[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 126 (Tuesday, August 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11101-S11105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my custom on every appropriations 
bill, whether I am the floor manager or not, to state succinctly as I 
can how it relates to the budget resolution and do some accounting for 
anybody that is interested in how the bill stacks up versus the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss the budget 
impact of this bill as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  By CBO's scoring, this bill provides $20.2 billion in new budget 
authority and $12 billion in new outlays for the Department of Energy, 
the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and for other 
selected independent agencies. With outlays from prior-year budget 
authority and other completed actions, the Senate bill is within the 
subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation.
  Mr. President, this year's budget resolution established separate 
binding caps on defense and nondefense funding. This bill contains both 
defense and nondefense funding and must meet separate allocations.
  According to CBO, the Senate-reported bill is within the allocation 
of budget authority and outlays for the defense and nondefense funding 
in this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask, unanimous consent that a table printed in the 
Record comparing the Senate-reported bill's budget authority and outlay 
levels to the subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  ENERGY AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL  
                 [Fiscal year 1996, dollars in millions]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget               
                                                 authority     Outlays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY                                      
                                                                        
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                            
 completed....................................  ...........        4,039
H.R. 1905, as reported to the Senate..........       11,446        6,868
Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal defense discretionary............       11,446       10,907
                                               =========================
           NONDEFENSE DISCRETIONARY                                     
                                                                        
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                            
 completed....................................  ...........        4,171
H.R. 1905, as reported to the Senate..........        8,716        5,100
Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal defense discretionary............        8,716        9,271
                                               =========================
                   MANDATORY                                            
                                                                        
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                            
 completed....................................  ...........  ...........
H.R. 1905, as reported to the Senate..........  ...........  ...........
Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                           
 Budget Resolution assumptions................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal mandatory........................  ...........  ...........
                                               =========================
        Adjusted bill total...................       20,162       20,178
                                               =========================
     SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE 602(b) ALLOCATION                              
                                                                        
Defense discretionary.........................       11,447       10,944
Nondefense discretionary......................        8,733        9,272
Violent crime reduction trust fund............  ...........  ...........
Mandatory.....................................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Total allocation..........................       20,180       20,216
                                               =========================
    ADJUSTED BILL TOTAL COMPARED TO SENATE                              
        SUBCOMMITTEE 602(b) ALLOCATION                                  
                                                                        
Defense discretionary.........................           -1          -37
Nondefense discretionary......................          -17           -1
Violent crime reduction trust fund............           NA           NA
Mandatory.....................................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Total allocation..........................          -18          -38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

                Susquehanna River Basin Water Management

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the funding 
contained in the bill under general investigations for Susquehanna 
River Basin water management.
  First, I want to thank the chairman for including $290,000--the full 
amount requested in fiscal year 1996--for the Army Corps of Engineers 
to continue the reconnaissance study investigation of the Susquehanna 
River Basin that was initiated last year. The Susquehanna River is the 
largest river on the east coast of the United States and the largest 
tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. It is also one of the most flood prone 
river basins in the Nation. The Army Corps of Engineers operates 13 
reservoirs on the upper Susquehanna and regulates the low and high 
water flow management. There are also three large hydroelectric 
projects on the lower Susquehanna. Under normal conditions, these 
reservoirs and dams serve as traps for the harmful sediments which flow 
into the river. During major storms however, they suddenly discharge 
tremendous amounts of built-up sediments, severely degrading the water 
quality of the Chesapeake Bay, destroying valuable habitat and killing 
fish and other living resources. Scientists estimate that Tropical 
Storm Agnes in 1982 aged the bay by more than a decade in a matter of 
days because of the slug of sediments discharged from the Susquehanna 
River reservoirs. There is a real danger that another major storm in 
the basin could scour the sediment that has been accumulating behind 
these dams and present a major setback to our efforts to clean up the 
bay.
  It was my understanding that it was the committee's intent in funding 
the reconnaissance study of the Susquehanna River Basin last year and 
again this year, that the corps was to investigate not only 
alternatives for managing water storage during high and low flow 
conditions and flood damage reduction needs in the basin, but also to 
address sediment related issues for the study area. Is this correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Maryland is correct. It is the 
committee's intent that the Corps of Engineers conduct a basin-wide 
sedimentation assessment as part of this study, including a complete 
evaluation of potential sediment management strategies to reduce the 
impact on Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate these assurances and thank the chairman 
for his support.
           Committee Amendment beginning on page 12, line 17

