Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8965-S8972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1959, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1959) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997,
and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for
just a moment until Senator Johnston arrives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S8966]]

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the distinguished
majority leader for scheduling our bill this morning. It is obvious
that we are trying on our side to get as many appropriations bills
through as possible. This will be another of those bills, and it is
important that we get this one done.
As I understand it, for those Senators or staffers informing Senators
who are listening, it is the intention of the leader that we proceed
and that there be votes today. However, there is an alternative being
circulated, and that is if you would give us the amendments, at least
by name, we could agree on what all the amendments are shortly. Then we
would urge consent that there not be votes today and that the
amendments will be offered the remainder of the day and part of Monday,
which I think is a very good approach. But we would like to know what
the amendments are today, and that is what we are circulating in the
Cloakrooms and on the hot lines.

Mr. President, first, I note the presence of Senator Bennett
Johnston, who for 22 years either chaired or served on this
subcommittee, and, frankly, I take over the chairmanship with full
understanding that I have a great deal to learn about the intricacies
of the Department of Energy, its accounts and all of its various
functions, and certainly the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation, which are two very major institutions out there in America
that do a lot of good and are frequently criticized, but I believe both
are doing a very excellent job in terms of projects and programs they
are undertaking. But, essentially, Senator Johnston has taken the lead
in many important aspects of building science and research through the
Department of Energy, and he has been an advocate of keeping our
nuclear arsenal safe, sound and responsive, and much of that occurs by
virtue of the policies in this bill and the money appropriated. Since
this is his last undertaking on the floor for this bill, I would like
to yield to him for his opening remarks, and then I will follow with
some.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the very warm and
generous remarks of my colleague from New Mexico. While he is new in
the chairmanship on this committee, he is not new to the committee. We
have worked side by side for all of these 22 years, because New Mexico,
of course, has a very vital interest in the work of this committee.
The State of New Mexico can thank Senator Pete Domenici for the
presence and the health and viability of much of that State's Federal
presence. The Federal presence in the State of New Mexico is rather
overwhelming and would not have been such an overwhelming presence but
for Senator Pete Domenici. We have worked together to make that so, and
it is in the Nation's interest. The national labs, particularly, are an
American resource that needs to be nurtured and used and developed and
continued for the benefit of this country. So we are very pleased for
that.
Also, since this is my last time to manage this bill for the
minority, I would like to mention the longstanding relationship I have
with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Hatfield, who was the
chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member. We would trade
off on those roles every time the Congress would change. That was a
very productive and most pleasant relationship as well. So this
committee and its staff and its work are some of the most pleasant and
most productive times I have had in this Congress. I thank all for
giving me that chance.
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 1997 beginning
October 1, 1996. This bill, S. 1959, an original bill reported by the
committee on July 16, 1996, was approved by a unanimous vote.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3816. The markups
in the House and Senate subcommittees and committees occurred
simultaneously, rather than our normal process or House acting first
and our waiting receipt of the House bill.
At the outset, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee,
Senator Domenici. 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
Appropriation Committee on the Energy and Water 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. 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 activties--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.

602(b) allocation for the bill

The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee allocation under
section 602(b)(1) of the budget act total $20,308,000,000 in budget
authority and $20,202,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997. Of these
amounts the Defense discretionary allocation is $11,600,000,000 in
budget authority and $11,233,000,000 in outlays. For domestic
discretionary the budget authority allocation is $8,708,000,000 and the
allocation for outlays is $8,969,000,000. The committee recommendation
uses all of the budget authority allocation in both categories, so
there is no room for add-ons to the bill. Therefore, any amendments to
add will have to be offset by reductions from within the bill.

summary of recommendations

Mr. President, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimates for the bill
total $20,648,952,000 in new budget obligational authority. The
recommendation of the committee provides $20,735,645,000. This amount
is $86,693,000 over the President's budget estimates and about $800
million over the appropriations amounts for the current fiscal year
1996. The large increases in the bill over last year are principally
associated with the Defense activities and related Defense programs--
what we refer to at 050 national defense accounts. Domestic
discretionary spending continues to decline especially in the
Department of Energy domestic discretionary functions.
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 No. 104-320, accompanying the bill,
which has been available since July 17.

