John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield? Will the Senator from Ohio yield? Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I imagine there are going to be a lot of amendments. This is a huge and vitally important bill where each word carries tremendous meaning and where experts are going to look at it and be able to suggest improvements. For my part I think there are a lot of improvements that can be made. There are a lot of things I would like to change. For example, we have a $50 million threshold for rules. I think it ought to be higher. That was a matter of compromise. And I hope we can discuss that seriously before we get to the floor or at least on the floor. So the Senator is correct, it is open for serious negotiations before we file it, and after it is filed of course it is open for amendment. And I hope we will do it in a very bipartisan way and expect we will.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his statement. I thank him especially for the attitude of cooperation in the drafting of this ``discussion draft'' because the leader did not come in as a man with 56 votes in his pocket, the majority of votes, and do it his way; but rather, the input which I have had from this side of the aisle I tried to faithfully follow, and tried to compromise. Not everything went our way, and not everything went the Senator's way. I really believe this is an excellent bill that I can enthusiastically support, and I hope my colleagues can improve, significantly, or in whatever ways they choose. I think we have a draft that is going to attract some wide bipartisan support. I certainly hope so. From my part, I solicit and welcome any suggestions which I will faithfully try to negotiate to improve the bill, if any such suggestions are made.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct. But more than that, we solicit these comments in advance of filing the bill. That is an easier time and place to get this done.

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is this the identical amendment which was passed out of the Energy Committee after a great deal of hearings and work last year, I believe it was 14 to 5?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize two elementary schools from Shreveport, LA, that placed in the top five in the 1994-95 Set a Good Example Contest sponsored by the Concerned Businessmen's Association of America. Westwood Elementary School placed first and Lakeshore Elementary School placed fifth in this competition, which is based on the idea that teaching children common sense values and encouraging them to serve as role models for their peers is a workable solution for preventing juvenile crime, drug abuse, illiteracy, and delinquency. More than 7,500 schools and close to 7 million students have participated in this innovative and visionary program since its creation in 1984. The Set a Good Example Contest is unique because students design their own program to improve their school environment. The students at Westwood Elementary chose the theme ``Westwood Respects All,'' and decided to strive for a 95-percent improvement in discipline and behavior schoolwide. Lakeshore Elementary students decided on the concept ``Tell the Truth,'' and also emphasized stopping violence both in school and at home. The children from these two Louisiana schools organized several impressive activities to educate themselves and others on the dangers of gangs, drugs, and violence. The initiative and creativity they showed in organizing food drives, encouraging recycling, decorating their schools with antidrug and antiviolence slogans, and improving the environment are worthy of our admiration and commendation. I am pleased and proud to acknowledge this fine accomplishment by the Westwood and Lakeshore schools. These students, who will be the leaders of tomorrow, have shown dedication to bettering themselves and their environment. If this type of involvement is any indication of the way America's youth will address issues in the future, then we should not worry, for we are headed in the right direction. The bold stand against violence and the endorsement of positive values like honesty and discipline by these students should service as an outstanding example and inspiration for their peers. I salute the students and faculty of the Westwood and Lakeshore elementary schools and hope that the youth of our Nation will follow in your footsteps.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, earlier this spring the Department of Energy released a report on the estimated cost of cleaning up the Department's nuclear weapons complex. The report provides the first realistic assessment of the cost of the cleanup program since it began in 1989. The results of this assessment are sobering. The Department concluded that it would cost anywhere between $175 billion and half a trillion dollars to clean up these sites, depending on the baseline case would cost $230 billion over the next 75 years. Even these figures exclude the cost of cleaning up problems for which no feasible cleanup technology exists, the $23 billion we have already spent, and the $50 to $75 million per year we will spend monitoring and maintaining them after 2070. The Department's report follows on the heels of the Blush report on the Department of Energy's efforts to cleanup the Hanford Reservation. Last fall, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources commissioned Steve Blush, a former director of the Department of Energy's nuclear safety office, to evaluate the Hanford cleanup. The committee asked Mr. Blush to focus on Hanford because it is the largest of the Department's weapons sites and it poses some of the most intractable cleanup problems. Hanford now receives about one quarter of the $6 billion we spend on this program each year. We have already spent $7.5 billion on the Hanford cleanup and are currently spending $1.5 billion per year. Mr. Blush found that the Hanford cleanup is ``floundering in a legal and regulatory morass.'' His report describes regulatory requirements that are: unworkable, disjunctive, lack scientific and technical merit, undermine any sense of accountability for taxpayer dollars, and most importantly, are having an overall negative effect on worker and public health and safety. The Blush report gives no aid or comfort to those who think all our problems can be solved by abolishing the Department of Energy. The report makes it clear that the responsibility for creating and perpetuating this unworkable system lies with us, the Congress. We have given the Department of Energy an impossible task. We have told it to meet standards that cannot be attained, to use technologies that do not exist, to meet deadlines that cannot be achieved, to employ workers that are not needed, and to do it all with less money than it requested. To make matters worse, the law now provides for criminal penalties, including jail time, for senior Department officials if they fail to do the impossible. Mr. President, the Hanford cleanup cannot continue on its present course. The administration has already proposed a $4.4 billion reduction in the overall cleanup program over the next 5 years, over a billion of which is likely to come out of the Hanford cleanup. Lower funding will result in deadlines being missed, which will result in the Department being fined. Fines will have to be paid out of cleanup funds, which will result in more deadlines being missed and more fines being levied. Moreover, senior officials will be forced to leave their posts rather than face criminal sanctions. If the cleanup program is not reformed, it will, in time, collapse of its own weight to the detriment of all concerned. The only question is how much money will have been wasted before that happens. The problems besetting the Hanford cleanup cannot be fixed by the Department itself or by Congress through the appropriations process. The Blush report makes clear that ``Congress must fundamentally change the underlying legal and regulatory framework.* * *'' What is needed is ``legislation that redefines the regulatory framework and establishes fiscal responsibility, a more realistic timeframe, better standards, and a more clearly defined mission for the cleanup.'' Accordingly, Mr. President, Senator Murkowski and I are today introducing a bill to establish a comprehensive program to clean up the Hanford site. The bill requires the Department of Energy to prepare a comprehensive environmental management plan for Hanford. The plan is to include a future land-use plan for the 560-square-mile site, an assessment of the risks posed by conditions at the site, and new programs for managing radioactive and hazardous substances and cleaning up environmental contamination at the site. While the reforms made by this bill are necessary, they are not sufficient. Additional legislation will be needed to address conflicts between the new cleanup requirements and the existing jumble of environmental laws, regulations, and agreements that now govern Hanford. In addition, legislation is urgently needed to fix the problem of fines and criminal liability. Senator Murkowski and I will also offer an amendment to the bill to address those matters. The bill we are introducing today focuses solely on Hanford. That was the site the Blush report examined and, therefore, the site we know most about. Many of the problems at Hanford are systemic to the entire weapons complex. Many of the reforms we are proposing for Hanford can, and probably should be, extended to other sites. My hope is that Hanford might serve as a pilot for the rest of the complex. Rumors about this bill have already excited considerable fear, consternation, and resentment in the Hanford community. Some of the conditions at Hanford pose serious health and safety risks that the public has every right to have remedied. In addition, the cleanup program is extremely important to the area's economy. A local paper has described the cleanup as bringing a ``river of money'' into the community. Understandably, residents do not want to see the flow diminished. I want to assure the people of the Northwest and their able representatives in this body that my purpose in offering this bill is to create a program that works, that is sustainable within the Department of Energy's shrinking budget, that adequately protects the public health and safety and the environment, and that is scientifically sound and achievable. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce, along with several of my colleagues, the Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. I am particularly pleased to have as the lead cosponsor Senator Faircloth, the chairman of the subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee that has jurisdiction over wetlands. Our bill will reform the section 404 ``wetlands'' permitting program under the Clean Water Act by introducing balance, common sense, and reason to a Federal program that is causing unnecessary problems for my constituents--and I believe for many of our citizens around the Nation. In the closing days of the last Congress, I introduced a wetlands bill, S. 2506, so that my colleagues and other interested persons could review the legislation and recommend improvements prior to reintroduction in the 104th Congress. I appreciate the efforts of those who took the time over the last few months to provide suggestions, many of which are reflected in the current bill. Mr. President, the current section 404 regulatory program has been designed less by the elected representatives of the people than by officials of the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency and by Federal judges. In 1972, the Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 404 of that Act prohibited ``discharges of dredged or fill material'' into ``waters of the United States;'' without a permit from the Secretary of the Army. At the time of passage, ``waters of the United States'' was thought to be limited to the navigable waters of the Nation. From this narrow beginning has come a rigid regulatory program that is devaluing property and preventing the construction of housing, the extension of airport runways, the construction of roads--often on lands that rarely, if ever, have water on the surface but which, nevertheless, are viewed as ``wetlands'' within the definition of ``waters of the United States''. And I might add, Mr. President, that 75 percent of the land that is being regulated through the Section 404 program as ``wetlands'' or ``waters of the United States'' is privately-owned property. I do not believe that we, in Congress, intended for the Section 404 program to become a rigid, broad Federal land use program that affects primarily privately-owned property. Yet, the evidence is clear to me that the Section 404 program has become just that. Therefore, Mr. President, I believe that the time has come for the Congress to reform this program to focus Federal regulatory authority on those wetlands that are truly important functioning wetlands, to ensure that our citizens can obtain permits through a reasonable process within a reasonable period of time, and to ensure that this program is not denying people the use of their property unless there is an overriding reason to do so. Mr. President, the Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 proposes several key changes to the current 404 program: First, the bill provides a statutory definition of a jurisdictional wetland. This is, of course, the crucial threshold question: what wetlands are subject to Federal regulation? And yet, one can read the entire Clean Water Act without finding the answer to this question. Instead, the answer currently lies only in a manual prepared by the Corps of Engineers in 1987. I think it is high time that Congress make an explicit judgment on this matter and set forth a definition in the statute itself. The definition in our bill is essentially this: there must be water on or above the surface of the ground for at least 21 consecutive days during the growing season. This is virtually the same as the definition in H.R. 961, which passed the House last week. During the debate in the House, it was claimed by opponent of the bill that this definition excludes a huge portion of the wetlands that are currently regulated. However, the claims varied widely, and did not appear to be based on solid evidence. Although I think that these claims are exaggerated I want to make sure that our definition does not exclude wetlands that are truly important. Therefore, I intend to write to the Clinton administration to ask them to provide the best evidence available regarding the effect of our definition on the amount and nature of wetland regulated, both nationwide and in Louisiana. Second, this legislation will require that Federal jurisdictional wetlands be classified into three categories: high, medium, and low valued wetlands, based on the relative wetlands functions present. Today, the Section 404 program regulates all wetlands equally rigidly, whether the wetland is a pristine, high-value wetland, a wet spot in a field, or a ``wetland'' in the middle of an industrial area. This treatment of wetlands defies logic and common sense. My legislation will require the Corps of Engineers to classify wetlands based on their functions, and then regulate them accordingly. Class A, high-value, wetlands will be regulated under the current ``sequencing'' methodology, which first seeks to avoid adverse effects on wetlands, then attempts to minimize those adverse effects that cannot be avoided, and finally calls for mitigation of any adverse effects that cannot be avoided or minimized. Class B, medium-value, wetlands will be regulated under a balancing test, which does not require the avoidance step. Finally, Class C, low-value, wetlands will not be regulated by the Federal Government, but may be regulated by the State if they so choose. Third, this legislation removes the dual agency implementation of this program, an aspect of the program that is particularly confusing and troublesome to our constituents. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers issues Section 404 permits, but the Environmental Protection Agency may veto the decision of the Corps to issue the permit. Although EPA actually exercises its veto power infrequently, I understand that veto is threatened often, causing undue delays and repeated multi-agency consultations. My legislation removes the EPA veto, and instead simply requires the Corps to consult with EPA before acting. Similarly, current law allows the EPA to veto permit decisions made by State that have assumed responsibility for the section 404 program. Our bill makes two changes to this regime. First, the Corps, instead of the EPA, becomes responsible for overseeing States that have assumed responsibility for the program. This is done in order to consolidate responsibility in a single Federal agency. Second, the bill deletes the veto authority as an unnecessary interference with State administration of the program. If the Corps determines that the State is not implementing the program appropriately, the Corps has the authority, which my bill does not change, to withdraw approval of the State program and return the program to Federal hands. But as long as the State is in charge, its individual permit decisions should not be subject to veto from Washington. Fourth, mitigation banking is authorized and encouraged by the bill as a sound means to return wetlands functions to the environment. There are a number of mitigation banking projects now around the Nation. The experience with these projects is proving that mitigation banking holds great promise as a means of restoring, enhancing, reclaiming, and even creating wetlands to offset the wetlands disturbances that are permitted under the section 404 program. Mitigation banking is the type of market driven mechanism that I believe we must incorporate in our national environmental laws if we are to achieve our national environmental goals. Finally, this legislation will require that steps be taken to provide notice to our citizens regarding the location of Federal jurisdictional wetlands. Remarkably, Mr. President, the Federal Government is regulating over 100 million acres of land, over 75 million acres of which is privately owned, yet there are no maps posted to inform citizens about the location of these lands. Perhaps this would not be a problem if [[Page S7499]] Federal jurisdictional wetlands were only swamps, marshes, bogs, and other such areas that are wet at the surface for a significant portion of the year, and therefore relatively easy for our citizens to identify. But land that is dry at the surface all year long can also be a Federal jurisdictional wetland. Without maps and other notices, only the most highly trained technicians among our citizens can identify the subtle differences between lands that are not subject to the section 404 program and those that are. Thus, many people have bought land for home sites, only to find out later that they have bought a Federal jurisdictional wetland and cannot obtain a permit to build their house. We owe our citizens better than that. My legislation will require the Corps of Engineers to immediately post notices about the section 404 program near the property records in the courthouses around the Nation, and to post maps of Federal jurisdictional wetlands as those maps become available, including the National Wetlands Inventory maps that are being developed by the National Biological Survey. Mr. President, there are many other improvements of the current program in my legislation, including time limits on the issuance of section 404 permits, an administrative appeal process, and the designation of the Secretary of Agriculture to delineate wetlands on agricultural lands. As I mentioned, our bill has virtually the same definition of wetland as the House-passed clean water bill, H.R. 961. Although there are several other comparable provisions in the two bills, our legislation varies from the House-passed bill in at least one important respect. Our legislation does not provide a mechanism for obtaining compensation from the Federal Government when private property is taken through the operation of the 404 program. I believe that the impact of the section 404 program on private property rights is a very important issue. However, I also believe that compensation is an extraordinarily complex and controversial issue that overarches all environmental regulations, not just those relating to wetlands. Thus, rather than attempting to resolve the compensation issue in this bill, we have chosen to include provisions in the legislation that will help ensure that the Section 404 Program does not result in takings of private property in the first place. Therefore, in addition to the many provisions of the bill that will make the wetlands program more balanced and rational, it also directs Federal officials to implement the program in a manner that minimizes the adverse effects on the use and value of privately-owned property. I would be remiss if I did not comment on the recently-issued study of wetlands by the National Academy of Sciences. The report reaches several conclusions that are reflected in this legislation. Specifically, it recommends the consolidation of all wetlands regulatory functions into a single Federal agency, a change that is central to our legislation. It also recommends that regional variations in wetlands be taken into account, which our bill does. Some have suggested that the NAS study recommends against a classification scheme such as is included in our bill, but I do not read it that way. The report states that: Some