John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. JOHNSTON

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, in my judgment, there have been a number of premature pronouncements about the outcome of the President's trips to Moscow and Kiev that I believe are one-sided and unfair. Many important achievements have been overlooked and ignored, and important foundations have been laid for success on more contentious issues in the future. It is far too early to know what the ultimate outcome will be on the very contentious issue of the proposed Russian sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. The President began the process of engaging the Russians seriously on the serious global security implications of such a sale by sharing information with the Russians which they will not assess and debate. The Russians have not closed the door to reconsideration of this issue; the President kept it open through persuasive argument which we hope, when fully evaluated by the Russian side, will lead to the Russians decided to cancel this sale. Lost in the coverage of the reactor sale was an important victory in the resolution of a number of outstanding issues regarding Russia's closing down arms sales to Iran. The Vice President and Chernomyrdnin will draw up the final agreement on this very important issue, which will permit Russia to join in with other States as a founding member of the post-COCOM regime. Key sticking points on biological weapons cooperation, notably the Russian agreement to begin visits to biological weapons factories on August 1, 1995, were resolved and the United States and Russia also issued a joint statement on principles on theater missile defense systems and their relationship to the ABM Treaty. Yeltsin also reaffirmed strong support for START II ratification. In large part because of the President's personal effort, Russia recommitted herself to being part of the evolving European security landscape. Yeltsin agreed to drop his opposition to moving forward with Russia's Partnership for Peace Membership and agreed to proceed with implementation of its program before the end of this month. Yeltsin also indicated agreement with plans to launch an expanded Russia-NATO dialog at the May NAC. These are all significant developments, developments which will give us a more secure and more peaceful world. My own view is that the President's decision not just to visit Moscow but underscores the policy of the United States of supporting all the newly independent States, not just Russia. Fortunately, we have excellent relations with Ukraine now, and because of the groundwork that President Clinton and his delegation laid we can expect to see expanded trade, investment, and commercial relations in the future. None of these changes happen overnight, and they will never occur unless a strong and positive foundation is carefully laid. President Clinton's visit laid just such a foundation. In addition, President Clinton and President Kuchma entered into an excellent exchange of views on how the United States and Ukraine can cooperate to shape a stable, undivided Europe in the future. As many have reflected on the events in Europe 50 years ago, I believe we all know and understand how critically important this is to world peace and to a peaceful future for the United States. I applaud President Clinton for undertaking this trip at this time. He has reached out to the people of Russia and to the people of Ukraine at a critical time in the evolution of their political systems, and I believe through his visits with political leaders from throughout the Russian political spectrum and with students at Moscow University spoke up clearly, firmly, and loudly for democracy, free elections, and reform. Fifty years ago, it would have been unthinkable for an American President to travel to Moscow, speak to students about democracy, free elections, economic and political reform, and have that message broadcast throughout Russia by Russian radio. This unthinkable event happened earlier this week. I am confident that this message was not lost on the Russian people, and I hope it will not be lost here, for I believe this shows concretely how far our relationship has evolved and how much each step we have taken has meant in the long run toward real and meaningful change. I believe the steps President Clinton took in Moscow and Kiev will result in more permanent, lasting changes in the future, and I congratulate him for tackling the many difficult and daunting problems which he took on straightforwardly. Ultimately, I believe the record will reflect that significant progress was achieved in many areas because of the foundation which President Clinton laid this week. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, over 90 years ago, a small poverty ridden community of Choctaw Indians who lived in the area around Jena, LA, walked for 9 months from their homes to Muskogee, OK, to testify before the Dawes Commission. Although that commission determined that the Jena Band were full-blooded native American Indians, entitled to land and services, lands were not yet ready for allotment. Consequently, the Jena Band returned to Louisiana empty-handed. Soon thereafter they were told by letter that they could claim such lands and benefits--but only if they returned to Oklahoma within 4\1/2\ months. This was impossible for them, they did not return, and therefore received no land or benefits to which they were rightfully entitled. This story of promised benefits, land, and services has been repeated throughout the last 90 years. Each time the Jena Band has come close to receiving the recognition they deserve, some additional obstacle has been thrown in their way. Yet, despite this long history of broken promises and neglect the Jena have maintained their identity, their dignity, and their hope that the Federal Government will at long last live up to the commitments made to them so long ago in Muskogee. On May 18, 1995, the Jena Band will finally celebrate the arrival of justice as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior, Ada Deer, signs the documents establishing a government-to-government relationship between the United States of America and the Jena Band of the Choctaw. Mr. President, I have known the Jena through their chief, Jerry Jackson, as we have struggled together for many years to gain their rightful recognition. The Jena are proud of there heritage and of their community. I look forward to seeing the strengthening of their tribe and their cooperation with the surrounding communities in the years to come, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this long- awaited event.