John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments regarding H.R. 1776, the commemorative coin bill which has recently taken a great deal of the time of a number of Senators. In an effort to come to agreement on this package which contains coins for a number of very worthy causes, the bill directs that a marketing study be undertaken prior to the commencement of the Fifty State Coin Program. Mr. President, I would like to clarify to my colleagues that this language is intended to ensure that this coin program will be successful. To that end it is very important that the U.S. Mint, which has the expertise in coin marketing, direct the study. In addition, language has been included in the package that directs that funds to pay for this study come from discretionary funds of the Department of the Treasury, and not from the U.S. Mint. Many Senators have not been satisfied with the conduct of the debate on this issue, and this language makes it clear that funds for this compromise study will not come from proceeds of the coin programs used to fund U.S. Mint operations, but rather from the Treasury Department.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have been privileged in my career in the U.S. Senate, through my work on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, to work with many of the great scientific minds of this country. I rise today to pay tribute to one of those scientists with whom I worked especially closely and who was a longtime close personal friend before his death last summer. Dr. Bill Wiley of the Battelle Memorial Institute built a monumental career and left a huge legacy first and foremost because of his special gifts and training as a fine scientist. His achievements over his 30- year career with Battelle, beginning as a staff research scientist and ending with his position as vice president for Science and Technology, contributed significantly to this country's scientific understanding. But I believe that the work for which Bill Wiley should and will be best remembered is the concrete result of his vision which is now nearing completion on the banks of the Columbia River in Richland, WA, the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), which will be the jewel of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and which may very well hold the key to this country's Herculean effort to the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and other, similar sites around the country. Armed only with this vision and his irrepressible charm and enthusiasm, Bill Wiley came to see me several years ago to lay out his plans for EMSL, undaunted by skeptics who had told him at every turn that it might be a good idea, but the Congress was unlikely to embrace such a costly project. I must say that had it been anyone other than Bill Wiley pushing the dream, the skeptics probably would have been right. But Bill not only convinced me that it was worth doing, he persuaded all the other relevant players that not only was it something we could do, but that it was something a great nation should not fail to do. I visited the EMSL facility in its late stages of construction shortly before Bill's death last summer. Anyone who ever harbored doubts about the wisdom of this research facility should go have a look when it opens its doors next month. It will be home to America's finest scientists employing the latest tools doing the best research in the world today. And it is a point of special pride to those of us who were his friends that they will be doing so in the building named in memory of William R. Wiley. This African-American son of an Oxford, MS, cobbler served his Nation well professionally and as a humanitarian who was never too busy in his career to help the less fortunate who were trying to work their way up the ladder or merely to get to the first rung of the ladder. I know many colleagues join me in expressing our condolences to Bill's loving wife Gus and to his daughter Johari Wiley-Johnson and in expressing our deep gratitude for the paths that Bill Wiley charted and the mark he left behind.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, no senator has been blessed with a more capable, more loyal, more effective personal staff than I have. For 24 years, they have worked for my office, our State and our Nation with energy and diligence. All of the staff over these years have been excellent, but at this time I want to especially recognize the three most senior staffers in my Washington office for their special talents and contributions.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, when I first came to the U.S. Senate, I was assigned to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which we of course know today as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As I prepare to finish my Senate career, I look back on my years on that committee as the source of the most rewarding and intellectually stimulating challenges of my years here. From the Arab embargo of 1973 to the natural gas wars of 1978, from the complex Alaska land issues of the early 1980's to the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, we have been engaged in vitally important work that is often long on complexity and short on glamour. I am proud of the record we achieved, not only during my 8 years as chairman, but throughout my service, and I wish today to say thank you to a professional staff unlike any other, one which has served the committee and the country so well over the years. Some of the best minds in the country have served on the committee staff over the years. Whatever their reasons for coming, I believe most stayed and relished their time there because they found themselves in the company of other keen minds, and they knew that their mission would not be mortgaged to politics and that their task was to find honest, pragmatic, workable solutions to vexing problems. Almost all of them have gone on to rewarding careers in government and business, and I can only hope they were as enriched by their experience as the public product was by their service. Luckily for me, some of the very best and brightest have remained to assist me as my service in this body comes to a close. ben cooper One of those staff members who has served me the longest and with particular distinction is the minority staff director of the committee, Dr. Ben Cooper. About the time I joined the committee, we became involved in the development of national energy policy in response to the crude oil supply interruptions in the Middle East that were disrupting our domestic economy. The committee has continued to be involved deeply in this issue, as indicated by its current name, which was attached to the committee during the reorganization of Senate committees that occurred in early 1977. Shortly after I joined the committee, a long-haired doctor of physics joined the Democratic committee staff from Iowa State, where he had been an instructor. He first joined the staff as a congressional science fellow employed by the then-chairman, our dear departed colleague, Senator Henry M. Jackson. Since those early days, I have worked closely with Ben, who officially became part of my staff in 1981, when I became ranking minority member of the committee. Ben has continued with me through my chairmanship of the committee and through our return to the minority. Mr. President, there can be no better staff than Dr. Ben Cooper. He is perhaps the only remaining staff of either the House or Senate who has a complete institutional memory of the evolution of modern Federal energy policy. Ben has been active on energy issues that range from crude oil pricing to natural gas deregulation to the current electric restructuring debate. Ben is particularly an expert on nuclear policy, as would be expected from his physics background. I can say without reservation that Ben has played an active and, usually, key staff role on every piece of legislation relating to nuclear matters that has been considered by Congress in the last 20 years. In addition, Ben has played a key role on non-energy-related legislation ranging from public lands legislation to the risk assessment legislation that has been considered by the Senate during the last two Congresses. Mr. President, throughout his long career as Senate staff, Ben has earned a reputation for honesty and professionalism both among the staff and Members of the House and Senate. Unfortunately for the Senate and, I believe, the process of developing sound public policy, Ben has indicated that he will be leaving the Senate by the end of the year to pursue new challenges. Mr. President, my friendship with Dr. Ben Cooper will continue, but our daily interaction is not likely to continue, and I will miss Ben's daily good counsel tremendously. I commend Ben for a