ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - September 07, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8163-
S8187]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of
H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50
or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few
contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we
intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we
will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language
together.
Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will
speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to
use a couple minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point
for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Domenici pertaining to the introduction of
S. 3021 are located in
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint
Resolutions.'')
Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
Might I make a parliamentary inquiry?
We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for
termination of debate on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority
leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a
very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We
have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to
accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish
debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator
Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But
we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's
amendment before we finish this bill.
We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's
concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and
I have agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after
that to debate Senator Durbin's amendment.
I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment
will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is
satisfactory to Senator Bond.
Can we do that right now?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. REID. I underline what the Senator from New Mexico has said. My
friend from Illinois has three amendments he has filed. It is my
understanding that he is going to offer one of those; and if there
would be an up-or-down vote on that, he would withdraw two of the
amendments--and not only an up-or-down vote but no second-degree
amendments.
So the Senator from Illinois would agree--if I could have the
attention of the Senator from New Mexico for just a minute. The Senator
from Illinois would agree to 30 minutes equally divided, with a vote,
with no second-degree amendments. That is my understanding, that we
would have a vote on that at some time before final passage later
tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20
minutes equally divided?
[[Page
S8164]]
Mr. DURBIN. I will be prepared to withdraw two of the three
amendments. I will be prepared to limit my debate to no more than 10
minutes on my side, if we can agree also that it be an up-or-down vote
on the amendment, as offered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with
the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So
when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the
Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and
proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we
have seen?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would let me have a minute?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Durbin--I just got word--I hear
Senator Bond is en route and that he did not say that he would agree to
no amendments. I think he will when he gets to the floor, but I just
want to make clear I probably overspoke. I thought he had said that.
Can we just wait for him to arrive?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend, we will revisit it when he is on the
floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
The clerk has yet to report the amendment. The amendment at the desk
is not the same as the one filed. It will require unanimous consent to
substitute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4101, As Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on
file.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 4101, as modified.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit to $74,100,000 the total amount of funds that may be
expended for construction of the National Ignition Facility)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction of
National Ignition Facility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the total amount that may be expended for
purposes of construction of the National Ignition Facility,
including conceptual and construction design associated with
the Facility, may not exceed $74,100,000.
(b) Independent Review of National Ignition Facility.--(1)
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the
National Ignition Facility and the Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program. The review shall be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) The review under paragraph (1) shall address the
following:
(A) Whether or not the National Ignition Facility is
required in order to maintain the safety and reliability of
the current nuclear weapons stockpile.
(B) Whether or not alternatives to the National Ignition
Facility could achieve the objective of maintaining the
safety and reliability of the current nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(C) Any current technical problems with the National
Ignition Facility, including the effects of such problems on
the cost, schedule, or likely success of the National
Ignition Facility project.
(D) The likely cost of the construction of the National
Ignition facility, including any conceptual and construction
design and manufacture associated with construction of the
Facility.
(E) The potential effects of cost overruns in the
construction of the National Ignition Facility on the
stockpile stewardship program.
(F) The cost and advisability of scaling back the number of
proposed beamlines at the National Ignition Facility.
(3) Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted
under this subsection. The report shall include the results
of the review and such comments and recommendations regarding
the results of the review as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so-
called NIF. I will use that acronym.
The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being
built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in
California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any
nuclear weapons.
As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled
program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that
detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and
unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour
more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other
scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for
nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point.
Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National
Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel
estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They
called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993.
Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs
and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in
August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected
to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They
have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up
all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts,
adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties
because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle
costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This
is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle.
I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again
until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility--
if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here
almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we
finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor,
you will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super
Collider, you would like this program.
Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed
it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was
outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2
billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the
arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on
Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent
all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste.
We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money
in, we have to complete it.
I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build
the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we
worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did
not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are
better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National
Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time.
We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated
to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder
reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most
recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing:
Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the
money.
As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch
[[Page
S8165]]
River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider.
Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the
time and saving our taxpayers money.
We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to
hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told
GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget
because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one.
This is directly from the GAO report:
DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us
that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but
that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that
Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . .
They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now
they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good
stewardship we reward?
We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to
Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They
have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the
project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on
schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and
far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell
the Secretary of Energy.
So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized
building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very
small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one
time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure,
hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons
scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy
from the fusion than they put in with the lasers.
The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding
nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists
at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion
energy.
Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and
Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with
Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser
project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to
prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We
spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We
wasted a lot of money on that project, too.
Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true
that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons
explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal
we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability
of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program.
First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in
more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions--
1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each
type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the
components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or
other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating
an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can
be remanufactured to original specifications.
So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably
aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet
they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear
stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to
do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these
surveillance activities of our stockpile.
The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could
provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we
don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes
we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have
conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons
will work as intended.
In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests.
We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically
designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design,
but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of
widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for
stockpile stewardship.
Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked
what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied,
``None whatsoever.''
Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is
worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.''
Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF
``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship.
Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or
fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are
for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear
weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic
or applied sciences.
What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a
few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We
certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as
we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and
a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction
contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we
have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear
stockpile is safe and is workable.
So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as
the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal
funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found
that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other
basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder
reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the
same thing.
The administration has requested an additional $135 million for
construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other
stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that
is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on
NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135
million from other activities.
The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal
year 2002, $180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in
future years. Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science
programs and physics programs in order to get the money to build this
project at Lawrence Livermore.
Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a
statement earlier this year:
The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the
NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed
to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the
production plants, by several years. This causes us to
question what is a reasonable additional investment in the
National Ignition Facility.
Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the
National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence
Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of
achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted
in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point
of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent.
Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well,
there you have it.
If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation
threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main
purpose of NIF:
To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of
interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear
weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of
secondary design.
So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we
don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when
we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so.
Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the
$74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they
could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the
National Nuclear Security
[[Page
S8166]]
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the NIF and
the Inertia Confinement Review Program. This review shall be conducted
by the National Academy of Sciences.
I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is
required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the
stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same
objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost
of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly,
the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam
lines at the NIF.
Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have
now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent
study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and
this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really
what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman
of the committee for accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from New Mexico speaks, I
want to tell my friend from Iowa how appreciative I am of him bringing
this to the floor. With his statement tonight, he has made it so the
National Ignition Facility will be given a much closer look. It needs
to be looked at much more closely. I already have a statement in the
Record, and I don't need to repeat how I feel about this whole project.
I want to acknowledge to my friend what a great service he has rendered
to the country by his statement tonight.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we
really started questioning this because of some of the information the
Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence
Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a
few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I
can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both
sides.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at
8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided
prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to
the vote.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin
amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he
has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that
time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate;
that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has
used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side.
I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to
the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the
cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get
cleared;
And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the
disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third
reading, the Senate proceed to passage of
H.R. 4733, following the
passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire
subcommittee.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to make sure it is clear that the Senator from Illinois will have an
up-or-down vote on his amendment and that there will be no motion to
table.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have
the clarification.
Mr. REID. Also, even though this isn't part of the unanimous consent
request, because we have so much, I wonder if we could have some
general idea about how long the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
Mr. KYL. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. Could we make that part of the unanimous consent agreement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New
Mexico said about my amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given
it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for
asking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some
time to me.
I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that
the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I
believe not to be correct.
I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here.
The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was
going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact
were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a
reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They
suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator
from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other
discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In
fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in
their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued
that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this
wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the
ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in
lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing
forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban
treaty said.
Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National
Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the
question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body.
But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence
Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of
Defense and Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and
every one of them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a
critical component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it,
eventually the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in
terms of data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably
not be able to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which,
of course, would require advertising--something I know the Senator from
Iowa would not want.
The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur
that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based
upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the
scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers.
But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you
want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event,
they are worthless or meaningless.
That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is
a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it
can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their
computers.
The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little
bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He
says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at
midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is
such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it
has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the
laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost.
It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a
mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that
criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going
to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical
because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still
critical. You
[[Page
S8167]]
can't just say because it is going to cost more than we thought that we
are just going to give up on the whole project. At least you can't
advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know my colleague from
Iowa is.
I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be
accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the
final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It
would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to
assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any
misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may
not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we
thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it.
It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability,
and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in
this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear
stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it
takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to
be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more
than we originally anticipated.
I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this,
and his willingness to yield me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is
the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple
of minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think
what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more
robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it
is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty
involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a
disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from
Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The
question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the
cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door
to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of
how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust
debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we
have had in the past.
Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously,
politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is
going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this
year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have
the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The
amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't
think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the
study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a
broad variety of different disciplines to have input.
I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a
more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want
to continue with the National Ignition Facility.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document
entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the
point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors
believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is
necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program
The NNSA is currently in the process of developing its
long-term plan for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
This plan will address all elements needed to maintain the
safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile now and into the future, including science,
infrastructure, and people.
NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in
three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of
aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code
development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional
scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP
providing unique experimental capabilities that complement
other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and
advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant
science of materials that cannot be reached in other
facilities.
We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability
within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP,
its long-term role must be integrated within the overall
requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed
or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further
development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in
order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program an
additional $95 million is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF
Project.
Madelyn R. Creedon, NNSA.
C. Bruce Tarter, LLNL.
John C. Browne, LANL.
C. Paul Robinson, SNL.
Date: September 6, 2000.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Harkin for
modifying his amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The original amendment would have eliminated construction money for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is an essential component to our
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Any elimination of funding for the
program would negate the nearly $1 billion Congress has spent on this
project thus far, and would cripple our nation's arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. Still, the amendment agreed to does limit the
amount of funding for Fiscal Year 2001 which will make it increasingly
difficult to meet the goals of the project.
The United States has made a strong commitment against underground
nuclear testing. In order to meet this goal and maintain the nuclear
deterrent of the United States, we must have a safe, reliable, and
effective science based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
As a key element to the SSP, NIF will be the only facility able to
achieve conditions of temperature and pressure in a laboratory setting
that have only been reached in explosions of thermonuclear weapons and
in the stars. It is expected to provide important contributions to the
goals of stockpile stewardship in the absence of nuclear testing and to
contribute to the advancement of inertial fusion energy and other
scientific research efforts.
I am proud that institutions and contractors throughout New York
State have provided valuable services and tools for this project that
are essential to its completion. Because New York companies and
research institutions provide laser, optics, and other tools,
underground nuclear testing will no longer be necessary. That would be
a huge benefit to the entire world.