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

[[Page S8967]]

new budget authority of $3,455,623,000, which is $89 million over
fiscal year 1996 and $163 million more than the budget estimate.
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 studies and planning starts but no new
construction starts. The committee has deferred without prejudice new
construction starts and hopes to fashion a small package of new
projects before this bill is completed. Because of the importance of
some of these projects to the economic well-being of the Nation, the
committee will continued to monitor each projects progress to ensure
that it is ready to proceed to construction when resources become
available. As the committee report 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 $852,788,000, which is
$9 million more than the budget estimate and about the same amount as
for fiscal year 1996.

TITLE III, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Under title III, Department of Energy, the committee provides a total
of $16.1 billion. This amount includes $2.750 billion for energy
supply, research and development activities, an appropriation of $42.2
million for uranium supply and enrichment activities, offset fully by
gross revenues; $220.2 million for the uranium enrichment
decontamination and decommissioning fund, $1 billion for general
science and research activities, $200 million from the nuclear waste
disposal fund for a total of $400 million for civilian nuclear waste
activities when the $200 million appropriated under the defense
activities is included, and $6.4 billion for environmental restoration
and waste management--defense and nondefense.
For the atomic energy defense activities, there is a total of $11.583
billion comprised of $3.979 billion for weapons activities; almost $6.0
billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management;
$1.607 billion for other defense programs and $200 million for defense
nuclear waste disposal.
For departmental administration $218 million is recommended offset
with anticipated miscellaneous revenues of $125 million for a net
appropriation of $93 million. A total of $245.6 million is recommended
in the bill for the Power Marketing Administrations and $146.3 million
is for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] offset 100
percent by revenues.
A net appropriation of $159.8 million is provided for solar programs,
including photovoltaics, wind, and biomass and for all solar and
renewable energy, $246.6 million, a decrease of about $20 million less
than fiscal year 1996.
For nuclear energy programs, $229.7 million is recommended, of which
about $100 million is for termination costs and activities associated
with previous decisions ending support for several activities and
projects. The recommendation includes $22 million in funds to continue
the advanced light water reactor cost-shared program and the committee
has provided funds under termination costs to wind up the first-of-a-
kind engineering program.
For the magnetic fusion program, the committee is recommending $240
million, which is $15 million less than the budget. An amount of $389
million is included for biological and environmental research and
$649.6 million for basic energy sciences.

TITLE IV, REGULATORY AND OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

A total of $313 million for various regulatory and independent
agencies of the Federal Government is included in the bill. Major
programs include the Appalachian Regional Commission, $165 million;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, $471.8 million offset by revenues of
$457.3 million; and for the Tennessee Valley Authority, $113 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, the big disappointment with this bill, as with other
bills, is the paucity of resources given to these most important
functions of Government. I think it is a real mistake to starve these
functions, which are infrastructure, water projects, ports, harbors,
flood protection, and water resources, which are the basis of the
economy in much of our country. They have been deferred and deferred
and deferred, as well as the national labs and science endeavors, which
are funded at, I believe, much too low a level. I hope in the next
Congress we will find additional funds to do this.
In the meantime, I think we have done a good job under the leadership
of Senator Domenici in allocating these scarce resources well.
With thanks to my chairman, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to repeat--Senator Johnston has
completed his opening statement; mine will not take but a few moments--
the distinguished majority leader has indicated we will have votes. We
know of a couple of amendments. We can call Senator Jeffords, and there
are a couple of others around. What we are trying to do now, and it is
being worked through the offices and I urge Senators' offices to help
us, if we want to get a unanimous consent that we are not going to have
any votes today, then we need to know what amendments are going to be
proposed to this bill. That is what we are waiting for. I once again
urge that, and we will be here and will be ready to vote on an
amendment that might be offered here shortly.
Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the floor S. 1959, the energy
and water development appropriation bill for fiscal year 1996 for
consideration by the full Senate. The Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act is normally one of the first appropriations bills
considered by the Senate. However, this year the House experienced some
early delays because the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee was
provided with an allocation that would appear on its face to be
insufficient to take care of the mandates of this bill. As a result,
the Senate Appropriations Committee took the unusual step of reporting
an original bill in order to speed consideration of this act.
I am pleased to report the House completed consideration of its
Energy and Water Development Act earlier yesterday and, indeed,
additional resources were given to the committee from the first
allocation that caused the delay. The Energy and Water Subcommittee
marked up the bill on July 11, and the full committee reported it by
unanimous vote last Tuesday, July 16. The bill and report have been
available to Senators and their staffs since last Wednesday.