career well spent and well conducted, congratulate him on the contribution he has made to our Nation and wish him the best in his future pursuits. tom williams The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been fortunate to have a second long-term Democratic staff member who is as eminent in his field as is Dr. Cooper in the field of energy policy. I refer, of course, to Tom Williams, who is without equal in his knowledge of Federal policy toward public lands, national parks, the U.S. Forest Service and a variety of lands issues relating to the great State of Alaska. Tom joined the Democratic staff of the committee in 1973 and has continued his service with the committee through today, except for a brief interlude at the Department of the Interior early in the current administration. During his service with the committee, Tom has served as key staff on every public lands and national parks bill that has been considered or enacted by the U.S. Senate. No staff member in the Congress has a greater institutional knowledge of these important, and often divisive issues that are often at once arcane and tremendously important both to the Nation as a whole and to individuals that may be affected directly by Federal policy. I have had the pleasure of considering Tom ``my'' staff since I became ranking member of the committee in 1981. Throughout that period of time, I have valued Tom's counsel not only on the parks and lands issues, but on a host of other issues including the mining reform legislation that has been considered by the committee in the past several Congresses. Tom has the ability to counsel wisely and honestly on the various policy options available and on the often diametrically opposed arguments of industry and the environmental community. Tom has that great ability, shared by Ben Cooper and many of my staff, to remain calm and professional in the midst of the hottest and most divisive debates. For that reason, among others, Tom Williams has earned an excellent reputation among Members and staff alike in both the House and Senate. Mr. President, I will miss my daily interaction with Tom, but I understand that Tom's talents will not be lost to the Senate or the public. I understand that Tom desires to continue in his service and I am sure that my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, who will become the ranking Democrat on the committee, will continue Tom's service with the committee. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to Tom for his service and counsel to me and for his friendship, and I am pleased that the committee and the Senate will continue to have access to Tom's talents and service.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it was my great fortune to be assigned to the Committee on Appropriations relatively early in my first term in the Senate. It is through that Committee that I have been able to serve my State in a way that I believe has contributed measurably to an improvement in the economic quality of life for the people of Louisiana. As I began my second full term in the Senate, I had the added good fortune of taking over the reins of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Works, as it was known at the time, from a wonderful man who taught me so much about the Senate, the late and beloved Senator John Stennis of Mississippi. When I fell heir to that chairmanship, I also inherited the services of the longtime staff director of the subcommittee, Proctor Jones. It is of Proctor and his service to the Senate and his country that I wish to speak today. Every now and then in this body, someone of the thousands of loyal staff who toil for us and our constituents achieves an elevated status among Senators and staff colleagues. I think few would deny that Proctor has long since reached that plateau. Proctor Jones came to this body in 1960, and, aside from 4 years of service as a proud Marine, he has served here continuously since that time. He has seen and participated in more of the sweep of politics and public policy than most of us can imagine, and along the way he has amassed an unrivaled knowledge of the legislative process and a nearly unmatched institutional memory. Members in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle know they can turn to Proctor for advice and assistance with absolute confidence that their requests will be treated fairly and respectfully. They also know that he gets results. Proctor's broad and detailed knowledge of his appropriation areas helps account for his uncanny ability to find the means, even when none appears available, to achieve the legislative goals that we set. While such knowledge gives Proctor authority, he would never think of abusing the great powers we entrust to him. He is a man who loves and cherishes the institutions of Government and who is guided by the fine Georgia code of honor he learned from his early mentor, the late Senator Richard Russell, the giant whom Proctor served early in his Senate career. If anything, Proctor is self-deprecating and deferential to a fault: as he is fond of saying, ``I just work here, I don't vote. And I love my job.'' He has indeed loved his job and has performed his duties in a way that has made a profound difference in those areas covered under our Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. He has always understood that we have a serious obligation to protect and improve the country's physical infrastructure and to support and nurture the Nation's scientific brain trust at the national laboratories and throughout the Federal Government. Uninformed critics have sometimes derided those vital responsibilities as pork or misplaced priorities, but I firmly believe that Proctor's vision and dedication have contributed mightily to the security and strength of this country. Proctor has also become my valued personal friend, owing in large measure to his infectious enthusiasm for everything in life from opera, to travel, to sports, to hiking and joyous gatherings of friends and family. As I conclude my service in the Senate, I want Proctor and his family to know that I speak for my colleagues, past and present, in saying thanks for a job done well and as no one else could have done it.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on several occasions over the past few days, I have taken the floor to express my appreciation to my fine staff for their loyal service to me and the committee over the years. Today, I want to say thank you to two staff members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Diane Balamoti has been with the committee since 1987. During this period she has served as the staff assistant to the Park and Public Lands Subcommittee. As many of my colleagues know, this subcommittee has always been one of the most active and prolific subcommittees in the Senate. During her 10 years with the committee, Diane has staffed countless hearings and business meetings and assisted in the preparation of bills, statements, and the drafting of committee reports. She has kept the subcommittee's voluminous bills files and tracked the work of the subcommittee through the Senate and House. Diane possesses truly outstanding clerical skills which are often tested, especially at the end of a Congress when the pace of the committee's business always quickens. Ms. Balamoti has been a dependable, productive, and important member of our committee staff for many years and I want her to know how much I appreciate her service to me and the country. In addition, Mr. President, I want to thank Teresa Breland, the newest full time staff member on the Energy Committee minority staff. Terri, who has been with us slightly over a year, has served as our receptionist in the minority office and has more recently been the assistant to our staff director for the minority, Ben Cooper. Mr. President, Terri is one of those dedicated public servants who puts in a full day's work on the Hill and then goes to school at night. She is just about to finish her master's degree in psychology and I commend her for a job well done.