[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10924-S10929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM AVIATION RELATIONS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of 
great importance to U.S. passenger and cargo carriers. I refer to 
aviation relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. 
The strategic location of the United Kingdom makes it a key crossroad 
for international traffic. It is a gateway to Europe and an important 
link in the global aviation market.
  A liberalized, balanced air service agreement between the United 
States and the United Kingdom is in the best interest of both 
countries. Of equal importance, the increased competition resulting 
from such an agreement would benefit consumers on both sides of the 
Atlantic. Unfortunately, our current bilateral aviation agreement--the 
Bermuda II Agreement--is anticompetitive, nowhere near balanced, and 
harms consumers.
  First, the agreement is terribly restrictive. For example, presently 
only two U.S. carriers--American Airlines and United Airlines--can 
serve London Heathrow Airport and they can do so only from specific 
cities. This is particularly significant since Heathrow is the most 
important international gateway airport in the world. Also, the number 
of passengers carried to the United Kingdom by United States airlines 
is severely constrained by the Bermuda II Agreement. Without question, 
Bermuda II is our most restrictive bilateral aviation agreement.
  Second, the air service agreement is grossly imbalanced in favor of 
the British. Currently, United Kingdom airlines carry approximately 60 
percent of the transatlantic passengers between the United States and 
the United Kingdom. In 1976, U.S. air carriers had around 60 percent of 
the transatlantic passenger market share. The British found that state 
of affairs intolerable. In fact, the United Kingdom relied on this 
inequitable balance as the basis for renouncing the Bermuda I 
Agreement.
  The British were right. A 60 percent-40 percent imbalance is 
intolerable. It must be corrected. U.S. carriers are highly competitive 
and, but for Bermuda II, the market would not be skewed in this manner. 
I am willing to put our highly efficient carriers up against any 
foreign carriers. Given the chance, I am confident they will 
successfully compete in any market worldwide.
  Finally, Bermuda II is undesirable for consumers because it limits 
competition. Consumers on both sides of the Atlantic would benefit 
greatly from increased competition in the United States-United Kingdom 
transatlantic market. Bermuda II does not discriminate, it harms 
British consumers as well as United States travelers.
  Mr. President, earlier this year the United States began pressing for 
a liberalized, market oriented aviation agreement with the United 
Kingdom. This is not the first time we have tried to secure an air 
service agreement on this basis. In fact, for more than 50 years the 
United States has repeatedly tried to get the United Kingdom to embrace 
an air service agreement based on free-market principles. Our current 
position is not new, nor is it novel.
  Unfortunately, for more than 50 years, these attempts have 
consistently been rebuffed by the British who are very concerned about 
the prospect of unrestrained head-to-head competition with United 
States carriers. Many aspects of our trade relationship with 

