John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate agreed to accept an amendment to this bill that imposes a 1-year moratorium on issuance of new or amended appliance efficiency standards. The amendment will not prevent engineering or economic analyses on efficiency standards, but it will stall issuance of new or amended rules for a year. This is a limited delay in the implementation process, only until September 30, 1996, so that appliance manufacturers can work out their concerns with the process with the Department of Energy [DOE]. The manufacturers and the Department are expected to resolve differences with the methodology and assumptions in the current analytical process. A process to mitigate the affect of any retooling modifications on small manufacturers should be worked out so that any potential for anticompetitive impacts will be resolved early in future rulemakings. Consensus and voluntary efforts are not affected and should proceed. Appliance testing and labeling will continue and no limits will be imposed on the State grant program or the home energy ratings system. The Department is also expected to proceed with issuance of rules on minimum efficiency standards for federal-owned buildings as required in the Energy Policy Act. The efficiency program authorized under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act [EPCA], as amended, has been one of our Nation's most effective programs at ensuring wiser energy use. The appliance efficiency standards currently in place will save consumers over $132 billion over the life of the products. In the 100th Congress, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 was enacted establishing minimum Federal appliance standards. Additional amendments were enacted in 1988. Both bills were reported unanimously by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. These two actions amended EPCA to require and set Federal standards and preempt a patchwork of State standards. Congress established minimum Federal standards by statute to take effect between 1988 and 1993, depending on the product. DOE was required to conduct follow up rulemakings to determine whether the standards established in the statute were adequate. Under EPCA, the DOE standards rulemakings require very specific cost- benefit analyses. The criteria for prescribing new or amended standards specifically require the Secretary to determine that benefits exceed the burdens to the greatest extent practicable, considering the following: the economic impact on manufacturers and consumers; a determination of a positive net present value to the consumer of any increased price; any lessening of consumer utility or product performance; impact on competition as determined by the Attorney General; and any other factors considered relevant. Any final rule will have to address all of the above issues. In addition, none of the new standards would go into effect for 3 to 5 years after the final rule is in effect. The process followed under EPCA entails issuance of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANOPR] to solicit the necessary information to carry out cost-benefit and detailed engineering analyses of the feasibility of any proposed standard. A notice of proposed rulemaking [NOPR] is subsequently published with draft proposed standards, including the cost-benefit criteria and engineering analyses used in developing the proposal. The Department of Justice and all interested persons are asked to comment on the NOPR. EPCA requires the Secretary to hold a conference or informal procedure to allow interested parties an opportunity to question written or oral presentations of U.S. employees where facts are in dispute. DOE then drafts a proposed final rule based on the input received from the previous two rounds of public comment. DOE is attempting to work collaboratively with the industry to develop the engineering and economic models. The Congress and the public have strongly supported this program in the past and after the opportunity for the Department and industry to come to closure on certain technical issues, the program will continue without interference as Congress intended. IHS Study on Staffing Distribution

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I hope we will support the Bumpers amendment. As Senator Bumpers indicated, we worked in the last Congress very hard to get a mining law reform bill. There was a lot of good- faith work by a lot of people on both sides of the issue. But, Madam President, at no point was it ever seriously considered that we give away the public land by patenting for $2.50 an acre. The companies know better than that. They know [[Page S 11869]] that this is a giveaway program. They are not even trying for that when it comes to serious negotiations on the mining law reform bill. Madam President, if we give away the public land for $2.50 an acre, it does not pass the straight-face test. There is nobody who can stand here on the floor of this Senate and say that is seriously what we ought to do, because we all know better. The companies no better. Madam President, we have still some chance in this Congress to get a mining law reform bill. The bigger companies--I have talked to them-- really understand the dynamic. They understand, first of all, the political dynamic. They understand that the people of this country are getting a rising tide of disgust at what we are giving away with the mining law bill. The 1879 mining law bill needs reform. They know it. They are willing to do it. Frankly, it is many of the smaller companies which are not willing to join in a coalition to get a mining law reform bill. It is only a matter of