Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES. I shall not object.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader, I think there were two Nelson amendments, one was a 1-year and one is a permanent ban. Would you tell us which one this is?

Mr. NICKLES. Isn't the risk of spillage even greater from shipping, tanker movements than it is from the production record in the Gulf of Mexico?

Mr. NICKLES. I know in the State of Louisiana and I know also in the State of Texas there is a lot of activity off the coast. I asked my staff to find out what percent of our domestic oil production and gas production right now comes from the Gulf of Mexico. They told me about 25 percent of our domestic oil and 30 percent of our gas is produced in those areas. That is a big chunk of our domestic production: A fourth of the oil and almost a third of our gas. Has that production caused harm to the ecology, to the environment, to the coast of Louisiana, to the wildlife which is so abundant in the southern part of the State of Louisiana?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for one other comment?

Mr. NICKLES. Will my colleague yield?

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

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I listened to my colleague and friend from Florida on his amendment that would basically block any production in a large area of waters, not only off the coast of Florida, but also off Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I have great respect for State sovereignty and for listening to Senators who are dealing with areas surrounding their States. When they talk about the Everglades, I want to listen. I want them to listen to me when I talk about Oklahoma. I have a tendency to give great deference to Senators from their home States. I think the Senators from Alaska know Alaska much better than we do, and we should listen when they have recommendations to make about their lands, the development of it, and the balance of policies. I also think we should listen to Governors. I know this lease sale 181 was somewhat controversial. I was kind of disappointed. I know originally Governor Bush of Florida was opposed to it. He is not opposed to the modification. The amendment of the Senator from Florida would stop any lease in this entire area. This lease, as modified, has been reduced by 75 percent. The lease that we now have, which the administration has negotiated with the Governors of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, has been agreed to by all of the Governors, including the Governor of Florida. So I am thinking, wait a minute, I want to listen to the Senator from Florida and give him some deference, but this is not just off the coast of Florida. This is not even close to the coast of Florida. This is 285 miles from Tampa--285 miles. If someone visits the coast of California, they will see a lot of rigs that are in State-controlled waters. That is within 3 miles of the coast of California, which also prides itself on beautiful beaches and shoreline. They don't want those desecrated in any way. Neither do I. I happen to be a fan of the beaches, and I want to keep them as pristine as possible. But I want to use common sense, too--285 miles from Tampa, 138 miles from Panama City, 100 miles from Pensacola. I heard my colleague say, ``This is in Florida waters.'' It is not in Florida waters. This actually goes down the borderline, and it is on the Alabama side. The negotiated deal--and maybe this was to get the Governor of Florida to support this deal, but all of the lands directly south of Florida were taken out of the lease. I agree with my colleague from Louisiana; I think the administration gave up too much in the negotiation. They took a lot of potential area--area that is well beyond the boundaries--and said we are not going to ever look at those lands. I heard my colleague from Florida say that there is not much there. Well, we don't know because there hasn't been any exploration. There is not simultaneous desecration of the beaches because somebody happens to do some exploring to find out whether there is any potential for gas. I am bothered by the fact that