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with reference to the bill, I have two 
housekeeping measures that I would like to get behind us now.
  On page 12, starting at lines 17, section 102, continuing through 
page 13 until section 103, I ask unanimous consent that that committee 
amendment be tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       Excepted Committee Amendment beginning on page 38, line 19

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on page 38 of the bill, lines 19 through 
25, that committee amendment remains not adopted because we just did 
not ask that it be adopted. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that 
committee amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has been agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. That is our error.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. As we consider the fiscal year 1996 energy and 
water development appropriations bill, I would like to express my great 
concern about the decision by the Senate to reduce funding for high-
energy physics research by $20 million for a total of $657 million. 
This funding cut will impact the operating budgets of Fermi National 
Accelerator Laboratory in my State of Illinois, the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center in California, and the Brookhaven National 
Laboratory in New York.
  I am aware that the deficit-driven decisions this Congress must make 
will have a real impact on Federal energy priorities. I also appreciate 
the support the committee has provided for high-energy physics 
research, and for Femilab, in previous years. Physicists commit decades 
of their lives, and, in many instances, their entire careers to 

[[Page S11102]]
long-term Government-sponsored research projects. And that means it is 
critical that the Government also remain committed to orderly, stable 
research priorities.
  This Federal commitment, however, can be jeopardized by insufficient 
funding for the base budgets of the high-energy physics laboratories, 
crating situations where research is pared back, trained personnel are 
lost from the field, and future productivity is endangered by 
discouraging students from these professions.
  This is the situation faced by Fermilab. Budget cuts in previous 
years have led to the loss of approximately 300 people at Fermilab. And 
once again, the budget cuts proposed by the Senate will require further 
staff reductions at Fermilab.
  I greatly appreciate the decision by the committee to provide $52 
million to continue the construction of the main injector. The main 
injector will increase the power of the particle accelerator at 
Fermilab by a factor of 5. Given that Fermilab was the site of one of 
the most significant discoveries in modern physics--the discovery of 
the subatomic particle known as the top quark--ensuring that the main 
injector comes on line as quickly as possible will help us learn more 
about the top quark and other critically important high-energy physics 
issues.
  Unfortunately, the leaps in knowledge promised by the main injector 
will be adversely countered by the cuts in the operating budget as 
proposed by the Senate, and that means less people who can use 
Fermilab, and more delays in carrying out our research priorities.
  The United States has great potential to lead the world in high-
energy physics--our community of scientists, facilities, and 
partnerships built up over the last 40 years is one of our Government's 
greatest achievements. In order to exploit these superb resources and 
the new major upgrades underway at these three national laboratories, 
however, increased base program funding is crucial.
  Therefore, during conference of this bill, I strongly urge that $20 
million be restored to the high-energy physics budget, bringing the 
total funding to $677 million, and ensuring that the high-energy 
physics field in the United States remains strong in the years ahead.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments 
regarding Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the high-energy 
physics budget. The committee has provided substantial funding for this 
budget in previous years, but given the budget constraint that the 
committee was forced to confront, we were simply unable to include 
these funds. I can assure the distinguished Senator that we will look 
favorable upon her request in conference and do all that we can to 
assist her in including her recommendation.
                     mccook reservoir construction
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to call attention to 
language in the committee report to this bill that would jeopardize the 
commencement of construction on a very important flood control project 
in my State of Illinois, the McCook and Thornton Reservoir project.
  The McCook and Thornton Reservoir project is an integral part of the 
underground tunnel system of the Chicago underflow plan [CUP] designed 
to control major flooding problems in Chicago and surrounding 
