to when enacting new tax cuts. As we move into the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle, I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Santorum, as well as the White House, to identify workable offsets. It is my hope that the work that Senators Lieberman and Santorum have done will not go to waste. I believe that next year we can build on the bipartisan process that Senators Lieberman and Santorum have created to resolve these outstanding issues. Once we do that I am confident the Senate will be able to quickly move a consensus bill. Finally, let me applaud Senators Lieberman and Santorum for their work and dedication to this important issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are all tired. This has been a long day in what has been a long week and a long session. But before we go our separate ways for the holidays, I want to thank my colleagues for the support and kindness they have shown me during my short time as majority leader. I thank our staffs, the many hard-working men and women who enable us to do our jobs--from the Capitol Police to the Official Reporters who transcribe our debates, the people in the cloakroom, the people who serve our meals, the doorkeepers, the pages, and so many others. The public may not know their names, but we know the Senate could not function without them. On a very personal note, I want to say a special word of thanks to my own staff. In the last 3 months, they have experienced the horrors of September 11 as we all did, but they have undergone an additional challenge few of us ever have, or will, face. Two months ago my staff, along with members of Senator Feingold's staff, and law enforcement officers, were exposed to lethal levels of anthrax when a letter containing that deadly bacteria was opened in my office. I am pleased to report that they are all healthy today, and I am proud to say that they have continued to work throughout all of this time. They are victims of terrorism. Yet they have spent the last 2 months dedicated to the effort to protect the rest of America from a truly similar fate. Their courage and their grace is truly heroic and a source of inspiration to me. They are extraordinary people who have endured extraordinary circumstances. I could not be more proud of them. We started this year appropriately in unusual circumstances. For 17 days between the day this Congress was sworn in and the day President Bush was sworn in, Democrats held the majority in the Senate. I joked back then that I intended to savor every one of my 17 days as majority leader. As it turns out, those days were just a preamble. For nearly 6 months now, I have again had the rare privilege of serving as majority leader of this Senate. While I can't say I have enjoyed every day of these last 6 months--our country has experienced too much sadness for that to be true--I am honored to have had the chance to work with all. I am proud of much of what we have been able to achieve together. We made history this year, not just once, but over and over again. It was a year ago this month that the Supreme Court issued its ruling--the first time in history that the Supreme Court had intervened to settle a Presidential election. We started this Congress last January as the first 50-50 Senate in our Nation's history. Some observers predicted we would never be able to agree on a plan to divide power fairly and efficiently, but we did. Then in late May, Senator Jeffords made his historic and extraordinary decision to leave his party and become the Senate's only officially Independent Member. Never before had majority control of the Senate changed on the basis of one Senator's decision. Again, we made history, and we made it work. Then came the horrific morning of September 11. Even now, more than 3 months later, it is hard to imagine the magnitude of that loss. If you read one name every minute, it would take more than 3 days to read the list of all those who died on September 11. A little more than a month later, the anthrax letter was opened in my office. The Hart Building became the site of the largest anthrax spill anywhere, ever, and the largest biological weapons attack in our Nation's history. More than once during these 6 months I have found myself thinking about the words of America's second President, John Adams. In 1774, John Adams wrote in his diary of his concerns over the quality of the members of the Continental Congress, ``We have not men for these times,'' he worried. ``We are deficient in genius, in education, in travel, in fortune, in everything.'' That is how our Founders saw themselves: deficient in almost every way. Yet they went on to create the world's greatest experiment, now the world's oldest democracy. I suspect we have all wondered, at least once or twice since September 11, whether the men and women of this Senate are equal to these times. It would be hubris not to wonder. As this year ends, we can take some pride knowing that we were largely equal to our times. In the days following the attacks, we demonstrated greater unity than I have ever experienced in my years in Congress. We worked with each other, and with the President, for the good of the Nation. We gave the President the authority to use force to defeat terrorism. We gave law enforcement new tools and authority to pursue terrorists. We passed billions of dollars in emergency aid to help the communities and families and business devastated by the attacks of September 11th rebuild and recover. We also passed legislation to keep the airlines flying--and to make airports safer. Those measures will help our nation recover from the terrorist attacks, and help prevent future attacks. We also passed other important measures. Earlier this week, we sent the President a new, bipartisan bill to strengthen America's public schools. The new No Child Left Behind Act marks the first major overhaul of our Nation's education system in more than 35 years. It is a blueprint for real educational progress that includes good ideas from both parties. More importantly, it reflects the experiences and the needs of America's schoolchildren, parents, teachers, employers and many others who care deeply about America's schools. We can all take some pride in having been a part of those bipartisan successes. At the same time, we must acknowledge, there have been occasions on which we were not equal to our times. There have been too many instances when partisanship has prevented us from doing what needs to be done. That is deeply regrettable. We should have passed a genuine economic recovery plan to lift up America's economy and help laid-off workers. In the first weeks after the terrorist