John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield now----

Mr. JOHNSTON. Who decides whether there is standing?

Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may ask, is the Senator saying the Supreme Court is going to follow this judicial history?

Mr. JOHNSTON. There are some people who believe in the flat Earth, too.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is he one of those who disagreed that the New Deal helped bring us out of the Depression?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is it the mathematics or is it the assumptions?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Where are they wrong? I hope they are wrong. Where are they wrong?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, but the Senator said we would not be talking about it, and they are talking about it and they are in control.

Mr. JOHNSTON. In the Contract With America, it has both a tax cut and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is not competing with me. I think that is terrible policy, and I know my President is for it and I know Contract With America is for it. But it is absolutely the wrong time to be doing that.

Mr. JOHNSTON. For many, many years one-man-one vote was considered by the Court to be a political question. judgment and said it is no longer political; we are going to order one- man-one-vote. Now, what is there inherent in this that makes it a political question?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will close with this because I have taken too long. My point is that it is a Constitution we are amending. It can be clarified simply and clearly as to whether the Court can enforce. It is the most fundamental question, and we ought to decide here on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will tell you why it is left deliberately vague. Because there are some who are for it and some who are not for it and they want to leave it up in limbo. Mr. President, this is a Constitution we are amending. Why can we not say what it means?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not believe that judgment is clear at all. I think it is probable that the Court can enforce this--probable. Reasonable minds can disagree. But why leave it deliberately vague, deliberately ambiguous?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I want to point out to my colleagues the connection between S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill, and a matter that is close to my heart--the risk assessment and cost-benefit provision that passed the Senate twice on the last Congress, only to die in the House. As my colleagues may recall, it passed by a vote of 95 to 3 on the EPA Cabinet bill in 1993, and then, after significant revision, passed again on the safe drinking water bill in 1994 by a vote of 90 to 8. One of the best ways to reduce unfunded mandates--whether it be on State and local governments or the private sector--is to set aside the issue of funding and examine whether the mandate itself is sound. Federal regulations that do not address a significant risk in a cost- effective manner must be avoided, regardless of who pays. Put another way, the argument over who should pay for a mandate will be much easier to resolve if the mandate itself is as lean as possible to do the job. Section 202 of S. 1 begins to get at this idea when it requires the Federal agency, when promulgating a regulation that will cost $100 million or more, to prepare a written statement providing ``a qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal intergovernmental mandate, such as the enhancement of health and safety and the protection of the natural environment * * *.'' This is a certainly a good provision as far as it goes. But this problem will not be fully addressed until the Senate turns once again to the subject of risk-based regulatory reform. I was initially inclined to offer last year's risk amendment to this bill, but I have been convinced to withhold so that we can consider possible improvements to last year's risk provision. Right now, Chairman Murkowski and I are working on legislation that will build on last year's provision. We intend to introduce the bill soon, hold hearings in the Energy Committee soon thereafter, and move to consideration of the bill on the Senate floor at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep sorrow at the death of James T. Fleming, one of the most talented and professional individuals to ever work in the Congress, and one of the finest gentlemen I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. For the past 20 years, Jim Fleming served as administrative assistant for the senior Senator from Kentucky, the Honorable Wendell H. Ford. He also served as counsel to Senator Ford on the vast array of legislative matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It was in this capacity that the committee members and staff came to know Jim and to appreciate his wry sense of humor, his great personality, his warmth, and his enormous expertise. Jim's contributions were invariably grounded in good common sense, a keen understanding of good government, and a realistic point of view. He was absolutely dedicated to working for the people of Kentucky and Senator Ford's agenda. Much of the legislation written by the Energy Committee reflects Jim Fleming's influence, including natural gas policy, the Nation's coal program, the uranium enrichment program, and natural resource protection and utilization. Mr. President, the future meetings of the committee will not quite be the same without Jim Fleming there to offer his unique expertise. I fondly recall that as past committee deliberations would proceed with senatorial formality, Jim Fleming could be counted on to listen with a poker face, weigh all options, and then with a profound wit and twinkle in his eye, offer a perspective that would be both illuminating and constructive. Jim Fleming will be sorely missed. In the words of the former Speaker of the House, the Honorable Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill,--``So long, old pal. So long.''