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, it was my great fortune to be assigned to the Committee on Appropriations relatively early in my first term in the Senate. It is through that committee that I have been able to serve my State in a way that I believe has contributed measurably to an improvement in the economic quality of life for the people of Louisiana. As I began my second full term in the Senate, I had the added good fortune of taking over the reins of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Works, as it was known at the time, from a wonderful man who taught me so much about the Senate, the late and beloved Senator John Stennis of Mississippi. When I fell heir to that chairmanship, I also inherited the services of the longtime staff director of the subcommittee, Proctor Jones. It is of Proctor and his service to the Senate and his country that I wish to speak today. Every now and then in this body, someone of the thousands of loyal staff who toil for us and our constituents achieves an elevated status among Senators and staff colleagues. I think few would deny that Proctor has long since reached that plateau. Proctor Jones came to this body in 1960, and aside from 4 years of service as a proud Marine, he has served here continuously since that time. He has seen and participated in more of the sweep of politics and public policy than most of us can imagine, and along the way he has amassed an unrivaled knowledge of the legislative process and a nearly unmatched institutional memory. Members of both Houses and on both sides of the aisle know they can turn to Proctor for advice and assistance with absolute confidence that their requests will be treated fairly and respectfully. And they know that he gets results. Proctor's broad and detailed knowledge of his appropriation areas helps account for his uncanny ability to find the means--when none appears available--to achieve the legislative goals that we set. While such knowledge gives Proctor authority, he would never think of abusing the great powers we entrust to him. He is a man who loves and cherishes the institutions of government and who is guided by the fine Georgia code of honor he learned from his early mentor, the late Senator Richard Russell, the giant whom Proctor served early in his Senate career. If anything, he is self-depreciating and deferential to a fault: as he is fond of saying, ``I just work here, I don't vote. And I love my job.'' He has indeed loved his job and has performed his duties in a way that has made a profound difference in those areas covered under our Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. He has always understood that we have a serious obligation to protect and improve the country's physical infrastructure and to support and nurture the Nation's scientific brain trust at the national laboratories and throughout the Federal Government. Uninformed critics have sometimes derided those vital responsibilities as pork or misplaced priorities, but I firmly believe that Proctor's vision and dedication have contributed mightily to the security and strength of this country. Proctor has also become my valued personal friend, owing in large measure to his infectious enthusiasm for everything in life from opera, to travel, to sports, to hiking, and joyous gatherings of friends and family. As I conclude my service in the Senate, I want Proctor and his family to know that I speak for my colleagues, past and present, in saying thanks for a job done well and as no one else could have done it. Mr. President, no senator has been blessed with a more capable, more loyal, more effective staff than I have. For 24 years, they have worked for my office, our State, and our Nation with energy and diligence. All of the staff over these years have been excellent, but at this time I want to especially recognize the three most senior staffers in my Washington office for their special talents and contributions. When I arrived in Washington in November 1972, I was taken in tow by Bill Cochrane of the Rules Committee, who gave me invaluable assistance and counsel in setting up my office. Like most new Senators, I was short-handed and uncertain about the best way to staff my office and deal with the avalanche of mail, telephone calls, and visitors. Bill mentioned to me that he knew of a young woman, Patsy Guyer, who had worked with him on the staff of Senator B. Everett Jordan of North Carolina and who was available and was a prodigious worker. She was quickly hired, and I don't think her output has slowed one iota over the 24 years she has been on my staff. As my executive assistant, Patsy has handled a huge array of responsibilities over the years, ranging from supervising State offices to managing summer interns, to creating and overseeing an exceptionally efficient mail operation. But if Patsy should be singled out for anything, it is her management of and deep personal commitment to a ``case work'' operation that is unmatched in the volume and quality of service it has rendered to countless thousands of Louisianians in need. I am very proud of the aid my office has given over the years to people who had nowhere else to turn, whether it was securing a visa, locating a loved one, or breaking an impasse on a disability payment or a VA widow's benefits. We were able to be effective principally because Patsy Guyer has an astounding network of friends and colleagues throughout the Congress and among Federal agencies and, most of all, because she greeted every case, no matter how routine, with the enthusiasm and commitment she brought to her first day on the job in November of 1972. Whether the challenge was to bring home from Abu Dhabi a tragically injured Louisiana businessman, locate a missing child in a Rwandan refugee camp, or organize a food airlift to Cambodia, we always knew Patsy would have the ingenuity and contacts to start the process and the absolutely iron-willed determination and dedication to see it through to completion. I have never known a more selfless and giving individual, and I know I speak for untold thousands in Louisiana in expressing deep gratitude for the extraordinary service that this loyal daughter of North Carolina has rendered to Louisiana and our country. Mr. President, as many Senators know, Becky Putens has been my personal secretary for the last 18 years. While that is her title, it hardly does justice to the multitude of roles that she has had to play in that time. She has been my gatekeeper, my scheduler, my right-hand person; she keeps track of where I need to be, arranges how I will get there, and generally has acted as a buffer between me and the enormous number of outside demands on my time and attention that characterizes this job. Most of all, though, Becky Putens is a fixer: she takes care of problems, from the routine to the seemingly insurmountable, with an aplomb and calmness that is remarkable, and that has, in countless large and small ways, made my time as a Senator more effective, more efficient, and generally more fun. As my colleagues and her peers--a group of Senators' personal secretaries who call themselves ``senior babes''--can attest, the small area just outside a Senator's office often takes on the aspect of Grand Central Station at rush hour. Becky is the person who keeps it all together and all running smoothly. Through it all, and maybe because of it all, Becky displays a sense of humor and a way with people and with words that is legendary among many of the longtime staff and Senators. For someone in a position that is always demanding and often thankless, such an attitude is almost a requirement, and for me it has often served to make even the most tiring and demanding days and nights in the Senate bearable. But, to me, the most fundamental aspect of Becky's personality is her unquestioning dedication. Whatever the circumstances, however late or early, on weekends or during vacations, if I am there, Becky is there; if I am under the gun, Becky is at my side. In short, in a field of endeavor where loyalty is an often-invoked but seldom-realized ideal, Becky personifies it. I am grateful for her service. Mr. President, Eric Silagy has managed to pack more achievements into his brief career than any young man I know. He came to my office in 1987, fresh out of the University of Texas. In less than 2 years, he was chief scheduler for a Senate campaign that was as politically significant and hard fought as any in this century. His intelligence, good judgment, and youthful energy were important factors in our victory. For the next 4 years, he served as my legislative assistant while attending Georgetown University Law School, performing superbly in both capacities. Since 1994, he has been my administrative assistant and chief of staff. Thanks to his excellent organizational skills and his tact and good humor, it is an office that has been a productive workplace for a happy, hardworking, and extremely talented staff. Just as important to me as his skill in running the office, however, has been his remarkable political and policy judgment, which I rely upon in making all the most crucial decisions that come before me; and his extraordinary effectiveness in getting the job done, no matter what the odds against it. Once an ideal legislative outcome has been selected, there is very little that can stand in the way of Eric's efforts to find a way to get there. While some divide the world into thinkers and doers, Eric Silagy manages to combine the best aspects of both. I want to express my gratitude for his diligence and devotion, and commend him for a job well done.