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I intend to offer my thoughts on House Concurrent Resolution 53, but before doing so, I would like to know if my colleague from Alaska might engage in a colloquy on a particular point about this resolution on which we would agree: that it is important to maintain a productive relationship with the People's Republic of China.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator from Alaska for that clarification. As I know my colleague is aware, diplomacy is often a gray area, and I believe there can be honest disagreements over when an action crosses a sometimes arbitrary line. On this particular issue, the Senator from Alaska and I might disagree over where that line is drawn. From this colloquy I think we agree that it is in the interests of the United States to maintain the fundamental United States-People's Republic of China relationship.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Mr. President, even with this important clarification, I remain extremely concerned about how actions such as this, no matter how harmless they may appear, could impact the United States relationship with the People's Republic of China. For almost 15 years, the United States has remained committed to a one-China policy that includes only unofficial recognition of Taiwan. This commitment is backed up by several joint communiques issued by the United States and the People's Republic of China and by the Taiwan Relations Act. I am concerned about the ambiguities and confusion a visit by President Lee to the United States could raise in the eyes of the People's Republic of China. Although this visit would be a private one, Mr. Lee is the President of Taiwan, he would be staying on American soil in an official capacity, and the United States does have a commitment to the People's Republic of China to maintain only unofficial relations with Taiwan. I hesitate to muddy the waters and compromise our carefully crafted, delicate relations with the People's Republic of China by initiating vague policies of recognition of Taiwan's leaders, whether such visits are private or not. The People's Republic of China is entering a period of transition. Deng Xiaoping is over 90, and it is unclear who will succeed him as head of the Chinese Government. Now is not the time to look as if we were altering the United States steadfast commitment to a one-China policy. Should this resolution pass, as I expect it will, I urge the State Department not to follow this nonbinding resolution and not to issue a visa to Mr. Lee. I have the greatest respect for President Lee and this is in no way meant to be a personal affront to him. I have seen relations between the United States and Taiwan grow and improve and I have seen Taiwan take great strides toward democracy. In fact, this administration completed a comprehensive review of our policy with Taiwan last year and implemented a number of appropriate steps to further improve our relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan has held free and fair elections for some offices, and I hope this trend of expanding free and fair elections will continue in the near future, including for the office of the Presidency. I hope the United States will continue to maintain its ties with Taiwan, but these ties must remain unofficial. Mr. President, this is a very, very critical time for China, the largest nation in the world upon which the stability of all of Asia and, some would say, the stability of all of the world depends. Deng Xiaoping, their leader, is transitioning out. New leaders are coming in. Therefore, it is very important that the United States not do anything to upset what is one of the most important pillars of our relationship with them, which is a one-China policy. Now the question is, Does this violate the one-China policy? The Secretary of State testified before the Budget Committee in February that the United States has committed itself to the concept of one China and to having an unofficial relationship with Taiwan. He also stated that if the President of Taiwan ``is wanting to transit to the United States when he is going someplace else, that would be acceptable under the new arrangements. But it is regarded as being inconsistent with the unofficial character of our relationships with Taiwan for the President to visit here in what would be, in effect, an official capacity.'' It is my hope that, should this resolution be enacted by the Congress, the administration will continue to hold to this policy and will not issue the travel visa to President Lee. As I said earlier, while I have the greatest respect for the President and people of Taiwan, and commend them on the significant progress they have made toward democracy, the United States Congress should not alter over 15 years of United States foreign policy with a single resolution. Our current foreign policy toward China and Taiwan brings maximum benefit to the United States; we have official diplomatic ties with with Taipei. We should not change a policy that continues to serve U.S. interests so well. Our Secretary of State believes this does violence to the one-China policy. I, therefore, would urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution, and I urge the Secretary of State not to issue the visa called for by this resolution. I stand second to no one in my affection and regard for Taiwan. But the way to show our regard and affection for Taiwan and President Lee is not by departing, however ambiguously, from the one-China policy. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I wonder if it is the Senator's intent by this resolution to begin a two China policy, that is to violate the terms of the agreement the United States made with the People's Republic of China in 1979 to recognize the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China? As my colleague knows, since signing that agreement, the United States has maintained only unofficial relations with Taiwan, keeping commercial, cultural, and other relations without official Government representation and without diplomatic relations.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues, Senator Gorton and Senator Shelby, in introducing the Endangered Species Act Reform Amendments of 1995. This is the first step in reforming and reauthorizing a law that, although well- intentioned, has proven to be unworkable and unnecessarily burdensome. Our purpose is to address the very real shortcomings of the law while maintaining our Nation's commitment to the vitality of our living natural resources. Mr. President, Louisiana has plenty of experience with the Endangered Species Act. Its provisions have been applied with respect to the Louisiana black bear, the red cockaded woodpecker, and several species of sea turtles. My experience is that the act sometimes requires private parties to take extraordinary and unreasonable actions, such as the overly burdensome measures that are imposed on the shrimping industry with respect to the sea turtle. The result is that the act has become enormously unpopular with large groups of our citizens, particularly in the West and Southeast, which the Act has been applied most frequently. Since I entered the Senate in 1972, I have witnessed the evolution of the Endangered Species Act from a noncontroversial bill that passed the Senate by voice vote in 1973 to our most restrictive and controversial environmental law. I particularly remember the prolonged controversy that arose when a creature known as a snail darter was discovered late in the construction of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee. As some of my colleagues may recall, that led to the Supreme Court's decision in TVA versus Hill, which held that the Endangered Species Act is supreme to all other Federal, State, and local law. Congress then created the so- called ``God Committee'' to resolve conflicts between the act and other national goals, but this mechanism has proved to be almost entirely unworkable. Ironically, the only good news is that the snail darter has been found in many others rivers since the battle over the Tellico Dam. The time has come to thoroughly reexamine the act and its implementation. The act has been due for reauthorization since 1993, and we should delay no further. I intend to do everything I can to enact legislation in 1995, and I believe that it is vitally important that the debate be conducted on a solidly bipartisan basis. Although I have no doubt that there is room for improvement in the bill, I think it is a sound starting point for that debate. As we begin the process of reforming this enormously complex law, we should be guided by certain principles that I believe we all share. Secretary Babbitt did an admirable job of articulating a set of principles in his March 6 publication, ``Protecting America's Living Heritage: a Fair, Cooperative, and Scientifically Sound Approach to Improving the Endangered Species Act.'' Those 10 principles are: First, Base ESA decisions on sound and objective science; second, minimize social and economic impacts; third, provide quick, responsive answers and certainty to landowners; fourth, treat landowners fairly and with consideration; fifth, create incentives for landowners to conserve species; sixth, make effective use of limited public and private resources by focusing on groups of species dependent on the same habitat; seventh, prevent species from beginning endangered or threatened; eighth, promptly recover the delist threatened and endangered species; ninth, promote efficiency and consistency; and last, provide State, tribal, and local governments with opportunities to play a greater role in carrying out the ESA. I believe that our bill reflects these principles. However, I understand that the devil is in the details, and am quite open to suggested modifications that will better achieve these principles. Although I will not attempt to summarize the entire bill, there are several provisions that should be emphasized. First, the bill requires that the decision to list a species be based solely on sound science, and that the science be independently peer-reviewed. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as the case may be, appoints a three-person peer review panel from among qualified persons recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. As my colleagues know, the promotion of sound science is a high priority of mine, and there is no place where science is more important than in implementing the Endangered Species Act. Second, the bill instills political accountability by requiring the Secretary to establish a specific conservation objective for each listed species. Before we expend tens of millions of public and private dollars on efforts to restore a particular species, we need a high- ranking member of the Federal that decision. We need the official to explain to us why the species is important. And if the species is important, we need that official to set forth a conservation plan, based on the best reasonably obtainable science, that will actually achieve that conservation goal. And if the species is important, and there is a conservation plan that will actually work, we need to know that the Secretary has formulated that plan after considering the economic and social impacts of the plan. Third, the bill encourages and facilitates cooperative actions between the Federal Government and States, local governments, and the private sector to conserve species without the need to trigger the more restrictive provisions of the act. The most effective and efficient way to protect species is to take cooperative measures as early as possible, before a species declines to the point that more restrictive and expensive steps are needed. Finally, I want to mention a matter that we are not addressing in the bill. At least one of the outside groups urging reform of the ESA