[[Page S 10925]]
the United Kingdom are open and unrestricted. Aviation certainly is not 
one of them.
  The current round of negotiations that began earlier this year did, 
however, start a process which hopefully will ultimately result in a 
liberalized air service agreement. The phase 1 deal agreed to by the 
United States and the United Kingdom last month is a step in the right 
direction, but we have a long, long way to go.
  Hopefully, the momentum of the phase 1 deal will carry over into 
phase 2 negotiations which began recently in London. I hope we can 
secure a phase 2 deal this fall that increases access to Heathrow and 
Gatwick Airports, and liberalizes cargo services, pricing, and charter 
flights. Such an agreement would be another significant step. It would 
be a welcome development. However, even if we reach consensus on a 
phase 2 agreement, we must not stop there. The United States and the 
United Kingdom must continue working together to fully liberalize our 
aviation relations.
  Mr. President, I wish to briefly discuss two important related 
issues. First, is the United States' request for additional Heathrow 
access fair and realistic in light of current capacity limitations at 
that airport? Second, does the United States have enough leverage in 
negotiations to obtain a liberalized air service agreement?
  Several weeks ago I met in London with key United Kingdom transport 
officials and aviation executives to better evaluate each of these 
questions. I believe the answer to both questions is ``yes.'' Let me 
explain my conclusions.
  Heathrow Airport, like four airports in the United States, is a slot-
controlled facility. By this I mean it has a limited number of takeoff 
and landing slots. I was aware Heathrow handles a substantial amount of 
passenger and cargo traffic. However, I was surprised to discover 
Heathrow also is an airport with significant unused capacity.
  In the short term, operational changes at Heathrow could immediately 
create much-needed additional runway capacity. For instance, presently 
Heathrow's two runways function on what is called segregated mode 
operations. What this means is one runway is used exclusively for 
takeoffs while the other is used exclusively for landings. Operating 
runways in this manner is quite inefficient.
  In the United States, most of our major airports use mixed-mode 
runway operations. This means landing and departing traffic is 
sequenced and mixed on the same runway. Mixed-mode operations are very 
efficient and very safe. They enable an airport to maximize runway 
capacity.
  What would result if Heathrow switched its runways to mixed-mode 
operations? It has been estimated hourly runway capacity would increase 
by about 18 percent. This would mean potentially an additional 7 
arrivals and 7 departures per hour, and more than 100 new arrivals and 
100 new departures daily. For an airport which purportedly has no 
additional capacity, this is very significant indeed.
  Some adjustments in airspace operations and ground movement 
management would be needed to capture the full traffic benefits of this 
switch in runway operations. Let me add that I understand the noise 
climate around Heathrow has been improving for many years and, due to 
newer and quieter jets, increased operations should not pose an 
environmental problem.
  I wish I could take credit for this excellent idea. The credit, 
however, goes to British Government and industry projects which have 
studied the Heathrow capacity problem. It was a conclusion of the 
British Civil Aviation Authority study on runway capacity that was 
released in 1993. The source of the statistics to which I refer is the 
August 1994 report of the Heathrow Airport Runway Capacity Enhancement 
Study. On June 22, 1995, the House of Commons Transport Committee 
commenced an inquiry into airport capacity issues in the United 
Kingdom. Among the issues it will consider is underutilization of 
airport capacity and, in that regard, methods of runway operations.
  In the longer term, there is a proposal to add a new terminal at 
Heathrow that will significantly increase airport capacity. According 
to a report by BAA plc, the dynamic private company that owns and 
operates Heathrow, the proposed new terminal 5 would allow Heathrow to 
handle 30 million more passengers a year.
  Time and time again United States negotiators are told by their very 
skilled British counterparts there is no additional capacity at 
Heathrow. I understand the British sang the same song in negotiations 
in London earlier this month. We should confront the British 
negotiators with these facts and supporting studies.
  Let me turn to the important question of whether we have enough 
leverage to get the British to agree to a fully liberalized aviation 
agreement. The Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee considered that issue during a hearing several 
months ago. Understandably, a number of Senators were concerned the 
United States has squandered its leverage by giving the British too 
many aviation rights in the past without obtaining equal benefits. That 
criticism of negotiations prior to 1995, particularly those which led 
to the Bermuda II Agreement in 1977, is warranted. We have given, so to 
speak, with both hands.
  I disagree, however, that the United States has nothing of value left 
which will enable us to obtain a liberalized aviation agreement with 
the British. We still hold the ultimate leverage, the most important 
bargaining chip of all. We control the substantial economic benefit the 
United Kingdom presently enjoys as a result of United States carrier 
business.
  There was a time when geographic factors and technological 
limitations made the United Kingdom the international gateway of 
necessity for United States carriers serving Europe and beyond. The 
British skillfully played this bargaining chip for all that it was 
worth. In fact, they continue to operate on this outdated premise.
  Times have changed. New generation, long-range aircraft have made the 
option of overflying the United Kingdom to gateway airports on the 
European Continent an option that is viable from both an operational 
and economic standpoint. Moreover, open skies agreements with European 
countries have made clear to the United States and to U.S. carriers 
that these nations want our business. If the United Kingdom does not 
promptly revise its thinking, it may well see United States carriers 
look beyond the United Kingdom to the European Continent for 
international gateway opportunities.
  Recent developments in our aviation relations with countries on the 
European Continent have quite understandably caused our carriers to 
seriously consider opportunities beyond the United Kingdom. Since the 
United States and The Netherlands signed an open skies accord in 1992, 
the resulting growth of international traffic to Amsterdam's Schiphol 
International Airport has been quite significant. Our very recent open 
skies agreements with Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, 
Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland should also create new continental 
opportunities. An open skies agreement with Belgium that is expected 
soon will have the same effect.
  The greatest catalyst for this movement of United States air service 
business to the European Continent, however, would be an open skies 
agreement with Germany. I welcome reports that aviation negotiations 
between the United States and Germany earlier this month went very 
well. Also, I am pleased German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann 
came to Washington last week to meet with Secretary Pena. United 
States-German aviation relations are moving in the right direction.
  An open skies agreement with Germany would make the airports in 
Munich and Frankfurt very attractive to United States carriers who are 
frustrated they cannot obtain sufficient access to Heathrow and 
Gatwick. I understand a new airport also is planned in Berlin. In 
combination with international airports in European countries with 
which we have open skies agreements--particularly Amsterdam's Schiphol 
International Airport--German airports represent significant 
competition to United Kingdom airports.
  BAA plc, which owns and operates Heathrow, makes my point very 
succinctly. In a recent publication, BAA 