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I was assigned to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, which we of course know today as the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As I prepare to finish my Senate career, I look back on my years on that committee as the source of the most rewarding and intellectually stimulating challenges of my years here. From the Arab embargo of 1973 to the natural gas wars of 1978, from the complex Alaska land issues of the early 1980's to the National Energy Policy Act of 1992, we have been engaged in vitally important work that is often long on complexity and short on glamour. I am proud of the record we achieved, not only during my 8 years as chairman, but throughout my service, and I wish today to say thank you to a professional staff unlike any other, one which has served the committee and the country so well over the years. Some of the best minds in the country have served on the committee staff over the years. Whatever their reasons for coming, I believe most stayed and relished their time there because they found themselves in the company of other keen minds, and they knew that their mission would not be mortgaged to politics and that their task was to find honest, pragmatic, workable solutions to vexing problems. Almost all of them have gone on to rewarding careers in government and business, and I can only hope they were as enriched by their experience as the public product was by their service. Luckily for me, some of the very best and brightest have remained to assist me as my service in this body comes to a close. One of those staff members who has served me the longest and with particular distinction is the minority staff director of the committee, Dr. Ben Cooper. About the time I joined the committee, we became involved in the development of national energy policy in response to the crude oil supply interruptions in the Middle East that were disrupting our domestic economy. The committee has continued to be involved deeply in this issue, as indicated by its current name, which was attached to the committee during the reorganization of Senate committees that occured in early 1977. Shortly after I joined the committee, a long-haired doctor of physics joined the Democratic committee staff from the University of Iowa, where he had been an instructor. He first joined the staff as a congressional science fellow employed by the then-chairman, our dear departed colleague, Senator Henry M. Jackson. Since those early days, I have worked closely with Ben, who officially became part of my staff in 1981, when I became ranking minority member of the committee. Ben has continued with me through my chairmanship of the committee and through our return to the minority. Mr. President, there can be no better staff than Dr. Ben Cooper. He is perhaps the only remaining staff of either the House or Senate who has a complete institutional memory of the evolution of modern Federal energy policy. Ben has been active on energy issues that range from crude oil pricing to natural gas deregulation to the current electric restructuring debate. Ben is particularly an expert on nuclear policy, as would be expected from his physics background. I can say without reservation that Ben has played an active and, usually, key staff role on every piece of legislation relating to nuclear matters that has been considered by Congress in the last 20 years. In addition, Ben has played a key role on non-energy-related legislation ranging from public lands legislation to the risk assessment legislation that has been considered by the Senate during the last two Congresses. Mr. President, throughout his long career as Senate staff, Ben has earned a reputation for honesty and professionalism both among the staff and Members of the House and Senate. Unfortunately for the Senate and, I believe, the process of developing sound public policy, Ben has indicated that he will be leaving the Senate by the end of the year to pursue new challenges. Mr. President, my friendship with Ben Cooper will continue, but our daily interaction is not likely to continue, and I will miss Ben's daily good counsel tremendously. I commend Ben for a career well spent and well-conducted, congratulate him on the contribution he has made to our Nation and wish him the best in his future pursuits. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been fortunate to have a second long-term Democratic staff member who is as eminent in his field as Dr. Cooper is in the field of energy policy. I refer, of course, to Tom Williams, who is without equal in his knowledge of Federal policy toward public lands, national parks, the United States Forest Service and a variety of lands issues relating to the great State of Alaska. Tom joined the Democratic committee staff of the committee in 1973 and has continued his service with the committee through today, except for a brief interlude at the Department of the Interior early in the current administration. During his service with the committee, Tom has served as key staff on every public lands and national parks bill that has been considered or enacted by the Senate. No staff member in the Congress has a greater institutional knowledge of these important, and often divisive issues that are often at once arcane and tremendously important both to the Nation as a whole and to individuals that may be affected directly by Federal policy. I have had the pleasure of considering Tom my staff since I became ranking member of the committee in 1981. Throughout that period of time, I have valued Tom's counsel not only on the parks and lands issues, but on a host of other issues including the mining reform legislation that has been considered by the committee in the past several Congresses. Tom has the ability to counsel wisely and honestly on the various policy options available and on the often diametrically opposed arguments of industry and the environmental community. Tom has that great ability, shared by Ben Cooper and many of my staff, to remain calm and professional in the midst of the hottest and most divisive debates. For that reason, among others, Tom Williams has earned an excellent reputation among Members and staff alike in both the House and Senate. Mr. President, I will miss my daily interaction with Tom, but I understand that Tom's talents will not be lost to the Senate or the public. I understand that Tom desires to continue in his service and I am sure that my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, who will become the ranking Democrat on the committee, will continue Tom's service with the committee. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to Tom for his service and counsel to me and for his friendship and I am pleased that the committee and the Senate will continue to have access to Tom's talents and service. A uniquely talented attorney serves as minority chief counsel of the committee: Sam Fowler. Sam has a long history of distinguished public service, first with the Smithsonian Institution, then with the President's Council on Environmental Quality, next with the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and, finally, beginning in 1991, with our committee. Mr. President, Sam is a lawyer's lawyer. If Sam says the law says X, then you can be sure that the law says X. He is one of the most fastidious and careful researchers I have ever encountered. He has a special talent for expressing himself through the written word in a concise and precise manner. Sam has staffed many issues in which I have taken particular interest. Perhaps in no area has his contribution been any greater than in the area of nuclear policy. Sam has exhibited the rare talent, at least among lawyers, for mastering the scientific terms and concepts associated with the development of nuclear power and the safe disposal of nuclear waste. Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not mention one other activity of Sam's that has enlightened and enriched my life and those of the committee staff. Sam, on his own time, prepares incisive memoranda that trace the history and development of various aspects of the institution of republican government. Among his topics have been a history of gift rules, privileged motions, and the evolution of the modern State of the Union Address. This aspect of Sam's life illustrates his wonderful intellectual curiosity that is so vital in good staff. Mr. President, Sam is a treasure of the committee, a treasure I will miss greatly. In 1993, I learned that Bob Simon of the Department of Energy would be detailed to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Bob had started working for the Department during the Bush administration, and my staff director, Ben Cooper, told me of the high regard he had for Bob's acumen and integrity. I can say now from the perspective of 3 years later that Ben's endorsement, strong though it was, has turned out to be an understatement. While many agency detailees treat their time with congressional offices as something like school without the examinations, Bob took his opportunity very seriously and began distinguishing himself almost immediately by his deft and thorough handling of difficult issues. Since coming on board, Bob has won the respect and admiration of his colleagues on the staff and the trust of the members who rely on his work, and he has demonstrated his possession of a rare combination of attributes--intellectual and technical mastery, outstanding political and strategic judgment, and complete reliability--which has made his work extremely valuable. I want to express my sincere appreciation for Bob Simon's hard work and dedication, and I wish him the very best in the future. No subject has presented more of a challenge to my committee or consumed more of our time than the vast issue of electricity deregulation, and I am frank to say that the sterling work done by Betsy Moeller, Don Santa and Bill Conway raised the bar significantly on my expectations for staff work in this area. I am pleased to say that Cliff Sikora, whom we enticed to come from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has more than met those standards. I am persuaded that no one in the country has a more commanding overall grasp of the thorny issue of electricity deregulation than Cliff, and he has done an exceptional job of bringing those talents to bear to assist me and other members of the committee in our deliberations in the scant year or so that he has been on the staff. David Brooks came over from the House Interior Committee to join our staff in 1989. He has played a major role in shaping much of this country's recent policy on public lands, national parks and historic preservation. The California Desert Protection Act is one such example of David's craftsmanship. And there could be no more appropriate bill with which to associate David--whom we often refer to as the third Senator from Arizona--than the Arizona Wilderness Act, to which he devoted his unstinting attention. If we are fortunate enough to see enactment of the pending omnibus parks bill before the end of this Congress, it will owe in significant measure to David's determination and negotiating skills. His great knowledge and exemplary work ethic have added so much to the work of our committee, and I am most grateful. Vicki Thorne, through her years as majority and minority office manager and clerk, has performed the unsung, often unnoticed, but always critical job of keeping the committee running, whether in organizing hearings, supervising publications or playing den mother to a large and diverse family of staff. Her efficiency has been matched only by an equable temperament and warm smile that enabled her and us to get our way far more often than not. She has my deepest thanks.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have been privileged in my career in the U.S. Senate, through my work on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, to work with many of the great scientific minds of this country. I rise today to pay tribute to one of those scientists with whom I worked especially closely and who was a longtime close personal friend before his death last summer. Dr. Bill Wiley of the Battelle Memorial Institute built a monumental career and left a huge legacy first and foremost because of his special gifts and training as a fine scientist. His achievements over his 31- year career with Battelle, beginning as a staff research scientist and ending with his position as vice president for Science and Technology, contributed significantly to this country's scientific understanding. But I believe that the work for which Bill Wiley should and will be best remembered is the concrete result of his vision which is now nearing completion on the banks of the Columbia River in Richland, WA, the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory [EMSL], which will be the jewel of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and which may very well hold the key to this country's Herculean effort to the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and other, similar sites around the country. Armed only with this vision and his irresponsible charm and enthusiasm, Bill Wiley came to see me several years ago to lay out his plans for EMSL, undaunted by skeptics who had told him at every turn that it might be a good idea, but the Congress was unlikely to embrace such a costly project. I must say that had it been anyone other than Bill Wiley pushing the dream, the skeptics probably would have been right. But Bill not only convinced me that it was worth doing, he persuaded all the other relevant players that not only was it something we could do, but that it was something a great nation should not fail to do. I visited the EMSL facility in its late stages of construction shortly before Bill's death last summer. Anyone who ever harbored doubts about the wisdom of this research facility should go have a look when it opens its doors next month. It will be home to America's finest scientists employing the latest tools doing the best research in the world today. And it is a point of special pride to those of us who were his friends that they will be doing so in the building named in memory of William R. Wiley. This African-American son of an Oxford, MS, cobbler served his Nation well professionally and as a humanitarian who was never too busy in his career to help the less fortunate who were trying to work their way up the ladder or merely to get to the first rung of the ladder. I know many colleagues join me in expressing our condolences to Bill's loving wife Gus and to his daughter Johari Wiley-Johnson and in expressing our deep gratitude for the paths that Bill Wiley charted and the mark he left behind.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, since 1973, my first year in the Senate, I have spent a great deal of time and energy on issues affecting Puerto Rico. I rise today to voice my concern for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, who have been greatly affected by our recent action to eliminate economic development incentives under section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code without providing them with an alternative program. I understand the need to curb excessive corporate tax benefits in order to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. However, in accomplishing this, we must not ignore the needs of the people of Puerto Rico. The 3.7 million American citizens of Puerto Rico deserve the opportunity to become economically solvent and self-sufficient. We must work hand in hand with them to develop a sound economic development program that helps achieve those goals. Modifications, improvements or alternatives such as a wage credit have been suggested for Puerto Rico. All of these options deserve serious consideration, but above all we must not allow the economy of Puerto Rico to be devastated by inaction or the wrong action by Congress. Although I shall not be returning for the 105th Congress, I urge my colleagues to give prompt attention to this issue early next year.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the chairman and note for the record that his understanding and expectation on this issue match mine.