asked Senator Gorton and me to include a provision that would have compensated private landowners whose property values are lowered by the restrictions of the act. I concluded, and Senator Gorton concurred, that this legislation is not the place to try to resolve the incredibly complex issue of when to compensate landowners for reductions in property value due to governmental regulations. That issue cuts across all of our environmental laws, not just the ESA, and it should be addressed in that larger context. Furthermore, I believe that the reforms of the act that we are proposing in this bill, along with the requirement that the bill be administered so as to minimize impacts on private property, will greatly reduce the frequency and severity of the impacts of the act on the value of private property. I look forward to working with Senator Gorton and Senator Shelby, the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and other interested Senators to revise the ESA in a way that allows us to effectively protect our natural heritage without imposing unnecessary burdens on our citizens. The present act is not working, and failure to address its problems can only lead to further crisis and confrontation, followed by calls to scrap the act altogether. The bill we are introducing today marks the opening of the debate on how to reform the ESA so as to save it. This bill is a work in progress, and I invite all interested parties to contribute their efforts toward improving it as we move through the legislative process.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the life and career of our departed colleague and my good friend, Senator John C. Stennis, whose long and full life ended on Sunday, April 23, at the age of 93. When Senator Stennis retired in January 1989, he had been in the Senate 41 years, 1 month, and 29 days. This made his service in the Senate longer than all but one other person in history. When I came to the U.S. Senate in November 1972, Senator Stennis had been a Member of this body for nearly 25 years, and I had the great honor and privilege of serving with Senator Stennis for 16 years--until he retired at the close of the 100th Congress in 1989. So it is with sadness that I pay tribute to the memory of this departed colleague today. John Stennis was a man who anyone coming to know him well would love and admire. I came to know him early on my arrival in the Senate. He was from my neighboring State, and I learned to follow his advice and leadership in certain areas of our service together. It was also my privilege to serve with John Stennis on the Appropriations Committee beginning in 1975. We had nearly identical subcommittee assignments on the committee. He was chairman of the then Public Works Subcommittee, now the Energy and Water Subcommittee, when I came aboard and I succeeded him as chairman of that subcommittee when he became chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 1978. We worked together on many matters of mutual interest, especially the Mississippi River and tributaries flood control works, and other infrastructure improvements throughout the country. He requested my assistance on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project and I was pleased to help floor manage the successful completion of that massive project which opened in 1985. The New York Times called the Tenn-Tom Senator Stennis' ``pyramid,'' and I am pleased to have had a role with Senator Stennis on this impressive project. Mr. President, in our committee assignments and work together, I was blessed as much as a fellow Senator could be blessed by association, counsel, and advice from our departed friend. As I mentioned earlier, it has been my honor and privilege to be closely associated with Senator Stennis for over 16 years of service together. As chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stennis designated and commissioned me to floor manage and handle various appropriations measures including supplemental bills and continuing resolutions. He was my chairman, and I was always happy and enthusiastic to carry out his wishes on these matters. Mr. President, John Stennis was unqualifiedly and unreservedly a gentleman in the finest American tradition. He was a man whose word was as good as his bond. He had an almost reverent sense of discretion and personal taste in his relations to the greatest affairs of the Nation as in his relations to individuals. He was indeed a giant in the Senate. John Stennis was a Senator's Senator. He was gentle and courteous in conduct, but tough and strong in conviction and character. He personified the highest ideals of honor and integrity within the Senate. John Stennis also possessed an extraordinary, and indomitable, fortitude, spirit, and fearless courage. I think of the several personal adversities he confronted with such wonderful dignity and demeanor. In 1973, he was shot by robbers in front of his house and left for dead. In 1983, his beloved wife of 52 years, he called her Miss Coy, passed away. In 1984, he lost a leg to cancer and was confined thereafter to a wheelchair but, Senator Stennis bore these adversities with such great strength and courage that he served as a great inspiration to us all. We are thankful for his character, for his modesty and selflessness, for his devotion to the Senate and his family, for his outgoing good will to his friends, for his high honor as a man. Mr. President, I traveled with a number of my colleagues to the burial services for Senator Stennis on Wednesday, April 26, at the Pinecrest Cemetery in DeKalb, MS. He was born in DeKalb County in the red clay hills of eastern Mississippi and his mortal remains were buried there in the family plot next to his beloved ``Miss Coy'' and near his parents. Many of the Stennises lawyers, teacher, and legislators. I was deeply impressed with the tribute given Senator Stennis by his son, John Hampton Stennis. He stated Senator Stennis' campaign pledge and creed when Senator Stennis ran for the Senate in 1947, after having served as a circuit court judge for 10 years. That political creed was ``I want to plow a straight furrow right down until the end of my row.'' Obviously, Senator