communities. Once construction in complete, the reservoirs will protect 
over 500,000 homes and over 3 million people, helping to protect an 
extremely vulnerable area which sustains over $150 million in damages 
every year from floods. The project has been strongly supported over 
the years by the Appropriations Committees of both Chambers of Congress 
and by the Illinois delegation.
  The McCook and Thorton Reservoir project is fully authorized. Its 
design memorandum is based upon a plan that was carefully crafted by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and, most importantly, with the full 
input of the current landowner. Every effort was made to accommodate 
the interests of all parties involved in the project. Due to 
complexities associated with the negotiations for the acquisition of 
the project land, construction on the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs 
have been greatly delayed. However, these negotiations are making 
substantial progress, and are nearing closure.
  That is why I am greatly concerned by the committee report language 
which unfairly questions the 1986 design memorandum that was the basis 
for the project authorization. The committee report language also 
directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue their assessment 
of other siting options for the project.
  If the committee report language is allowed to stand, the baseless 
questions about the authorization will continue, construction will be 
further delayed, and the project will wither and die.
  Chicago desperately needs these flood control reservoirs to come 
online. In 1993, severe thunderstorms caused massive flooding southeast 
of Chicago. The capacity of the existing underground flood control 
system was only able to hold 1.5 billion of the 45 billion gallons of 
rainfall before being overwhelmed. The resulting excess floodwaters 
caused severe disruptions of major traffic thoroughfares, including the 
closing of Interstate 55, and the Dan Ryan and Stevenson expressways. 
Rainwater and raw sewage backed up into the basements of half a million 
homes, creating serious public health problems. The McCook and Thornton 
Reservoirs, had they been complete, would have provided more than 
enough capacity to contain those excess waters, and would have 
prevented these types of disasters from occurring.
  This project must be allowed to move forward without further delay. I 
urge the Chairman's assistance in clarifying the committee's intent 
regarding this project. I also ask that the committee include language 
in the committee report which directs the key parties to complete 
negotiations for the acquisition of the McCook Reservoir immediately, 
and to direct the corps to proceed to construction with the project as 
authorized, notwithstanding the language in the committee report. In 
addition, if further funding beyond the prior appropriated dollars is 
needed to advance the project in fiscal year 1996, then the corps would 
have the authority to reprogram funds to the project.
  Mr. SIMON. I want to join my colleague from Illinois in her request. 
The McCook Reservoir project is the linchpin to the successful flood 
protection and water pollution control efforts we have developed in the 
Chicago area. Unless this project is allowed to proceed with the 
funding Congress has provided, the Chicago metropolitan area will 
remain vulnerable to floods and significant threats to health and 
safety.
  I urgently request the assistance of the chairman in including the 
conference report language referred to by Senator Moseley-Braun to 
complete negotiations for land for the project immediately, and to 
direct the corps to proceed with the authorized project notwithstanding 
the committee report language. Her assistance in including this and the 
reprogramming language is critical to the protection of the Chicago 
area, and I thank her for her efforts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand Senator Rod Grams is about 
ready to come and help us complete this measure.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. FORD. I know he is doing everything he can. But any Senator who 
has been on his way now for about 40 minutes--
  Mr. DOMENICI. He is here, and he is going to be ready quickly.
  Mr. FORD. We are holding a lot of things up, and I know the Senator 
from New Mexico wants to get through the bill and get it behind us so 
we can move on to the defense authorization bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am fully aware of that, and we are keeping the Senate 
open. But Senator Grams is very desirous that I give him another 5 
minutes, and I am going to accommodate him. He is in the Cloakroom. He 
will be out shortly, and then we can complete this matter.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2076

     (Purpose: To establish interim water levels for certain lakes)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page S11103]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2076.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:

     SEC.   . WATER LEVELS IN RAINY LAKE AND NAMAKAN LAKE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Rainy Lake and Namakan Reservoir Water Level 
     International Steering Committee conducted a 2-year analysis 
     in which public comments on the water levels in Rainy Lake 
     and Namakan Lake revealed significant problems with the 
     current regulation of water levels and resulted in Steering 
     Committee recommendations in November 1993; and
       (2) maintaining water levels closer to those recommended by 
     the Steering Committee will help ensure the enhancement of 
     water quality, fish and wildlife, and recreational resources 
     in Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Existing rule curve.--The term ``existing rule curve'' 
     means each of the rule curves promulgated by the 
     International Joint Commission to regulate water levels in 
     Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Proposed rule curve.--The term ``proposed rule curve'' 
     means each of the rule curves recommended by the Rainy Lake 
     and Namakan Reservoir International Steering Committee for 
     regulation of water levels in Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake in 
     the publication entitled ``Final Report and Recommendations'' 
     published in November 1993.
       (c) Water Levels.--The dams at International Falls and 
     Kettle Falls, Minnesota, in Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake, 
     respectively, shall be operated so as to maintain water 
     levels as follows:
       (1) Coincident rule curves.--In each instance in which an 
     existing rule curve coincides with a proposed rule curve, the 
     water level shall be maintained within the range of such 
     coincidence.
       (2) Noncoincident rule curves.--In each instance in which 
     an existing rule curve does not coincide with a proposed rule 
     curve, the water level shall be maintained at the limit of 
     the existing rule curve that is closest to the proposed rule 
     curve.
       (d) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     shall enforce this section as though the provisions were 
     included in the license issued by the Commission on December 
     31, 1987, for Commission Project No. 5223-001.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to require the Commission to alter the license for 
     Commission Project No. 5223-001 in any way.
       (e) Sunset.--This section shall remain in effect until the 
     International Joint Commission review of and decision on the 
     Steering Committee's recommendations are completed.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be brief. We have been waiting 
for some time. I think this amendment is acceptable to both sides. I 
thank my colleagues for their support.
  This amendment deals with really a critical problem of water levels 
in the Rainy Lake and Namakan Lake. It is a hugely important issue to 
my State, especially to northern Minnesota.
  The problem has been that the water level has been too low in the 
spring which, in turn, has created problems with spawning of fish and 
other wildlife habitat, but it also has been a problem for anglers. It 
has been a problem for recreation. It has been a problem for our resort 
owners.
  So what this amendment does is it takes the water curve rule and it 
just essentially says this is an agreement that ultimately has to be 
worked out, I say to my colleague from New Mexico and my colleague from 
Minnesota, with the Canadians, with the IJC, the International Joint 
Commission. But in the meantime, within the existing rule structure, 
what we say to FERC is to implement this in such a way within the 
existing rules that we require that the water level in these lakes be 
on the upper level of the curve in the spring.
  This is hugely important to my State of Minnesota. I will just list 
some of the beneficiaries. Above and beyond fish and wildlife and the 
park ecosystem, the sportfishing industry, the resort industry, the 
local economy; this amendment has the support of the International 
Steering Committee on Rainy Lake and Namakan Reservoir, the Citizens' 
Council on Voyageurs National Park, the Ash River Sportfishing 
Association, the Rainy Lake Sportfishing Association, and numerous 
other resorts, recreational, and business interests.
  The amendment will not affect the IJC's current regulations. We 
cannot do that by law, nor are we trying to. This is an interim 
measure. It will not increase the flood risk. It will protect fish 
spawning grounds. It will improve dock access and decrease dock damage, 
also extremely important to people in my State. It will protect the 
park ecosystem and it will help save the local economy an estimated 
$800,000 a year in lost business due to low water levels at the 
beginning of the fishing season.
  So it has taken some time for us to work this out, but this is an 
amendment that I am really proud to bring to the Senate. I believe I 
have the support of colleagues. I know it is extremely important to the 
International Falls community and really northeastern Minnesota.
  I will say, since northeastern Minnesota is so important to 
Minnesota, it is very important to Minnesota.
  I know that my colleague from Minnesota, whom I believe now is going 
to be supporting this, wants to speak on this as well.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota, and then I think I 
will follow up with concluding remarks. I believe the amendment will be 
acceptable to both sides.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this 
amendment.
  Clearly, there is a problem with the disputed water levels. It is a 
problem that deserves a solution--one that is well thought out and 
final.
  Today, my colleague from Minnesota has offered his proposal. And I am 
prepared to support it--not as a solution to the problems facing the 
people of northern Minnesota, but as a message that we will not let 
these problems go unresolved.
  Unfortunately, this amendment, while sending a message, does not 
necessarily pass the test of being a good solution. Hastily prepared 
ideas rarely do.
  It should come as no surprise that this amendment has a number of 
problems and could have some unforeseen consequences of which we're not 
aware today. And the Senate needs to be aware of that.
  There is an orderly and regular process by a joint United States-
Canadian commission to address this very matter--the International 
Joint Commission.
  That process is already underway. It will result in water level 
decisions based on scientific analysis.
  Tonight the Senator's amendment would prejudge the outcome of that 
process.
  It would put into effect a subcommittee report to the full 
international committee before the full committee has a chance to 
consider the report and make a final decision.
  We simply do not know what impact the subcommittee recommendation 
would have on fish, wildlife, and the environment.
  The amendment also does a very curious thing: It would require the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to enforce the international joint 
commission subcommittee's water recommendations on dams and water 
impoundments over which the FERC does not now have jurisdiction.
  What we are doing here is codifying a decision by a subcommittee of a 
United States-Canadian body, the international joint commission with 
virtually no input from the Canadian side.
  But today, we will adopt this amendment--without adequate notice, 
without proper consultation. Because what we are giving the people of 
Minnesota is a message: and that is the Senate urges the IJC to act 
quickly to resolve this issue. The people of Minnesota deserve a 
solution, not just a message. But a message is what we are giving them 
tonight.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague for his efforts and support. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is agreement. We will not go on 
with the debate.
  I say to my colleagues, this is not a hastily prepared idea. The 
steering committee spent 2 years and had lots of public comments before 
they reached their recommendations. 