maybe there are people saying, yes, we know this is an energy problem, but don't touch it in my backyard. I understand that. But this is not somebody's backyard when it is 285 miles away or it is 100 miles from the closest point to someone's State. That is not in their backyard; that is a long way away. As a matter of fact, we have formulas that share royalties and lands that are offshore areas that are close to lands and get a higher royalty. This is not close; this is in Federal waters a long way from the State of Florida. The very fact that the Governors of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida support this modified sale tells me it is a reasonable compromise and one that should not be vitiated or postponed indefinitely. I know one amendment says to postpone it permanently and another says for a certain period of time. It basically says: We don't want to drill or explore or have oil and gas, but, incidentally, we would like to have a pipeline to run from Mobile, AL, down to southern Florida because we are going to need gas. As a matter of fact, the State of Florida is the third largest consumer of petroleum products in the country. Yet they are saying don't drill or touch or explore anywhere hundreds of miles from our coast. I find that to be inconsistent. Are we going to say you don't get to use natural gas or oil? Don't they use oil and gas? Yes, they are the third largest consumer of petroleum products in the country. It is a growing State and a beautiful State. There is nothing inconsistent with having some exploration off the gulf coast. If you listen to my colleagues from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, there is a lot of drilling off the coast of Louisiana. If you look at the map in the Venice area, and so on, there is a lot of activity in those areas. They have been able to do it in ways that preserve the beautiful environment of southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Southern Mississippi and southern Alabama also have a coast, and they have casinos, and they have a lot of tourism in those areas. They are concerned about them. It can be done in an environmentally safe and compatible manner and in a way that provides energy resources that are needed to keep the lights on, to keep the jobs going, to keep the economy growing, to keep the tourists renting cars and visiting the beaches and enjoying the Florida coast. To say we want to have a moratorium on any exploration this far removed--285 miles from Tampa or 100 miles from the coastal point in Florida--I think goes way too far. At some point, somebody is going to have to say, wait a minute; use a little common sense. I do not think, with all due respect, this amendment should be adopted. I understand the intention. I do not question the motivation of my colleagues from Florida for offering the amendment, but when the Florida Governor supports this modified lease, when the other Governors who are logistically much closer to this potential lease support it, I say let this go forward; let's not block it; let's not block it indefinitely; let's not make this dependency on unreliable sources even greater. That is exactly what we are doing. Some people are asking the question: How did we get into this energy crisis? Why are we importing 56, 57 percent of our gas needs? And that number will increase as the years go by, especially if we adopt these kinds of amendments. If my colleagues want to increase our dependence on unreliable sources, such as in the Middle East, on Saddam Hussein, on people who have political agendas directly contrary to ours, then support this amendment. It is very shortsighted for energy policy; it is very shortsighted for the well-being and future national security of our country; and it is very shortsighted for the people of Florida who need energy, who happen to live in one of the growing, thriving economies in our country which needs energy--oil and gas. This amendment is a serious mistake, and I urge my colleagues to support us. When we make a motion to table the amendment, I urge our colleagues to support that motion. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), is necessarily absent.