Mr. JOHNSTON

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

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, 40 years ago, when my wife, Mary, and I were students at LSU, we discussed my dream of some day serving in the U.S. Senate. I am one of those few fortunate human beings who have seen his dreams fulfilled in the fullest and most satisfying sense. This year, 1995, marks my 31st consecutive year in elective office. Over 22 of those years have been in this most noble and hallowed institution. James MacGregor Burns says that the measure of a man is not the honors he has received, but the difference he has made by his service. Mr. President, I believe that, working with my colleagues and a wonderful staff, we have made a difference for Louisiana. When I first started working on the North-South Highway for Louisiana, the trip was bumpy, dangerous, and slow. Today, Interstate 49 competes for motor freight shipments with a brand new Red River navigation system. We have improved our ports, dredged our rivers and harbors and built levees to control our flooding. By Federal statute, we have set aside over $600 million in a so-called 8(g) fund for education, and we have built research facilities and secured research funds for all our institutions of higher learning in Louisiana. By Federal law, we have created nine wildlife refuges, with more than 100,000 acres of protected land, and three national parks that now receive over 1 million visitors a year. I am proud of these accomplishments, but I am most proud of what they will mean for the young people of our State. Mr. President, it has been my privilege to serve on the Energy Committee for 22 years, 8 of those as chairman, and to have a hand in every major piece of legislation which has been passed from that committee during those years, from deregulation of natural gas to the National Energy Policy Act. We have pushed free markets, free trade and free enterprise. We have fought for the poor, for the disadvantaged, and for our senior citizens. These 22 years have been successful and satisfying. I have simply loved it. But now, Mr. President, I must decide whether to continue Senate service or to depart in 2 years at the end of this term. Much argues for continued service. I love the Senate and I love to legislate. I am in superb health and have abundant energy, and reelection, though never assured, seems highly likely. Nevertheless, Mr. President, I am today announcing that I will terminate my Senate service at the end of this term. I will not seek reelection in 1996. There are rhythms and tides and seasons in life. I have been fortunate in my life to sense the rhythm and sail it full tide, and now I believe that the season for a new beginning approaches. As my colleague Russell Long used to say, ``It is important to retire as a champ and to leave the stage when the crowd still likes your singing.'' I make this announcement now for two reasons. First, to allow me to devote my full time and attention to what will be a very active and, I hope, productive 2 years, and, second, to allow time for my would-be successors to make their plans and to conduct their campaigns. Who will succeed me? I do not now have a candidate, but I want my successor to share some deeply held views of mine: that politics and public service are synonymous; that the pursuit of public office is a high calling--in our society, it is the best opportunity for helping your State, your country, and your fellow man; that the Senate, with its faults and criticisms, remains a bulwark of our democracy and a hallowed institution. I will stand up for it, will not bash it and will defend it against those who do. Years 1995 and 1996 will be an exciting 2 years, and after that I look forward to a new life and new challenges, doing what I do not know except that it will not be retirement. Mr. President, I love the State of Louisiana. Its people have bestowed upon me honor and power and a rare privilege. For that, I, my wife, and my family are profoundly grateful.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it is very hard to lose an old friend. For me and my family and for many of us in the Senate, Shirley Felix was a friend. For years, whenever we were in the Senators dining room, we stopped to talk to her. Her death, on December 13, was a tremendous loss, not just to her family but also to those who served with her in the offices of the Architect of the Capitol and those of us on whose behalf she worked diligently and tirelessly for many years. Shirley was born on November 8, 1933, in Arlington, VA, the daughter of Dr. Rebecca Plumer and the Elder Irving L. Plummer, Sr. She attended public schools in Washington and completed her education in New York City where she met and married James Felix, Jr. They later moved to Washington, and became the parents of six fine sons. Shirley started working for the Architect of the Capitol in 1967. Her culinary and management skills led to her promotion to the position of banquet manager for the U.S. Senate. It was a position she filled competently, professionally and with extraordinary cheerfulness. Shirley had a good memory and a warm heart. In the big, faceless institution that the Congress has become, with staff changing daily, Shirley remembered who you were, not just Senators but staff as well. She remembered your children's names, and always asked about them. She knew what you liked, and literally worked overtime to see that you got it. And she worked with a genuine smile on her face, for the pleasure of doing a job well, and knowing that her efforts were appreciated. Shirley was a perfectionist. She took great pride in her work, and it showed. When she prepared a lunch or dinner, it not only tasted great, it looked beautiful. She handled crises like a diplomat, never upset about changes in the guest list or the menu. Nothing was ever too much trouble, nothing ever took too much time. Even as her health failed, her spirit never faltered. To the end, she was a loving, giving person who went out of her way to make others feel good. Everybody who was on the receiving end of one of her smiles will miss her.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. This legislation is intended to address the serious decline in oil and gas exploration and development activity in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico on the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS]. This is not the same proposal introduced in the Senate and reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the last Congress. This specific legislation is the result of a compromise worked out with the Administration last session in the context of the mining law reform conference. This legislation has the support of the Secretaries of the Departments of Energy and the Interior. The Outer Continental Shelf is an important domestic source of oil and clean-burning natural gas. Approximately 10 percent of domestic oil and 25 percent of domestic natural gas is produced from the OCS. The OCS is estimated to hold one-fourth of all domestic oil and gas reserves. The Central and Western Gulf account for 90 percent of the oil and 99 percent of the gas produced from the OCS. Domestic exploration and development have fallen off dramatically in recent years as capital has moved to support drilling in other parts of the world. In 1992, for the first time, the major oil companies spent more on exploration and development activity abroad than on U.S. activities. Between 1987 and 1992, $30 billion flowed from the U.S. oil patch to foreign operations. This translates to a loss of 450,000 jobs by the domestic industry over the last 10 years. Mr. President, the deep waters of the OCS hold promise of substantial