[[Page S11104]]

  This is not a solution, it is an interim solution. We wait for the 
IJC to make final ruling. We cannot wait in the meantime. We have this 
problem to deal with now. This does not prejudice any final outcome. It 
is just a way of fixing a very important problem now.
  There is no reason to go on with the debate. I am proud to have the 
support. I hope that we can voice vote this tonight.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators for working this 
amendment out. Obviously, we have no objection on our side, and I 
understand Senator Johnston has no objection on his side. With that, I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2076) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank both Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the energy and water appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1996, despite some progress particularly on water 
reclamation projects, represents a serious setback for environmental 
preservation.
  In addition, the committee, in my view, has strayed outside its 
jurisdiction in directing the Secretary of the Army to develop a plan 
to consolidate the division offices of the Corps of Engineers. That 
issue is properly left with the authorizing committee, in this case the 
Environment and Public Works Committee.
  I appreciate the committee accepting an amendment by me and Senator 
Max Baucus, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
that specifies that the report on division consolidation shall be sent 
to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve. 
I believe it is important that divisions which have a large workload 
and critical emergency response duties, such as the South Pacific 
Division in San Francisco, should be located in close proximity to the 
work requirements. The Environment and Public Works Committee will have 
a chance to consider the corps consolidation plan before implementation 
begins in August 1996.
  Included in the House-passed bill, but omitted from the Senate 
Appropriations Committee version, were funds for the Spring Run 
Restoration Programs, the Coho Salmon Restoration Programs, the Winter 
Run Chinook Salmon Captive Breedstock Program, and certain fish 
screening programs and habitat acquisition programs. These represent 
solid investments in the health of the Pacific Salmon fishery.
  I sincerely hope that the Senate conferees give these particular 
House-passed provisions careful consideration when they go to 
conference with the House.
  I am pleased that the bill includes $11,367,000 for construction of 
the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, an important flood control 
improvement project that will restore an adequate level of flood 
protection to one of the more densely populated areas of the country. 
Without flood control improvements, the corps estimates that a 100-year 
flood event could inundate as much as 82 square miles of Los Angeles 
County, affecting more than 500,000 residents in 11 cities.
  I appreciate Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 
John Zirschky, meeting with me personally about the project and hearing 
my concerns about the environmental impact of this project. Several 
environmental groups in Los Angeles County had raised concerns about 
the effect both visually and environmentally of constructing parapet 
walls along the top of the levees in place now and questioned whether 
the corps had fully explored nonstructural alternatives.
  I understand because of the urgent need to move on this project that 
we could not afford to halt construction until such alternatives had 
been assessed. Therefore, I agreed to support the project after 
obtaining the corps support to pursue a feasibility study of the whole 
Los Angeles Basin watershed. Although some of the cities in the 
floodplain recently refused to participate in a community task force to 
look at project modifications while initial construction was under way, 
Secretary Zirschky has assured me that the corps will seek the county's 
cooperation in a 3-year feasibility study for ways to improve the river 
watershed including a review and possible modifications of the river's 
flood control improvements.
  Even without a formal task force, the Secretary is willing to work 
with the county, affected cities, and the environmental groups to 
recommend ways to restore the natural ecosystem, improve stormwater 
management, and enhance water conservation and supply, and recreational 
opportunities. It is my hope that this study will serve as a 
springboard to greater cooperation among the affected cities, the 
country, the corps, and the environmental community.
  Secretary Zirschky should be commended for working with Los Angeles 
County in the flood control project cooperation agreement to require 
the county to manage stormwater runoff to avoid any need for future 
expansion of the flood control project.
  I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Zirschky's July 21, 1995, 
letter to me about this project be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Army,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am pleased to inform you that I 
     recently sent to Congress a recommendation for construction 
     of the flood damage reduction project for the Los Angeles 
     County Drainage Area. My recommendation completes the 
     authorization required by Section 101(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990. A copy of my letter to 
     Congress and a press release on the project are enclosed.
       In approving this project, I have required that the non-
     Federal sponsor manage future stormwater runoff so that the 
     authorized level of flood protection is not diminished. In 
     addition, we have agreed to seek a non-Federal sponsor and 
     initiate a multi-objective feasibility study of the entire 
     Los Angeles River Watershed. This study will focus on 
     restoring the natural ecosystem along the river and 
     throughout the watershed, as well as providing opportunities 
     to improve stormwater management, water conservation and 
     water quality, recreation and the aesthetics in the watershed 
     area. The study could also result in further modifications to 
     the recently authorized project. In conducting this study, we 
     are committed to working with other Federal agencies--State 
     and local governments, as well as other non-governmental 
     environmental organizations. The study will be initiated with 
     available funds and will not delay construction of the 
     Drainage Area project.
       I look forward to working with you in bringing this much 
     needed project to completion.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John H. Zirschky,
                                        Acting Assistant Secretary
                                        of the Army (Civil Works).