Stennis succeeded with that campaign pledge. And that philosophy seems to have guided his entire political career and his life. With those words John Hampton captured the spirit and philosophy of John C. Stennis. Senator Stennis taught through example. He has left both a challenge and a pattern of conduct for citizenship, as well as public life. What can our citizens today find in John C. Stennis to emulate? A course of conduct that inspires confidence; absolute personal dedication; noble purposes always foremost as a motive and objective; standards in public and private life unexcelled; a willingness to serve; a willingness to lead and endlessly carry the penalty of leadership, and above all else, the attainment of being an honorable man. I believe we find here a man and a record that fully live up to the everlasting call of the poet, Gilbert Holland, who said: God, give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Strong men, who live above the fog In public duty and in private thinking. Mary and I extend our heartfelt sympathy to the family of Senator Stennis--his daughter, Mrs. Margaret Jane Womble, and son, John Hampton Stennis, and to his grandchildren of whom he was so proud.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 621, as modified, to Amendment No. 617

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 615

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, as most Members of this body, I received word of Senator Heflin's retirement just a few moments ago. As I began to contemplate his service here, I wondered what was the single word that best epitomized Senator Heflin's service. Mr. President, the word that came to mind first was ``wisdom.'' Wisdom is a rare thing. It is acquired genetically, and our Creator has been very generous with Senator Heflin in endowing him with a huge amount of wisdom and a huge amount of ability. It also is born of experience, and having served the people of Alabama now, both as chief justice and as a Member of this body, for some 23-plus years, he has acquired both the skill and the knowledge, along with that genetically inspired wisdom, to be, indeed, one of the wisest Members of this body. In fact, if the Senator from Alabama rises on any issue in this Senate, not only do Members of the Senate listen, but as far as this Senator is concerned, he almost always follows, because Senator Heflin is seldom wrong and is someone whose wisdom is greatly to be emulated. Indeed, Mr. President, if I had to make a two-word speech against term limits, it would probably be ``Howell Heflin,'' because Howell Heflin's leaving this body will make it a decidedly lesser place. There are other words that come to mind when you think of Howell Heflin. Clearly integrity has to be one, because his is an integrity so strong that nobody would ever seek to disparage it. Indeed, no one would seek to defend it. I mean, you do not have to say Howell Heflin is a man of integrity because that would be redundant. Everyone knows that. It emanates from every pore in his body, from his history and from his lifetime of work. He was, indeed, the first choice of almost everyone to be a member of the Ethics Committee. Mr. President, clearly in describing Howell Heflin, you would have to refer to his sense of humor. It is legendary. It occasionally erupts here on the floor of the Senate. More commonly, in political speeches back in Alabama. I would hate to be the object of his wit, either in Alabama or anywhere else, because, while it is gentle and while it is funny, it can be, indeed, devastating. I will never forget the story of the Grey Poupon, the way that Howell Heflin could describe to those who thought themselves too sophisticated to be from Alabama, and the way he could use that humor to not only enlighten and to lighten the debate, but also as a tremendous political weapon. Mr. President, this Senate will not be the same when Howell Heflin leaves. It simply will not. It will be a much lesser place. I will be leaving as well. So it is not that I will miss him. I will enjoy service with him for the next year and 8 months. I hope he completes his agenda, as I hope I complete mine. But, Mr. President, for I think decades to come, people of Alabama will revere the service of one Chief Justice Howell Heflin and one Senator Howell Heflin, one of the most outstanding Members this body has ever produced. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I have a question about the effect of the Nickles-Reid substitute on a regulation by the Department of Transportation to reduce the liability limit of deepwater ports like the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port [LOOP]. As the Senator may be aware, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a new Federal regime governing liability for oilspill damages and cleanup. As part of that regime, liability limits were established for different types of vessels and facilities and, in the case of deepwater ports, the liability limit was established at $350 million. Recognizing that this limit might required that the Department of Transportation undertake a study and propose a lower limit if appropriate. The Coast Guard study was completed in October 1993. It concluded that the use of deepwater ports is the least risky means of importing crude oil to the United States and that a lower liability limit is appropriate. The rulemaking to lower LOOP's liability limit was initiated on February 8, 1995. It could reduce the liability limit from its present level at $350 million to $50 million--a $300 million difference. yet the economic impact of this change, as I think the committee intended it to be measured, will be much more limited, consisting primarily of the lower annual insurance costs LOOP will incur which reflect the lower risk associated with deepwater ports such as LOOP. Am I correct in understanding that the proposed rule to lower LOOP's liability limit would not be considered a significant rule under the substitute, and therefore would take effect without a 45-day delay?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator for his interpretation of the standard of measurement for economic impact and its application to the rule reducing LOOP's liability limit.