John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is aware that Vietnam is anxious to have aid from the American Bar Association in helping them develop the rule of law. We have not had that kind of request from Libya and Cuba and others. They are anxious to develop the rule of law. They want the American Bar Association in there to help them do that. That is what this is all about. Is that not true?

Mr. JOHNSTON. If my friend will yield, what Vietnam has said is that they are anxious to have this aid. I mean this legal help from the ABA and the International Law Institute. They are anxious to have this aid because they want to develop this system. They are in the process of developing a commercial code, a civil code, training their judges in criminal codes. Part of it is helping them draft the laws, and part of it is in training the lawyers and the judges, and they want this. They were in my office just 2 weeks ago. What is wrong with that?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is my friend saying he will not give aid to help them change the legal system until the legal system is already changed?

Mr. JOHNSTON. At that point, they don't need any help.

Mr. JOHNSTON. On that point, how would my friend say that we should give that aid? What would be the method of helping them set up that legal system?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I understand. But after they made that decision and you say it is right then to help them set up a legal system, would you not use the American Bar Association and the International Law Institute, the United States-Vietnam Trade----

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona that is precisely what is contemplated. That is precisely what the report language says. The bill language says this would aid Vietnam, and, indeed, it does by aiding Vietnam to set up a legal system. But as the report language says, the committee is aware of the particular expertise of the American Bar Association, et cetera, and recommends that AID consider implementing the initiative through these organizations. So it explicitly calls for implementing the help to Vietnam's legal system through the American Bar Association, the International bar----

Mr. JOHNSTON. International Law Institute, yes, and the trade council. So this does not go to Vietnam. It goes to these organizations which would help Vietnam set up the rule of law.

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

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee to clarify the intent of language included in the committee report providing funding for ongoing research at the Plant Materials Center [PMC] in Golden Meadow, Louisiana, in collaboration with the Crowley Rice Research Station in Crowley, LA; ongoing research on nutria-resistant plant varieties; and funding to test application technologies for recently developed artificial seed for cord grass used to prevent coastal erosion. It is my understanding that it was the committee's intent, in the committee report, to continue the work at the Golden Meadow Plant Materials Center, in collaboration with the Crowley Rice Research Station, on smooth cord grass at the fiscal year 1996 level. In addition, work underway at Crowley on the development of nutria-resistant materials would also continue at the fiscal year 1996 level. Finally, it is also my understanding that the $100,000 mentioned in the committee report to test application technologies for smooth cord grass seed would be in addition to the funding provided to maintain this ongoing work. Is that the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate this clarification. ars funding for integrated low-input crop and livestock production systems at university of wisconsin-madison

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have identified $500,000 in one-time costs that need to be funded immediately to ensure that the natural resources and archeological sites at Fort Polk are protected. The Army's environmental record has clearly demonstrated how seriously they take their stewardship of the land with which they are entrusted. I believe the money requested will be used in a cost effective manner and will ensure that the resources are protected to the same high standards currently maintained by Fort Polk. The red-cockaded woodpecker is an endangered species and is protected by Federal law. Woodpecker nesting trees are marked with a 1-meter thick white band. The nesting trees are protected by a 62-meter buffer zone that are marked by orange bands. Military training is restricted within this the buffer zone. Funding will allow for the red-cockaded woodpecker sites to be identified, cleared, marked, and 62-meter buffer zone established. There are Indian, archeological sites, cemeteries, and other historical sites located on this land and we must ensure that these sites are adequately protected. The balance of the funding will provide sufficient resources to survey the land, identify cultural and archeological sites, and mark them accordingly. I also encourage the Department of the Army to identify any incremental costs associated with managing this land and I would support any reprogramming requests they find necessary to submit. I further expect that their fiscal year 1998 budget submission will include any of these recurring costs. Mr. President, I believe the amendment is acceptable to Senator McCain and the managers of this bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux to say thank you to a dedicated public servant whose career serves to remind us that it is honest hard work and devotion to duty that makes this Government work. Comdr. John J. Jaskot, United States Coast Guard, has served on Capitol Hill since 1992, first as a Coast Guard Congressional Fellow to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and most recently as the Coast Guard's Liaison Officer to the U.S. Senate. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Commander Jaskot has proven his unquestionable integrity and steadfast loyalty while demonstrating the tireless commitment to putting forth the effort required to make a difference. Mr. President, Senator Breaux and I, and our staffs, have worked extensively with Commander Jaskot in achieving our shared objectives. In cases where those objectives were not mutually shared, it has been Commander Jaskot who has helped bridge the gap between the Senate and the Coast Guard. His untiring work ethic and creativity have helped find solutions to some challenging problems which would otherwise have tarnished the already embattled reputation of the Federal Government. On issues specific to Louisiana, Commander Jaskot has ensured that a proper dialog has been maintained on tough issues such as the enforcement of the use of the contentious Turtle Excluder Devices [TEDs] by the Gulf Coast shrimping fleet, the placement of aides to navigation on the newly opened Red River Waterway, and the replacement of the dangerous Florida Avenue Bridge. He has made similar efforts on issues of national and international scope such as the implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Haitian and Cuban refuge crises, and maintaining funding to help keep our waterways operating safely. More importantly, Mr. President, through his hard work, ingenuity, integrity, and genuine good nature, Commander Jaskot has proven that it is people who really make the difference between a government that works for its people and one that fails. We can all learn from his example, that on local, as well as national issues, an individual can make a difference. Commander Jaskot certainly has. Commander Jaskot is retiring after 20 years of highly decorated public service in the United States Coast Guard. Senator Breaux and I thank him for his dedication to our country and wish he and his family ``fair winds and following seas'' in their future endeavors.