[[Page S 10926]]
perceptively observed: ``Airlines and passengers are free agents. If 
extra capacity is not developed at Heathrow, the airport will not be 
able to satisfy demand and airlines will expand their business at 
continental airports.'' BAA added, ``if airlines are denied the 
opportunity to grow at Heathrow, many will choose Paris, Frankfurt or 
Amsterdam.'' BAA is absolutely right.
  Before it is too late, I hope the United Kingdom Department of 
Transport recognizes the United Kingdom no longer has a monopoly as an 
international air travel gateway for United States carriers. The 
economic stakes for the United Kingdom are very high.
  Mr. President, I remain hopeful the British will liberalize their air 
service agreement with our country. It is in the best interest of both 
countries to do so. As British negotiators again posture over Heathrow 
access and other important elements of the phase 2 deal such as 
liberalization of cargo services, I hope they fully understand the 
implications of new opportunities for United States carriers in 
continental Europe. An open skies agreement with Germany would really 
drive home this point.
  I ask unanimous consent that a recent article appearing in the 
Financial Times describing my view of the impact an open skies 
agreement between the United States and Germany would have on United 
States-United Kingdom aviation relations be printed in the Record.
  I further ask unanimous consent that a letter I recently sent to Sir 
George Young, the new United Kingdom Secretary of State for Transport, 
which describes my concern about the current state of United States-
United Kingdom aviation relations also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Financial Times, July 6, 1995]

                   Senator Piles on Heathrow Pressure

                         (By Michael Skapinker)

       Airlines in the US might look to Germany to provide a new 
     European gateway airport if London's Heathrow is not opened 
     to American carriers, Senator Larry Pressler, chairman of the 
     US Senate Commerce and Transportation Committee said 
     yesterday.
       Senator Pressler, who was in London for talks with UK 
     officials, said: ``With longer-range new generation aircraft, 
     frustrated US carriers may well look beyond the UK for 
     another international gateway airport. An open skies 
     agreement with Germany, which may result from the US-Germany 
     bilateral air talks later this month, will add much fuel to 
     this fire.''
       Senator Pressler said, however, that he favoured raising 
     the maximum stake that foreign airlines can hold in US 
     carriers to 49 per cent from the current ceiling of 25 per 
     cent.
       Sir Colin Marshall, chairman of British Airways, said this 
     week that if the US wanted greater access to Heathrow, it 
     would have to lift maximum ownership limits in its airlines 
     and allow greater co-operation between UK carriers and their 
     American partners.
       Senator Pressler, whose committee is to hold hearings on US 
     aviation policy next week, said he recognized that Heathrow 
     was congested. He said, however, that there were several 
     operational changes which could be made to allow the airport 
     to accommodate more traffic. These included using the 
     airport's two runways for both landings and take-offs. 
     Heathrow currently has landings and take-offs on separate 
     runways.
       Senator Pressler said that although he was a Republican, he 
     supported the way the US had negotiated with the UK under Mr. 
     Federico Pena, the US transportation secretary. Mr. Pena has 
     been criticised in Congress for taking too timid an approach 
     to the UK.
                                                                    ____