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Colorado, Senator Campbell, as a cosponsor of this legislation and I commend him for his leadership in this area. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Senator has been very active in working for a mining law reform bill that will make needed reforms, get this issue behind us, and give the mining industry some certainty. The bill we are introducing today, with one exception, is very similar to the so-called 8-2 chairman's mark which we crafted last summer during the House-Senate conference on mining law reform. While we were not able to enact this proposal, I think it embodied a balanced and middle ground approach to most of the key issues involved in this controversy. Frankly, I believe this bill represents a better starting point for our deliberations this year than either of the other proposals currently before the committee. Some may feel this bill goes too far in some areas; others may think it does not go far enough in addressing certain issues. While I am certain that this bill will undergo some changes, I think the measure Senator Campbell and I are proposing will provide a vehicle which will facilitate the enactment of a mining law reform bill this year. The one significant difference between this bill and last year's chairman's mark is in the area of State water rights. Senator Campbell has replaced the water provisions of last summer's bill with language which protects the ability of the States to make decisions regarding water quality and quantity consistent with existing State and Federal law. Certainly the water issue was one of the most contentious issues we dealt with last year, and I am sure it will be again. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Campbell, as well as Senator Craig and Senator Bumpers, to confect a bill that can pass both the Senate and the House and that the President will sign.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to report to the Senate the sad news of the loss of one of our Nation's preeminent historic preservation professionals, Henry Ward Jandl, who died unexpectedly on Saturday, March 18, at George Washington University Hospital. I came to know and respect Ward Jandl's fine work through many years of involvement in historic preservation legislation through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as well as through my own personal interest, and that of my wife Mary, in historic preservation in Louisiana. Ward Jandl graduated from the Hotchkill School in 1964 and Yale University in 1968. He spent 2 years in the Peace Corps teaching English in Ankara, Turkey. In 1971, he received a Graduate Certificate in Historic Preservation from Columbia University while working at the New York Public Library. A resident of the District of Columbia since 1974, Ward's entire professional career was spent in the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. He began as an architectural historian at the National Register of Historic Places. At the time of his death, he was Chief Appeals Officer, Cultural Resources, and Deputy Chief, Preservation Division. For his dedicated service to historic preservation, Ward received several honors from the Department of the Interior. In addition to being a valued policymaker, Ward coauthored two books: Houses by Mail: A Guide to Houses from Sears, Roebuck and Co., in 1986, and Yesterday's Houses of Tomorrow: Innovative Homes: 1850-1950, in 1991. Mr. President, Ward Henry Jandl accomplished many things in his relatively brief, but filled career and has left a legacy for our Nation to follow as we attempt to preserve our past in preparation for brighter days ahead. I hope this legacy will help ease the loss of his passing for his father, Henry Anthony Jandl of Richmond, VA, and his sister, Margaret Marie Jandl of Cambridge, MA, to whom I extend my most sincere condolences.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, last Sunday, the New York Times published a front-page story alleging that geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain could result in an ``atomic explosion of buried waste.'' The story is based on a hypothesis proposed several months ago by two scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Charles D. Bowman and Dr. Francisco Venneri. Drs. Bowman and Venneri, neither of whom is a geologist, performed some crude calculations on what might happen to plutonium in a geologic repository. They assumed that 50 to 100 kilograms of pure plutonium-239 would slowly diffuse through nonabsorbing silicon dioxide--not any type of rock actually found under Yucca Mountain--and then gradually reach criticality as various neutron-absorbing elements in the nuclear waste diffused away over the millennia. We have been told by the New York Times and by both Senators from Nevada yesterday that three teams of scientists at Los Alamos ``have been unable to rebut the assertion'' of Drs. Bowman and Venneri. This is simply not true. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, in fact, did respond to these allegations. It formed three review teams. A ``Red Team'' was set up to serve in the role of skeptic. A ``Blue Team'' was set up to take the role of defenders of the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis. A ``White Team'' was set up to serve as a neutral judge of the work of the other two teams, and to render an overall judgment as to which was more credible. What was the conclusion of the White Team? I ask that a two-page ``Summary Critique of Bowman-Venneri Paper by Internal Review Groups at Los Alamos,'' which was publicly released yesterday by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well as the complete text of the White Team report, entitled ``Comments on `Nuclear Excursions' and `Criticality Issues''' be printed in the Record at the end of this statement. The White Team report is a devastating critique of the hypothesis of Drs. Bowman and Venneri. It states that: The geological situations in the Bowman paper are too idealized to validate the proposed scenario. The assumption of significant plutonium dispersion into the surrounding medium is without