Mr. JOHNSTON. As my good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and many other Members are aware, the subcommittee continues to support a strong Fusion Energy Sciences Program. As noted in the report language accompanying the Senate bill, the committee is pleased by the efforts of the fusion community over the past year to restructure the fusion program. However, despite our best attempts to keep the budget essentially level this year, we were forced to accept a cut in this important program because of the constraints imposed by the overall low level of funding for the nondefense programs in this bill. Mr. President, I want to get some additional clarification from my good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, about the statement of managers language accompanying the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. The language calls for the operation and safe shutdown of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor in fiscal year 1997. Is it the chairman's understanding that this language can in any way be interpreted to imply a particular funding level or length or operation for the TFTR in fiscal year 1997?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have the high honor of introducing to my colleagues here in the United States Senate the distinguished minister of energy from the country of Kuwait, His Excellency Jassum Moh'd Al-Own, who happens also to be a Member of the Parliament of Kuwait. This is a very important time between our two countries. We have sealed the friendship between our two countries in battle, and that friendship persists, and will persist as long as there is a Kuwait and as long as there is a United States, which will be for many centuries, we all hope. So, Mr. President, with a great deal of pleasure, I introduce to my colleagues the distinguished Minister of energy from Kuwait. [Applause.] Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The University of New Orleans has developed an entrepreneurship program designed not only to assist in the development of skills, but also to assist in the creating of individual, family, and small businesses in our inner cities. The two things go hand in hand--providing training and skills development and then seeing that there is a job in which the training skills can be used. UNO has held discussions on this program with HUD and I believe that it is the type of activity which HUD should be supporting. Consequently, I would hope that we could urge HUD to pursue this effort with UNO whether it be through the Neighborhood Networks Program or some other means.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished chairman, Senator Bond, and the distinguished ranking member of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations, Senator Mikulski, for their guidance and cooperative efforts in bringing this bill, H.R. 3666, to the floor. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to a program that is providing an indispensable service to Americans living in our Nation's troubled urban areas, in public and assisted housing. As HUD has worked to increase housing and home ownership opportunities for our citizens, it has become increasingly clear that an important aspect of insuring adequate housing is insuring that people have the skills and employment opportunities that will allow them to contribute sufficiently to their own rents and mortgages. Insuring that our people have such skills and opportunities is not only a means of improving the lives of these citizens but also helping them develop and maintain their neighborhoods and communities.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this very worthwhile program, to stress the importance of funding ATSDR at the budget request level of $69 million, and to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to fund at $4 million the ATSDR minority health professions for the purposes of conducting essential research on hazardous substance induced diseases.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the merits of a program that has done great work in the field of medicine. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, funded through the Environmental Protection Agency, has addressed the concerns of a lot of Americans, and has garnered the support of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, particularly the Louisiana Office of Public Health. The program has also received accolades from a network of universities that host programs aimed at expanding and enhancing numbers and qualities of specialists entering the health professions field. In Louisiana, the program has been essential to Xavier University, whose college of pharmacy is in the fourth year of a 5-year cooperative agreement with ATSDR and the Minority Health Professions Foundation. ATSDR helps the college provide training for pharmacists who are challenged with meeting the expanding needs of our society. Xavier is 1 of 11 universities nationwide that have ongoing programs of this nature.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleagues. clean air

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the DOE Reports Elimination and Streamlining Act of 1996, to implement a number of recommendations that have been received from the administration for the repeal of requirements for unnecessary or obsolete reports to Congress from the Department of Energy. A number of my colleagues, particularly Senators Levin, McCain, and Cohen, have devoted considerable effort over the past few years to relieving executive branch agencies from the unnecessary burden of reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness. It has been a difficult task, and these colleagues and their staff deserve our thanks for what they have been able to accomplish in terms of crafting a long-term solution to the problem. I believe that it remains incumbent, though, on authorizing committees to review statutory reports required of agencies within their jurisdiction and to act to modify or repeal such requirements, where needed. That is what the present bill does. This bill also repeals legislative authorization for two now-defunct offices in the Department of Energy. Mr. President, I would now like to briefly describe the rationale behind the specific provisions of the bill. Section 1 is the short title. Section 2 is composed of 12 subsections relating to reports and one subsection relating to two obsolete offices in the Department. Subsection (a) eliminates the need for ongoing reports on the topics of process-oriented industrial energy efficiency and industrial insulation and audit guidelines. The DOE Office of Industrial Technology has worked with seven process-oriented industries to develop industry visions, which include identification of technology needs for industrial energy efficiency and technology barriers. The resulting individual technology road maps, with their associated implementation plans, make these ongoing reports redundant. Subsection (b) repeals a requirement for a study and report on vibration reduction technologies. Vibration reduction is only tenuously related to energy conservation. It is not a prime DOE mission, and work in this area has not been funded by any appropriations bill. Given the many constraints on the DOE energy conservation budget, initiating work in this area is a low priority. Subsection (c) repeals a requirement for a study to determine the means by which electric utilities may invest in, own, lease, service, or recharge batteries used to power electric vehicles. The electric utility companies have been working cooperatively with the automobile manufacturers, component industry, and standards setting organizations for several years to determine the infrastructure requirements necessary for recharging and servicing electric vehicle batteries. Another study would not add meaningful information to the body of knowledge that already exists. Subsection (d) eliminates biennial reports on the status of actions identified under the initial one-time reporting requirements of section 1301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Development of these technologies is not fast paced. Significant reportable change is not likely to occur in 2-year increments. In addition, the program has sustained a significant decrease in funding, and will likely receive less in the future. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to change this requirement to a one-time report, to be submitted upon completion of the entire project. Subsection (e) changes the frequency with which a comprehensive 5- year program plan for electric motor vehicles must be updated. Currently, this comprehensive plan must be updated annually for a period of not less than 10 years after the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The first plan was prepared and submitted to the Congress in March 1994. Because programs do not change significantly on an annual basis, and because the cost of preparing and approving new plans for congressional submittal is extensive, annual updates are not justified. Changing the frequency of updates to every 2 years is a cost-savings measure. Subsection (f) strikes the requirement for biennial updates to a 5- year program plan for a National Advanced Materials Initiative. This program plan was prepared and submitted to Congress as required, but the program was never funded. With no funding, there are no Department- supported programs or projects, and, thus, no need to update the initial program plan. Subsection (g) eliminates a biennial report on the implementation of the Alaska SWAP Act. The purpose of the act was to take advantage of oil conservation opportunities by expanding the use of coal-fired plants and realizing economies of scale in several remote communities. These opportunities were not numerous and all have been taken advantage of for some time. No need exists for further reports. Subsection (h) repeals a report that triggered a legislative veto provision governing DOE shipments of special nuclear materials to foreign countries. This