                                   Committee on Commerce, Science,


                                           and Transportation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1995.
     Rt. Hon. Sir George Young MP,
     Secretary of State for Transport, Department of Transport, 2 
         Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB, United Kingdom.
       Dear Sir George: Congratulations on your recent appointment 
     as Secretary of State for Transport. On July 3rd I met in 
     London with your predecessor, Dr. Mahwinney, in a very 
     informative session. I hope that we can continue the dialogue 
     Dr. Mawhinney and I started.
       As I told Dr. Mahwinney, I am very hopeful the Phase 1 
     agreement last month will be the first step in liberalization 
     of the U.S./U.K. bilateral aviation agreement. U.S. carriers 
     are understandably very concerned over recent statistics 
     indicating U.K. carriers now serve approximately 60 percent 
     of the transatlantic passenger traffic between our countries. 
     Historically, as you know, both countries have regarded a 60/
     40 imbalance to be unacceptable.
       I believe a balanced, liberalized air service agreement is 
     in the best interest of both countries. Of equal importance, 
     increased competition that would result from such an 
     agreement would be beneficial for consumers on both sides of 
     the Atlantic. If your travels bring you to Washington, D.C., 
     I would enjoy having the opportunity to discuss these issues 
     with you in person.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry Pressler,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is H.R. 1905.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry; am I correct that 
at 2 p.m. we will leave this energy and water appropriations bill and 
then take up the State Department authorization bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the status of that bill? Is there a cloture 
petition pending on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture petition was filed on Friday and 
will mature tomorrow.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has a time been set for a vote on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry; in the event that 
that State Department/foreign assistance bill is removed from the 
calendar postcloture tomorrow, what would the pending business then be?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question would occur on H.R. 1905.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes, then there will be 10 
minutes for my friend, the ranking member, Senator Johnston. I do not 
believe we will be able to accomplish much business, but the energy and 
water bill is pending.
  I am pleased to bring H.R. 1905, the energy and water development 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 before the Senate for its 
consideration. The bill was passed by the House on July 12, less than 3 
weeks ago, with a vote of 400 to 27.
  The Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee marked up the 
bill on July 25. The full committee reported it out 28 to 0 last 
Thursday, July 27. The bill and report have been available to Senators 
and their staff since last Friday, July 28.
  Although the Appropriations Committee has moved quickly to prepare 
the bill, the quality of this legislation, in my opinion, has not 
suffered.
 While we are under extreme budgetary pressures resulting from the 
budget resolution's mandate of erasing the Federal deficit over the 
next 7 years, and our desire to restrain Federal spending, the bill 
before the Senate is well balanced and equitable. The committee has 
done the best job possible under very difficult circumstances.

  I first want to thank the former chairman of the subcommittee, and 
now ranking member, Senator Johnston, for his assistance in developing 
this year's bill. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana has been the 
chairman or ranking member on this subcommittee for many years, and is 
intimately familiar with every aspect of the energy and water bill. He 
has been helpful at every step of the way, and his guidance and insight 
have been invaluable to me and the other members of the subcommittee.
  I also thank the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, and 
former chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee, Senator Hatfield, for his help in bringing this bill 
before the Senate. Senator Hatfield has extensive knowledge of the 
programs funded in this bill, and we relied on his expertise on several 
occasions during the past few weeks. As chairman of the full committee, 
the distinguished Senator from Oregon has the tremendous responsibility 
of ensuring that all 13 appropriations bills will be enacted prior to 
the end of the fiscal year. At the rate the committee is reporting the 
bills to the Senate, it appears that we will reach that objective. What 
happens after we have reported them out 

