Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the Kyoto Protocol that has been debated a number of times on the House floor within literally the last several days, as well as committee; and I would simply want to point out several things.
One is, Kyoto did not simply come full clothed from the Clinton administration but rather from negotiations begun under President Bush's administration pursuant to a treaty that President Bush signed on June 1, 1992.
There was a Kyoto Protocol subsequent to that, and concerns have been expressed as far as various administration agencies engaging in actions that are not authorized.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KNOLLENBERG) has made a point of this, and I would simply indicate that the concern I have is we have legitimate authorized programs that the various departments in this case, the Department of Energy, should pursue and they should not in any way, shape or form be precluded from doing so because coincidentally they also happen to have been mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol.
I would agree with the concerns expressed on previous occasions by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KNOLLENBERG) that the Kyoto Treaty is not the law of the land. We should not be implementing it; but because there are diversions and parallel tracks in many programs, I do want to make sure that we are clear that we are not in any way inhibiting duly authorized programs from proceeding.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time.
In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule.
I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project will be preserved during the conference with the other body.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, I certainly appreciate the hard work that the gentleman from California (Chairman PACKARD) and the ranking member have done on this bill.
This bill is extremely important to all of the 435 Congressional districts, and we all appreciate their work. I represent coastal Georgia and do a lot of Corps of Engineer-type projects in our area. None of those are easy, they all can be controversial. I appreciate the way, the delicate touch that the ranking member and the chairman have when dealing with this.
The amendment that I have deals with the Secretary of Energy's Department, not the Secretary of Energy, but it deals with some of the recent, I am not going to use the word scandal, but some of the recent concern that has gone on at the Los Alamos labs, which this Congress, has on a bipartisan basis, tried to address and do our best to work with it.
It appears that there are certain employees who have decided that well, it is good enough to take a government paycheck, the government is not good enough to require that they take a polygraph test. I stress that we do not randomly ask people to take polygraph tests, but when there has been an apparent disappearance of highly-sensitive nuclear secrets, then if there are employees who are not necessarily even under suspicion, but in the category where it is possible they could have some knowledge
on it, then it is appropriate for the U.S. government in a highly-sensitive nuclear lab to go out and ask some questions and, unfortunately, some employees are far from that investigation.
Mr. Chairman, that is what we will be dealing with on this amendment when the appropriate time comes, and I will be glad to deal with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. ANDREWS) if he wanted to comment on that, because I know the gentleman has been very concerned about security at Los Alamos.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON) for this effort. We are embarking on a long national nightmare about security in this area. It is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. It is a national problem. It deserves a heightened degree of attention, and I commend my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. KINGSTON) for giving it that attention.