attacks, we worked together to craft such a plan. Even after Republican leaders walked away from that bipartisan effort, we continued to try to reach out to them. We compromised repeatedly on the details of our proposal--all to no avail. In the end, we could not accept a plan that takes $211 billion out of Social Security and gives most of it, in the form of tax cuts, to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in this country. And our colleagues would accept no less. We should have passed a farm bill this year. We talk a lot about families that have fallen on hard times in the last year, especially those who are economic victims of September 11. And we should be concerned about these families. But what about America's farm and ranch families? The recession didn't start two quarters ago for them. They have been battling near- Depression conditions in the farm economy for years now. Prices for many commodities are lower today than any time since the Government started keeping records, back in 1910. If you don't know who these families are, come to South Dakota. You'll see: they are some of the hardest-working people in this country. And they need our help. We didn't pass a terrorism insurance bill. We didn't finish work on the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is stuck in a conference committee--along with campaign finance reform. We didn't increase the minimum wage. We didn't pass real election reform to protect the right of every American to vote and have that vote counted. As we leave for the holidays, I want to say to my colleagues, and to the American people: We recognize that these are critically important issues. They will not go away. When this Senate returns next year, these are among the items that will top our agenda. Senator Stabenow spoke earlier today about an idea some of her constituents proposed to her. They suggested America create ``living memorials'' to the victims of September 11. These ``living memorials'' would take the form of community service projects. Through them, the love and courage of the people who died on September 11 will continue to live on. It is a beautiful and fitting way to remember the victims. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. But there is perhaps an even more fitting way for us to remember the victims of September 11. We must recapture the spirit of bipartisanship that allowed us to accomplish so much together in the first weeks and months after the attacks. The rescue workers did their job. The firefighters continue to do their job. We must put aside the partisanship and do our job. Again, I thank my colleagues for what we were able to do together this year. And I wish them, and the American people, a peaceful holiday season. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 74, H.R. 1088.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Congress has incorporated S. 1389, the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001, as amended, into the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations conference report. This important legislation will enable the construction of a new, world-class scientific research facility deep in the Homestake Mine in Lead, SD. Not only will this facility create an opportunity for critical breakthroughs in physics and other fields, it will provide unprecedented new economic and educational opportunities for South Dakota. Just over a year ago, the Homestake Mining Company announced that it intended to close its 125-year-old gold mine in Lead, SD, at the end of 2001. This historic mine has been a central part of the economy of the Black Hills for over a century, and the closure of the mine was expected to present a significant economic blow to the community. In the wake of this announcement, you can imagine the surprise of South Dakotans to discover that a committee of prominent scientists viewed the closure of the mine as an unprecedented new opportunity to establish a National Underground Science Laboratory in the United States. Because of the extraordinary depth of the mine and its extensive existing infrastructure, they found that the mine would be an ideal location for research into neutrinos, tiny particles that can only be detected deep underground, where thousands of feet of rock block out other cosmic radiation. Earlier this year, I met with several of these scientists to determine how they planned to move forward. They told me they intended to submit a proposal to the National Science Foundation for a grant to construct the laboratory. After a thorough peer review, the National Science Foundation would determine whether or not it would be in the best interests of science and the United States for such a laboratory to be built. The scientists also explained that since the National Science Foundation normally does not own research facilities, the mine would need to be conveyed from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota for construction to take place. For the company to be willing to donate the property, and for the state to be willing to accept it, both would require the Federal Government to assume some of the liability associated with the property. The purpose of the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001 is to meet that need. It establishes a process to convey the mine to the State of South Dakota, and for the Federal Government to assume a portion of the company's liabilities. This Act will only take effect if the National Science Foundation selects Homestake as the site for an underground laboratory. Only property needed for the construction of the lab will be conveyed, and conveyance can only take place after appropriate environmental reviews and after the Environmental Protection Agency certifies the remediation of any environmental problems. If the mine is conveyed, the State of South Dakota will be required to purchase environmental insurance for the property and set up an environmental trust fund to protect the taxpayers against any environmental liability that may be incurred. I believe this process is fair and equitable to all involved. It will enable the laboratory to be constructed and the environment to be protected. I am not a scientist, and the decision to build this laboratory must be made by the scientific community. However, it is helpful to review some of the information I have received from the team of scientists supporting this project to better understand why we would take the unusual step of conveying a gold mine to a state with federal indemnification. Dr. John Bahcall is a scientist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1998. He is a widely recognized expert in neutrino