I understand that DOE has recognized that there are some problems
with NIF, but DOE is working hard to take the necessary steps to
correct these issues. Project management has been restructured and has
demonstrated over the last six months that it is capable of managing a
project of this scope. It has already been determined that the
underlying science associated with NIF is sound.
Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding
for this program. The cost increases should not override the importance
of this project in our goal to ensure the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons.
Any repeal of this funding will cripple the valuable science and
knowledge that is coming together from around the world in our effort
to maintain the United States nuclear deterrent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4101) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057,
4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077,
4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered
a
[[Page
S8168]]
large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can
agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have
numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to
review them.
I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046,
4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072,
4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, and
4100, 4102, and 4103, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 4024
(Purpose: To authorize the Corps of Engineers to include an evaluation
of flood damage reduction measures in the study of Southwest Valley
Flood Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico)
On page 47, line 18 before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided, That in conducting the Southwest
Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the
frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of
runoff''.
____
amendment no. 4032
Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66,
line 7.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4033
(Purpose: To establish a Presidential Energy Commission to expore long-
and short-term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and
severe spikes in energy prices)
On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
SEC. 4____. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of
America's energy consumption;
(2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled
1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural
gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
(3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories
totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year
average of 334,000,000 barrels;
(4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel
fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent
below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
(5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude
oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased
demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely
have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
(6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
(b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among
a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to
in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist
of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following
categories:
(i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
(ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
(iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
(iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
(v) Environmental groups.
(vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and
demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
(vii) The Energy Information Administration.
(B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission
shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall
appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the
Commission.
(E) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Commission have been
appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(2) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
(i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and
natural gas industries, of--
(I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil,
and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends
and projections for those inventories;
(II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply
disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in
particular regions;
(III) ways in which the United States can become less
dependent on foreign oil supplies;
(IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and
utilize its domestic energy resources;
(V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used
to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
(VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy
consumption;
(VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--
(aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy
resources to locations throughout the United States;
(bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United
States; and
(cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other
energy-related petroleum product storage in the United
States; and
(VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission
considers pertinent; and
(ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that
contains--
(I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(II) the recommendations of the Commission for such
legislation and administrative actions as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted,
conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the
Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph
(A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date
of the report.
(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use
$500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to
fund the Commission.
(d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which
the Commission submits its report under subsection
(b)(2)(A)(ii).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4039
(Purpose: To provide for funding of innovative projects in small rural
communities in the Mississippi Delta to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies)
On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, of
which an appropriate amount shall be available for innovative
projects in small rural communities in the Mississippi Delta,
such as Morgan City, Mississippi, to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies, concerning which projects
the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report not
later than March 31, 2001:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4040
(Purpose: To require an evaluation by the Department of Energy of the
Adams process)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Department
of Energy is seeking innovative technologies for the
demilitarization of weapons components and the treatment of
mixed waste resulting from the demilitarization of such
components.
(b) Evaluation of Adams Process.--The Secretary of Energy
shall conduct an evaluation of the so-called ``Adams
process'' currently being tested by the Department of Energy
at its Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory
using funds of the Department of Defense.
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the
evaluation conducted under subsection (b).
____
amendment no. 4042
(Purpose: To provide funding for a topo/bathy study of coastal
Louisiana)
Insert the following at the end of line 18, page 47 before
the period. ``:Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
use $200,000, of funds appropriated herein for Research and
Development, for a topographic/bathymetric mapping project
for Coastal Louisiana in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the interagency
federal laboratory in Lafayette, Louisiana.''
____
amendment no. 4046
On page 67, line 9, after ``activities'' insert the
following: ``, and Provided Further, That, of the amounts
made available for energy supply $1,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of Arctic Energy.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4047
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a
report on national energy policy)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3____. REPORT ON NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) since July 1999--
(A) diesel prices have increased nearly 40 percent;
(B) liquid petroleum prices have increased approximately 55
percent; and
(C) gasoline prices have increased approximately 50
percent;
(2)(A) natural gas is the heating fuel for most homes and
commercial buildings; and
[[Page
S8169]]
(B) the price of natural gas increased 7.8 percent during
June 2000 and has doubled since 1999;
(3) strong demand for gasoline and diesel fuel has resulted
in inventories of home heating oil that are down 39 percent
from a year ago;
(4) rising oil and natural gas prices are a significant
factor in the 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price
Index for June 2000 and the 3.7 percent increase over the
past 12 months;
(5) demand for diesel fuel, liquid petroleum, and gasoline
has continued to increase while supplies have decreased;
(6) the current energy crisis facing the United States has
had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on the
economy;
(7) the price of energy greatly affects the input costs of
farmers, truckers, and small businesses; and
(8) on July 21, 2000, in testimony before the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the
Secretary of Energy stated that the Administration had
developed and was in the process of finalizing a plan to
address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report
detailing the Department of Energy's plan to address the high
cost of home heating oil and natural gas.
____
amendment no. 4057
(Purpose: Concentrating Solar Demonstration Project)
Insert at the end of line 9, page 67 of the bill ``;
Provided, further, That $1,000,000 is provided to initiate
planning of a one MW dish engine field validation power
project at UNLV in Nevada''.
____
amendment no. 4062
(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the demonstration of an underground
mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That $4,000,000 shall be made
available for the demonstration of an underground mining
locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen at
existing mining facilities within the State of Nevada. The
demonstration is subject to a private sector industry cost-
share of not less than equal amount, and a portion of these
funds may also be used to acquire a prototype hydrogen
fueling appliance to provide on-site hydrogen in the
demonstration.''
____
amendment no. 4063
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to demonstrate a commercial facility
employing thermo-depolymerization technology)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $5,000,000 shall be made
available to support a project to demonstrate a commercial
facility employing thermo-depolymerization technology at a
site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. The project shall
proceed on a cost-share basis where Federal funding shall be
matched in at least an equal amount with non-federal
funding.''
____
amendment no. 4067
(Purpose: To provide that the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not
proceed with a sale of mineral rights in land within the Daniel Boone
National Forest, Kentucky, until after the Tennessee Valley Authority
completes an environmental impact statement)
On page 97, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 7 . SALE OF MINERAL RIGHTS BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not proceed with the
proposed sale of approximately 40,000 acres of mineral rights
in land within the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky,
until after the Tennessee Valley Authority completes an
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
____
amendment no. 4068
On page 47, line 18 after the phrase ``to remain available
until expended'' insert the following:``; Provided, That
$50,000 provided herein shall be for erosion control studies
in the Harding Lake watershed in Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4069
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for equipment acquisition for the
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL
Instrument Center)
At the appropriate place in the bill providing funding for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, insert the following:
``Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided for
equipment acquisition for the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL Instrument
Center.''
____
amendment no. 4070
(Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 to support a program to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams that
threaten public health and environmental security along the U.S.-Mexico
border; and to provide $2,000,000 for the Materials Corridor
Partnership Initiative)
On page 73, line 22, after the word ``expended'', insert
the following: ``Provided, That, $3,000,000 shall be made
available from within the funds provided for Science and
Technology to support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad
office of the Department of Energy, in coordination with the
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams
that threaten public health and environmental security in
order to advance the potential for commercialization of
technologies relevant to the Department's clean-up mission.
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be made available
from within the funds provided for Science and Technology to
support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad office of the
Department of Energy to implement a program to support the
Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative.''
____
amendment no. 4071
On page 61, line 25, add the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That $2,300,000 of the funding provided
herein shall be for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water
Reclamation and Reuse project authorized by Title XVI of
Public Law 102-575 to undertake phase II of the project''.
____
amendment no. 4072
(Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $1,000,000 shall be made
available for the Kotzebue wind project.''
____
amendment no. 4073
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a
demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska)
On page 67, line 4 after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made
available for the design and construction of a demonstration
facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4074
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioreactor landfill project to be
administered by the Environmental Education and Research Foundation and
Michigan State University)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $500,000 shall be made available
for the bioreactor landfill project to be administered by the
Environmental Education and Research Foundation and Michigan
State University.''
____
amendment no. 4076
(Purpose: To exempt travel within the LDRD program from the Department-
wide travel cap)
On page 83, before line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to
reimbursement of management and operating contractor travel
expenses within the Laboratory Directed Research and
Development program.''
____
amendment no. 4077
(Purpose: To provide erosion and sediment control measures resulting
from increased flows related to the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico)
On page 93, line 18, strike ``enactment'' and insert:
``enactment, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake immediate
measures to provide erosion control and sediment protection
to sewage lines, trails, and bridges in Pueblo and Los Alamos
Canyons downstream of Diamond Drive in New Mexico''.
____
amendment no. 4078
(Purpose: To provide that up to 8 percent of the funds provided to
government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories shall be available
to be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development)
On page 82, line 24, strike ``6'' and replace with ``8''.
____
amendment no. 4083
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to
carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St.
Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``SEC. ____. ST. GEORGES BRIDGE, DELAWARE.
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
to carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of
the St. Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Delaware, including a hearing or any other activity
relating to preparation of an environmental impact statement
concerning the closure or removal.''
____
amendment no. 4085
(Purpose: To provide for an additonal payment from the surplus to
reduce the public debt)
On page ______, after line ______, insert the following:
``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
``bureau of the public debt
``supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
``For deposit of an additonal amount for fiscal year 2001
into the account established
[[Page
S8170]]
under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to
reduce the public debt, $5,000,000,000.''
____
amendment no. 4088
(Purpose: To provide sums to the Secretary of the Interior to refund
certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12 insert:
``Sec. ____. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
and directed to use not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under title II to refund amounts received by the
United States as payments for charges assessed by the
Secretary prior to January 1, 1994 for failure to file
certain certification or reporting forms prior to the receipt
of irrigation water, pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1226, 1272; 43
U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)), including the amount of associated
interest assessed by the Secretary and paid to the United
States pursuant to section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (101 Stat. 1330-268; 43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4093
(Purpose: To set aside funds for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet
Harbor breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island)
On page 53, line 8, strike `'facilities:'' and insert the
following: ``facilities, and of which $500,000 shall be
available for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet Harbor
breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island:''.
AMENDMENT NO. 4100
(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit
to Congress a report on electricity prices in the State of California)
On page 97, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 7____. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) California is currently experiencing an energy crisis;
(2) rolling power outages are a serious possibility;
(3) wholesale electricity prices have soared, resulting in
electrical bills that have increased as much as 300 percent
in the San Diego area;
(4) small business owners and people on small or fixed
incomes, especially senior citizens, are particularly
suffering;
(5) the crisis is so severe that the County of San Diego
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - September 07, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8163-
S8187]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of
H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50
or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few
contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we
intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we
will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language
together.
Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will
speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to
use a couple minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point
for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Domenici pertaining to the introduction of
S. 3021 are located in
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint
Resolutions.'')
Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
Might I make a parliamentary inquiry?
We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for
termination of debate on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority
leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a
very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We
have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to
accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish
debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator
Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But
we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's
amendment before we finish this bill.
We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's
concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and
I have agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after
that to debate Senator Durbin's amendment.
I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment
will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is
satisfactory to Senator Bond.
Can we do that right now?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. REID. I underline what the Senator from New Mexico has said. My
friend from Illinois has three amendments he has filed. It is my
understanding that he is going to offer one of those; and if there
would be an up-or-down vote on that, he would withdraw two of the
amendments--and not only an up-or-down vote but no second-degree
amendments.
So the Senator from Illinois would agree--if I could have the
attention of the Senator from New Mexico for just a minute. The Senator
from Illinois would agree to 30 minutes equally divided, with a vote,
with no second-degree amendments. That is my understanding, that we
would have a vote on that at some time before final passage later
tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20
minutes equally divided?
[[Page
S8164]]
Mr. DURBIN. I will be prepared to withdraw two of the three
amendments. I will be prepared to limit my debate to no more than 10
minutes on my side, if we can agree also that it be an up-or-down vote
on the amendment, as offered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with
the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So
when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the
Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and
proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we
have seen?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would let me have a minute?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Durbin--I just got word--I hear
Senator Bond is en route and that he did not say that he would agree to
no amendments. I think he will when he gets to the floor, but I just
want to make clear I probably overspoke. I thought he had said that.
Can we just wait for him to arrive?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend, we will revisit it when he is on the
floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
The clerk has yet to report the amendment. The amendment at the desk
is not the same as the one filed. It will require unanimous consent to
substitute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4101, As Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on
file.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 4101, as modified.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit to $74,100,000 the total amount of funds that may be
expended for construction of the National Ignition Facility)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction of
National Ignition Facility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the total amount that may be expended for
purposes of construction of the National Ignition Facility,
including conceptual and construction design associated with
the Facility, may not exceed $74,100,000.
(b) Independent Review of National Ignition Facility.--(1)
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the
National Ignition Facility and the Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program. The review shall be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) The review under paragraph (1) shall address the
following:
(A) Whether or not the National Ignition Facility is
required in order to maintain the safety and reliability of
the current nuclear weapons stockpile.
(B) Whether or not alternatives to the National Ignition
Facility could achieve the objective of maintaining the
safety and reliability of the current nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(C) Any current technical problems with the National
Ignition Facility, including the effects of such problems on
the cost, schedule, or likely success of the National
Ignition Facility project.
(D) The likely cost of the construction of the National
Ignition facility, including any conceptual and construction
design and manufacture associated with construction of the
Facility.
(E) The potential effects of cost overruns in the
construction of the National Ignition Facility on the
stockpile stewardship program.
(F) The cost and advisability of scaling back the number of
proposed beamlines at the National Ignition Facility.
(3) Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted
under this subsection. The report shall include the results
of the review and such comments and recommendations regarding
the results of the review as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so-
called NIF. I will use that acronym.
The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being
built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in
California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any
nuclear weapons.
As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled
program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that
detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and
unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour
more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other
scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for
nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point.
Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National
Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel
estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They
called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993.
Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs
and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in
August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected
to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They
have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up
all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts,
adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties
because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle
costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This
is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle.
I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again
until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility--
if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here
almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we
finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor,
you will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super
Collider, you would like this program.
Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed
it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was
outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2
billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the
arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on
Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent
all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste.
We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money
in, we have to complete it.
I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build
the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we
worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did
not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are
better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National
Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time.
We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated
to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder
reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most
recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing:
Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the
money.
As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch
[[Page
S8165]]
River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider.
Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the
time and saving our taxpayers money.
We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to
hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told
GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget
because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one.
This is directly from the GAO report:
DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us
that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but
that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that
Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . .
They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now
they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good
stewardship we reward?
We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to
Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They
have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the
project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on
schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and
far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell
the Secretary of Energy.
So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized
building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very
small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one
time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure,
hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons
scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy
from the fusion than they put in with the lasers.
The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding
nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists
at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion
energy.
Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and
Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with
Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser
project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to
prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We
spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We
wasted a lot of money on that project, too.
Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true
that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons
explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal
we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability
of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program.
First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in
more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions--
1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each
type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the
components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or
other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating
an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can
be remanufactured to original specifications.
So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably
aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet
they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear
stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to
do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these
surveillance activities of our stockpile.
The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could
provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we
don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes
we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have
conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons
will work as intended.
In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests.
We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically
designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design,
but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of
widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for
stockpile stewardship.
Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked
what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied,
``None whatsoever.''
Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is
worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.''
Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF
``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship.
Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or
fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are
for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear
weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic
or applied sciences.
What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a
few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We
certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as
we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and
a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction
contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we
have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear
stockpile is safe and is workable.
So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as
the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal
funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found
that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other
basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder
reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the
same thing.
The administration has requested an additional $135 million for
construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other
stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that
is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on
NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135
million from other activities.
The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal
year 2002, $180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in
future years. Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science
programs and physics programs in order to get the money to build this
project at Lawrence Livermore.
Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a
statement earlier this year:
The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the
NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed
to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the
production plants, by several years. This causes us to
question what is a reasonable additional investment in the
National Ignition Facility.
Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the
National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence
Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of
achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted
in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point
of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent.
Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well,
there you have it.
If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation
threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main
purpose of NIF:
To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of
interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear
weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of
secondary design.
So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we
don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when
we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so.
Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the
$74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they
could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the
National Nuclear Security
[[Page
S8166]]
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the NIF and
the Inertia Confinement Review Program. This review shall be conducted
by the National Academy of Sciences.
I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is
required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the
stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same
objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost
of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly,
the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam
lines at the NIF.
Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have
now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent
study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and
this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really
what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman
of the committee for accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from New Mexico speaks, I
want to tell my friend from Iowa how appreciative I am of him bringing
this to the floor. With his statement tonight, he has made it so the
National Ignition Facility will be given a much closer look. It needs
to be looked at much more closely. I already have a statement in the
Record, and I don't need to repeat how I feel about this whole project.
I want to acknowledge to my friend what a great service he has rendered
to the country by his statement tonight.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we
really started questioning this because of some of the information the
Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence
Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a
few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I
can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both
sides.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at
8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided
prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to
the vote.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin
amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he
has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that
time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate;
that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has
used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side.
I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to
the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the
cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get
cleared;
And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the
disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third
reading, the Senate proceed to passage of
H.R. 4733, following the
passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire
subcommittee.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to make sure it is clear that the Senator from Illinois will have an
up-or-down vote on his amendment and that there will be no motion to
table.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have
the clarification.
Mr. REID. Also, even though this isn't part of the unanimous consent
request, because we have so much, I wonder if we could have some
general idea about how long the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
Mr. KYL. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. Could we make that part of the unanimous consent agreement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New
Mexico said about my amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given
it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for
asking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some
time to me.
I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that
the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I
believe not to be correct.
I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here.
The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was
going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact
were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a
reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They
suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator
from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other
discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In
fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in
their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued
that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this
wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the
ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in
lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing
forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban
treaty said.
Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National
Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the
question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body.
But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence
Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of
Defense and Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and
every one of them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a
critical component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it,
eventually the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in
terms of data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably
not be able to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which,
of course, would require advertising--something I know the Senator from
Iowa would not want.
The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur
that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based
upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the
scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers.
But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you
want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event,
they are worthless or meaningless.
That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is
a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it
can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their
computers.
The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little
bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He
says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at
midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is
such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it
has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the
laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost.
It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a
mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that
criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going
to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical
because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still
critical. You
[[Page
S8167]]
can't just say because it is going to cost more than we thought that we
are just going to give up on the whole project. At least you can't
advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know my colleague from
Iowa is.
I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be
accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the
final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It
would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to
assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any
misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may
not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we
thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it.
It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability,
and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in
this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear
stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it
takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to
be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more
than we originally anticipated.
I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this,
and his willingness to yield me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is
the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple
of minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think
what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more
robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it
is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty
involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a
disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from
Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The
question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the
cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door
to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of
how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust
debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we
have had in the past.
Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously,
politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is
going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this
year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have
the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The
amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't
think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the
study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a
broad variety of different disciplines to have input.
I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a
more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want
to continue with the National Ignition Facility.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document
entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the
point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors
believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is
necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program
The NNSA is currently in the process of developing its
long-term plan for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
This plan will address all elements needed to maintain the
safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile now and into the future, including science,
infrastructure, and people.
NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in
three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of
aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code
development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional
scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP
providing unique experimental capabilities that complement
other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and
advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant
science of materials that cannot be reached in other
facilities.
We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability
within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP,
its long-term role must be integrated within the overall
requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed
or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further
development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in
order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program an
additional $95 million is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF
Project.
Madelyn R. Creedon, NNSA.
C. Bruce Tarter, LLNL.
John C. Browne, LANL.
C. Paul Robinson, SNL.
Date: September 6, 2000.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Harkin for
modifying his amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The original amendment would have eliminated construction money for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is an essential component to our
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Any elimination of funding for the
program would negate the nearly $1 billion Congress has spent on this
project thus far, and would cripple our nation's arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. Still, the amendment agreed to does limit the
amount of funding for Fiscal Year 2001 which will make it increasingly
difficult to meet the goals of the project.
The United States has made a strong commitment against underground
nuclear testing. In order to meet this goal and maintain the nuclear
deterrent of the United States, we must have a safe, reliable, and
effective science based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
As a key element to the SSP, NIF will be the only facility able to
achieve conditions of temperature and pressure in a laboratory setting
that have only been reached in explosions of thermonuclear weapons and
in the stars. It is expected to provide important contributions to the
goals of stockpile stewardship in the absence of nuclear testing and to
contribute to the advancement of inertial fusion energy and other
scientific research efforts.
I am proud that institutions and contractors throughout New York
State have provided valuable services and tools for this project that
are essential to its completion. Because New York companies and
research institutions provide laser, optics, and other tools,
underground nuclear testing will no longer be necessary. That would be
a huge benefit to the entire world.