justification. The amount of water is overestimated by a factor of 1000. . . . There is no steam explosion. The assumptions about the behavior of the fissile mixture near criticality are not credible. There is no credible mechanism for releasing energy on a time scale short enough for even a steam explosion. Even when the White Team started assuming that the impossible would happen, it still could not find the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis credible. For example, the White Team concluded: Even if dispersion and criticality are assumed (which is strongly objected to), the conclusion that an explosion would occur is incorrect. Even if dispersion, criticality, and energy release are assumed, there would be no serious consequences elsewhere in the repository or on the surface. The florid story in the New York Times and the comments made on the floor yesterday by my distinguished colleagues from Nevada illustrate vividly how to misuse science in public policy debates. Step No. 1. Ignore peer review. The New York Times clearly knew that an internal laboratory review of the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis had taken place, but got the story of that review completely wrong. Is there any way to characterize the above statements as being ``unable to lay [the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis] to rest,'' as the New York Times reported? I don't see how. And, of course, no external review by a scientific journal of this paper has taken place--it isn't even clear whether Drs. Bowman and Venneri have submitted their calculations to any journal, other than the New York Times, for consideration. Step No. 2. Do not even bother to get your facts straight. The true story of the internal Los Alamos review of this paper was readily available yesterday to any Member of this body who would have taken the time to call anyone at the laboratory whose name was mentioned in the New York Times story. Step No. 3. Just jump on any news story that seems to support your preconceived view. Blow up the headline into a big chart, and head directly to the Senate floor. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we have seen bad science injected into the debate over a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. In 1989, another DOE scientist named Jerry Szymanski interpreted some mineral deposits adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site as evidence that ground water repeatedly had risen well above the level proposed for the repository in the geologically recent past. If such an event were to occur in the lifetime of the repository, it would flood the waste packages and could result in a release of radioactive material to the environment. But before this hypothesis could be properly reviewed by other scientists, Szymanski's report became a media sensation fueled by, among others, the New York Times. Eventually, a distinguished group of scientists from the National Academy of Sciences was asked to evaluate Szymanski's interpretations and the data upon which he had based those interpretations. This panel concluded what the vast majority of DOE and U.S. Geological Survey scientists had concluded already: that the mineral deposits were produced by rainwater at the surface and had nothing to do with fluctuations in the ground water table at all. That was in 1992. Notwithstanding the NAS conclusion, the State of Nevada continues to pay large sums of money to Szymanski, now an independent consultant, to continue beating a dead horse. So let me respond in detail to the specific charges made yesterday by my distinguished colleagues from Nevada. The distinguished junior Senator from Nevada charged that a ``discussion has been going on for months and months and months'' involving ``three teams comprised of 10 scientists--that is 30 scientists [that] have been unable to rebut the assertion that there is a genuine fear that an explosion can occur in a geologic repository.'' In fact, the scientists at Los Alamos were able to rebut the assertion, and did. The distinguished senior Senator from Nevada complained that the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis had not been how scientific review works. Scientific results ought to get careful peer review within the scientific community before they are served up in the Sunday New York times. If a scientific result can withstand neutral scrutiny--which is what Los Alamos was in the process of doing--then it should be published in the open scientific literature and we can start the debate as to what its relevance to policy might be. None of us is served by fragmentary and distorted accounts of scientific research in the public media. The distinguished senior Senator from Nevada characterized the Bowman-Venneri calculations as ``evidence by a scientific community that says an explosion could occur.'' Do my colleagues really believe that a crude, theoretical calculation, predicated on all sorts of inaccurate assumptions for example, that the rock under Yucca Mountain is pure silicon dioxide, constitutes evidence? Evidence usually means something real. You can make up any theoretical calculations you like, and if you are not going to be constrained by reality, you can come up with some pretty interesting answers. But you will not get any evidence that way. The distinguished senior Senator from Nevada stated that ``it is not as if it has not happened before. In the former Soviet Union, they had an explosion from nuclear waste.'' He would have us believe that the Soviet explosion is somehow relevant to geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Not so. The Soviet explosion occurred in a nuclear waste tank at Tomsk, not in a geological repository. The explosion was caused by red oil--a byproduct of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The whole idea behind the current DOE waste program, and geologic storage in a location such as Yucca Mountain, is not to reprocess. The distinguished senior Senator from Nevada says that his information is ``not sensationalism'' and that it ``comes from the scientific community.'' Well, publication in the New York Times hardly constitutes peer review. It is