[[Page S 10927]]
and gone to conference and reported them out of conference and through 
the floors of both bodies, I do not know.
  Mr. President, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee funds 
programs in both the defense and nondefense areas. Our total 602(b) 
allocation is divided between these two categories, and is consistent 
with the budget resolution's firewalls separating defense and 
nondefense spending.
  Although we are below our total 602(b) allocation for both budget 
authority and outlays, we are constrained by our budget authority 
allocation for defense programs, and our outlay allocation for 
nondefense. There is no room left in our allocation to fund programs in 
either the defense or nondefense areas.
  If we were to fund them, or fund them differently, we will have to 
take away from funding in the bill. I remind Senators, if they choose 
to take money from the defense portion--and obviously you can ask which 
portion it is, but I think it is clearly understandable within the 
budget--if they choose to move defense money to a nondefense program, 
it is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act and clearly 
would violate the spirit of the budget resolution of this year. So it 
is not going to be easy for Senators to have amendments on the 
nondefense side because they are going to only look to that portion of 
this bill that is nondefense to try to move money around. That is just 
the way it is, and especially when you put a firewall up, which we have 
now imposed for the next 3 years.
  Let me give the Senate and those interested in appropriations a 
little bit of an overall picture.
  Fifty-seven percent of the funds in the bill are dedicated to 
programs in the atomic energy defense activities areas, including 
nuclear waste cleanup activities. A total of $11,445,981,000 in budget 
authority and $10,906,895,000 in outlays is recommended. This is 
consistent with the budget resolution crosswalk of $11,447,000,000 in 
budget authority, and $10,944,000,000 in outlays, and the crosswalk is 
identical to our 602(b) allocation.
  The areas where we are recommending the largest reductions in 
spending are the nondefense programs--the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, nondefense programs in the Department of Energy, 
and the independent agencies--which comprise only 43 percent of the 
bill.
  The total amount recommended for nondefense domestic discretionary 
spending is $8,716,112,000 in budget authority and $9,271,155,000 in 
outlays. This is right up against our nondefense outlay ceiling, as I 
have heretofore described. The nondefense total for budget authority is 
$1,458,107,000 below the current year, $819,108,000 below the 
President's budget request, and $481,888,000 below the budget 
resolution crosswalk.
  Due to this dramatic reduction in nondefense spending, the 
Subcommittee's ability to fund new initiatives is extremely limited, 
and many existing programs are cut significantly below both the current 
year and the President's request. For example, we are proposing the 
following major reductions to current year spending levels:
  Army Corps of Engineers--Down $234.6 million;
  Bureau of Reclamation--Reduced $64.7 million;
  Solar and renewable energy--Reduced by $104.5 million;
  Fusion energy--Cut $147.4 million;
  Appalachian Regional Commission--Down $100 million; and
  Tennessee Valley Authority--A $32.5 million cut.
  We are proposing to terminate the following programs or new 
initiatives within the Department of Energy:
  Electric systems reliability research;
  Russian replacement power initiative;
  Civilian waste research and development;
  University research instrumentation;
  The technology partnership program; and
  The in-house energy management program.
  The subcommittee also had proposed to agree with the administration's 
budget request to terminate the Department of Energy's nondefense 
advanced reactor program. An amendment during the full committee 
markup, however, restored $12.5 million for the Gas Turbine--Modular 
Helium Reactor Program. The subcommittee had included $7.5 million in 
its mark for termination costs associated with the gas cooled reactor, 
and an additional $5 million was added to reach the $12.5 million level 
recommended by the amendment.
  Although we are proposing some significant changes in the nondefense 
activities of the Department of Energy, we have done our best to 
protect basic science research. It is true that we are proposing major 
reductions to such worthy programs as solar and renewables and fusion 
energy, but we have held the line on biological and environmental 
research, basic energy sciences, and high energy and nuclear physics.
  These are the fundamental, basic science missions of the Department 
of Energy, and are the core competencies we feel are most in need of 
protection. These programs will have a direct influence on the ability 
of the Nation to keep pace in many technologically demanding areas, and 
will support future missions in areas such as the human genome program, 
one of the world's greatest wellness programs. If it succeeds, we may 
find cures for thousands of ailments that beset humanity across the 
world. Other medical research activities, global environmental 
research, materials and chemical sciences, the physical sciences, and 
others are retained at high levels to keep us on the cutting edge.
  Although we are recommending significant program reductions, we 
believe we have drafted a more balanced bill than the House. We have 
restored funds above the House levels for the following programs:
  Defense environmental restoration and waste management--$724.3 
million;
  Solar and renewable energy--$17.2 million;
  Soviet designed reactor safety--$40 million;
  Biological and environmental research--$48.9 million;
  Nondefense laboratory technology transfer--$25 million; and
  University science and education--$30 million.
  Another topic deserving mention is the subject of authorizing bill 
language. We have received numerous requests to include authorizing 
language for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. 
Unfortunately, due to conflicts with the authorizing committees, we 
have not been able to accommodate these requests. We are hopeful the 
authorizing committee will pass a bill this year, and relieve us of 
these pressures.
  At this point, Mr. President, I would like to briefly summarize the 
bill as reported by the committee.
  Title I of the bill funds the water resource development activities 
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Program. The total new 
budget authority recommended is $3,174,512,000, a reduction of $234.4 
million from the currently enacted level, and $132.9 million below the 
budget request. The corps' water resources program provides lasting 
benefits to the Nation in the areas of flood control, municipal and 
industrial water supply, irrigation, commercial navigation, 
hydroelectric power, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.
  The committee has rejected the administration's proposals to 
radically change the civil works mission for the Corps of Engineers. 
Were these proposals to go into effect in fiscal year 1996, the corps 
would be involved in only those projects and proposals deemed to be of 
national scope and significance. While it may at first seem reasonable 
that the Federal Government only be involved in programs of national 
significance, a closer look makes it apparent that they were ill-
conceived and are counterproductive to the well-being of the Nation.
  And the committee has rejected them by not affirming them and acting 
on some projects in disregard of that new definition.
  The most far-reaching of these proposals involves the Corps of 
Engineers' role in protecting our citizens from the devastating effects 
of floods. Under the administration's proposal, the corps would only 
participate in projects that meet the following three criteria: First, 
more than one-half of the damaging flood water must come from outside 
the boundaries of the State where the damage is occurring; second, the 
project must have a benefit-to-cost 