groups have suggested the creation of a national scheme that would designate wetlands of high, medium, or low value based on some general guidelines involving size, location, or some other factor that does not require field evaluation. It is not possible, however, to relate such categories in a reliable way to objective measures of wetlands functions, in part because the relationships between categories and functions are variable and in part because we still have insufficient knowledge of wetlands functions. (Emphasis added.) I read the report to warn against nationwide classification schemes that do not take into account site-specific considerations, a point on which I heartily agree. That is why our classification process is initiated only in connection with the consideration of a permit application or upon a request for classification of a specific piece of property. The particular piece of property is classified after considering site-specific factors, such as the significance of the wetland ``to the long-term conservation of the aquatic system of which the wetland is a part,'' and the ``scarcity of functioning wetlands within the watershed or aquatic system.'' Thus, I do not see an inconsistency between the NAS report and our bill with respect to classification. Even if the NAS study could be interpreted as expressing concern about any classification scheme for wetlands, I would suggest that those concerns should not be dispositive. Scientists and lawmakers necessarily approach matters differently. Scientists are in the business of achieving a more perfect state of knowledge, while lawmakers are in the business of drawing regulatory lines and allocating societal resources based on the information available. While a scientist might prefer to wait for more information before distinguishing among wetlands, Congress cannot wait because the present regulatory scheme, which makes no distinctions among wetlands, is so clearly ineffective at balancing wetlands protection against other policy considerations. Mr. President, reforming the wetlands regulatory program will be one of my highest priorities in this Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues and others in an effort to make the program work both for the environment and for our constituents.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Johnston amendment takes the $170 billion fund which is reserved exclusively for tax cuts and permits such part of that as the Senate wishes to allocate to reduce the cuts in Medicare. Under the Domenici proposal now before the Senate, there is $257 billion cut from Medicare in the amounts shown in each of these years. What I would do is authorize that the $170 billion be restored in the manner shown here so that net cuts in Medicare would amount to only one-third of those proposed by Senator Domenici. There would be no cuts at all in the first 2 years and a minimal cut in the third year, and overall there would be less than a third the cuts which are presently proposed. Mr. President, this amendment places in stark contrast the fact that Medicare cuts are not required in order to balance the budget. At least two-thirds of those cuts are not required to balance the budget. Two- thirds of the Medicare cuts proposed by Senator Domenici and now backed by the Senate are required to lower taxes, and to lower taxes on the wealthy, not required to balance the budget. Mr. President, this does not require that we spend the money to reduce Medicare cuts, but it authorizes that. And I will tell my colleagues that we have not the foggiest notion how we are going to achieve those Medicare cuts. We have not been told. We are told there might be a commission appointed. What I am saying is the Senate ought to have the freedom to decide whether or not, after this budget resolution passes, and after we make that $170 billion in savings, we ought to have the freedom to spend that $170 billion to reduce the impact of Medicare cuts on our senior citizens. All the public opinion polls say 80 percent of the people of this country are opposed to these deep Medicare cuts. Now, why does the Senate want to lock itself into reducing Medicare by that much when all we have to do is give ourselves the freedom to take the tax cut for the wealthy and spend it to reduce the Medicare cuts?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on Wednesday, May 31, 1995, Dr. Bruce Flint, the vice chancellor emeritus and retired director of the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, will be honored by his peers and colleagues at LSU and throughout the State of Louisiana. After achieving a degree in agricultural economics from LSU, Dr. Flint, who grew up on a farm in northeastern Louisiana, served 4 years in the U.S. Army before accepting his first extension position--as an assistant county agent in Union Parish--in 1956. Through the years, he served as an associate county agent, district program specialist, associate specialist for training and staff development, extension education specialist, division leader and State agent for personnel and programs. Along the way, he also obtained his masters degree in extension education from LSU and his doctoral degree in cooperative extension administration from the University of Wisconsin. In 1980, Dr. Flint was named assistant director of the extension service with responsibilities for personnel, business, and fiscal affairs of the organization, and