time. I have counseled with those bigger companies and have told them that, in my judgment, it is in their interest to get a mining law reform bill this year. They know the general outlines of that bill. And the general outlines are you have to end patenting because the people of the country can understand this. There are many things that the people of this country cannot understand, such as complicated formulas, tax provisions, corporate provisions. Some of these laws that we put here, they cannot understand. They can understand patenting. They can understand getting the public domain at $2.50 an acre, and they know that is wrong. It is simple. It is clear. It is understandable, and it is, in the minds of the people of this country, outrageous. So I hope we will vote for the Bumpers amendment. Then I hope that we will work in the rest of this Congress to get a fair and good mining law reform bill. As I told my colleagues from the West last year as we were trying to perfect a mining law reform bill, I believe we can put together a fair mining law reform bill that does not cost one single job in the West-- not one; that does not break or bankrupt any company--not one company; but which gets for the American taxpayer, gets for Americans across this country, a fair return on what is theirs, what belongs to all Americans, that is, the public domain. So, Madam President, I hope we will support the Bumpers amendment. It is fair. If this amendment should fail to pass, and we patent for $2.50 an acre all those amounts of the public domain, it will not set well with the American public. It will not set well with the American public. And that, believe me, is something they can understand. I hope we will vote for the Bumpers amendment. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSTON. As my chairman knows, I have sent him a letter to the [[Page S 11871]] effect that I believe we could pass mining law reform based on three principles. First, an end of patenting; second, what we call a net smelt royalty of 2.5 percent; and, third, an assurance that we give away no powers that are presently held by the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the ability to regulate mines. Those three principles, as I said in my letter to the distinguished chairman from Alaska, I believe would get us a bill that would not only have strong bipartisan support, but could be signed by the President. Does the Senator acknowledge that that offer is out on the table now in effect from those of us on this side of the aisle?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Would the Senator from Alaska agree with me that the offer which I made on behalf of this side of the aisle and this administration is still on the table? That is, any time we want to get a reform of the 1879 mining law reform bill, based upon an end of patenting, 2.5 percent smelt royalty and giving away no present powers, that bill can be put together at--I will not say on a moment's notice-- but I think very quickly. I just wanted to assure my colleague that that offer is still in existence.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, S. 1026, in compliance with the Budget Resolution, requires selling the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk Hills) no later than the end of fiscal year 1996. The Administration recommended that the sale take place over at least two years to ensure enough time to finalize the equity shares, conduct an outside evaluation of the quantity of hydrocarbons in the reserve and the value to the taxpayers, and carry out a competitive bidding process. I commend Senator Bingaman for his efforts in the amendment he cosponsored with Senators mcCain and Campbell to title XXXIII of the bill to ensure that the government will receive full value for the assets when sold. The Elk Hills property currently generates net revenues to the Treasury in excess of $400 million a year. I hope the Armed Services Committee and the Senate as a whole will take a hard look during the reconciliation process at how this extremely valuable national asset is sold in order to meet near term budget goals. Amendment No. 2112

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, there is an old song that says: ``You keep coming back like a song.'' Mr. President, in spite of the end of the cold war, in spite of the fact that the Russians are dismantling their nuclear weapons and we are buying the plutonium and the enriched uranium, in spite of the fact that there is no longer a threat from intercontinental ballistic missiles to the United States, no longer targeted at this country, this same issue, this military-industrial complex that the Defense Department does not want, keeps ``coming back like a song.'' Mr. President, I have had amendments on this I guess four or five times over the past few years; more than I think $25 billion ago. And we have won it sometimes on the floor only to see it reversed by one vote or by two votes. But, Mr. President, this really at this time in our history is madness. The biggest threat to this country right now is not from Russian ICBM's and certainly not from Saddam Hussein, who is no conceivable threat to the continental United States. Rather, the real threat to the United States is from this kind of spending, which would start a new cold war, which would hurt the economy of the United States and weaken this country. If you are really worried about nuclear weapons, I can tell you where the threat would come. It is from a terrorist nuclear weapon which could be easily brought into the United States in a suitcase. Look, if they can smuggle bales of marijuana into this country easily, they can easily