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Or thereabouts. I thank my friend from Nevada for making it possible for me to speak now, which does comport well with my schedule. Mr. President, one of the most curious things about this whole debate to me is how my friends from Nevada can be so opposed to the storage of nuclear waste when they have not only countenanced but welcomed and sought the explosion of nuclear tests in Nevada. What Nevada has done through the years is sought and received hundreds of nuclear tests. The technology for those nuclear tests in the past has been: You drill a deep hole and you explode this nuclear test which, in turn, leaves the full spectrum of nuclear waste we are talking about, nuclear waste from civilian nuclear plants. Cesium 137, strontium 90, plutonium--all of it is contained in what amounts to big, bulbous holes down deep in the ground. Some of those tests were actually detonated in the water table. And there are hundreds of them. When the Nevadans sought to oppose the limitation on nuclear testing, they made the case that the country needs the tests and that they need the jobs. They were unsuccessful in maintaining that a couple of years ago, here on the floor of the Senate, because of the Senate's concern with nonproliferation. But it was not their fault. And they have never yet stated there is any problem at all with having hundreds of these round domes caused by explosions containing strontium, cesium, plutonium, and the full spectrum of nuclear waste. How could that be? Mr. President, I suggest they were right in the first instance; that the geography of Nevada in this particular area, which is the same area where we want to store the civilian nuclear waste, is so dry and so rocky and so devoid of people that it is, in fact, a safe place to conduct these nuclear tests. And, believe me, if it is safe to conduct hundreds of nuclear tests it is much more safe to store civilian nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain in containers which themselves pose quite a barrier to any contamination, and I believe the storage area is at least 200 meters through solid rock above the meager water table which you have, which, as I say, has already been, to the extent it can be contaminated--already been contaminated by the nuclear explosions. Mr. President, this bill deals with both interim storage and permanent storage, or the repository. Why do we wish to have interim storage mentioned, and what does the bill do? The bill says this, and this is the new bill. It says you shall proceed to do design and long lead-time items for the interim storage facility, but that construction on the interim storage facility may not begin until December 31, 1998, over 3 years from now. But, in the meantime, those long lead-time items like design, like the environmental impact statement, can proceed. It further states that the suitability determination must be made by December 31, 1998--suitability of the repository. This, in fact, was and is the chief objection of the administration to this bill. They have said all along you should not locate an interim storage facility at a place unless it also was the place at which the permanent repository shall be located. They should be colocated. You should have an interim and a permanent storage at the same place. And they have made the argument all along that, suppose the Yucca Mountain site is not suitable for the repository, then you should not put the interim storage facility there. I proposed an amendment in the Energy Committee that said you may not begin construction until that suitability determination is made. Unfortunately, my amendment was not agreed to. The bill was reported out. But in the ensuing weeks, Senator Murkowski and Senator Craig and I came to an agreement where we put the essential parts of the Johnston amendment back in the bill, and in effect a substitute bill has been filed and is now here for consideration. So the chief complaint of the administration all along, the chief complaint in Leon Panetta's letter today, has been answered by this legislation. Obviously, Mr. Panetta was not aware of this substitute bill, the provisions of which incorporate the Johnston amendment, because that criticism of the White House has been answered. Why do we need to do, however, the long lead-time items now? Because it saves 3 years, Mr. President, in the building of the interim storage facility. If you wait to determine suitability before you design the interim storage facility, and before you do the environmental impact statements, you have lost 3 years unnecessarily on the ability to receive waste at the interim storage facility. What is the problem with that? Why do we care whether you have an interim storage facility 3 years earlier? You care because all of these reactors around the country, at some 76 sites in 34 States, are using up, seriatim, one by one, their space in their so-called swimming pools. The nuclear waste is taken and put literally in what looks like a swimming pool, a deep pool. But, as that gets filled, the nuclear facilities must, if they have no place to transport their waste, build dry cask storage on site. That dry cask storage is very expensive. We received testimony it would cost about $5 billion to build the dry cask storage if you do not have interim storage facilities in the meantime. Mr. President, an expenditure of $5 billion for dry cask storage on site would stick the ratepayers of this country with a very heavy load, and it is a totally unnecessary expense. For that reason, we must get on with this business of designing the interim storage facility and proceeding to do the environmental impact statements, which will take most of the time during that 3 years. We also deal with the permanent facility. We have heard complaints from our friends from Nevada that we are short-circuiting the science. I can tell you, Mr. President, if the EPA comes up with the same rules for the permanent facility that we have for the waste isolation pilot plant in New Mexico, then we will not be able, in my judgment, to build a permanent facility anywhere, anyplace in the world. Let me tell you why and let me tell you why their requirements are really not scientific. They are estimates of, I do not know whether you call it history or human conduct or whatever. One of the most difficult requirements in the WIPP facility is what we call human intrusion. They say that after the first 100 years--keep in mind that this facility must prove itself to be safe over 10,000 years or more--they say that after the first 100 years, you may not assume that people even know where this is; that all records are lost, all the signposts that say ``danger, nuclear waste facility,'' are all gone and nobody knows. How they came to this conclusion, how they thought that you could go backward in history--sure, we do not know where the ancient city of Mycenae is, but does anybody seriously think that you would lose the records of where this nuclear waste facility is? I mean, that literally is what they have determined in their rules for the waste isolation pilot plant. They also say that you must assume that they will come out and start drilling holes down through the facility. Quoting from section 194.33 of the Federal Register of Friday, February 9, 1996, they say--I am quoting now to give you a little flavor of this: In determining the drilling rate or the amount of waste released from such drilling, performance assessments should not assume that drill operators would detect the waste and then cease the current drilling operations or otherwise mitigate the consequences of their actions. In other words, they say that you assume the holes--and you have to assume when they penetrated the waste package that they did not stop. Further quoting, it says: Similarly, drill operators should not be assumed to cease further exploration and development of the resources as a result of the drillers detecting the waste. What does that mean? That means these drillers get out there, they did not know this waste facility was there, but they drill down through a waste package and they finally detect it, but you cannot assume that they stop drilling. Mr. President, I am not making this up, that is from what EPA has said. Can you imagine anything more silly than people putting these drill rigs on top of Yucca Mountain and drilling right down through it and penetrating a waste package and saying, ``Well, I detect nuclear waste down there, but I'm not going to stop drilling, I'm going to keep on drilling''? Mr. President, that is what it says. In the case of the waste isolation pilot plant, it is located in New Mexico in a salt formation, in about 2,000 feet of salt. With the WIPP facility, it is probably not going to be fatal, because in the case of salt, it is very plastic. You can drill a hole through salt and that hole closes up in a matter of, I guess, weeks, months. It is a very plastic sort of thing under pressure, and it closes up. In the case of WIPP, that is not a big problem. If they have this same kind of test with respect to Yucca Mountain, which is a tuff or volcanic sort of rocky formation, and you have holes drilled down through it, how can you ever assume it is going to be safe if you drill these holes? You cannot. And then you combine that with the fact that they come up with, in the case of WIPP, a 15-millirem protection level for radioactivity, and I just do not think you can build a repository anywhere in the world. In our bill, we set the standard of radioactivity at 100 millirems. Why 100 millirems? Because the natural variation in background radioactivity varies by more than 100 millirems. The natural background radiation in Washington, DC, is about 345 millirems. Let me explain that, Mr. President, because we will be debating this question of radioactivity and exposure a great deal in this bill. A millirem--or a rem--which is one thousandth of a rem--is a measure of the amount of damage that radioactivity does to the body. Radioactivity comes from several sources--alpha, beta, gamma rays, each of which reacts differently on the body. But millirems, or rems, are able to convert the kind of radioactivity, whether it is alpha, beta or gamma radiation, and convert the pathways of that radiation, whether it is a radiation that comes through as an x ray or something you ingest by mouth or something you are exposed to from the air. It is able to convert all of those pathways and all of the different kinds of radiation to one standard measurement of harm to the body. That is what they call a rem, or a thousandth of a rem is a millirem. So it does not matter whether you are drinking