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the manager of the bill, the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. THURMOND. Am I correct in my understanding that the energy and 
water development appropriations bill, as reported from the 
Appropriations Committee, includes an increase of over $140,000,000 for 
the Department of Energy's stockpile management program?
  Mr. DOMENICI. My colleague from South Carolina, the chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, is correct. As reported by the 
Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996 includes a $143,800,000 
increase over the budget request for stockpile management.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I strongly support the increase in stockpile 
management provided by the committee. There is a clear need for the 
Department to ensure that its capabilities that currently reside at the 
Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, TN; the Kansas City plant in Kansas City, MO; 
the Pantex plant in Texas; and the Savannah River site in South 
Carolina, are modernized to meet the requirements of the enduring 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New 
Mexico for his support for stockpile management and the additional 
funds 

[[Page S11105]]
necessary to make needed investments in the Department of Energy's 
production sites such as the Y-12 plant. We certainly expect the 
Department will make additional investments in the production 
facilities to ensure those facilities meet future requirements.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the facilities funded by the Department of 
Energy's stockpile management program represent essential elements in 
the continuing DOE complex. By simply having the know-how at hand, we 
cannot guarantee the proper management of the stockpile over the long 
term; we must also maintain the capabilities that exist in the 
facilities that produced components of the enduring stockpile.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I also strongly support the increase 
in stockpile management provided by the committee. I am pleased to join 
with my colleagues to speak to the importance of maintaining a safe and 
reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent, and in particular, the need to make 
the necessary and cost-effective investments in nuclear weapons 
stockpile activities. The Pantex plant, along with Savannah River, Y-
12, and Kansas City plant, is one of the few remaining production sites 
with existing infrastructure and capabilities that can meet the 
national security needs identified in the Department of Defense's 
nuclear posture review.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I believe we are ready for third reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, shall the bill pass?
  So the bill (H.R. 1905), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes thereon and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Bennett, Mr. Burns, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
Kerrey, and Mrs. Murray conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to proceed to wrap up the 
Senate at the request of the majority leader.

                          ____________________