[[Page S 10928]]

ratio of 2 or greater; and third, the non-Federal sponsor must be 
willing and able to pay 75 percent of the first cost of the project. 
The practical effect of applying those criteria against all proposed 
projects would be to terminate the Federal Government's role in flood 
control activities.
  The first criterion alone would eliminate the corps' role in flood 
control throughout much of the country, including three of our largest 
States: California, Texas, and Florida. Terminating the Federal 
Government's role in flood control activities as a way to save money 
clearly is not one that this committee has decided is right nor is it 
necessary under moneys we have available. We can continue with a lesser 
program without tying its hands that much.
  The committee also has rejected the administration's proposals to 
terminate the Federal role in shore protection projects and smaller 
navigation projects.
  Title II of the bill funds activities associated with the Department 
of the Interiors' Bureau of Reclamation and the central Utah completion 
project. Total funding recommended for these activities is 
$816,624,000. This is a reduction of $64.8 million from the current 
year's level, and $16.4 million below the budget request.
  Programs and activities of the Department of Energy comprise title 
III of the bill, and a total of $16,235,359,000 in new budget authority 
is recommended. Programs funded under this title relate to: energy 
supply, research and development activities, uranium supply and 
enrichment activities, the uranium enrichment decontamination and 
decommissioning fund, general science and research activities, the 
nuclear waste disposal fund, atomic energy defense activities, 
departmental administration, the Office of the Inspector General, the 
Power Marketing Administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
  For atomic energy defense activities, the committee recommends a 
total of $11.429 billion in new budget authority. The programs funded 
in this area include stockpile stewardship, stockpile management, 
defense environmental restoration and waste management, verification 
and control technology, and others. Well over half of the total atomic 
energy defense activities funds, almost $6 billion, is for the 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program. The committee's 
recommendation is $724 million above the House for this critical 
program focused on cleaning up and managing existing waste at various 
atomic weapons production sites.
  Under the energy supply, research and development account, the 
committee proposes an appropriation of $2,798,324,000 to fund such 
programs as solar and renewable energy, nuclear energy, biological and 
environmental research, fusion energy, basic energy sciences, and other 
activities.
  One of the most difficult decisions made by the committee concerns 
the Civilian High Level Radioactive Waste Management Program in the 
Department of Energy. Because the administration requested no 
discretionary appropriations for the program, the committee has been 
forced to recommend a course of action designed to put the Nation's 
civilian nuclear waste program back on track.
  Accordingly, the committee recommends a total funding level of $400 
million--$151.6 million from the nuclear waste fund and $248.4 million 
from the defense nuclear waste disposal account--for nuclear waste 
activities. Furthermore, due to the delay in site characterization 
activities at Yucca Mountain, and the need for the Federal Government 
to begin accepting commercial spent nuclear fuel from the Nation's 
nuclear utilities in 1998, the committee recommends a provision in the 
bill to establish an interim storage facility at a site yet to be 
determined.
  Finally, Mr. President, the committee proposes a total of 
$330,941,000 in new budget authority for a number of independent 
agencies funded under title IV of the bill. This includes such agencies 
as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  Mr. President, I yield to my friend, the ranking member, Senator 
Bennett Johnston of Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind 
remarks about me. And I want to say, Mr. President, that this is 
Senator Domenici's first appropriations bill but he is a veteran of 
great leadership in many areas in the Senate, and he has taken to the 
appropriations process like a duck in water and has put together an 
excellent bill.
  The relationship that I have had over a period of, I think, 18 years 
with Senator Hatfield, the Senator from Oregon, who is now the chairman 
of the full committee--but for those 18 years he and I have switched 