in 1984, he was promoted to associate director. In mid-1988, he assumed leadership for the agricultural center's administrative services as its director, and in mid-1989, he was appointed as vice chancellor for administration and director of administrative services. Finally, in 1993, Dr. Flint returned to extension as vice chancellor and director of the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service--the position he held until his retirement on April 30, 1995. On April 21, 1995, the LSU Board of Supervisors named him Vice Chancellor Emeritus Bruce Flint in recognition of his remarkable career with the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service and the LSU Agricultural Center. That recognition capped a 39-year career during which Dr. Flint received a variety of honors, served on countless boards and committees, and was a member of several honor societies. Among those, he was a member of Epsilon Sigma Phi, Gamma Sigma Delta, the Adult Education Association, the Commission of Professors of Adult Education, and the American Legion. He also served as chairman of the LSU Continuing Education Council, the Midsouth Region Extension Workers Committee on Program Development and Management Information Services and a Louisiana Board of Regents task force studying statewide programs in agricultural research and public service--extension--as well as academic programs in agriculture, human ecology, forestry, wildlife, and fisheries. Mr. President, it is easy to ascertain that Bruce Flint not only possesses a remarkable mind and intellect, but has accomplished an unparalleled career. My hope is that others in Louisiana, and throughout America will model themselves after Dr. Flint's approach and commitment to both work and involvement within the community. Dr. Bruce Flint is a true asset to higher education, conservation programs, his family, and the community. He will be missed by his colleagues and peers and by all of Louisiana.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this month the United States is privileged to welcome Her Majesty Queen Sirikit of Thailand. She is here as an honored guest. On May 25 Queen Sirikit will be awarded the degree of Doctor of Humane Letters by the Johns Hopkins University. On Tuesday, May 16, Queen Sirikit became the first woman ever to receive the prestigious Lindbergh Award. In the words of the Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation, Her Majesty was honored for her ``educational and humanitarian efforts, her conservation and wildlife preservation work, and programs which are maintaining the Thai heritage and culture.'' The description does not begin to do justice to Queen Sirikit's 45- year effort to care for the people of her country, to improve their health and living standards, and to preserve their environmental and cultural heritage. She has given generously of her time and energy to traditional humanitarian causes. She has served as honorary president of the Council of Social Welfare of Thailand, an organization of 150 public and private social work agencies. In her capacity as president of the Thai Red Cross, a position she has held since 1956, she established shelters for refugees from the war in Cambodia. But her particular genius, and I do not use that word lightly, the accomplishment for which the queen has been honored by the United Nations and for which she was awarded the first International Humanitarian Award by the Friends of the Capital Children's Museum in 1992, has been in finding ways to preserve traditional Thai culture and ecology while simultaneously making life easier for impoverished farmers and hill tribes. Her deep concern for the welfare of the Thai people is matched by her knowledge of their needs. Her husband, His Majesty King Shumibol Adulyadej, has made it his admirable policy to ``visit the people'', spending more than half of each year traveling around Thailand, often to remote areas accessible only by helicopter or jeep. Accompanying him on his trips, the queen witnessed at first hand the hardships of rural life, the damage to forests, wildlife and water supplies caused by primitive farming practices and the threat posed by modernization to traditional Thai arts and crafts. It was her inspiration to, in effect, capitalize culture, to train farm families in producing handicrafts which could be sold to bring in regular income. Since 1978, Queen Sirikit's SUPPORT Foundation has trained 30,000 such families in crafts ranging from ceramics to silk-weaving to bamboo basketry. In 1982, the Queen initiated the Forest-Loves-Water project, to demonstrate that SUPPORT handicrafts projects could encourage reforestation. At Ban Mae Tam village, the rich teak forests once threatened by illegal logging are being replaced. Villagers able to earn a living from cottage industries do not need to rely on tree- cutting or slash-and-burn farming for subsistence. Under her gentle leadership, through encouragement and practical training, solutions are being found to pressing environmental problems. Queen Sirikit's likeness is on the Cares Medal awarded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. This is an honor reserved for women who by their lives and their work have helped to lift the status of women. It is a beautiful medal, reflecting the beauty of spirit of its model, a woman whose motto has always been ``To give without discrimination.'' It is always a pleasure to welcome Her Majesty to the United States, and to tell her how much we admire her efforts on behalf of the Thai people.