sensationalism, pure and simple. Finally the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada said that these results came ``from one of the finest scientific labs in the world.'' Now that we can see what Los Alamos actually has to say about the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis, will the Senators from Nevada accept what the Los Alamos review team had to say? In summary, it is not true that, as both Senators from Nevada tried to tell us yesterday: ``Thirty scientists * * * have tried to prove it wrong for 10 months. They cannot.'' As it turns out, they can shoot this hypothesis full of holes, and they did. Before we call a halt to all attempts to find a solution to our nuclear waste problems, or before we set up mini-repositories for spent nuclear fuel at every nuclear plant in the Nation, let's see the Bowman-Venneri hypothesis for what it is--a preliminary calculation with a highly questionable connection to the real world. If scientists at Los Alamos want to pursue such calculations, that is their right. But we should not let ourselves be swayed by sensational reports based on sketchy theories. Good policy can and should only be based on good, peer-reviewed science. The material follows: [The attached paper is a summary of the work of the three review teams that have examined the paper on possible criticality at the planned Yucca Mountain Repository. It was compiled by the senior manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory who supervises the author of the original paper.] Summary Points of Bowman-Venneri Paper--``Underground Autocatalytic Criticality of Plutonium and Other Fissile Material'' (By Charles Bowman and Francesco Venneri) 1. Underground storage as presently recommended could lead to autocatalytic criticality and uncontrolled dispersal of thermally fissile material with significant nuclear energy release and possibly nuclear explosions in the 100-ton range. 2. Fissile material when emplaced underground is subcritical. However, once containment is breached, the fissile material is free to disperse in the underground matrix either through natural (diffusion, earthquakes, water flow) or unnatural means (human intervention). 3. The underground matrix contains good moderators such as water and rock (silicon dioxide) in various proportions. Under certain conditions of fissile material density, radius, water and rock composition, the fissile material can reach criticality due to neutrons moderated in the rock/water mixture. The criticality can have either positive or negative feedback. Negative feedback would mean that the nuclear reactions would decrease as the mixture heated up and expanded and hence go subcritical. Positive feedback means that the nuclear fission is self-enhancing (autocatalytic). Hence the nuclear reactions continue to grow to supercriticality and possibly explosive conditions. 4. Neutron poisons, such as boron, that are added to the spent fuel when emplaced underground to prevent criticality have different solubilities than fissile materials and thus would be leached out from the fissile material area. 5. Without water, 50-100 kg of fissile material is required to reach autocriticality. As small an amount as 1 kg of fissile material can reach autocriticality with water present.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help assist our Nation's schoolbus drivers who provide a very important role in the education of our children. Recently, several broad-based tax provisions have been enacted into law which adversely affect schoolbus drivers. The bills I am introducing today will provide some of our most dedicated school employees with relief which they need and deserve. The first measure would permit busdrivers to deduct actual operating expenses, regardless of whether or not they itemize on their Federal tax returns. This was the law prior to enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Under current law, however, schoolbus drivers' actual expenses are treated as miscellaneous expenses, thus limiting the deduction to those who itemize and subjecting it to the 2-percent floor. The floor has prevented many schoolbus drivers from qualifying for any deduction for their actual operational expenses because they cannot meet the 2- percent floor applicable to miscellaneous itemized deductions. The result has been a substantial increase in schoolbus drivers' annual income tax liability. Moreover, even those busdrivers who itemize and qualify for deductions under the 2-percent floor have been penalized, especially those who file joint returns. The second measure would exempt schoolbus drivers--and other State and local employees who work on a part-time, seasonal, or temporary basis-- individuals are already covered under State and local retirement systems; however, the law currently requires that they pay into Social Security as well. The result is increased costs to the employer and smaller take-home paychecks for the employees. Perversely, some States may even decide to remove these workers from their retirement systems, which could result in a reduction in, or loss of, retirement benefits for which the employees have worked for many years. Our schoolbus drivers do a yeoman's job in transporting future generations to and from school. We all agree that education of our youth should be one of our highest priorities. Let's pass this legislation and provide some relief to those individuals who make it possible for our children to arrive at school in a safe and timely manner.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, of course.

Mr. JOHNSTON. This amendment has the judicial power of the United States to extend to that case or controversy. I can imagine the number of things the court could do. The court can do what they want to because they are omnipotent. They can say that the public debt, as presently set by limit, was meant to be the same thing as this. But from my standpoint, if the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Washington would like to redefine that term in light of this letter, that would be suitable with me. But I would say that it is improbable that a court would be able itself to set a limit on the public debt.