legislative veto was exercised by a concurrent resolution and thus would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's ruling in INS v. Chadha, 1983, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 462 U.S. 919. The report requirement and the related legislative veto should be repealed. Subsection (i) converts an annual report requirement in the Continental Scientific Drilling and Exploration Act to a periodic report. DOE's role in this multiagency program has become less prominent, and there is no longer a need for a separate DOE report. Subsection (j) converts a free-standing report requirement on steel and aluminum research and development activities into a requirement that such activities be described in the annual budget submission of the Department. Subsection (k) converts a free-standing report requirement on metal casting research and development activities into a requirement that such activities be described in the annual budget submission of the Department. Subsection (l) converts the National Energy Policy Plan from a biennial report to a quadrennial report. The timing called for this report in the DOE Act requires that a new Presidential Administration submit a National Energy Policy Plan less than 3 months after taking office. This is unrealistic. In recent years, an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy has often not even been confirmed by that point in time. The biennial requirement also does not make sense from the point of view of requiring any given administration to generate such a report twice during each term of office. It would be more sensible to make this requirement a quadrennial one, in which case each new administration would have two full years to conduct its analysis and policy development process. The resulting energy policy plan would be released in April of the third year of its term. Subsection (m) repeals the authorization for two offices that no longer exist in the Department of Energy. The Office of Subseabed Disposal Research was established in 1982 to conduct research on subseabed disposal of nuclear waste. Such disposal is not ever likely to occur, and no such research has ever been proposed by the Department or funded through appropriations acts. The Office of Alcohol Fuels was established by subtitle A of title II of the Energy Security Act (P.L. 96-294), and during the early 1980's it played a vital role in support of the emerging alcohol fuels industry. In 1985, the last of three loans made to subsidize the construction of grain-based ethanol plants was guaranteed by the Department of Energy, and on June 30, 1987, the Department's loan guarantee authority expired. Only one of the loan guarantee recipients, the New Energy Co. of Indiana, continues to produce alcohol fuels. Other than this plant, all other commercial ethanol plants in operation were built without government financial assistance. A statutory office within the DOE, headed by an Executive Level IV Presidential appointee, is no longer needed simply to manage one loan guarantee. Indeed, the functions of the Office of Alcohol Fuels have already been transferred within the Department to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Office itself has been closed. Under this proposed amendment to the Energy Security Act, which is essentially technical in nature, the DOE would continue to manage the New Energy Company loan guarantee until the loan is repaid. Mr. President, there is nothing controversial about this bill. It is simply good government. I look forward to receiving comments on the bill from the Department of Energy and to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the DOE Reports Elimination and Streamlining Act of 1996, to implement a number of recommendations that have been received from the administration for the repeal of requirements for unnecessary or obsolete reports to Congress from the Department of Energy. A number of my colleagues, particularly Senators Levin, McCain, and Cohen, have devoted considerable effort over the past few years to relieving executive branch agencies from the unnecessary burden of reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness. It has been a difficult task, and these colleagues and their staff deserve our thanks for what they have been able to accomplish in terms of crafting a long-term solution to the problem. I believe that it remains incumbent, though, on authorizing committees to review statutory reports required of agencies within their jurisdiction and to act to modify or repeal such requirements, where needed. That is what the present bill does. This bill also repeals legislative authorization for two now-defunct offices in the Department of Energy. Mr. President, I would now like to briefly describe the rationale behind the specific provisions of the bill. Section 1 is the short title. Section 2 is composed of 12 subsections relating to reports and one subsection relating to two obsolete offices in the Department. Subsection (a) eliminates the need for ongoing reports on the topics of process-oriented industrial energy efficiency and industrial insulation and audit guidelines. The DOE Office of Industrial Technology has worked with seven process-oriented industries to develop industry visions, which include identification of technology needs for industrial energy efficiency and technology barriers. The resulting individual technology road maps, with their associated implementation plans, make these ongoing reports redundant. Subsection (b) repeals a requirement for a study and report on vibration reduction technologies. Vibration reduction is only tenuously related to energy conservation. It is not a prime DOE mission, and work in this area has not been funded by any appropriations bill. Given the many constraints on the DOE energy conservation budget, initiating work in this area is a low priority. Subsection (c) repeals a requirement for a study to determine the means by which electric utilities may invest in, own, lease, service, or recharge batteries used to power electric vehicles. The electric utility companies have been working cooperatively with the automobile manufacturers, component industry, and standards setting organizations for several years to determine the infrastructure requirements necessary for recharging and servicing electric vehicle batteries. Another study would not add meaningful information to the body of knowledge that already exists. Subsection (d) eliminates biennial reports on the status of actions identified under the initial one-time reporting requirements of section 1301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Development of these technologies is not fast paced. Significant reportable change is not likely to occur in 2-year increments. In addition, the program has sustained a significant decrease in funding, and will likely receive less in the future. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to change this requirement to a one-time report, to be submitted upon completion of the entire project. Subsection (e) changes the frequency with which a comprehensive 5- year program plan for electric motor vehicles must be updated. Currently, this comprehensive plan must be updated annually for a period of not less than 10 years after the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The first plan was prepared and submitted to the Congress in March 1994. Because programs do not change significantly on an annual basis, and because the cost of preparing and approving new plans for congressional submittal is extensive, annual updates are not justified. Changing the frequency of updates to every 2 years is a cost-savings measure. Subsection (f) strikes the requirement for biennial updates to a 5- year program plan for a National Advanced Materials Initiative. This program plan was prepared and submitted to Congress as required, but the program was never funded. With no funding, there are no Department- supported programs or projects, and, thus, no need to update the initial program plan. Subsection (g) eliminates a biennial report on the implementation of the Alaska SWAP Act. The purpose of the act was to take advantage of oil conservation opportunities by expanding the use of coal-fired plants and realizing economies of scale in several remote communities. These opportunities were not numerous and all have been taken advantage of for some time. No need exists for further reports. Subsection (h) repeals a report that triggered a legislative veto provision governing DOE shipments of special nuclear materials to foreign countries. This legislative veto was exercised by a concurrent resolution and thus would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's ruling in INS v. Chadha, 1983, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 462 U.S. 