off as chairman and as ranking minority member of this committee--that 
relationship is being continued, I am pleased to say, with the Senator 
from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. He is a long-time leader in the Senate 
and long-time friend, and it is a pleasure to work with him on this 
bill.
  This bill is a very, very difficult one, the 602(b) allocation in 
domestic programs having been cut substantially from what it was last 
year. And that means that the needs and certainly the requests of our 
colleagues could simply not be met, Mr. President, because the 
resources were so minimal in this bill. But the Senator from New 
Mexico, as a magician, has done an excellent job in at least dealing 
with the most important priorities in the bill, and I think putting 
together an excellent bill.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from new 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici] in presenting to the Senate the energy and water 
development appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1996 beginning 
October 1, 1995. This bill, H.R. 1905, passed the House of 
Representatives on July 12, 1995, by a vote of 400 yeas to 27 nays. The 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development marked up this bill on 
July 25, 1995, and the full committee marked it up and reported the 
bill Thursday, July 27, 1995.
  At the outset, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Domenici. This is the first time he has handled an 
appropriation bill as chairman, and he has done an excellent job in 
putting this bill together, under very difficult budgetary constraints 
and circumstances. He is an outstanding Member of the Senate and I am 
pleased to work with him in connection with this bill and on other 
matters.
  I also want to thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator 
Hatfield, the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations. Senator 
Hatfield and I had probably one of the longest running twosomes in the 
Appropriations Committee on the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee, I having chaired on and off for a number of years, and 
Senator Hatfield having chaired on and off for a number of years, and 
having rotated as ranking minority member. Beginning this year, of 
course, Senator Hatfield is chairing a different subcommittee. We 
always shared a productive, pleasant, bipartisan, and always, I think, 
the kind of relationship that Senators seek and glory in when it is 
present. I treasure his friendship and appreciate the cooperation and 
assistance given to me.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has presented the 
committee recommendations and explained the major appropriations items, 
as well as the amounts recommended, so I will not undertake to repeat 
and elaborate on the numerous recommendations. Instead I will just have 
a few brief remarks summarizing the bill.


                          purpose of the bill

  The bill supplies funds for water resources development programs and 
related activities, of the Department of the Army, civil functions--
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program in title I; for the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the 
Department of Energy's energy research activities--except for fossil 
fuel programs and certain conservation and regulatory functions--
including atomic energy defense activities in title III; and for 
related independent agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian 
Regional Commission and Appalachian regional development programs, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority in 
title V.


                 section 602(b) allocation for the bill

  The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation under 
section 

[[Page S 10929]]

602(b)(1) of the Budget Act totals $20,180,000,000 in budget authority 
and $20,216,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1996. Of these amounts 
the defense discretionary allocation is $11,447,000,000 in budget 
authority and $10,944,000,000 in outlays.
  For domestic discretionary the budget authority allocation is 
$8,863,000,000 and the allocation for outlays is $9,272,000,000. The 
committee recommendation uses nearly all of the budget authority 
allocation in both categories, so there is no room for add-ons to the 
bill as there are no additional outlays available for spending. 
Therefore, any amendments to add will have to be offset by reductions 
from within the bill. The bill is approximately 57 percent in the 
defense [050] function and about 43 percent for domestic discretionary 
programs.