I understand that DOE has recognized that there are some problems
with NIF, but DOE is working hard to take the necessary steps to
correct these issues. Project management has been restructured and has
demonstrated over the last six months that it is capable of managing a
project of this scope. It has already been determined that the
underlying science associated with NIF is sound.
Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding
for this program. The cost increases should not override the importance
of this project in our goal to ensure the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons.
Any repeal of this funding will cripple the valuable science and
knowledge that is coming together from around the world in our effort
to maintain the United States nuclear deterrent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4101) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057,
4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077,
4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered
a
[[Page
S8168]]
large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can
agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have
numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to
review them.
I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046,
4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072,
4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, and
4100, 4102, and 4103, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 4024
(Purpose: To authorize the Corps of Engineers to include an evaluation
of flood damage reduction measures in the study of Southwest Valley
Flood Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico)
On page 47, line 18 before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided, That in conducting the Southwest
Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the
frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of
runoff''.
____
amendment no. 4032
Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66,
line 7.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4033
(Purpose: To establish a Presidential Energy Commission to expore long-
and short-term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and
severe spikes in energy prices)
On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
SEC. 4____. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of
America's energy consumption;
(2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled
1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural
gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
(3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories
totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year
average of 334,000,000 barrels;
(4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel
fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent
below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
(5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude
oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased
demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely
have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
(6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
(b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among
a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to
in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist
of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following
categories:
(i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
(ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
(iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
(iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
(v) Environmental groups.
(vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and
demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
(vii) The Energy Information Administration.
(B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission
shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall
appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the
Commission.
(E) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Commission have been
appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(2) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
(i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and
natural gas industries, of--
(I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil,
and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends
and projections for those inventories;
(II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply
disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in
particular regions;
(III) ways in which the United States can become less
dependent on foreign oil supplies;
(IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and
utilize its domestic energy resources;
(V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used
to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
(VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy
consumption;
(VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--
(aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy
resources to locations throughout the United States;
(bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United
States; and
(cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other
energy-related petroleum product storage in the United
States; and
(VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission
considers pertinent; and
(ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that
contains--
(I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(II) the recommendations of the Commission for such
legislation and administrative actions as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted,
conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the
Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph
(A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date
of the report.
(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use
$500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to
fund the Commission.
(d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which
the Commission submits its report under subsection
(b)(2)(A)(ii).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4039
(Purpose: To provide for funding of innovative projects in small rural
communities in the Mississippi Delta to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies)
On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, of
which an appropriate amount shall be available for innovative
projects in small rural communities in the Mississippi Delta,
such as Morgan City, Mississippi, to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies, concerning which projects
the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report not
later than March 31, 2001:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4040
(Purpose: To require an evaluation by the Department of Energy of the
Adams process)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Department
of Energy is seeking innovative technologies for the
demilitarization of weapons components and the treatment of
mixed waste resulting from the demilitarization of such
components.
(b) Evaluation of Adams Process.--The Secretary of Energy
shall conduct an evaluation of the so-called ``Adams
process'' currently being tested by the Department of Energy
at its Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory
using funds of the Department of Defense.
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the
evaluation conducted under subsection (b).
____
amendment no. 4042
(Purpose: To provide funding for a topo/bathy study of coastal
Louisiana)
Insert the following at the end of line 18, page 47 before
the period. ``:Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
use $200,000, of funds appropriated herein for Research and
Development, for a topographic/bathymetric mapping project
for Coastal Louisiana in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the interagency
federal laboratory in Lafayette, Louisiana.''
____
amendment no. 4046
On page 67, line 9, after ``activities'' insert the
following: ``, and Provided Further, That, of the amounts
made available for energy supply $1,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of Arctic Energy.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4047
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a
report on national energy policy)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3____. REPORT ON NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) since July 1999--
(A) diesel prices have increased nearly 40 percent;
(B) liquid petroleum prices have increased approximately 55
percent; and
(C) gasoline prices have increased approximately 50
percent;
(2)(A) natural gas is the heating fuel for most homes and
commercial buildings; and
[[Page
S8169]]
(B) the price of natural gas increased 7.8 percent during
June 2000 and has doubled since 1999;
(3) strong demand for gasoline and diesel fuel has resulted
in inventories of home heating oil that are down 39 percent
from a year ago;
(4) rising oil and natural gas prices are a significant
factor in the 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price
Index for June 2000 and the 3.7 percent increase over the
past 12 months;
(5) demand for diesel fuel, liquid petroleum, and gasoline
has continued to increase while supplies have decreased;
(6) the current energy crisis facing the United States has
had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on the
economy;
(7) the price of energy greatly affects the input costs of
farmers, truckers, and small businesses; and
(8) on July 21, 2000, in testimony before the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the
Secretary of Energy stated that the Administration had
developed and was in the process of finalizing a plan to
address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report
detailing the Department of Energy's plan to address the high
cost of home heating oil and natural gas.
____
amendment no. 4057
(Purpose: Concentrating Solar Demonstration Project)
Insert at the end of line 9, page 67 of the bill ``;
Provided, further, That $1,000,000 is provided to initiate
planning of a one MW dish engine field validation power
project at UNLV in Nevada''.
____
amendment no. 4062
(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the demonstration of an underground
mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That $4,000,000 shall be made
available for the demonstration of an underground mining
locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen at
existing mining facilities within the State of Nevada. The
demonstration is subject to a private sector industry cost-
share of not less than equal amount, and a portion of these
funds may also be used to acquire a prototype hydrogen
fueling appliance to provide on-site hydrogen in the
demonstration.''
____
amendment no. 4063
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to demonstrate a commercial facility
employing thermo-depolymerization technology)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $5,000,000 shall be made
available to support a project to demonstrate a commercial
facility employing thermo-depolymerization technology at a
site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. The project shall
proceed on a cost-share basis where Federal funding shall be
matched in at least an equal amount with non-federal
funding.''
____
amendment no. 4067
(Purpose: To provide that the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not
proceed with a sale of mineral rights in land within the Daniel Boone
National Forest, Kentucky, until after the Tennessee Valley Authority
completes an environmental impact statement)
On page 97, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 7 . SALE OF MINERAL RIGHTS BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not proceed with the
proposed sale of approximately 40,000 acres of mineral rights
in land within the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky,
until after the Tennessee Valley Authority completes an
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
____
amendment no. 4068
On page 47, line 18 after the phrase ``to remain available
until expended'' insert the following:``; Provided, That
$50,000 provided herein shall be for erosion control studies
in the Harding Lake watershed in Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4069
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for equipment acquisition for the
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL
Instrument Center)
At the appropriate place in the bill providing funding for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, insert the following:
``Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided for
equipment acquisition for the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL Instrument
Center.''
____
amendment no. 4070
(Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 to support a program to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams that
threaten public health and environmental security along the U.S.-Mexico
border; and to provide $2,000,000 for the Materials Corridor
Partnership Initiative)
On page 73, line 22, after the word ``expended'', insert
the following: ``Provided, That, $3,000,000 shall be made
available from within the funds provided for Science and
Technology to support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad
office of the Department of Energy, in coordination with the
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams
that threaten public health and environmental security in
order to advance the potential for commercialization of
technologies relevant to the Department's clean-up mission.
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be made available
from within the funds provided for Science and Technology to
support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad office of the
Department of Energy to implement a program to support the
Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative.''
____
amendment no. 4071
On page 61, line 25, add the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That $2,300,000 of the funding provided
herein shall be for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water
Reclamation and Reuse project authorized by Title XVI of
Public Law 102-575 to undertake phase II of the project''.
____
amendment no. 4072
(Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $1,000,000 shall be made
available for the Kotzebue wind project.''
____
amendment no. 4073
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a
demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska)
On page 67, line 4 after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made
available for the design and construction of a demonstration
facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4074
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioreactor landfill project to be
administered by the Environmental Education and Research Foundation and
Michigan State University)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $500,000 shall be made available
for the bioreactor landfill project to be administered by the
Environmental Education and Research Foundation and Michigan
State University.''
____
amendment no. 4076
(Purpose: To exempt travel within the LDRD program from the Department-
wide travel cap)
On page 83, before line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to
reimbursement of management and operating contractor travel
expenses within the Laboratory Directed Research and
Development program.''
____
amendment no. 4077
(Purpose: To provide erosion and sediment control measures resulting
from increased flows related to the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico)
On page 93, line 18, strike ``enactment'' and insert:
``enactment, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake immediate
measures to provide erosion control and sediment protection
to sewage lines, trails, and bridges in Pueblo and Los Alamos
Canyons downstream of Diamond Drive in New Mexico''.
____
amendment no. 4078
(Purpose: To provide that up to 8 percent of the funds provided to
government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories shall be available
to be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development)
On page 82, line 24, strike ``6'' and replace with ``8''.
____
amendment no. 4083
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to
carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St.
Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``SEC. ____. ST. GEORGES BRIDGE, DELAWARE.
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
to carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of
the St. Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Delaware, including a hearing or any other activity
relating to preparation of an environmental impact statement
concerning the closure or removal.''
____
amendment no. 4085
(Purpose: To provide for an additonal payment from the surplus to
reduce the public debt)
On page ______, after line ______, insert the following:
``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
``bureau of the public debt
``supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
``For deposit of an additonal amount for fiscal year 2001
into the account established
[[Page
S8170]]
under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to
reduce the public debt, $5,000,000,000.''
____
amendment no. 4088
(Purpose: To provide sums to the Secretary of the Interior to refund
certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12 insert:
``Sec. ____. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
and directed to use not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under title II to refund amounts received by the
United States as payments for charges assessed by the
Secretary prior to January 1, 1994 for failure to file
certain certification or reporting forms prior to the receipt
of irrigation water, pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1226, 1272; 43
U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)), including the amount of associated
interest assessed by the Secretary and paid to the United
States pursuant to section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (101 Stat. 1330-268; 43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4093
(Purpose: To set aside funds for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet
Harbor breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island)
On page 53, line 8, strike `'facilities:'' and insert the
following: ``facilities, and of which $500,000 shall be
available for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet Harbor
breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island:''.
AMENDMENT NO. 4100
(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit
to Congress a report on electricity prices in the State of California)
On page 97, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 7____. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) California is currently experiencing an energy crisis;
(2) rolling power outages are a serious possibility;
(3) wholesale electricity prices have soared, resulting in
electrical bills that have increased as much as 300 percent
in the San Diego area;
(4) small business owners and people on small or fixed
incomes, especially senior citizens, are particularly
suffering;
(5) the crisis is so severe that the County of San
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - September 07, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8163-
S8187]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of
H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50
or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few
contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we
intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we
will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language
together.
Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will
speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to
use a couple minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point
for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Domenici pertaining to the introduction of
S. 3021 are located in
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint
Resolutions.'')
Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
Might I make a parliamentary inquiry?
We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for
termination of debate on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority
leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a
very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We
have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to
accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish
debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator
Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But
we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's
amendment before we finish this bill.
We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's
concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and
I have agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after
that to debate Senator Durbin's amendment.
I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment
will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is
satisfactory to Senator Bond.
Can we do that right now?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. REID. I underline what the Senator from New Mexico has said. My
friend from Illinois has three amendments he has filed. It is my
understanding that he is going to offer one of those; and if there
would be an up-or-down vote on that, he would withdraw two of the
amendments--and not only an up-or-down vote but no second-degree
amendments.
So the Senator from Illinois would agree--if I could have the
attention of the Senator from New Mexico for just a minute. The Senator
from Illinois would agree to 30 minutes equally divided, with a vote,
with no second-degree amendments. That is my understanding, that we
would have a vote on that at some time before final passage later
tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20
minutes equally divided?
[[Page
S8164]]
Mr. DURBIN. I will be prepared to withdraw two of the three
amendments. I will be prepared to limit my debate to no more than 10
minutes on my side, if we can agree also that it be an up-or-down vote
on the amendment, as offered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with
the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So
when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the
Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and
proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we
have seen?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would let me have a minute?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Durbin--I just got word--I hear
Senator Bond is en route and that he did not say that he would agree to
no amendments. I think he will when he gets to the floor, but I just
want to make clear I probably overspoke. I thought he had said that.
Can we just wait for him to arrive?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend, we will revisit it when he is on the
floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
The clerk has yet to report the amendment. The amendment at the desk
is not the same as the one filed. It will require unanimous consent to
substitute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4101, As Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on
file.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 4101, as modified.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit to $74,100,000 the total amount of funds that may be
expended for construction of the National Ignition Facility)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction of
National Ignition Facility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the total amount that may be expended for
purposes of construction of the National Ignition Facility,
including conceptual and construction design associated with
the Facility, may not exceed $74,100,000.
(b) Independent Review of National Ignition Facility.--(1)
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the
National Ignition Facility and the Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program. The review shall be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) The review under paragraph (1) shall address the
following:
(A) Whether or not the National Ignition Facility is
required in order to maintain the safety and reliability of
the current nuclear weapons stockpile.
(B) Whether or not alternatives to the National Ignition
Facility could achieve the objective of maintaining the
safety and reliability of the current nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(C) Any current technical problems with the National
Ignition Facility, including the effects of such problems on
the cost, schedule, or likely success of the National
Ignition Facility project.
(D) The likely cost of the construction of the National
Ignition facility, including any conceptual and construction
design and manufacture associated with construction of the
Facility.
(E) The potential effects of cost overruns in the
construction of the National Ignition Facility on the
stockpile stewardship program.
(F) The cost and advisability of scaling back the number of
proposed beamlines at the National Ignition Facility.
(3) Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted
under this subsection. The report shall include the results
of the review and such comments and recommendations regarding
the results of the review as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so-
called NIF. I will use that acronym.
The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being
built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in
California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any
nuclear weapons.
As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled
program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that
detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and
unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour
more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other
scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for
nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point.
Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National
Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel
estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They
called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993.
Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs
and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in
August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected
to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They
have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up
all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts,
adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties
because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle
costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This
is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle.
I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again
until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility--
if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here
almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we
finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor,
you will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super
Collider, you would like this program.
Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed
it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was
outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2
billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the
arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on
Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent
all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste.
We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money
in, we have to complete it.
I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build
the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we
worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did
not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are
better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National
Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time.
We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated
to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder
reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most
recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing:
Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the
money.
As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch
[[Page
S8165]]
River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider.
Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the
time and saving our taxpayers money.
We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to
hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told
GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget
because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one.
This is directly from the GAO report:
DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us
that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but
that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that
Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . .
They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now
they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good
stewardship we reward?
We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to
Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They
have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the
project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on
schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and
far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell
the Secretary of Energy.
So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized
building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very
small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one
time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure,
hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons
scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy
from the fusion than they put in with the lasers.
The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding
nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists
at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion
energy.
Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and
Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with
Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser
project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to
prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We
spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We
wasted a lot of money on that project, too.
Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true
that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons
explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal
we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability
of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program.
First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in
more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions--
1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each
type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the
components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or
other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating
an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can
be remanufactured to original specifications.
So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably
aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet
they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear
stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to
do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these
surveillance activities of our stockpile.
The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could
provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we
don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes
we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have
conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons
will work as intended.
In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests.
We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically
designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design,
but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of
widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for
stockpile stewardship.
Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked
what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied,
``None whatsoever.''
Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is
worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.''
Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF
``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship.
Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or
fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are
for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear
weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic
or applied sciences.
What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a
few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We
certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as
we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and
a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction
contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we
have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear
stockpile is safe and is workable.
So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as
the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal
funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found
that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other
basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder
reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the
same thing.
The administration has requested an additional $135 million for
construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other
stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that
is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on
NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135
million from other activities.
The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal
year 2002, $180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in
future years. Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science
programs and physics programs in order to get the money to build this
project at Lawrence Livermore.
Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a
statement earlier this year:
The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the
NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed
to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the
production plants, by several years. This causes us to
question what is a reasonable additional investment in the
National Ignition Facility.
Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the
National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence
Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of
achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted
in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point
of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent.
Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well,
there you have it.
If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation
threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main
purpose of NIF:
To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of
interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear
weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of
secondary design.
So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we
don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when
we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so.
Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the
$74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they
could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the
National Nuclear Security
[[Page
S8166]]
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the NIF and
the Inertia Confinement Review Program. This review shall be conducted
by the National Academy of Sciences.
I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is
required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the
stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same
objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost
of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly,
the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam
lines at the NIF.
Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have
now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent
study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and
this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really
what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman
of the committee for accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from New Mexico speaks, I
want to tell my friend from Iowa how appreciative I am of him bringing
this to the floor. With his statement tonight, he has made it so the
National Ignition Facility will be given a much closer look. It needs
to be looked at much more closely. I already have a statement in the
Record, and I don't need to repeat how I feel about this whole project.
I want to acknowledge to my friend what a great service he has rendered
to the country by his statement tonight.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we
really started questioning this because of some of the information the
Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence
Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a
few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I
can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both
sides.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at
8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided
prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to
the vote.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin
amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he
has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that
time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate;
that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has
used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side.
I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to
the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the
cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get
cleared;
And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the
disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third
reading, the Senate proceed to passage of
H.R. 4733, following the
passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire
subcommittee.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to make sure it is clear that the Senator from Illinois will have an
up-or-down vote on his amendment and that there will be no motion to
table.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have
the clarification.
Mr. REID. Also, even though this isn't part of the unanimous consent
request, because we have so much, I wonder if we could have some
general idea about how long the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
Mr. KYL. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. Could we make that part of the unanimous consent agreement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New
Mexico said about my amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given
it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for
asking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some
time to me.
I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that
the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I
believe not to be correct.
I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here.
The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was
going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact
were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a
reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They
suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator
from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other
discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In
fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in
their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued
that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this
wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the
ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in
lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing
forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban
treaty said.
Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National
Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the
question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body.
But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence
Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of
Defense and Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and
every one of them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a
critical component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it,
eventually the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in
terms of data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably
not be able to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which,
of course, would require advertising--something I know the Senator from
Iowa would not want.
The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur
that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based
upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the
scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers.
But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you
want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event,
they are worthless or meaningless.
That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is
a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it
can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their
computers.
The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little
bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He
says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at
midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is
such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it
has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the
laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost.
It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a
mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that
criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going
to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical
because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still
critical. You
[[Page
S8167]]
can't just say because it is going to cost more than we thought that we
are just going to give up on the whole project. At least you can't
advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know my colleague from
Iowa is.
I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be
accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the
final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It
would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to
assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any
misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may
not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we
thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it.
It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability,
and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in
this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear
stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it
takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to
be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more
than we originally anticipated.
I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this,
and his willingness to yield me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is
the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple
of minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think
what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more
robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it
is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty
involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a
disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from
Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The
question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the
cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door
to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of
how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust
debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we
have had in the past.
Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously,
politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is
going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this
year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have
the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The
amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't
think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the
study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a
broad variety of different disciplines to have input.
I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a
more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want
to continue with the National Ignition Facility.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document
entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the
point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors
believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is
necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program
The NNSA is currently in the process of developing its
long-term plan for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
This plan will address all elements needed to maintain the
safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile now and into the future, including science,
infrastructure, and people.
NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in
three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of
aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code
development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional
scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP
providing unique experimental capabilities that complement
other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and
advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant
science of materials that cannot be reached in other
facilities.
We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability
within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP,
its long-term role must be integrated within the overall
requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed
or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further
development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in
order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program an
additional $95 million is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF
Project.
Madelyn R. Creedon, NNSA.
C. Bruce Tarter, LLNL.
John C. Browne, LANL.
C. Paul Robinson, SNL.
Date: September 6, 2000.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Harkin for
modifying his amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The original amendment would have eliminated construction money for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is an essential component to our
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Any elimination of funding for the
program would negate the nearly $1 billion Congress has spent on this
project thus far, and would cripple our nation's arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. Still, the amendment agreed to does limit the
amount of funding for Fiscal Year 2001 which will make it increasingly
difficult to meet the goals of the project.
The United States has made a strong commitment against underground
nuclear testing. In order to meet this goal and maintain the nuclear
deterrent of the United States, we must have a safe, reliable, and
effective science based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
As a key element to the SSP, NIF will be the only facility able to
achieve conditions of temperature and pressure in a laboratory setting
that have only been reached in explosions of thermonuclear weapons and
in the stars. It is expected to provide important contributions to the
goals of stockpile stewardship in the absence of nuclear testing and to
contribute to the advancement of inertial fusion energy and other
scientific research efforts.
I am proud that institutions and contractors throughout New York
State have provided valuable services and tools for this project that
are essential to its completion. Because New York companies and
research institutions provide laser, optics, and other tools,
underground nuclear testing will no longer be necessary. That would be
a huge benefit to the entire world.