science and an authority on the scientific potential of an underground laboratory. Recently, I received a letter from him explaining the research opportunities created by an underground laboratory. In the letter, he explained, ``There are pioneering experiments in the fields of physics, astronomy, biology, and geology that can only be carried out in an environment that is shielded from the many competing phenomena that occur on the surface of the earth. These experiments concern such fundamental and applied subjects as: How stable is ordinary matter? What is the dark matter of which most of our universe is composed? What new types of living organisms exist in deep underground environments from which sunlight is excluded? How are heat and water transported underground over long distances and long times?'' As Dr. Bahcall's letter makes clear, the laboratory would provide an opportunity for a wide variety of important research. For that reason, it is receiving strong support in the scientific community. For example, every six to seven years, the Nuclear Science Advisory Board and the Nuclear Physics Division of the American Physical Society develop a Long Range Plan that identifies that the major priorities of American nuclear physicists for coming years. After a series of meetings, these scientists ranked the creation of a National Underground Science Laboratory as one of their top priorities in their Long Range Plan. In a recent letter to the National Science Foundation, members of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee explained their support for the creation of an underground laboratory at Homestake: ``[T]here is presently an outstanding opportunity for the United States to assume world leadership at the frontier of underground science through the acquisition and development by the National Science Foundation of the Homestake mine in South Dakota to create a deep underground (7000 meter of water equivalent (m.w.e.)) laboratory. . . . In the last decade, fundamental progress has been made in underground experiments in such diverse areas as nucleon decay, atmospheric neutrino oscillations, solar neutrino oscillations, and searches for dark matter. These studies not only have increased our understanding of the fundamental properties of the universe, but have pointed to new and even more challenging frontiers of compelling scientific interest. To explore these frontiers, the next generation of experiments (e.g. solar neutrino, double beta decay, etc.) will require a deep underground laboratory to reduce cosmic ray-related backgrounds, which constitute the limiting factor for high sensitivity experiments. A National Underground Science Laboratory at a depth of 7000 m.w.e., at the Homestake Mine site would constitute a world class facility, with a dedicated infrastructure to insure [sic] U.S. leadership in underground studies well into the next century.'' While there are two other locations under consideration in the United States for the construction of an underground laboratory, scientists have stated that the Homestake Mine, because of its unique characteristics, is the best location in the country to conduct this research. Dr. Wick Haxton of the Institute for Nuclear Theory put together the team's findings in a report entitled, ``The U.S. National Underground Science Laboratory at Homestake: Status Report and Update.'' I'd like to share some of their report: ``The announcement on September 11, 2000, that the historic Homestake Gold Mine would soon close presented a remarkable opportunity for creating a dedicated multipurpose deep underground laboratory in the U.S. Among its attributes are: Homestake has very favorable physical properties. It is the deepest mine in the U.S. The rock is hard and of high quality: even at depth there is an absence of rock bursts common at sites of comparable depth. Large cavities built at depths of 7400 and 8000 feet have been shown to be stable over periods of a decade or more. The mine is dry, producing only 500 gallons/minute of water throughout its 600 km of drifts. Homestake has shafts that can be adapted to provide unprecedented horizontal access. The replacement cost of the Ross and Yates shafts and the No. 6 winze, which access the proposed laboratory site, is approximately $300 million. The shaft cross sections are unusually large, 15 x 28 feet, and the Yates hoist, powered by two 1250 hp Nordberg motors, can lift nearly 7 tons. This makes it possible to lower cargo containers directly to the underground site. Finally, there are several existing ventilation shafts as well as an extensive set of ramps that connect the levels, providing important secondary escape paths. Homestake is a site with remarkable flexibility. There are drifts approximately every 150 feet in depth, allowing experiments to be conducted at multiple levels and opening up possibilities for an unusually broad range of science. Coupled with the extensive ventilation system--including a massive cooling plant with four York compressors and 2300 tons of refrigeration--this allows a wide range of experiments to be mounted, including those involving flammables, cryogens, or other substances best sequestered and separately vented. The flexibility to accommodate a very wide range of science is important because significant advantages will accompany a single multipurpose national laboratory. There are economies of scale in infrastructure and safety, including the development of common specialized facilities (like a low-background counting facility). This reduces costs and saves human scientific capital. Concentration also produces a stronger scientific and technical environment. It allows synergisms between disciplines to grow. The proposed principle site of the laboratory is the region at 7400 ft between the Ross and Yates shafts. The site is accessible now: extensive coring studies of the site will be performed to verify its suitability, prior to any expenditures for major construction. The mine is fully permitted for safety and rock disposal on site, and is located in a state supportive of mining. The mine includes surface buildings, extensive fiber optics and communications systems, a large inventory of tools and rolling stock that may be transferable to the laboratory, and skilled engineers, geologists, and miners who know every aspect of the mine.'' This is not the first time that Homestake, or other mines, have been used to support this kind of research. In fact, underground scientific research at the Homestake mine dates back to 1965, when a neutrino detector was installed in the underground mine at the 4850-foot level. Research from that experiment is acknowledged as