water or whether you are exposed to an x ray; it can convert that into one standard convertible measure. Each of us--and this would surprise a lot of Americans--are living in a soup of radioactivity, about 345 millirems here in Washington, DC. That comes from natural radioactivity of the body. There is potassium, there is phosphorous in the body, which is radioactive and which accounts for about 30 millirems a year. If you dance with your wife, or with anybody, you are exposed to radioactivity from their body and, indeed, from your own body. A very big source of radioactivity is from radon, which is caused by the decay of radium in the soil and in the rocks, and it comes out as radon, which is a gas. There is also radioactivity from carbon 14, which comes from a bombardment of the carbon 12 atoms in the atmosphere. And that produces about, I think it is about 40 millirems a year. Then there is radioactivity from rock and from the granite. Here at the Capitol, on the front steps of the Capitol, I think there is something like an additional 80 millirems of radioactivity, as I recall. Yes. Here it is. On the front portico of the Supreme Court there are 75 millirems. In the interior of the Lincoln Memorial there are 75. The sidewalk in front of the White House has 90 to 115 millirems. Beside the reflecting pool there are 115 to 150 millirems. Get this, the hearing room in the Dirksen Building is 250 millirems. Worst of all, the doorway of the Library of Congress has 380 millirems. Or to put it another way, if you fly from Washington to Colorado, you increase your millirems by over 100 because the natural background radiation in Colorado or Wyoming or New Mexico or Utah or most any of those mountain States is over 100 millirems greater than that which you receive here in Washington. By the way, the pilot who flies that one flight to get there, he receives an additional 5 millirems. So we are in a soup of millirems. The body is subjected to literally millions of intrusions of radioactivity each day. So why did we set the limit at 100 millirems? First of all, because there is absolutely no scientific danger in this amount of radioactivity. To quote from the Health Physics Society's statement of position in January 1996, they stated that ``There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rems''--that is 100 times the 100 millirem measure we are talking about--``risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent.'' Let me repeat that. ``Below 10 rems,'' which is 100 times the limit we propose in this bill, ``. . . health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent.'' That is according to the Health Physics Society in January 1996. It is based on a wealth of studies. For example, in 1991, a study by the Johns Hopkins University of 700,000 shipyard workers showed that cancer deaths were significantly lower among workers exposed to more than 500 millirems than among workers exposed to less than 500 millirems or among the general population. The 700,000 workers, if they were exposed to more than 500 millirems, are more healthy, with less cancer than those exposed to less. Why is this? Well, the scientific world believes there is a phenomenon whereby exposure to low levels of radioactivity excite enzymes in the body which, in turn, are protective of the body from further radioactivity, called hormesis, the phenomenon which they describe. We are not basing our limits here on the phenomenon of hormesis; however, it is in fact a well-documented scientific theory at this point. In any event, the 100-millirem amount which we propose here is well within the natural variations. As I say, it is less than the change you would get just by moving to Colorado or to Wyoming. Believe me, there are no signs at the Denver airport--I was just there--that say, ``Warning. Danger. You are now getting more than 100 millirems more than you would get in Washington, DC.'' Why is this so important? Because the question is, can you build a repository if you make these assumptions of drilling these drill holes down that they go down into the water table and then you have these minuscule amounts at 15 millirems? Then the assumptions you make make it unachievable. There are also other assumptions that would be very important; that is, where you assume the drill hole would be drilled. Is it through the mountain or is it where people would farm or how far away? But we do not deal with that question. But we do deal with that amount, which we believe makes this entirely safe and within the normal limits to which people are exposed. I also point out, Mr. President, that the 100-millirem amount is the same amount which has been adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the amount which you should limit nuclear plants to. The International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1990 recommended that the annual effective dose from practices be limited to no more than 100 millirems per year. The National Council on Radiation Protection on Measurements also adopted the 100-millirem limit. As I said, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had 100 millirems. Indeed, the EPA in their Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure of General Public in 1994 recommends an effective dose from all manmade sources to be no more than 100 millirems a year. So, Mr. President, I believe it is entirely proper to set this level at that amount, and it is entirely necessary in order to get this facility built. Mr. President, I remember when we first passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. At that time the act called for characterizing three different sites. Characterizing means determining the suitability of three different sites for selection of a final facility. The three sites at that time were in the State of Washington, in the State of Texas, and Yucca Mountain. The estimate of the cost of that characterization at that time was $60 million per site, which seemed to me to be an extraordinarily expensive amount just to determine the suitability of the site. In the ensuing years, Yucca Mountain was selected legislatively as the site to use, but the cost of characterization kept going up. By 1984, I believe it was, the cost had risen to $1.2 billion to characterize that site. The cost has now gone, according to the latest estimate, to $6.3 billion to characterize the Yucca Mountain site. Over $5 billion has been spent. I must tell you, Mr. President, that a great deal of that money has been really wasted. I mean, they have gone to such incredible lengths. There is the desert tortoise. I care about the desert tortoise. It is a threatened species. But they have environmentalists that put radio collars and have satellites checking on where the desert tortoise is going, spending millions of dollars; people, especially dedicated environmentalists, working out there on the desert tortoise. You know, when you do that across the board, with some of the other heroic things they have done, it is just incredible. What we are saying, Mr. President, is we need to get on with the business of building this facility or making a decision on what we are going to do on the facility. People have criticized the Department of Energy for waste in this facility. I believe, Mr. President, much of the blame for these escalating costs for this tremendous waste lies right here with the Congress. We have not been willing to learn what this whole issue is about. We have been willing to accept any scare story that anybody says, and in the process keep putting it off year after year. For the editorials and some of the criticism to say we are rushing to judgment on this issue, when we have known the solutions for years and we keep putting it off because each year is somebody's election year--this year it is a Presidential election year. Last year, one of the Senators was up for reelection. It is that way every time. Mr. President, we have reached a crisis situation, politically, on this issue. Now pending in the D.C. Court of Appeals is litigation which seeks to declare invalid the contracts underlying whole Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the 1-mill fee that is collected on nuclear plants in order to build these facilities, and it puts at risk--I think we have about a $5 billion accumulated fund which would be at risk if the D.C. circuit is waiting to see what Congress does. Frankly, it is my guess that is exactly why they have been delaying this decision past what is their normal schedule of rendering decisions. If they are waiting for the Congress to act or to determine whether the Congress acts, and if we fail to act in Congress, then we may have a full-scale crises on our hands, because they may well declare the contracts to be invalid. If they do that, then it is 76 sites around the country in 34 States and, in turn, we would see a real reaction from the people in 34 States that begin to realize they are being victimized as having a site for nuclear waste. Mr. President, what we propose is a system that will work. Construction on the interim facility would not begin until 1999. Construction on the permanent facility would not begin until considerably after that. We have high confidence Yucca Mountain will be considered suitable. If it is not, we need to determine