I understand that DOE has recognized that there are some problems
with NIF, but DOE is working hard to take the necessary steps to
correct these issues. Project management has been restructured and has
demonstrated over the last six months that it is capable of managing a
project of this scope. It has already been determined that the
underlying science associated with NIF is sound.
Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding
for this program. The cost increases should not override the importance
of this project in our goal to ensure the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons.
Any repeal of this funding will cripple the valuable science and
knowledge that is coming together from around the world in our effort
to maintain the United States nuclear deterrent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4101) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057,
4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077,
4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered
a
[[Page
S8168]]
large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can
agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have
numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to
review them.
I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046,
4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072,
4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, and
4100, 4102, and 4103, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 4024
(Purpose: To authorize the Corps of Engineers to include an evaluation
of flood damage reduction measures in the study of Southwest Valley
Flood Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico)
On page 47, line 18 before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided, That in conducting the Southwest
Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the
frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of
runoff''.
____
amendment no. 4032
Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66,
line 7.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4033
(Purpose: To establish a Presidential Energy Commission to expore long-
and short-term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and
severe spikes in energy prices)
On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
SEC. 4____. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of
America's energy consumption;
(2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled
1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural
gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
(3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories
totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year
average of 334,000,000 barrels;
(4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel
fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent
below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
(5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude
oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased
demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely
have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
(6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
(b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among
a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to
in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist
of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following
categories:
(i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
(ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
(iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
(iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
(v) Environmental groups.
(vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and
demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
(vii) The Energy Information Administration.
(B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission
shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall
appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the
Commission.
(E) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Commission have been
appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(2) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
(i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and
natural gas industries, of--
(I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil,
and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends
and projections for those inventories;
(II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply
disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in
particular regions;
(III) ways in which the United States can become less
dependent on foreign oil supplies;
(IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and
utilize its domestic energy resources;
(V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used
to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
(VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy
consumption;
(VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--
(aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy
resources to locations throughout the United States;
(bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United
States; and
(cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other
energy-related petroleum product storage in the United
States; and
(VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission
considers pertinent; and
(ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that
contains--
(I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(II) the recommendations of the Commission for such
legislation and administrative actions as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted,
conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the
Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph
(A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date
of the report.
(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use
$500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to
fund the Commission.
(d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which
the Commission submits its report under subsection
(b)(2)(A)(ii).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4039
(Purpose: To provide for funding of innovative projects in small rural
communities in the Mississippi Delta to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies)
On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, of
which an appropriate amount shall be available for innovative
projects in small rural communities in the Mississippi Delta,
such as Morgan City, Mississippi, to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies, concerning which projects
the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report not
later than March 31, 2001:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4040
(Purpose: To require an evaluation by the Department of Energy of the
Adams process)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Department
of Energy is seeking innovative technologies for the
demilitarization of weapons components and the treatment of
mixed waste resulting from the demilitarization of such
components.
(b) Evaluation of Adams Process.--The Secretary of Energy
shall conduct an evaluation of the so-called ``Adams
process'' currently being tested by the Department of Energy
at its Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory
using funds of the Department of Defense.
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the
evaluation conducted under subsection (b).
____
amendment no. 4042
(Purpose: To provide funding for a topo/bathy study of coastal
Louisiana)
Insert the following at the end of line 18, page 47 before
the period. ``:Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
use $200,000, of funds appropriated herein for Research and
Development, for a topographic/bathymetric mapping project
for Coastal Louisiana in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the interagency
federal laboratory in Lafayette, Louisiana.''
____
amendment no. 4046
On page 67, line 9, after ``activities'' insert the
following: ``, and Provided Further, That, of the amounts
made available for energy supply $1,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of Arctic Energy.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4047
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a
report on national energy policy)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3____. REPORT ON NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) since July 1999--
(A) diesel prices have increased nearly 40 percent;
(B) liquid petroleum prices have increased approximately 55
percent; and
(C) gasoline prices have increased approximately 50
percent;
(2)(A) natural gas is the heating fuel for most homes and
commercial buildings; and
[[Page
S8169]]
(B) the price of natural gas increased 7.8 percent during
June 2000 and has doubled since 1999;
(3) strong demand for gasoline and diesel fuel has resulted
in inventories of home heating oil that are down 39 percent
from a year ago;
(4) rising oil and natural gas prices are a significant
factor in the 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price
Index for June 2000 and the 3.7 percent increase over the
past 12 months;
(5) demand for diesel fuel, liquid petroleum, and gasoline
has continued to increase while supplies have decreased;
(6) the current energy crisis facing the United States has
had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on the
economy;
(7) the price of energy greatly affects the input costs of
farmers, truckers, and small businesses; and
(8) on July 21, 2000, in testimony before the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the
Secretary of Energy stated that the Administration had
developed and was in the process of finalizing a plan to
address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report
detailing the Department of Energy's plan to address the high
cost of home heating oil and natural gas.
____
amendment no. 4057
(Purpose: Concentrating Solar Demonstration Project)
Insert at the end of line 9, page 67 of the bill ``;
Provided, further, That $1,000,000 is provided to initiate
planning of a one MW dish engine field validation power
project at UNLV in Nevada''.
____
amendment no. 4062
(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the demonstration of an underground
mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That $4,000,000 shall be made
available for the demonstration of an underground mining
locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen at
existing mining facilities within the State of Nevada. The
demonstration is subject to a private sector industry cost-
share of not less than equal amount, and a portion of these
funds may also be used to acquire a prototype hydrogen
fueling appliance to provide on-site hydrogen in the
demonstration.''
____
amendment no. 4063
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to demonstrate a commercial facility
employing thermo-depolymerization technology)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $5,000,000 shall be made
available to support a project to demonstrate a commercial
facility employing thermo-depolymerization technology at a
site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. The project shall
proceed on a cost-share basis where Federal funding shall be
matched in at least an equal amount with non-federal
funding.''
____
amendment no. 4067
(Purpose: To provide that the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not
proceed with a sale of mineral rights in land within the Daniel Boone
National Forest, Kentucky, until after the Tennessee Valley Authority
completes an environmental impact statement)
On page 97, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 7 . SALE OF MINERAL RIGHTS BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not proceed with the
proposed sale of approximately 40,000 acres of mineral rights
in land within the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky,
until after the Tennessee Valley Authority completes an
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
____
amendment no. 4068
On page 47, line 18 after the phrase ``to remain available
until expended'' insert the following:``; Provided, That
$50,000 provided herein shall be for erosion control studies
in the Harding Lake watershed in Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4069
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for equipment acquisition for the
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL
Instrument Center)
At the appropriate place in the bill providing funding for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, insert the following:
``Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided for
equipment acquisition for the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL Instrument
Center.''
____
amendment no. 4070
(Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 to support a program to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams that
threaten public health and environmental security along the U.S.-Mexico
border; and to provide $2,000,000 for the Materials Corridor
Partnership Initiative)
On page 73, line 22, after the word ``expended'', insert
the following: ``Provided, That, $3,000,000 shall be made
available from within the funds provided for Science and
Technology to support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad
office of the Department of Energy, in coordination with the
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams
that threaten public health and environmental security in
order to advance the potential for commercialization of
technologies relevant to the Department's clean-up mission.
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be made available
from within the funds provided for Science and Technology to
support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad office of the
Department of Energy to implement a program to support the
Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative.''
____
amendment no. 4071
On page 61, line 25, add the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That $2,300,000 of the funding provided
herein shall be for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water
Reclamation and Reuse project authorized by Title XVI of
Public Law 102-575 to undertake phase II of the project''.
____
amendment no. 4072
(Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $1,000,000 shall be made
available for the Kotzebue wind project.''
____
amendment no. 4073
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a
demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska)
On page 67, line 4 after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made
available for the design and construction of a demonstration
facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4074
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioreactor landfill project to be
administered by the Environmental Education and Research Foundation and
Michigan State University)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $500,000 shall be made available
for the bioreactor landfill project to be administered by the
Environmental Education and Research Foundation and Michigan
State University.''
____
amendment no. 4076
(Purpose: To exempt travel within the LDRD program from the Department-
wide travel cap)
On page 83, before line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to
reimbursement of management and operating contractor travel
expenses within the Laboratory Directed Research and
Development program.''
____
amendment no. 4077
(Purpose: To provide erosion and sediment control measures resulting
from increased flows related to the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico)
On page 93, line 18, strike ``enactment'' and insert:
``enactment, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake immediate
measures to provide erosion control and sediment protection
to sewage lines, trails, and bridges in Pueblo and Los Alamos
Canyons downstream of Diamond Drive in New Mexico''.
____
amendment no. 4078
(Purpose: To provide that up to 8 percent of the funds provided to
government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories shall be available
to be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development)
On page 82, line 24, strike ``6'' and replace with ``8''.
____
amendment no. 4083
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to
carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St.
Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``SEC. ____. ST. GEORGES BRIDGE, DELAWARE.
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
to carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of
the St. Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Delaware, including a hearing or any other activity
relating to preparation of an environmental impact statement
concerning the closure or removal.''
____
amendment no. 4085
(Purpose: To provide for an additonal payment from the surplus to
reduce the public debt)
On page ______, after line ______, insert the following:
``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
``bureau of the public debt
``supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
``For deposit of an additonal amount for fiscal year 2001
into the account established
[[Page
S8170]]
under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to
reduce the public debt, $5,000,000,000.''
____
amendment no. 4088
(Purpose: To provide sums to the Secretary of the Interior to refund
certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12 insert:
``Sec. ____. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
and directed to use not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under title II to refund amounts received by the
United States as payments for charges assessed by the
Secretary prior to January 1, 1994 for failure to file
certain certification or reporting forms prior to the receipt
of irrigation water, pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1226, 1272; 43
U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)), including the amount of associated
interest assessed by the Secretary and paid to the United
States pursuant to section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (101 Stat. 1330-268; 43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4093
(Purpose: To set aside funds for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet
Harbor breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island)
On page 53, line 8, strike `'facilities:'' and insert the
following: ``facilities, and of which $500,000 shall be
available for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet Harbor
breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island:''.
AMENDMENT NO. 4100
(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit
to Congress a report on electricity prices in the State of California)
On page 97, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 7____. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) California is currently experiencing an energy crisis;
(2) rolling power outages are a serious possibility;
(3) wholesale electricity prices have soared, resulting in
electrical bills that have increased as much as 300 percent
in the San Diego area;
(4) small business owners and people on small or fixed
incomes, especially senior citizens, are particularly
suffering;
(5) the crisis is so severe that the County of San Diego
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - September 07, 2000)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8163-
S8187]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of
H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (
H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50
or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few
contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we
intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we
will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language
together.
Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will
speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to
use a couple minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point
for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Domenici pertaining to the introduction of
S. 3021 are located in
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint
Resolutions.'')
Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
Might I make a parliamentary inquiry?
We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for
termination of debate on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority
leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a
very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We
have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to
accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish
debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator
Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But
we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's
amendment before we finish this bill.
We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's
concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and
I have agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after
that to debate Senator Durbin's amendment.
I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment
will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is
satisfactory to Senator Bond.
Can we do that right now?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. REID. I underline what the Senator from New Mexico has said. My
friend from Illinois has three amendments he has filed. It is my
understanding that he is going to offer one of those; and if there
would be an up-or-down vote on that, he would withdraw two of the
amendments--and not only an up-or-down vote but no second-degree
amendments.
So the Senator from Illinois would agree--if I could have the
attention of the Senator from New Mexico for just a minute. The Senator
from Illinois would agree to 30 minutes equally divided, with a vote,
with no second-degree amendments. That is my understanding, that we
would have a vote on that at some time before final passage later
tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20
minutes equally divided?
[[Page
S8164]]
Mr. DURBIN. I will be prepared to withdraw two of the three
amendments. I will be prepared to limit my debate to no more than 10
minutes on my side, if we can agree also that it be an up-or-down vote
on the amendment, as offered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with
the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So
when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the
Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and
proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we
have seen?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would let me have a minute?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Durbin--I just got word--I hear
Senator Bond is en route and that he did not say that he would agree to
no amendments. I think he will when he gets to the floor, but I just
want to make clear I probably overspoke. I thought he had said that.
Can we just wait for him to arrive?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend, we will revisit it when he is on the
floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
The clerk has yet to report the amendment. The amendment at the desk
is not the same as the one filed. It will require unanimous consent to
substitute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4101, As Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on
file.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 4101, as modified.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit to $74,100,000 the total amount of funds that may be
expended for construction of the National Ignition Facility)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction of
National Ignition Facility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the total amount that may be expended for
purposes of construction of the National Ignition Facility,
including conceptual and construction design associated with
the Facility, may not exceed $74,100,000.
(b) Independent Review of National Ignition Facility.--(1)
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the
National Ignition Facility and the Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program. The review shall be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) The review under paragraph (1) shall address the
following:
(A) Whether or not the National Ignition Facility is
required in order to maintain the safety and reliability of
the current nuclear weapons stockpile.
(B) Whether or not alternatives to the National Ignition
Facility could achieve the objective of maintaining the
safety and reliability of the current nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(C) Any current technical problems with the National
Ignition Facility, including the effects of such problems on
the cost, schedule, or likely success of the National
Ignition Facility project.
(D) The likely cost of the construction of the National
Ignition facility, including any conceptual and construction
design and manufacture associated with construction of the
Facility.
(E) The potential effects of cost overruns in the
construction of the National Ignition Facility on the
stockpile stewardship program.
(F) The cost and advisability of scaling back the number of
proposed beamlines at the National Ignition Facility.
(3) Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted
under this subsection. The report shall include the results
of the review and such comments and recommendations regarding
the results of the review as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so-
called NIF. I will use that acronym.
The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being
built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in
California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any
nuclear weapons.
As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled
program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that
detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and
unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour
more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other
scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for
nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point.
Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National
Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel
estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They
called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993.
Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs
and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in
August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected
to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They
have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up
all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts,
adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties
because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle
costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This
is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle.
I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again
until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility--
if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here
almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we
finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor,
you will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super
Collider, you would like this program.
Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed
it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was
outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2
billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the
arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on
Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent
all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste.
We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money
in, we have to complete it.
I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build
the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we
worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did
not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are
better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National
Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time.
We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated
to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder
reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most
recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing:
Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the
money.
As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch
[[Page
S8165]]
River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider.
Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the
time and saving our taxpayers money.
We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to
hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told
GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget
because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one.
This is directly from the GAO report:
DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us
that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but
that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that
Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . .
They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now
they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good
stewardship we reward?
We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to
Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They
have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the
project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on
schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and
far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell
the Secretary of Energy.
So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized
building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very
small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one
time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure,
hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons
scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy
from the fusion than they put in with the lasers.
The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding
nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists
at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion
energy.
Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and
Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with
Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser
project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to
prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We
spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We
wasted a lot of money on that project, too.
Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true
that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons
explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal
we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability
of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program.
First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in
more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions--
1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each
type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the
components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or
other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating
an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can
be remanufactured to original specifications.
So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably
aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet
they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear
stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to
do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these
surveillance activities of our stockpile.
The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could
provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we
don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes
we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have
conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons
will work as intended.
In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests.
We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically
designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design,
but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of
widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for
stockpile stewardship.
Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked
what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied,
``None whatsoever.''
Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is
worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.''
Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF
``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship.
Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or
fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are
for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear
weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic
or applied sciences.
What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a
few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We
certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as
we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and
a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction
contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we
have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear
stockpile is safe and is workable.
So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as
the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal
funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found
that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other
basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder
reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the
same thing.
The administration has requested an additional $135 million for
construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other
stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that
is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on
NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135
million from other activities.
The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal
year 2002, $180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in
future years. Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science
programs and physics programs in order to get the money to build this
project at Lawrence Livermore.
Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a
statement earlier this year:
The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the
NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed
to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the
production plants, by several years. This causes us to
question what is a reasonable additional investment in the
National Ignition Facility.
Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the
National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence
Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of
achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted
in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point
of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent.
Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well,
there you have it.
If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation
threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main
purpose of NIF:
To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of
interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear
weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of
secondary design.
So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we
don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when
we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so.
Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the
$74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they
could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the
National Nuclear Security
[[Page
S8166]]
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the NIF and
the Inertia Confinement Review Program. This review shall be conducted
by the National Academy of Sciences.
I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is
required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the
stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same
objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost
of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly,
the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam
lines at the NIF.
Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have
now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent
study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and
this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really
what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman
of the committee for accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from New Mexico speaks, I
want to tell my friend from Iowa how appreciative I am of him bringing
this to the floor. With his statement tonight, he has made it so the
National Ignition Facility will be given a much closer look. It needs
to be looked at much more closely. I already have a statement in the
Record, and I don't need to repeat how I feel about this whole project.
I want to acknowledge to my friend what a great service he has rendered
to the country by his statement tonight.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we
really started questioning this because of some of the information the
Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence
Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a
few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I
can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both
sides.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at
8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided
prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to
the vote.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin
amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he
has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that
time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate;
that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has
used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side.
I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to
the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the
cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get
cleared;
And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the
disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third
reading, the Senate proceed to passage of
H.R. 4733, following the
passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire
subcommittee.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to make sure it is clear that the Senator from Illinois will have an
up-or-down vote on his amendment and that there will be no motion to
table.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have
the clarification.
Mr. REID. Also, even though this isn't part of the unanimous consent
request, because we have so much, I wonder if we could have some
general idea about how long the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
Mr. KYL. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. Could we make that part of the unanimous consent agreement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New
Mexico said about my amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given
it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for
asking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some
time to me.
I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that
the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I
believe not to be correct.
I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here.
The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was
going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact
were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a
reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They
suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator
from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other
discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In
fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in
their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued
that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this
wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the
ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in
lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing
forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban
treaty said.
Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National
Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the
question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body.
But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence
Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of
Defense and Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and
every one of them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a
critical component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it,
eventually the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in
terms of data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably
not be able to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which,
of course, would require advertising--something I know the Senator from
Iowa would not want.
The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur
that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based
upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the
scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers.
But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you
want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event,
they are worthless or meaningless.
That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is
a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it
can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their
computers.
The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little
bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He
says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at
midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is
such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it
has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the
laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost.
It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a
mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that
criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going
to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical
because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still
critical. You
[[Page
S8167]]
can't just say because it is going to cost more than we thought that we
are just going to give up on the whole project. At least you can't
advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know my colleague from
Iowa is.
I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be
accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the
final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It
would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to
assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any
misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may
not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we
thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it.
It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability,
and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in
this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear
stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it
takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to
be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more
than we originally anticipated.
I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this,
and his willingness to yield me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is
the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple
of minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think
what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more
robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it
is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty
involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a
disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from
Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The
question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the
cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door
to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of
how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust
debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we
have had in the past.
Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously,
politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is
going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this
year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have
the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The
amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't
think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the
study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a
broad variety of different disciplines to have input.
I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a
more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want
to continue with the National Ignition Facility.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document
entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the
point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors
believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is
necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program
The NNSA is currently in the process of developing its
long-term plan for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
This plan will address all elements needed to maintain the
safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile now and into the future, including science,
infrastructure, and people.
NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in
three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of
aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code
development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional
scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP
providing unique experimental capabilities that complement
other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and
advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant
science of materials that cannot be reached in other
facilities.
We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability
within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP,
its long-term role must be integrated within the overall
requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed
or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further
development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in
order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program an
additional $95 million is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF
Project.
Madelyn R. Creedon, NNSA.
C. Bruce Tarter, LLNL.
John C. Browne, LANL.
C. Paul Robinson, SNL.
Date: September 6, 2000.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Harkin for
modifying his amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The original amendment would have eliminated construction money for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is an essential component to our
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Any elimination of funding for the
program would negate the nearly $1 billion Congress has spent on this
project thus far, and would cripple our nation's arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. Still, the amendment agreed to does limit the
amount of funding for Fiscal Year 2001 which will make it increasingly
difficult to meet the goals of the project.
The United States has made a strong commitment against underground
nuclear testing. In order to meet this goal and maintain the nuclear
deterrent of the United States, we must have a safe, reliable, and
effective science based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
As a key element to the SSP, NIF will be the only facility able to
achieve conditions of temperature and pressure in a laboratory setting
that have only been reached in explosions of thermonuclear weapons and
in the stars. It is expected to provide important contributions to the
goals of stockpile stewardship in the absence of nuclear testing and to
contribute to the advancement of inertial fusion energy and other
scientific research efforts.
I am proud that institutions and contractors throughout New York
State have provided valuable services and tools for this project that
are essential to its completion. Because New York companies and
research institutions provide laser, optics, and other tools,
underground nuclear testing will no longer be necessary. That would be
a huge benefit to the entire world.