919. The report requirement and the related legislative veto should be repealed. Subsection (i) converts an annual report requirement in the Continental Scientific Drilling and Exploration Act to a periodic report. DOE's role in this multiagency program has become less prominent, and there is no longer a need for a separate DOE report. Subsection (j) converts a free-standing report requirement on steel and aluminum research and development activities into a requirement that such activities be described in the annual budget submission of the Department. Subsection (k) converts a free-standing report requirement on metal casting research and development activities into a requirement that such activities be described in the annual budget submission of the Department. Subsection (l) converts the National Energy Policy Plan from a biennial report to a quadrennial report. The timing called for this report in the DOE Act requires that a new Presidential Administration submit a National Energy Policy Plan less than 3 months after taking office. This is unrealistic. In recent years, an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy has often not even been confirmed by that point in time. The biennial requirement also does not make sense from the point of view of requiring any given administration to generate such a report twice during each term of office. It would be more sensible to make this requirement a quadrennial one, in which case each new administration would have two full years to conduct its analysis and policy development process. The resulting energy policy plan would be released in April of the third year of its term. Subsection (m) repeals the authorization for two offices that no longer exist in the Department of Energy. The Office of Subseabed Disposal Research was established in 1982 to conduct research on subseabed disposal of nuclear waste. Such disposal is not ever likely to occur, and no such research has ever been proposed by the Department or funded through appropriations acts. The Office of Alcohol Fuels was established by subtitle A of title II of the Energy Security Act (P.L. 96-294), and during the early 1980's it played a vital role in support of the emerging alcohol fuels industry. In 1985, the last of three loans made to subsidize the construction of grain-based ethanol plants was guaranteed by the Department of Energy, and on June 30, 1987, the Department's loan guarantee authority expired. Only one of the loan guarantee recipients, the New Energy Co. of Indiana, continues to produce alcohol fuels. Other than this plant, all other commercial ethanol plants in operation were built without government financial assistance. A statutory office within the DOE, headed by an Executive Level IV Presidential appointee, is no longer needed simply to manage one loan guarantee. Indeed, the functions of the Office of Alcohol Fuels have already been transferred within the Department to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Office itself has been closed. Under this proposed amendment to the Energy Security Act, which is essentially technical in nature, the DOE would continue to manage the New Energy Company loan guarantee until the loan is repaid. Mr. President, there is nothing controversial about this bill. It is simply good government. I look forward to receiving comments on the bill from the Department of Energy and to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that would be the culmination of many years of negotiation and effort on the part of a number of interested individuals in my State of Louisiana. Mr. President, the State of Louisiana is rich in wildlife and wildlife habitat, the flora and fauna of legend. The State is also home to numerous wildlife refuges, including the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, which is the subject of my statement today. Bayou Sauvage is located in east Orleans Parish, LA, almost entirely within the corporate limits of the city of New Orleans and approximately 18 miles east of the central business district. It has the distinction of being the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in the United States that is easily accessible to city dwellers. The refuge was created in 1986 by legislation sponsored by then Congressman John Breaux and Representative Lindy Boggs. The measure authorized the refuge at 19,000 acres. In 1993, fee title had been acquired on 18,397 acres. An additional 4,373 acres was under management lease from the Conservation Fund and the city of New Orleans. After discussions with the city, the Conservation Fund and private individuals with interests in the additional acreage, I am pleased to report that a critical stage of acquisition is now ready to go forward. The acreage which is the subject of this legislation is key to the ability of the managers of Bayou Sauvage to achieve specific goals, including enhancing the population of migratory, shore, and wading birds; encouraging natural diversity of fish and wildlife species; protecting endangered and threatened species; and providing opportunities for scientific research and environmental education on ecological and wetland values to the public. Mr. President, this is an important milestone for Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, and I urge this body to support the completion of this long effort to protect a wonderful treasure for the people of Louisiana, and the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that would be the culmination of many years of negotiation and effort on the part of a number of interested individuals in my State of Louisiana. Mr. President, the State of Louisiana is rich in wildlife and wildlife habitat, the flora and fauna of legend. The State is also home to numerous wildlife refuges, including the Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, which is the subject of my statement today. Bayou Sauvage is located in east Orleans Parish, LA, almost entirely within the corporate limits of the city of New Orleans and approximately 18 miles east of the central business district. It has the distinction of being the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in the United States that is easily accessible to city dwellers. The refuge was created in 1986 by legislation sponsored by then Congressman John Breaux and Representative Lindy Boggs. The measure authorized the refuge at 19,000 acres. In 1993, fee title had been acquired on 18,397 acres. An additional 4,373 acres was under management lease from the Conservation Fund and the city of New Orleans. After discussions with the city, the Conservation Fund and private individuals with interests in the additional acreage, I am pleased to report that a critical stage of acquisition is now ready to go forward. The acreage which is the subject of this legislation is key to the ability of the managers of Bayou Sauvage to achieve specific goals, including enhancing the population of migratory, shore, and wading birds; encouraging natural diversity of fish and wildlife species; protecting endangered and threatened species; and providing opportunities for scientific research and environmental education on ecological and wetland values to the public. Mr. President, this is an important milestone for Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, and I urge this body to support the completion of this long effort to protect a wonderful treasure for the people of Louisiana, and the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I would like to engage into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on its committee report which provides funding to complete the final development of the Vessel Traffic System [VTS] 2000. This is a system that is necessary to enhance the safety and environmental quality of our country's vital ports and waterways. In the recent past, and quoted in the committee's report, the GAO has estimated the cost of establishing these VTS Systems at the originally envisioned 17 ports at a cost of up to $310 million. Through a competitive bidding process and the widespread use of commercial off-the-shelf and non-developmental equipment, the estimated costs have now been dramatically reduced. In fact, recent estimates of the costs are well below those estimated by the GAO--now less than $200 million. And that number could be substantially reduced depending on what type of systems are implemented as part of VTS 2000.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I wonder if we can advance that by unanimous consent. Mr. President, if it is in order and agreeable with my colleague from Alaska, I ask unanimous consent that we move immediately to third reading, and that the time between now and 4:55 for final passage be equally divided between the Senator from Alaska and the senior Senator from Nevada.