oil and gas resources crucial to our domestic energy security. However, the costs of producing these resources are substantial and increase significantly with water depth. One industry estimate places capital investment costs for a conventional fixed leg platform in 800 feet of water at $360 million, compared to costs of nearly $1 billion for a conventional tension leg platform in 3000 feet of water. According to Department of Interior estimates there are some 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Gulf of Mexico in waters of a depth of 200 meters or more. This legislation is expected to bring into production at least two additional fields with possible reserves of 150 million barrels of oil equivalent. By allowing lessees to recover a significant portion of the capital cost prior to imposition of a royalty payment this legislation will encourage development of these important oil and gas resources. Royalty holidays of this type are commonly used in other parts of the world as a mechanism for risk sharing between the government and the industry of the huge up-front capital costs associated with developing this type of resource. The North Sea is a prime example. British and Norwegian tax and royalty changes, put in place in the 80's have yielded dramatic results in the past couple of years. In fact, increases in this non- Opec production has contributed significantly to holding down international oil prices. First, the legislation clarifies the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to grant royalty relief on existing leases in the OCS to encourage development. Currently the Secretary may grant relief once a lease has been developed and is producing, it is not clear whether the authority exists before sought this clarification. The legislation further provides for a specified royalty holiday for existing leases in deep waters that are not currently economic. Upon application, undeveloped leases in water depths of 200 meters or more in the Central and Western Gulf that are found to be uneconomic under current conditions, will have the royalty payment suspended until a minimum number of volumes have been produced. The specific volumes covered by the royalty holiday are based on water depth. The provision applies to production from leases coming on-line after the date of enactment of the legislation and to production resulting from lease development activities undertaken pursuant to a Development Operations Coordination Document approved after the date of enactment. In addition, for new leasing in the Gulf, the lease terms will provide for an initial royalty holiday on a given number of barrels of oil or gas equivalent, as determined by the Secretary. This new leasing arrangement will be in effect for 5 years from the date of enactment. The royalty relief would not apply to the production of oil or natural gas, respectively, in any month when the average closing price for the earliest delivery month for oil exceeds $28 per barrel or when prices for natural gas exceed $3.50 per million Btu's. This is a win-win policy for the Federal Government. By stimulating development of indigenous oil and gas resources we reduce our dependence on imported supplies, create jobs and generate significant revenues, initially in Federal and State income taxes then royalties. Mr. President, this bill represents one step in addressing this problem. It is a significant step, but we must look at other initiatives, such as changes in the tax laws that can be taken to address this serious decline in domestic oil and gas exploration and development activity. I look forward to considering other initiatives that could complement the royalty relief proposal that I am introducing today. I am also submitting a separate amendment to this legislation to correct an unacceptably onerous effect of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA 90]. The amendment gives the Secretary of the Interior the flexibility to set the financial responsibility requirement based on the risk associated with different sorts of facilities. OPA 90 was passed and signed into law following the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska. The intent of OPA 90 was to lessen the risk of oil spills and to improve the level of preparedness and responsiveness when spills do occur. OPA 90 created a comprehensive prevention, response, liability and compensation regime for dealing with vessel and facility caused oil pollution from spills in navigable waters. However, in the post- disaster zeal to legislate, the solution went far beyond the problem. Currently, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCSLA] requires owners of OCS facilities to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility equal to $35 million. OPA 90 increased the financial responsibility of responsible parties to $150 million. This was done without regard to the actual risk and experience of nontanker facilities operating in the OCS. This same amendment was reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the last Congress and was the subject of a colloquy between myself and Senator Baucus on the Senate floor. The Solicitor of the Department of the Interior has since completed his review of the financial responsibility provisions and determined that ``OPA does not authorize MMS to set different responsibility levels for offshore facilities based on risk.'' The Administration agrees that a legislative remedy is required. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to provide deepwater royalty relief in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The existing law was meant to provide for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel from the Nation's civilian nuclear powerplants and high-level radioactive waste from our nuclear weapons program. It called for the construction of a deep geologic repository in which nuclear waste could safely be buried beginning in January 1998. The existing law has fallen far short of its goals. The repository will not be ready in 1998. The earliest completion date is now 2010, but it may not be ready even then without significant program changes and budget increases. In the meantime, available storage capacity at civilian powerplants is running out, threatening the ability of some plants to keep operating. The existing program was designated to be self-funding. The law imposed a special fee on utilities, which is ultimately borne by their ratepayers. The American people have paid over $8 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Over $4 billion has been spent, but our budget laws put the balance of the fund off-limits, where it can be used to balance the deficit but not used for the purpose for which it was collected. Mr. President, the program cannot succeed as it is presently constituted. The time has come to restructure the program so it can succeed. This bill I am introducing today would do so. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995 provides a complete substitute to the 1982 law. It provides for the construction of an interim storage facility, which would provide adequate spent fuel storage capacity until the repository can be built and licensed. It places the existing repository program on sounder foundations by providing rational, health-based standards for licensing the repository. It provides authority for the Department of Energy to begin construction of the rail spur needed to transport nuclear waste to the interim storage facility and repository. And it provides special budget treatment for the Nuclear Waste Fund to ensure that the program will be able to use the funds that are now being collected for that purpose. supporting this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.