critical to the development of neutrino astrophysics. Similar experiments have continued in the Soudan mine in Minnesota, and in underground laboratories outside of the United States, leading to important discoveries and developments in particle physics and theory. As I've stated, the purpose of the legislation passed by the Senate is to allow the conveyance of the property needed for the construction of the laboratory from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South Dakota. I'd like to take a moment to explain why it is necessary for the Federal Government to transfer the mine to the State, and to indemnify the company and the State in order for this conveyance to take place. The National Science Foundation, which is reviewing a $281 million proposal to construct this laboratory, does not operate its own research facilities. Instead, it provides grants to other entities to operate facilities or to conduct experiments. In keeping with this tradition, the proposed laboratory would not be owned by the Federal Government, but instead would need to be operated by an entity other than the NSF. Since it is not practical for the company to retain ownership of the site as it is converted into a laboratory, Homestake expressed a willingness to donate the underground mine and infrastructure to the State of South Dakota, together with certain surface facilities, structures and equipment that are necessary to operate and support the underground mine, provided that it could be released from liabilities associated with the transfer and the future operation of its property as an underground laboratory. Relief from liability is necessary because the construction of the lab will require the company to forgo certain reclamation actions that it would normally take to limit its liability in the mine. For example, in connection with closing the underground mine, Homestake planned to remove electric substations, decommission hoists and other equipment, turn off the pumps that dewater the mine, and seal all openings. Were the pumps to be turned off, the mine workings would slowly fill with water, rendering the mine unusable laboratory. The Act establishes a specific procedure that will be followed in order for conveyance to take place and Homestake to be relieved of its liability. First, the Act does not become effective unless the National Science Foundation selects Homestake Mine as the site for a National Underground Science Laboratory. This means that conveyance procedures will not begin until it is clear that the NSF supports the construction of a laboratory. Second, a due diligence inspection of the property will be conducted by an independent entity to identify any condition that may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment. Third, any condition of the mine that meets those criteria must be corrected before conveyance takes place. Homestake may choose to contribute toward any necessary response actions. However, Section 4 of this Act includes a provision that limits Homestake's contribution to this additional work, if necessary, to $75 million, reduced by the value of the property and equipment that Homestake is donating. In addition, the State, or another person, may also assist with that action. Only after the administration of the Environmental Protection Agency has certified that necessary steps have been taken to correct any problems that are identified can the conveyance proceed. Since some of the steps required to convert the mine into a laboratory go above and beyond normal reclamation, the company is not obligated to deliver the property in a condition that is suitable for use as a laboratory. However, those portions of the mine that require the most significant reclamation, including the tailings pond and waste rock dumps, are specifically prohibited from being conveyed under this Act and will remain Homestake's responsibility to reclaim. Under normal circumstances, the mine would close in March of 2002. Since it must be kept open beyond that date to leave open the option to construct the laboratory, Congress has already appropriated $10 million in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill to pay for expenses needed for that purpose. It is important that all aspects of the conveyance process be completed in a timely fashion. To facilitate the construction of the laboratory, the inspections, reports and conveyance will need to proceed in phases, with the inspections being initiated after Homestake has completed the reclamation work that may otherwise have been required. While the Act sets no specific deadline for the completion of these procedures, it is important that the entire process be completed in no more than eight months from the date of passage of the Act. The timeframes in the Act for public comment on draft reports and on EPA's review of the report are intended to emphasize the need for timely action. S. 1389 also contains important provisions to protect taxpayers from any potential liability once the transfer of the mine takes place. First, South Dakota must purchase property and liability insurance for the mine. It may also require individual experiments to purchase environmental insurance. Second, the bill requires that South Dakota establish an Environment and Project Trust Fund to finance any future clean-up actions that may be required. A portion of annual Operations and Maintenance funding must be deposited into the fund, and the state may also require individual projects to make a deposit into the fund. The insurance and trust fund provisions of this bill will help to provide a firewall between the taxpayers and any future environmental clean-up that may be required. I want to thank all of those who have been involved in the development of this legislation. I particularly appreciate the hard work and support of Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota. I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Johnson, a cosponsor of this bill, for all of his work, particularly to secure the $10 million in transition funds that will bridge the gap between Homestake's closure and the establishment of the laboratory. And, I would like to thank officials from Homestake and Barrick. This legislation will provide an opportunity for the United States to conduct scientific research and will provide important new educational and economic opportunities for South Dakota. I thank my colleagues in Congress for their support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that both a letter from the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation and a section-by- section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.