that just as soon as possible and move on to another permanent facility. Mr. President, what we propose in this legislation is reasonable. It is necessary. Believe me, Mr. President, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. The problem is not going to go away. There are upwards of 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste around the country today and additional nuclear waste is being generated each and every day. It is not a problem that goes away. It is not a problem that is being dealt with today. The interim storage facility would be much safer than keeping it on site. The permanent facility will be better still. Mr. President, we need to get on with this process and pass this legislation. I hope the Congress will do the responsible thing, and I hope we will pass this legislation at the appropriate time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Nuclear waste legislation needs to do four things. First, it needs to provide for the storage of nuclear waste between 1998, when a quarter of the Nation's nuclear powerplants will have run out of storage space, and the date, 14 or more years distant, when the permanent repository will open and begin accepting the utilities' waste. Second, it needs to set the existing repository program on a sounder footing by endorsing the Department of Energy's plan for completing scientific studies at the site and setting forth the licensing standards by which the repository will be judged. Third, it needs to fill the gap in transportation planning by selecting an appropriate route to ship nuclear waste between existing railroads and Yucca Mountain. Fourth, it needs to ensure that the program is adequately funded. The bill before us meets all four of these tests. While it differs from the bill I introduced at the beginning of the Congress and the bill reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in March, the differences are ones I can live with. Indeed, the pending bill makes a number of useful improvements over the committee-reported bill. On interim storage, the new bill goes a long way to meet the administration's concerns about siting the interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before the site has been found suitable for the repository. The bill bars construction of the interim storage facility until the tests can be completed and sets up a mechanism for the President to pick a different site if Yucca Mountain proves unsuitable. It also reduces the capacity of the interim storage facility to alleviate concerns that the interim facility might otherwise supplant the repository. On the repository, the new bill gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority to impose tougher standards than the ones set forth in the bill. While I believe that the 100-millirem standard in the committee-reported bill was scientifically sound, the new bill gives the technical experts at the NRC the ability to set a different standard if a tougher standard is needed to protect the public health and safety. The new bill drops a number of the more controversial provisions of the committee-reported bill, including a provision that would have permitted utilities to ship their spent fuel to Europe for reprocessing and another that would have preempted a wide range of State and Federal environmental laws. In addition, the new bill adds a number of helpful provisions designed to give financial and technical assistance to local governments and Indian tribes affected by the program and to ensure that nuclear waste is transported safely. The new bill adds a number of other provisions that concern me. For one, I cannot understand why the bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue worker-training standards for storage and disposal of nuclear waste. I do not quarrel with giving the Secretary of Transportation the power to set worker-training standards for the transportation of nuclear waste, but the Department of Transportation has no expertise in the storage and disposal of such waste. Storage and disposal are already regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which does have the expertise. This provision creates an unnecessary and duplicative bureaucratic requirement and offers more opportunities to delay the nuclear waste program and make it more costly. Second, I am concerned with the new funding mechanism in section 401 of the bill. I would have retained the existing one mill per kilowatt- hour fee on nuclear electricity and have taken steps to free the funds collected from electric ratepayers for this program from existing budget caps. Instead, S. 1936 takes the course mapped out in the House bill. It ties the amount of fees collected each year after October 1, 2002 to the amount appropriated to the program in that year. While this approach may offer relief after 2002, it does nothing to address the current funding problem and it will work against the use of the funds already collected but not yet spent on the program. Third, I am troubled by the new water rights provision in section 501. The purpose and effect of this provision are not immediately clear, but I fear that it may give the State of Nevada power it does not now possess to obstruct nuclear waste storage and disposal activities at Yucca Mountain. Fourth, I am opposed to title VII of the bill, which exempts the nuclear waste program from the civil service laws. Since roughly 90 percent of the people working on the program are already employed by private-sector contractors, I am not convinced that depriving the remaining 10 percent of their civil service protections will dramatically improve the program's performance. I do fear that this provision sets a bad precedent and may prove counterproductive. Finally, I am concerned by the bill's failure to authorize a rail link between existing railroads and the Yucca Mountain site. I understand the reasons for this. A rail link could cost a billion dollars or more. But the benefits of keeping nuclear waste canisters off the public highways may justify the cost. This issue deserves further consideration. These concerns do not detract from my overall support for the bill. In the interest of passing a bill this year, I do not intend to offer amendments on these issues at this time. I would hope that consideration can be given to fixing these problems in conference. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if one would pick this issue based on personalities I would never have been involved in the nuclear waste debate because my two colleagues from the State of Nevada are two of the most popular Senators, two of my best friends, and two of the most capable Senators in this body. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. President, I began working on nuclear waste in 1979 when I introduced the first bill. I believe that was before my two colleagues even came to the Senate. And I did so because, Mr. President, it is a problem that the Nation must solve. And it fell my lot as a member of the Energy Committee, and as chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, to deal with this very troublesome issue. Today we find ourselves, Mr. President, with about 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste spread around 34 States in this country, and it cries out for solution. And every year, Mr. President, we hear, ``Don't do it this year. This is an election year.'' You hear this privately. ``It is an election year. One of my colleagues is up.'' It is always an election year. Either one of my two colleagues from Nevada or the President is up for election. And there is always some reason to put it off. But, Mr. President, we have spent $5 billion on this issue of nuclear waste. And we are nowhere near getting it solved. That is not just because of mishandling by the Department of Energy. The responsibility, Mr. President, lies to a large extent right here in the Congress because we have been, at least up until this time, unwilling to act decisively and to do what we know must be done. I have a letter here from the White House, Leon Panetta, for whom I have not only great affection but great respect. But I must tell you, Mr. President, Mr. Panetta's letter in opposing this bill is written about the last bill--not this bill. One thing he points out, and perhaps most importantly, he says, ``The enactment of this bill will destroy the credibility of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal program by prejudicing the Yucca Mountain permanent repository decision.'' Mr. President, when this bill was in the committee I proposed an amendment which said that you may not begin construction on the temporary or interim facility until a decision is made as to the suitability of the permanent repository. That amendment was not agreed to. I think that is an appropriate amendment. I do not believe you ought to begin construction on the interim facility until you make a decision with respect to the permanent repository. But, Mr. President, that was rejected in committee. But since then we have negotiated the matter out with the chairman, Senator Murkowski, and my friend Senator Craig. And now the provision is written into this bill now being considered that you may not in fact begin construction until you make a decision as to the permanent repository. So the principal complaint in Leon Panetta's letter is no longer valid. And I hope and I trust that, when and if this bill passes, the President and Mr. Panetta will relook at this matter in light of those changed circumstances. Mr. President, the reason we need interim storage now--at least the reason we need to pass this bill now--is because that reactor sites around the country are running out of room in what they call swimming pools. The nuclear waste rods are taken out of the reactor and put in literally swimming pools of water, and those have been reracked over the years; that is, made more dense. And one by one utilities are running out of space. Northern States Utilities up in the State of Minnesota has already run out of space and has had to purchase what they call dry cask storage at very expensive cost. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today, I join thousands of Americans and other admirers around the world in paying tribute to Bill Lee, retired chairman of Duke Power Co. and a personal friend, who died on July 10, 1996, in New York at age 67. To eulogize William States Lee as Duke's former chairman, while accurate, does not begin to do justice to the scope of Bill's talents, vision, and accomplishments. In a career at Duke that spanned four decades, Bill presided over one of the most successful electric utilities in the Nation. He provided the leadership for the most successful nuclear power program in the Nation. It was his determination to bring safe, clean, and reliable power for North and South Carolina electricity consumers that resulted in the construction of the Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba nuclear powerplants, which have admirable served the people of the region for many years. Bill Lee's achievements do not stop at the bounds of Duke's service territory. He is revered as the driving force behind the national and international organizations that today do so much to ensure the safety of the United States and world nuclear powerplants. It is those contributions, perhaps even more that his contributions at Duke Power, that constitute his true legacy and assure his place in the history for the electric power industry. After the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island, Bill Lee, then president and chief operating officer of Duke Power, was called in to lead the recovery effort. It was Bill who spawned the idea that the nuclear industry needed its own watchdog organization to assure excellence in operation at every plant. He went on to create the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, headquartered in Atlanta, which includes every nuclear utility in the Nation as its members. He served as INPO chairman from 1979 to 1982. The news of the Chernobyl accident was only days old in 1986 when Lee launched a personal diplomatic crusade to bring the former East bloc countries into an organization like INPO. In was his often-stated belief that ``radiation knows no national boundaries.'' Thanks largely to his personal ability to persuade and the respect he commanded on both sides of the Atlantic, the World Association of Nuclear Operators [WANO] was founded in 1986. Lee served as WANO president from 1989 to 1991. Today, WANO continues to be a major force for global nuclear safety, as a vehicle for sharing Western safety and performance expertise throughout the world. Bill Lee was a native of Charlotte, NC. He was graduated from Princeton in 1951, with a degree in civil engineering, and after a stint in the U.S. Navy, joined Duke Power as a junior engineer in 1955. He was named vice president of engineering in 1965, and a board member 3 years later. He became chairman and president in 1989, and remained in that position until his retirement in 1994, when he became Duke's first chairman emeritus. The business magazine Financial World named Bill a winner in its CEO of the Year competition for 4 consecutive years. In 1989, the magazine named him ``Utility CEO of the Decade.'' Bill also was active in numerous civic organizations, especially as an advocate for education reform. He is survived by his wife, Jan, his son, States, his two daughters, Helen and Lisa, his mother, Sara Toy, and five grandchildren. He will be greatly missed--and long remembered--by both family and his many admiring associates. I will personally miss his boundless enthusiasm. This enthusiasm was always there, whether he was raising money for charity, keeping Duke Power on the cutting edge of excellence, or taking up some new adventure-like skiing at the age of 40. I worked with Bill on some of the toughest legislative issues the Energy and Natural Resources Committee faced. He was a great ally: Tough, razor sharp, sophisticated, always able to see the big picture. He was a leader who was a gentleman, a man with great integrity and a keen sense of the public interest. In an industry obsessed with the bottom line and next week's stock price, Bill was a visionary who took responsibility for the future. We need more Bill Lees, but were not likely to find any like him. Bill Lee did it all, and he enjoyed all. I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this remarkable man and extending condolences to his family and many friends.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment raises the statutory fiscal ceiling set in section 3122 on a type of activity in the Department of Energy known as general plant projects. The amendment also requests a report from the Secretary of Energy with recommendations on a permanent authorization formula for such activities. General plant projects are projects that seek to maintain or replace the fixed and capital assets of the Department at its facilities, whether these assets are entire buildings, major subsystems of buildings--for example, electrical systems, compressed air systems--or other fixed assets such as parking lots, electrical substations, sewer lines, or roads. General plant projects do not entail the acquisition of new programmatic capabilities. Rather, they support and maintain an infrastructure for carrying out existing DOE programs and authorities. This activity designation is unique to DOE in this bill--there is not a clear analog to general plant projects in the Department of Defense, although the Department of Defense also has a large facility infrastructure that it must maintain. Starting in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986, cost ceilings have been annually established for DOE general plant projects for missions and authorities under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. This routine provision of recent defense bills, however, has proven to have considerable effects on the civilian programs of the Department under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By establishing a statutory ceiling for general plant projects in the National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress has effectively set the ceiling on all Department spending on general plant projects, whether defense or civilian. This is because it is not possible, in practice, to manage a system of routine construction and maintenance based on different ceilings. For example, a major electrical upgrade that affected both civilian and defense-related buildings at a DOE site could hardly be subject to two different statutory limits. Nor, as another example, could an upgrade to a sanitary sewer system connecting several buildings--some of which housed civilian DOE programs, others of which housed DOE defense projects--be accomplished under two different statutory limits. In fact, there is some evidence that the greatest impact of the ceiling in the Defense bill is on the Department of Energy infrastructure supporting civilian missions, as general plant projects at defense-related DOE sites tend to be small than general plant projects at civilian sites. The present ceiling on general plant projects has also never been the subject of a substantive review. Many Department of Energy sites are over 50 years old and contain numerous buildings that are far below contemporary standards or that have completely outlived their useful occupancy. Major rehabilitation of these buildings or their major systems for ongoing programs is required. Yet, the $2,000,000 statutory limitation on such projects poses a major obstacle to the speedy accomplishment of such tasks. For example, in fiscal year 1996, the Office of Energy Research had to propose a line-item project--Project No. 95-E-303--to rehabilitate electrical systems in the laboratories for which it was responsible in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site. This work was required to correct numerous National Electrical Code violations identified in 1990 during a ``Tiger Team'' inspection. In DOE's words, ``much of the older equipment is deteriorating and its present condition poses a personnel and fire hazard.'' The construction cost for this electrical safety rehabilitation was estimated at $4.2 million, above the current general plant project limit. Because of this statutory limitation, this needed safety upgrade--identified nearly 6 years ago--has been delayed for at least an additional 18 months, and workers have been needlessly exposed to a known, personnel and fire hazard. Further, because