I understand that DOE has recognized that there are some problems
with NIF, but DOE is working hard to take the necessary steps to
correct these issues. Project management has been restructured and has
demonstrated over the last six months that it is capable of managing a
project of this scope. It has already been determined that the
underlying science associated with NIF is sound.
Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding
for this program. The cost increases should not override the importance
of this project in our goal to ensure the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons.
Any repeal of this funding will cripple the valuable science and
knowledge that is coming together from around the world in our effort
to maintain the United States nuclear deterrent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4101) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057,
4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077,
4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered
a
[[Page
S8168]]
large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can
agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have
numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to
review them.
I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046,
4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072,
4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, and
4100, 4102, and 4103, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 4024
(Purpose: To authorize the Corps of Engineers to include an evaluation
of flood damage reduction measures in the study of Southwest Valley
Flood Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico)
On page 47, line 18 before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided, That in conducting the Southwest
Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the
frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of
runoff''.
____
amendment no. 4032
Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66,
line 7.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4033
(Purpose: To establish a Presidential Energy Commission to expore long-
and short-term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and
severe spikes in energy prices)
On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
SEC. 4____. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of
America's energy consumption;
(2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled
1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural
gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
(3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories
totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year
average of 334,000,000 barrels;
(4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel
fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent
below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
(5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude
oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased
demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely
have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
(6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
(b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among
a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to
in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist
of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following
categories:
(i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
(ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
(iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
(iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
(v) Environmental groups.
(vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and
demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
(vii) The Energy Information Administration.
(B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission
shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall
appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the
Commission.
(E) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Commission have been
appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(2) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
(i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and
natural gas industries, of--
(I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil,
and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends
and projections for those inventories;
(II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply
disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in
particular regions;
(III) ways in which the United States can become less
dependent on foreign oil supplies;
(IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and
utilize its domestic energy resources;
(V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used
to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
(VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy
consumption;
(VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--
(aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy
resources to locations throughout the United States;
(bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United
States; and
(cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other
energy-related petroleum product storage in the United
States; and
(VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission
considers pertinent; and
(ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that
contains--
(I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(II) the recommendations of the Commission for such
legislation and administrative actions as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted,
conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the
Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph
(A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date
of the report.
(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use
$500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to
fund the Commission.
(d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which
the Commission submits its report under subsection
(b)(2)(A)(ii).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4039
(Purpose: To provide for funding of innovative projects in small rural
communities in the Mississippi Delta to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies)
On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, of
which an appropriate amount shall be available for innovative
projects in small rural communities in the Mississippi Delta,
such as Morgan City, Mississippi, to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies, concerning which projects
the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report not
later than March 31, 2001:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4040
(Purpose: To require an evaluation by the Department of Energy of the
Adams process)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Department
of Energy is seeking innovative technologies for the
demilitarization of weapons components and the treatment of
mixed waste resulting from the demilitarization of such
components.
(b) Evaluation of Adams Process.--The Secretary of Energy
shall conduct an evaluation of the so-called ``Adams
process'' currently being tested by the Department of Energy
at its Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory
using funds of the Department of Defense.
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the
evaluation conducted under subsection (b).
____
amendment no. 4042
(Purpose: To provide funding for a topo/bathy study of coastal
Louisiana)
Insert the following at the end of line 18, page 47 before
the period. ``:Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
use $200,000, of funds appropriated herein for Research and
Development, for a topographic/bathymetric mapping project
for Coastal Louisiana in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the interagency
federal laboratory in Lafayette, Louisiana.''
____
amendment no. 4046
On page 67, line 9, after ``activities'' insert the
following: ``, and Provided Further, That, of the amounts
made available for energy supply $1,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of Arctic Energy.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4047
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a
report on national energy policy)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3____. REPORT ON NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) since July 1999--
(A) diesel prices have increased nearly 40 percent;
(B) liquid petroleum prices have increased approximately 55
percent; and
(C) gasoline prices have increased approximately 50
percent;
(2)(A) natural gas is the heating fuel for most homes and
commercial buildings; and
[[Page
S8169]]
(B) the price of natural gas increased 7.8 percent during
June 2000 and has doubled since 1999;
(3) strong demand for gasoline and diesel fuel has resulted
in inventories of home heating oil that are down 39 percent
from a year ago;
(4) rising oil and natural gas prices are a significant
factor in the 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price
Index for June 2000 and the 3.7 percent increase over the
past 12 months;
(5) demand for diesel fuel, liquid petroleum, and gasoline
has continued to increase while supplies have decreased;
(6) the current energy crisis facing the United States has
had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on the
economy;
(7) the price of energy greatly affects the input costs of
farmers, truckers, and small businesses; and
(8) on July 21, 2000, in testimony before the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the
Secretary of Energy stated that the Administration had
developed and was in the process of finalizing a plan to
address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report
detailing the Department of Energy's plan to address the high
cost of home heating oil and natural gas.
____
amendment no. 4057
(Purpose: Concentrating Solar Demonstration Project)
Insert at the end of line 9, page 67 of the bill ``;
Provided, further, That $1,000,000 is provided to initiate
planning of a one MW dish engine field validation power
project at UNLV in Nevada''.
____
amendment no. 4062
(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the demonstration of an underground
mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That $4,000,000 shall be made
available for the demonstration of an underground mining
locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen at
existing mining facilities within the State of Nevada. The
demonstration is subject to a private sector industry cost-
share of not less than equal amount, and a portion of these
funds may also be used to acquire a prototype hydrogen
fueling appliance to provide on-site hydrogen in the
demonstration.''
____
amendment no. 4063
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to demonstrate a commercial facility
employing thermo-depolymerization technology)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $5,000,000 shall be made
available to support a project to demonstrate a commercial
facility employing thermo-depolymerization technology at a
site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. The project shall
proceed on a cost-share basis where Federal funding shall be
matched in at least an equal amount with non-federal
funding.''
____
amendment no. 4067
(Purpose: To provide that the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not
proceed with a sale of mineral rights in land within the Daniel Boone
National Forest, Kentucky, until after the Tennessee Valley Authority
completes an environmental impact statement)
On page 97, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 7 . SALE OF MINERAL RIGHTS BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not proceed with the
proposed sale of approximately 40,000 acres of mineral rights
in land within the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky,
until after the Tennessee Valley Authority completes an
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
____
amendment no. 4068
On page 47, line 18 after the phrase ``to remain available
until expended'' insert the following:``; Provided, That
$50,000 provided herein shall be for erosion control studies
in the Harding Lake watershed in Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4069
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for equipment acquisition for the
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL
Instrument Center)
At the appropriate place in the bill providing funding for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, insert the following:
``Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided for
equipment acquisition for the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL Instrument
Center.''
____
amendment no. 4070
(Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 to support a program to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams that
threaten public health and environmental security along the U.S.-Mexico
border; and to provide $2,000,000 for the Materials Corridor
Partnership Initiative)
On page 73, line 22, after the word ``expended'', insert
the following: ``Provided, That, $3,000,000 shall be made
available from within the funds provided for Science and
Technology to support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad
office of the Department of Energy, in coordination with the
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams
that threaten public health and environmental security in
order to advance the potential for commercialization of
technologies relevant to the Department's clean-up mission.
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be made available
from within the funds provided for Science and Technology to
support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad office of the
Department of Energy to implement a program to support the
Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative.''
____
amendment no. 4071
On page 61, line 25, add the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That $2,300,000 of the funding provided
herein shall be for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water
Reclamation and Reuse project authorized by Title XVI of
Public Law 102-575 to undertake phase II of the project''.
____
amendment no. 4072
(Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $1,000,000 shall be made
available for the Kotzebue wind project.''
____
amendment no. 4073
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a
demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska)
On page 67, line 4 after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made
available for the design and construction of a demonstration
facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4074
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioreactor landfill project to be
administered by the Environmental Education and Research Foundation and
Michigan State University)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $500,000 shall be made available
for the bioreactor landfill project to be administered by the
Environmental Education and Research Foundation and Michigan
State University.''
____
amendment no. 4076
(Purpose: To exempt travel within the LDRD program from the Department-
wide travel cap)
On page 83, before line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to
reimbursement of management and operating contractor travel
expenses within the Laboratory Directed Research and
Development program.''
____
amendment no. 4077
(Purpose: To provide erosion and sediment control measures resulting
from increased flows related to the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico)
On page 93, line 18, strike ``enactment'' and insert:
``enactment, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake immediate
measures to provide erosion control and sediment protection
to sewage lines, trails, and bridges in Pueblo and Los Alamos
Canyons downstream of Diamond Drive in New Mexico''.
____
amendment no. 4078
(Purpose: To provide that up to 8 percent of the funds provided to
government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories shall be available
to be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development)
On page 82, line 24, strike ``6'' and replace with ``8''.
____
amendment no. 4083
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to
carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St.
Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``SEC. ____. ST. GEORGES BRIDGE, DELAWARE.
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
to carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of
the St. Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Delaware, including a hearing or any other activity
relating to preparation of an environmental impact statement
concerning the closure or removal.''
____
amendment no. 4085
(Purpose: To provide for an additonal payment from the surplus to
reduce the public debt)
On page ______, after line ______, insert the following:
``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
``bureau of the public debt
``supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
``For deposit of an additonal amount for fiscal year 2001
into the account established
[[Page
S8170]]
under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to
reduce the public debt, $5,000,000,000.''
____
amendment no. 4088
(Purpose: To provide sums to the Secretary of the Interior to refund
certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12 insert:
``Sec. ____. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
and directed to use not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under title II to refund amounts received by the
United States as payments for charges assessed by the
Secretary prior to January 1, 1994 for failure to file
certain certification or reporting forms prior to the receipt
of irrigation water, pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1226, 1272; 43
U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)), including the amount of associated
interest assessed by the Secretary and paid to the United
States pursuant to section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (101 Stat. 1330-268; 43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4093
(Purpose: To set aside funds for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet
Harbor breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island)
On page 53, line 8, strike `'facilities:'' and insert the
following: ``facilities, and of which $500,000 shall be
available for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet Harbor
breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island:''.
AMENDMENT NO. 4100
(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit
to Congress a report on electricity prices in the State of California)
On page 97, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 7____. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) California is currently experiencing an energy crisis;
(2) rolling power outages are a serious possibility;
(3) wholesale electricity prices have soared, resulting in
electrical bills that have increased as much as 300 percent
in the San Diego area;
(4) small business owners and people on small or fixed
incomes, especially senior citizens, are particularly
suffering;
(5) the crisis is so severe that the County of San
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