smuggle into this country a suitcase bomb which can be put into something the size of a briefcase. And so why are we spending billions of dollars, even going into space-based lasers? Do you know what it takes to drive a space-based laser? A nuclear bomb. That is what it takes; otherwise, they do not have enough power. That is what we are spending all this money for? What is the threat, Mr. President? It is absolute madness. It is what President Eisenhower warned against--the military industrial complex--which gets this enthusiasm, gets it going; we have jobs out there in the economy. That is what this thing is about. It is not about defending the United States. We really ought to go further than the Dorgan amendment. We ought to do away with any thought of deploying any ballistic missile defense in the continental United States. Do some research but do away with this deployment. It makes no sense today.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Just one further question. Has Senator Packwood publicly pleaded guilty in effect to the charges? Does the Senator know whether that is so?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am concerned about whether there is any issue of material fact--I do not know what the Senator can tell me about that. I know there is some privilege. But can the Senator tell me whether there is an issue of material fact which by having a hearing the Senate would be further instructed as to the different sides of that material fact?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today I would like to formally announce that I have named Sam Fowler the chief counsel for the minority on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. For several years Sam has been our counsel for the toughest issues and the person we turn to make sense of the most difficult assignments. I would like to recognize his importance to use with the title of chief counsel. Sam follows in the footsteps of Mike Harvey, who has for two decades defined the role of chief counsel on this committee. Sam is cut from that same high quality cloth as Mike. I know that the committee's tradition of excellence in service to its members will be carried forward with Sam. Sam is a graduate of the University of New Hampshire and the George Washington University Law School. He has served with the Smithsonian Institution, the Council on Environmental Quality, in private practice and with Mo Udall in the House of Representatives. Sam joined our staff in 1991. He has been invaluable, absolutely invaluable. Sam's portfolio includes nuclear facility licensing, parliamentary procedure, the budget process, uranium enrichment, Russian reactor safety, cleanup of Department of Energy nuclear weapons production sites, alternative fuels, automobile fuel efficiency, low-level nuclear waste disposal, health effects of electromagnetic fields, the National Environmental Policy Act, constitution law, nominations, Government organization, Senate and committee standing rules and ethics issues. In addition, Sam can take on anything else you can assign to him. Sam is also our resident historian, defender of Thomas Jefferson, source of quotes that elucidate the wisdom of Winston Churchill and repository or precedents established in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the English Parliament. He is a partisan of good clear prose, a lover of poetry and our committee's best legislative draftsman. I cannot imagine the Energy and Natural Resources Committee without him. I am glad to call him my chief counsel.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Very seriously, this bill should not go into tonight. The difficult things are worked out. If Senators will come down and offer these amendments, we can be gone this afternoon. And so I urge Senators not to wait until tonight. Frankly, we ought to go to third reading if Senators are not going to be here to offer their amendments.

Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. We know we have a Dorgan amendment that is ready to go.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Just on my time on that point. The Senator said that they do not allow for the use of containment. You cannot put containment over a gas-cooled reactor. It is simply that it is not necessary because the fuel density and the temperature is such that it cannot melt down. You cannot have that kind of accident where hydrogen gas accumulates and you have an explosion and you need containment.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that not correct?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Does the Senator want to yield back the balance?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am advised Senator Dorgan says his side could take 10 minutes; I suppose our side could take even less than that. I suggest 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how much time would the Senator from Arkansas want on that amendment?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Why do we not cut it to 30 or 40 minutes going into debate?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Robert Simon be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1905, the energy and water appropriations bill, and any votes thereon.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this has been worked out with the two Senators from Nevada. We support the amendment.

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at this point?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is not the $5.3 billion figure the Senator refers to the amount for the new production reactor, which was a different design, and that was wholly financed by the United States?