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

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

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

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

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 legislation, the Thorium Remediation Reauthorization Act of 2001. This bill will provide authorization for the Federal Government to pay its share of decommissioning and remediation costs for a thorium facility in West Chicago, Illinois. In a DOE proceeding, it was determined that the government is responsible for 55.2 percent of all West Chicago cleanup costs because 55.2 percent of West Chicago tailings resulted from Federal contracts. Under Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPACT''), the thorium licensee pays for all West Chicago cleanup costs, and is then reimbursed, though annual appropriations, the government's share of those costs. There is already more than a $60 million shortage in authorized funding for the Federal share of West Chicago cleanup costs. Despite that, the thorium licensee has continued to pay all decommissioning costs at the West Chicago factory site, as well as remediation costs at vicinity properties known as Reed-Keppler Park, Residential Properties, and Kress Creek. Remediation of Reed-Keppler Park was finished late last year and remediation of more than 600 Residential Properties is expected to be substantially complete by the end of this year. Decommissioning of the factory site, with the exception of groundwater, is expected to conclude in 2004. Cleanup requirements at Kress Creek have not been determined, and until those are established, the costs associated with the cleanup of that vicinity property cannot be accurately projected. The significant costs associated with the West Chicago cleanup are a result, in large part, of extensive government use of the facility during the development of our country's nuclear defense program, including the Manhattan project. With the exception of Kress Creek and groundwater, total cleanup costs at the factory site and all vicinity properties can now be estimated with reasonable certainty. The $123 million authorized by this bill will permit the government to begin reimbursing the amount it is already in arrears to the thorium licensee. It also will provide the authorization necessary for the government to pay its share of costs, excluding costs for Kress Creek and for groundwater, that will be incurred by the licensee through completion of West Chicago cleanup. Funding for this reauthorization would come from the General Treasury. Thus, this legislation will not diminish the availability of funds in the DOE's Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, from which both Title X uranium licensees and the DOE's gaseous diffusion plants receive funding. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Thorium Remediation Reauthorization Act of 2001. This bill will provide authorization for the Federal Government to pay its share of decommissioning and remediation costs for a thorium facility in West Chicago, Illinois. In a DOE proceeding, it was determined that the government is responsible for 55.2 percent of all West Chicago cleanup costs because 55.2 percent of West Chicago tailings resulted from Federal contracts. Under Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPACT''), the thorium licensee pays for all West Chicago cleanup costs, and is then reimbursed, though annual appropriations, the government's share of those costs. There is already more than a $60 million shortage in authorized funding for the Federal share of West Chicago cleanup costs. Despite that, the thorium licensee has continued to pay all decommissioning costs at the West Chicago factory site, as well as remediation costs at vicinity properties known as Reed-Keppler Park, Residential Properties, and Kress Creek. Remediation of Reed-Keppler Park was finished late last year and remediation of more than 600 Residential Properties is expected to be substantially complete by the end of this year. Decommissioning of the factory site, with the exception of groundwater, is expected to conclude in 2004. Cleanup requirements at Kress Creek have not been determined, and until those are established, the costs associated with the cleanup of that vicinity property cannot be accurately projected. The significant costs associated with the West Chicago cleanup are a result, in large part, of extensive government use of the facility during the development of our country's nuclear defense program, including the Manhattan project. With the exception of Kress Creek and groundwater, total cleanup costs at the factory site and all vicinity properties can now be estimated with reasonable certainty. The $123 million authorized by this bill will permit the government to begin reimbursing the amount it is already in arrears to the thorium licensee. It also will provide the authorization necessary for the government to pay its share of costs, excluding costs for Kress Creek and for groundwater, that will be incurred by the licensee through completion of West Chicago cleanup. Funding for this reauthorization would come from the General Treasury. Thus, this legislation will not diminish the availability of funds in the DOE's Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, from which both Title X uranium licensees and the DOE's gaseous diffusion plants receive funding. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the passing of Oliver Bennett Powers a Senior Broadcast Engineering Technician for the Senate, and native of Chickasha, Oklahoma. Oliver passed away suddenly while vacationing with friends and family near Norfolk, Virginia on June 23, 2001. He was a respected, well- liked, and dedicated member of the Senate Recording Studio staff. He is survived by his wife of 28 years, Anita; two sons, Isaiah and Lucas; his mother, Ella Belle Powers of Chickasha, Oklahoma, and brother, Roy Powers, of Norman. Our hearts go out to them. Oliver was a native of Chickasha, Oklahoma, where he graduated from high school in 1971. He was also a graduate of the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, also located in Chickasha, and went on to earn a Master's Degree in Journalism from the University of Oklahoma. Oliver began his service to the U.S. Senate in 1986, when he became director of audio and lighting for the Senate. Oliver will be missed by all of those who knew him through his community, his church, and his work here in the Senate. Oliver embodied the best of what we've come to expect from Oklahomans. He was hard working, yet soft-spoken and gentle; highly professional, yet humble, and always kind and respectful to others. He was representative of so many staff here that work tirelessly and anonymously on behalf of the Senate. On behalf of the United States Senate, let me say thank you to Anita, Isaiah, Lucas and the other members of the Powers family for sharing him with us these many years. He will be missed.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I share my colleague's enthusiasm, both for President Adams and also for David McCullough's book. He is a great historian. I have not finished it. I started it. I look forward to completing it and learning a little bit more about the history of one of America's great Presidents, one of our real founding patriots. Again, this is going to be referred to the Energy Committee where I and others, I think, will try to be very supportive in a very quick and timely fashion so the entire Senate can, hopefully, vote on this resolution.