Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation. The hearing will take place on, Wednesday, September 20, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2933, a bill to amend provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 relating to remedial action of uranium and thorium processing sites. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510- 6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger at (202) 224- 7875.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for that explanation. It is encouraging to once again recognize that the Chairman--while a vigorous advocate for a robust defense capability--is constantly vigilant to ensure that the money we spend for defense is also a sound investment. The Army's initiative to re-engine the M-1 is a good idea. Maintenance and fuel costs associated with operation of the M-1 are very high; perhaps as much as 60 percent of the M-1's total O&S cost. Replacing the current gas turbine engine with a more fuel-efficient and reliable engine has the potential to save substantial amounts for the Army. However, the cost to develop a new engine could be quite high. There is even one press article citing a Defense Department official indicating the development costs could approach a half billion dollars. So, while the Army initiative is a good one, the costs associated with the program are prohibitive. Regarding the Crusader program, the engine selection will be critical to the overall performance and success of the vehicle program. If the Army were to proceed with the consolidated ACCE program, it is clear that concurrency in the Crusader program would be higher than if the Army selects an engine already developed and currently in production. As a final question for the Chairman, does the cut reflected in this conference report for the ACCE program indicate a lack of support for the M-1 re-powering effort or the Crusader system?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the time and attention of the Chairman to my concerns related to the Crusader system and the ACCE program, in particular. Bayonet 2000

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I commend Senator Stevens for his leadership and work on this important bill. Clearly, America has a continuing need to maintain a robust, well equipped military that is capable of defending freedom and preserving the peace. This bill advances the Department of Defense and our military services toward this objective. One element of this bill involves the U.S. Army's innovative effort to improve the Operation and Support cost of our M-1 Abrams main battle tank and the new Crusader Mobile Artillery system. For several years, the Army has recognized that the maintenance and support cost of the present M-1 tank was excessively high. Concurrently, the Army was developing the next generation of mobile artillery systems--to be called the Crusader. Late last year, the Army made a bold decision to pursue a consolidation of the engine component of both the M-1 and Crusader program. This consolidated effort is called the Abrams-Crusader Common Engine (ACCE) program. By consolidating the engine procurement for both vehicles, the goal is to reduce the costs to the Army for both vehicles. Mr. President, I noticed that the Senate version of this bill reduced the amount of funds available for the ACCE program by $48 million. I learned the committee had concerns over the Army's interest in developing a new engine for these two vehicles. This conference report, however, restores $20 million to the ACCE program. I would ask the chairman of the committee if the restoration of this $20 million reflects a change in the committee's view of the program or do you remain concerned that the program is too costly and adds concurrency to the Crusader system?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 relating to remedial action of active uranium and thorium processing sites. On October 24, 1992, President Bush signed the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) into law. Title X of EPACT authorized the Department of Energy to reimburse uranium and thorium processing licensees for the portion of the costs incurred in the remediation of mill tailings, groundwater and other by-product material generated as a result of sales to the federal government pursuant to the Atomic Energy Commission's procurement program. The Title X reimbursement program has worked very well. The licensees have completed much of the surface reclamation at the Title X sites. However, increasingly stringent remediation standards and groundwater decontamination programs have significantly increased the cost and time necessary to complete remediation at many sites. Under current law, in order for a licensee to be eligible to recover the federal share of remediation costs incurred subsequent to December 31, 2002, the licensee must describe and quantify all costs expected to be incurred throughout the remainder of the site's cleanup in a plan for subsequent remedial action. This plan must be submitted to the Department of Energy before December 31, 2001 and approved prior to December 31, 2002. This bill would amend Title X to extend the date, from 2002 to 2007, through which licensees can submit claims for reimbursement under the procedures now in place and extend the date until December 31, 2007 that licensees must submit their plans for subsequent remedial action to the Department of Energy. This legislation does not seek any increase in the existing authorization. It merely provides the time necessary to prepare the plans on a more informed basis and avoid the unintended hardship which would likely result from the 2002 deadline. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 relating to remedial action of active uranium and thorium processing sites. On October 24, 1992, President Bush signed the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) into law. Title X of EPACT authorized the Department of Energy to reimburse uranium and thorium processing licensees for the portion of the costs incurred in the remediation of mill tailings, groundwater and other by-product material generated as a result of sales to the federal government pursuant to the Atomic Energy Commission's procurement program. The Title X reimbursement program has worked very well. The licensees have completed much of the surface reclamation at the Title X sites. However, increasingly stringent remediation standards and groundwater decontamination programs have significantly increased the cost and time necessary to complete remediation at many sites. Under current law, in order for a licensee to be eligible to recover the federal share of remediation costs incurred subsequent to December 31, 2002, the licensee must describe and quantify all costs expected to be incurred throughout the remainder of the site's cleanup in a plan for subsequent remedial action. This plan must be submitted to the Department of Energy before December 31, 2001 and approved prior to December 31, 2002. This bill would amend Title X to extend the date, from 2002 to 2007, through which licensees can submit claims for reimbursement under the procedures now in place and extend the date until December 31, 2007 that licensees must submit their plans for subsequent remedial action to the Department of Energy. This legislation does not seek any increase in the existing authorization. It merely provides the time necessary to prepare the plans on a more informed basis and avoid the unintended hardship which would likely result from the 2002 deadline. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.