                       summary of recommendations

  Mr. President, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimates for the bill 
total $20,681,648,000 in new budget obligations authority. The 
recommendation of the committee provides $20,162,093,000. This amount 
is $520 million under the President's budget estimate and 
$1,464,636,000 more than the House-passed bill.
  Mr. President, I will briefly summarize the major recommendations 
provided in the bill. All the details and figures are, of course, 
included in the committee report number 104-102, accompanying the bill, 
which has been available since last Friday.
                    title i, army corps of engineers

  First, under title I of the bill which provides appropriations for 
the Department of the Army civil works program, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, the recommendation is for a total of new budget authority of 
$3,174,512,000, which is $45 million below the House and $133 million 
less than the budget estimate. it is $234 million less than the fiscal 
year 1995 appropriation.
  The committee received a large number of requests for various water 
development projects including many requests for new construction 
starts. However, as the chairman has stated, due to the limited 
budgetary resources, the committee could not provide funding for each 
and every project requested. The committee recommendation does include 
a small number of new construction starts and has deferred without 
prejudice several of the largest of the projects eligible for 
initiation of construction. Because of the importance of some of these 
projects to the economic well-being of the Nation, the committee will 
continue to monitor each project's progress to ensure that it is ready 
to proceed to construction when resources become available. As the 
committee reports points out, the committee recommendation does not 
agree with the policies proposed by the administration in its budget.


                  title ii, department of the interior

  For title II, Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, the 
recommendation provides new budget authority of $816,624,000 million, 
which is $16 million less than the budget estimate and $40 million 
under the House bill.


                    title iii, department of energy

  Under title II, Department of Energy, the committee provides a total 
of $16.2 billion. This amount includes $2.8 billion for energy supply, 
research and development activities, a net appropriation of $29 million 
for uranium supply and enrichment activities; $279 million for the 
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, $971 
million for general science and research activities, $151.6 million 
from the nuclear waste disposal fund, and $6.6 billion for 
environmental restoration and waste management--defense and nondefense.
  For the atomic energy defense activities, there is a total of $11.429 
billion comprised of $3.752 billion for weapons activities; almost $6.0 
billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management; 
$1.440 billion for other defense programs and $248 million for defense 
nuclear waste disposal.
  For departmental administration $377 million is recommended offset 
with anticipated miscellaneous revenues of $137 million for a net 
appropriation of $240 million. A total of $312.5 million is recommended 
in the bill for the power marketing administrations and $131 million is 
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] offset 100 percent 
by revenues.
  A net appropriation of $197 million is provided for solar programs, 
including photovoltaics, wind, and biomass and for all solar and 
renewable energy, $283.5 million, an increase of over $17 million over 
the House bill.
  For nuclear energy programs, $280 million is recommended, which is 
about $13 million less than the current level. The major programs 
provided for included funds to continue the advanced light water 
reactor program at $40 million and about $73 million in termination 
costs. The sum of $12.5 million is included for the gas turbine-modular 
helium reactor [GT-MHR], also known as the gas reactor which I strongly 
support.
  For the magnetic fusion program, the committee is recommending $225 
million, which is $141 million less than the budget. An amount of 
$428.6 million is included for biological and environmental research 
and $792 million for basic energy sciences.


          title iv, regulatory and other independent agencies

  A total of $331 million for various regulatory and independent 
agencies of the Federal Government is included in the bill. Major 
programs include the Appalachian Regional Commission, $182 million; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, $474.3 million offset by revenues of 
$457.3 million; and for the Tennessee Valley Authority, $110.4 million.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. I wish there were additional 
amounts for domestic discretionary programs in our allocation but that 
is not the case. A large number of good programs, projects, and 
activities have been either eliminated or reduced severely, because of 
the allocation, but such action is required under the budget 
constraints we are facing. I hope the Senate will act favorably and 
expeditiously in passing this bill so we can get to conference with the 
House and thereafter send the bill to the White House as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor with just the parting comment that 
it is a pleasure to work with the Senator from New Mexico and with the 
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hatfield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________