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I send an amendment to the desk, which is a second-degree amendment to this existing amendment. This amendment states in its entirety as follows: Congress declares that-- (1) the circumstances that justify authorization by Congress of the sale of hydroelectric projects under section 102 are unique to those projects and do not pertain to other hydroelectric projects or to the power marketing administrations of the 48 contiguous States; and (2) accordingly, the enactment of section 102 should not be understood as lending any support to any proposal to sell any other hydroelectric project or the power marketing administrations.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Amendment No. 1102

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Alaska, on his good work on the Alaska North Slope bill, the underlying bill. It is an excellent bill. It will give much more efficiency to our production and sale of crude oil, and I think that it is definitely in the interest of the United States. Now that we have the merchant marine problem worked out, I think it will be in the interest of everyone and I urge all Senators to adopt the underlying bill. I thank the Senator for his help on this deep water bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, gross oil imports to the United States today are over 50 percent, and they are scheduled to be over 60 percent by the year 2010. For this reason, in February of this year, President Clinton announced the President's finding that the Nation's growing reliance on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products threaten the Nation's security because of the increased vulnerability of U.S. oil supply disruptions. This being the problem, how do we solve it at a time of growing deficits, at a time of money shortage, at a time when we have no money to apply to any kind of energy technology? The way we do it, Mr. President, is by this amendment, which provides that with respect to existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico in over 200 meters of water, where the development expenses are very, very great and where wells otherwise would not be drilled unless given some incentive, there be a discretionary incentive given for both existing leases and new leases according to a carefully worked out formula, worked out with the Department of the Interior. Mr. President, when I say it is discretionary, it is discretionary in that the Secretary of the Interior must analyze all of these leases and with respect to any lease which he determines would otherwise be drilled, there is no incentive given, there is no royalty holiday given. It is only with respect to those leases that would not otherwise be drilled, either existing or future leases, that this amendment would provide that incentive. So it is for this reason this amendment has been scored as costing zero by CBO and, as a matter of fact, it would make money for the American taxpayer and for the budget because, obviously, if you have a lease that otherwise would not be drilled, which is drilled, it has positive economic impact from the salaries paid to the workers by the oil company to drill the well, and if oil is found, then there is royalty to be paid even with the royalty holiday because the royalty holiday is not complete. This was worked out last year with the Secretary of the Interior. It took us a long time to work out the formulas, the amount of the incentive. The Secretary of the Interior wanted the amount of the incentive to be sufficient but not too much. That took a lot of negotiating. The whole matter of negotiation took a long period of time. After working it out last year, we introduced the legislation this year as S. 158. The administration has testified on this in an affirmative way. It is a piece of legislation that is going to make money for the Treasury and is going to help our energy balance. According to the Department of the Interior, it should bring on at least two new fields with approximately 150 million barrels of oil equivalent from existing leases and it significantly improves the economics of 10 to 12 possible and probable fields. As we know, Mr. President, the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico has been the United States' most promising region for new discoveries. In 1993, 98 percent of new crude oilfields and 76 percent of new gasfields discovered in the United States were in the Gulf of Mexico. So, Mr. President, this is a way to offset that $46 billion of deficits which is attributable to net energy imports. It is 40 percent of the total U.S. merchandise deficit of $116 billion. For this reason, Mr. President, I think this is an excellent amendment backed by the administration which will help our energy balance a great deal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Bob Armstrong, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, backing this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Breaux be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be added as a cosponsor to this amendment, and that David Applegate, a fellow of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be given privileges of the floor during pendency of this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Modification of Amendment No. 1105