this project was forced into a line-item project status, its costs were further increased by the need for the preparation of a conceptual design report and by enhanced requirements for project management that attend line- item projects of any size in the Department. The ``design and management costs'' associated with this $4.2 million construction project were an additional $1.7 million. Clearly, this is an example of excessive costs driven by an artificially low limit on general plant projects. As another example, at Brookhaven National Laboratory, an existing storage and transfer facility for fuel oil had to be upgraded over a period of 4 fiscal years via a line-item appropriation because the cost of the project was $3.65 million. This facility was the only supply of fuel for the central steam facility that, in turn, provided heat and hot water to the entire laboratory. A timely upgrade was needed to bring the facility into compliance with State and local codes. Because this project was delayed in order to undertake it as a line-item appropriation, the regulatory timetable for achieving compliance was exceeded and State and local officials had to issue a temporary waiver to the old facility to continue operations. Had these officials been less forthcoming, the operations of the entire laboratory would have been compromised. There is heightened regulatory concern over potential groundwater contamination from Brookhaven laboratory facilities on Long Island, as Brookhaven is located over an EPA designated sole-source aquifer for the Island. Had general plant project funds been available for this project, it would have been completed more expeditiously, the need for a special waiver might have been avoided, and the Department and the Laboratory could have certainly avoided further inflaming local concern over groundwater pollution from this facility. There are many other examples that could be discussed of needed projects at DOE facilities that have been needlessly delayed because of the general plant project limitation contained in previous Defense Authorization Acts. Put simply, $2 million doesn't buy very much in the real world of facilities management. Replacing 3,480 feet of sanitary sewer lines ranging in diameter from 3 to 8 inches--Project 96-E-331-- or retrofitting heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in a 40-year-old 300-person office building--Project 95-A-500--or upgrading a chemical laboratory to meet current requirements of the Uniform Fire Code--Project 93-E-324--all exceed $2 million in costs. In preparation for offering this amendment, I asked the Department of Energy to estimate the number of projects and their related costs that would be added to the general plant project category if my amendment were adopted. I ask unanimous consent that the response from the Department of Energy be printed in the Record following the completion of my remarks.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the DOE response, which I interpret to favor this amendment, is illuminating in several respects. First of all, it confirms that there are real cost savings to be realized by raising the general plant project limit. DOE estimates that $4.7 million would be saved by raising the ceiling under my amendment, considering only costs associated with elimination of Conceptual Design Reports and savings from avoiding the 18-to-24 month hiatus now experienced by projects in the range between $2 million and $5 million. There are also additional savings that will result from reduced overhead (personnel associated with these projects now must be moved to other projects and otherwise kept on the payroll during the hiatus or new personnel must be brought up to speed at the end of the hiatus). As the examples I have given above illustrate, there are also other savings that are possible, from avoided injuries or fines and penalties that might result from missed compliance dates. It is hard to put a figure on such costs, as they will vary from project to project, but they are very real. Second, the DOE response indicates that raising this limit will not open the flood gates to an unmanageable number of additional projects. Based on fiscal year 1996 data, increasing the limit under my amendment will increase the actual number of general plant projects by less than 10 percent. The total funding for general plant projects, across the Department, might increase by $64,000,000, with most of this increase projected to occur on the civilian side of the Department. The impact of my amendment on general plant projects in the Office of Defense Programs, according to the Department, ``would be relatively small.'' Thus, I believe that my amendment is an appropriate step to take at this time. Third, the DOE response indicates that, because the funds for general plant projects in fiscal year 1997 have been spoken for, this amendment will begin to exert its effect starting in fiscal year 1998, thus allowing the Department one year to examine its internal procedures to ensure that they are adequate for the higher limit. While I am convinced that increasing the limit from $2 million to $5 million in this bill is well justified, I also believe that we need a more permanent solution to the issue of establishing limits on general plant projects in the Department of Energy. That is why my amendment also calls for a report ``on the need for, and desirability of, a permanent authorization formula for defense and civilian general plant projects in the Department of Energy that periodic adjustments for inflation, including any legislative recommendation to enact such formula into permanent law.'' I believe that we should set in motion a process to arrive at a permanent legal and management framework that addresses both civilian and defense needs for general plant projects in the Department of Energy. I would like to thank the managers of this bill for their cooperation and support for my attempts to address this issue, and I urge the adoption of my amendment. Exhibit 1 Department of Energy, Washington, DC, June 27, 1996. Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Johnston: Thank you for June 18, 1996, letter concerning general plant projects in the Department of Energy. As you are aware, the statutory ceiling on general plant projects contained in S. 1745, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, applies only to atomic energy defense activities funded under the 050 function. You are correct, however, that the Department applies this same ceiling to all Department spending on general plant projects for administrative convenience and consistency. The analysis prepared by the Department in response to your questions includes both civilian and defense spending for general plant projects in the aggregate based upon fiscal year 1996 spending. Our analysis suggests that potential savings could accrue from raising the ceiling on general plant projects. Some program offices would clearly be more likely to accrue savings than other program offices, however. For example, in the case of the Office of Defense Programs, general plant projects tend to be small construction requirements, such as facility refurbishment and minor road repairs, and very few of these projects reach the $2 million ceiling. Therefore, savings from increasing the ceiling for the Office of Defense Programs would be relatively small. In addition, as a result of language included in the House and Senate reports accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriation for Fiscal Year 1996, the Department now merges its general plant projects into operating expenses, which has provided the Department additional flexibility in carrying out general plant projects under the ceiling of $2 million. The value to the Department of a higher general plant project ceiling would be enhanced if that flexibility were extended to the higher ceiling. The Department appreciates your efforts to reduce unnecessary or burdensome requirements and to assist us in finding areas for cost savings. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Louise Wagner, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Senate Liaison, on 202-586-5468. Sincerely, Donald W. Pearman, Jr., Associate Deputy Secretary for Field Management. Enclosure. Enclosure Question. What is number of general plant projects anticipated in FY 1997 that would be below the current $2,000,000 limit? Answer. These projects tend to be relatively small, such as facility refurbishment, minor road repairs, roof repair and replacement, electrical system upgrades, and some small facilities. The actual projects to be funded in FY 1997 will not be selected until later when programmatic needs and unexpected repairs are prioritized with existing lists of general plant project requirements. Although a few push the $2,000,000 limit, $500,000 is a good estimate of the average size of these projects. Based on this average, we estimate approximately 200 general plant projects in FY 1997. Question. What is the total dollar amount represented by these projects? Answer. The total dollar amount represented by these projects (i.e., the FY 1997 funding request for general plant projects) is approximately $98,000,000. Question. What would be the number of general plant projects (and the corresponding dollar amount) that would be added if the limit in the Defense Authorization Act were to be changed to $2,500,000; $4,000,000; and $5,000,000? Answer. Using FY 1996 data as a gauge, there would be no additional general plant projects, if the limit were raised to $2,500,000. Using FY 1996 data as a gauge, there would be 11 additional general plant projects with an additional dollar amount of $37,000,000, if the limit were raised to $4,000,000. Using FY 1996 data as a gauge, there would be 7 additional general plant projects with an additional dollar amount of $27,000,000, if the limit were raised to $5,000,000. Question. What savings would occur if the limit on general plant projects were changed to $2,500,000; $4,000,000; and $5,000,000? Answer. For that limited number of projects in FY 1996 which fell between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000 in estimated total project cost, some savings would be generated by shortening the project time line and being able to proceed immediately from conceptual design, through final engineering and into physical construction. The analysis was conducted on FY 1996 data and would vary from year to year depending on the specific activities. If the limit on general plant projects were changed to (based on our current data): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Additional Limit general plant Estimated savings projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $2.5 Million.................. $0............... $0 $4.0 Million.................. $37 Million...... $2.7 Million (see note). $5.0 Million.................. $27 Million...... $4.7 Million (see note). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: Calculation of Savings: $37 M x 2% for Conceptual Design Report development + 5.3% (Escalation) = $2.7M. ($37M + $27M) x 2% for Conceptual Design Report development + 5.3% (Escalation) = $4.7M. Question. How would such cost savings be realized? Answer. General plant projects do not require Conceptual Design Reports. Once requirements for general plant projects are identified, design of the projects can begin immediately. Currently, there is an 18-24 month delay between the completion of a Conceptual Design Report and start of design of a line item project (any construction project above $2 million). The cost savings if the Conceptual Design Reports are not required would be approximately 2 percent of the total project cost (representing the average cost to perform the Conceptual Design Report) plus avoidance of the escalation resulting from the two year ``hiatus.'' Other intangible cost savings would accrue from reduced overhead, quicker response to changed mission requirements and earlier availability of facilities to support the mission. In FY 1997, minimum savings would be realized because Conceptual Design Reports should already have been started or completed, therefore the delay (18-24 months) between Conceptual Design Reports and start of design would have already occurred. Any real savings would start to accrue in

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I rise to express my profound sadness concerning the death last night of Mollie Beattie. Until a few weeks ago, Mollie had served the Nation as the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Beattie, who was the Service's first female Director, was a very warm and talented public servant. She had a gift for working with people an was interested in solving problems; two traits that are all too rare in these days of partisanship and confrontation. She was also a knowledgeable and hard working professional who put her considerable training and expertise to work every day in dealing with the many complex issues facing the Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Beattie's dedication to her work went beyond the norm, as evidenced by her willingness to support new and exciting concepts for fish and wildlife protection. Just last year, she traveled to Louisiana for a ground-breaking ceremony on the research center for endangered species, the ACRES facility, which was dedicated earlier this month at the Audubon Institute in New Orleans. The facility is dedicated to using the latest reproductive technology to help stem the rising tide of extinction among the world's most threatened animals. Her support was essential to making this effort a reality. Mollie was well liked by all who knew her, even those who did not always agree with her on policy matters or her efforts to promote the views of the Department of the Interior, because she reminded us that people in public service can disagree without being disagreeable. That is a good lesson for all of us to think about, Mr. President, as we remember Mollie and mourn her loss. My thoughts and prayers, and those of my colleagues, are with Mollie's family and friends.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it is with a great sense of urgency that I speak today with my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], to bring to the attention of my colleagues an extremely important issue in my State of Louisiana. Mr. President, since 1991, Fort Polk, Leesville, LA has been home to the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center, or the JRTC, and to elements of the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment. Fort Polk has the only combat training center in the continental United States dedicated to light infantry training. The National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA, provides a somewhat comparable service to our men and women who train for armored units combat. Each year, some 50,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines arrive at Fort Polk for rotational training in infantry maneuvers and joint operations. This involves special operation training, counterinsurgency operations, live fire, brigade defense, and brigade counterattack. The training received is unique, not only because of the terrain at Fort Polk, with its tree-covered grassy areas which are indigenous to western Louisiana, but the total realism this sort of training provides. Even to the extent that there is a complete field hospital set up to attend to simulated wounds and casualties. Our soldiers are given a certain level of comfort, knowing that if they are injured in combat, that they will be evacuated and receive treatment, quickly and efficiently. Mr. President, I am proposing this amendment to increase the land area of Fort Polk, which will enable the Joint Readiness Training Center to train and maneuver over a larger land area. This is crucial to the continued usefulness of Fort Polk. Some may ask, why is it necessary to provide additional land to Fort Polk? The answer, Mr. President, is fairly simple. Fort Polk has a requirement for additional maneuver training lands to support its mission of conducting joint readiness training for Army rotational units as well as maintaining the combat readiness of units permanently home stationed at Fort Polk. Fort Polk and the JRTC currently have access to 40,000 acres of Forest Service land under an intensive-use permit but need additional access to the 45,000 acre limited-use permit parcel below it to meet its training requirements. The total of 85,000 acres will enable the JRTC to conduct its primary mission--training infantry soldiers. Longer range weapons and sensors are changing the nature of land warfare. Greater ranges are now covered by a smaller force. A brigade will now maneuver in the space once used by a division. Our military must keep abreast of these changes, to maintain the utmost efficiency and to protect our troops in the event of real combat. Some have raised concerns about how the Army would manage this new acreage. I submit that it would be substantially similar to how Fort Polk is currently managed, in full compliance with all laws and regulations. The Army has forest and land management plans for the Forest Service land it currently uses. When the transfer of land occurs, the Army will comply with all applicable Federal laws including NEPA. All existing land uses for fish and wildlife, hunting, cultural and natural resources management, forestry operations as well as private holdings will be followed. Fort Polk is a good neighbor and steward of the natural resources they manage. The fort has received a non-jeopardy opinion for both their recovery plan and their training plan regarding the red-cockaded woodpecker. In less than 3 years the woodpecker population has almost doubled. Fort Polk manages the forest using an ecosystem management approach rather than a commercial approach, i.e., the goal is to maximize a balanced ecology, not profit. The fort has reduced sediment loading, mapped all wetlands, and is in compliance with the Clean Water and Scenic Stream Act. The fort is also a State Wildlife Management Area whose hunting seasons are adjusted to take into account training rotations. These practices will continue on the expansion area. An historic preservation plan has been completed and protection for known sites is in place. Curation facility meets State standards. The fort is the winner of numerous environmental awards: Louisiana Association of Conservation Districts Good Land Use Award--first time awarded to a Federal facility. Second place winner, Secretary of Defense Natural Resources Conservation Award. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI Beneficial Re-Use Award. National Park Service, Southeast Region Preservation Award. Environmentalist of the Year, Dr. Charles H. Stagg, Fort Polk, LA. Let me go over some of the provisions of this amendment. Our amendment would provide 6 months for the Army and the Forest Service to come to an agreement on transfer of all or some portion of this property. The 6 months may be extended by another 6 months, by mutual agreement. The land transfers automatically if no agreement can be reached between the USDA and the Army. The amendment does not allow for any live firings on transferred land, except on that land currently used for that purpose. It directs the Department of the Army to develop a management plan, and provides for the return of the property to the Agriculture Department if the land is no longer used by the Army for training purposes. The legislation would prohibit the Army from condemning any private inholdings. This amendment has strong, broad support. The Army supports this initiative. There is overwhelming civic support, as the following communities and legislative bodies have passed resolutions supporting the transfer: Louisiana State Legislature; Vernon Parish, the local parish; Beauregard Parish; as well as the surrounding communities of Leesville, De Ridder, Alexandria, Pineville, Many, and Natchitoches. Mr. President, Fort Polk is very important to Louisiana and to the Nation's overall military readiness and the Louisiana delegation overwhelmingly supports the transfer. The land transfer is critical to the fort's mission, light infantry training, and its future. The U.S. Army needs to train its infantry brigades in the most realistic manner possible. The time for our soldiers to learn from their mistakes is while at the Joint Readiness Training Center, not while in harm's way. Additional land will give the JRTC the resources it needs to properly train our Armed Forces to the highest level of readiness. I ask unamious consent a letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army to Mr. Lauffer of the Committee on Armed Services, be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Sheriff Charles Fuselier who has been named sheriff of the year by the National Sheriffs' Association. The renowned national Ferris E. Lucus Award presented annually by the National Sheriff's Association, recognizes the accomplishments, outstanding public service and strong leadership qualities of its recipient. Of the forty-two sheriffs in the Nation to have been nominated, Sheriff Fuselier holds the distinction of being the first sheriff from Louisiana to receive this most prestigious award. Sheriff Fuselier, who is currently serving his fifth term in office, is a very valuable resource both to St. Martin Parish and the State of Louisiana. He has demonstrated time and time again his dedication to the citizens of St. Martin Parish through his many accomplishments which have touched the lives of many people and had an overwhelmingly positive impact on the State as a whole. When Sheriff Fuselier took office in 1980, the staff consisted of 28 deputies. Currently, the sheriff's office boasts a 160 deputy staff. This is just one of the many instances where Sheriff Fuselier recognized a critical need and took the necessary steps to better serve the people of St. Martin Parish. Other examples of his leadership and dedication include the establishment of law enforcement centers, parish prisons and a special emergency reaction team. Sheriff Fuselier has not only recognized the law enforcement needs of the parish but also the individuals under his care with the implementation of an inmate rehabilitation program. Due to his tireless efforts to enhance the delivery of law enforcement services and combat the victimization of older persons, Sheriff Fuselier was instrumental in creating the first TRIAD program in the Nation in Louisiana. He heard about the TRIAD concept at a national FBI forum, knew it would help the people of St. Martin Parish and began a TRIAD program within weeks of having heard about it. Thus having earned the title ``Father TRIAD,'' he has also instructed and moderated numerous TRIAD workshops and seminars providing assistance to develop TRIAD programs throughout Louisiana and the Nation. Through his work on a myriad of law enforcement task forces, study groups, and commissions, Sheriff Fuselier has made many very important contributions to the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association. In fact, Sheriff Fuselier served in every position of the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association and also in many capacities on the National Sheriffs' Association such as the crime prevention committee and the national TRIAD advisory board. I congratulate Sheriff Fuselier on receiving this very prestigious award and also on his contributions to the State and national criminal justice system. His achievements are truly an inspiration and the national sheriff of the year award is well deserved.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the bill that I have just introduced, which is strongly supported by the administration, amends or repeals a number of sections in the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 that are obsolete or that are duplicative or inconsistent with other, Governmentwide statutes governing rulemaking and advisory committee management. Over the past 3 years, I have proposed, on a number of occasions, amendments to remove administrative requirements of the Department of Energy Organization Act that are more onerous than similar Governmentwide requirements contained in more general statutes. For example, with the support of the Department of Energy [DOE] and the Office of Government Ethics, I have successfully promoted the repeal of financial disclosure and divestiture requirements affecting DOE employees that were more stringent than the comparable requirements of the Ethics in Government Act and that provided potent recruitment disincentives for outstanding potential employees for the Department. This bill continues the process of placing DOE on a similar footing in administrative law to other Federal agencies. The first subsection in section 2 of the bill repeals redundant and obsolete requirements affecting DOE rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, and places DOE procurement rulemaking under the same statutory basis, that is, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as all other Federal agencies. The second subsection repeals a restriction on DOE advisory committees that effectively prevents DOE from using committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act for peer review of scientific and technical proposals and the selection of awardees for such departmental scientific honors as the Fermi Award and the E.O. Lawrence Award. The proposals are noncontroversial, the Department of Energy has rendered technical assistance in their drafting, and the administration has indicated its strong support for these provisions in a letter dated June 10, 1996. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the bill that I have just introduced, which is strongly supported by the administration, amends or repeals a number of sections in the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 that are obsolete or that are duplicative or inconsistent with other, Governmentwide statutes governing rulemaking and advisory committee management. Over the past 3 years, I have proposed, on a number of occasions, amendments to remove administrative requirements of the Department of Energy Organization Act that are more onerous than similar Governmentwide requirements contained in more general statutes. For example, with the support of the Department of Energy [DOE] and the Office of Government Ethics, I have successfully promoted the repeal of financial disclosure and divestiture requirements affecting DOE employees that were more stringent than the comparable requirements of the Ethics in Government Act and that provided potent recruitment disincentives for outstanding potential employees for the Department. This bill continues the process of placing DOE on a similar footing in administrative law to other Federal agencies. The first subsection in section 2 of the bill repeals redundant and obsolete requirements affecting DOE rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, and places DOE procurement rulemaking under the same statutory basis, that is, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as all other Federal agencies. The second subsection repeals a restriction on DOE advisory committees that effectively prevents DOE from using committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act for peer review of scientific and technical proposals and the selection of awardees for such departmental scientific honors as the Fermi Award and the E.O. Lawrence Award. The proposals are noncontroversial, the Department of Energy has rendered technical assistance in their drafting, and the administration has indicated its strong support for these provisions in a letter dated June 10, 1996. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.