I, first, thank the former chairman of the committee, as I already
have, Senator Johnston. I thank Senator Hatfield for his extraordinary
work with reference to this subcommittee and its activities over all
the years.
I feel confident we have done a good job this year with the resources
that were made available. Indeed, with reference to the Department of
Energy and, in particular, the Department of Energy's efforts to
continue the cleanup in this country from the atomic years and nuclear
bomb development era, that has significant increases to continue that
cleanup, but under a regime that is causing more work to be done and
the work to be done more efficiently.
In addition, some new projects and some additional money have been
provided for the whole new concept that is now being used by the
Department to maintain the safety of our nuclear weapons. That new
stewardship, the science-based stockpile stewardship program, was a few
years in development. It is now about 2\1/2\ years old, but

[[Page S8968]]

it is receiving the full attention of the three major laboratories that
dealt with nuclear weapons and the nuclear deterrent threat.
It is also having its impact on other facilities that we have in this
country to maintain our nuclear bombs in a safe and trustworthy manner.
Some do not recognize, and perhaps they choose not even to think
about it, but the Department of Energy, whether one likes the
Department or not, is, in a sense, doing very major defense work for
America. They are the custodians of the nuclear weapons. We all know we
are building down from a very high number to a much smaller number of
nuclear warheads. Since we have decided as a matter of national policy
that there will be no more underground testing, we have decided that
this new science-based stockpile stewardship program will be the
scientific source of evaluation of our residual nuclear weapons, the
ones we are going to keep, to make sure that they are safe and
trustworthy.
You know, the American military men from the Navy all the way
through--it is those people out there that we are worried about. It is
for them that we want to make sure we keep weapons in the highest
quality of maintenance. For they are the front line and we want the
weapons in their hands to be the very best, in terms of safety and
trustworthiness and reliability. That is a big mission.
So, in this bill, as in the defense authorization bill, a significant
new asset was added this year, a resource so that the three major
laboratories can continue to develop the technologies and techniques
and equipment that will be necessary to maintain these weapons without
the benefit of the science and technology that would come from
underground testing, which is a very big undertaking.

Will it work? We hope so. The greatest scientists in America working
at the laboratories are bound and determined to make it work. In fact,
they have committed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that it will work. The
Joint Chiefs of Staff have, thus, approved this approach, but they have
made it very, very clear that they do not want to abandon the test site
in Nevada.
It must be maintained in a readied posture, because if this new
approach fails, we will have to verify and secure our weapons
performance and trustworthiness through other means.
So at the same time we are moving ahead in a new approach, we have to
maintain some of the old. That costs a little bit of extra money, but
not an amount that this Senator believes our taxpayers would not
willingly pay if the issue is, since we must maintain a nuclear
arsenal, let's make sure we maintain it in the best possible way in
terms of reliability, trustworthiness, safety, and security. I am sure
that as the Department of Energy moves through the next few years with
this new approach, there will be plenty of opportunity for this
subcommittee, the Armed Services Committee, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and other groups within the executive branch, to make sure that it is
being done right.
The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee funds are used not only
for the Department of Energy's defense activities, but, obviously,
there are three other major activities. The Department of Energy does
some nondefense work, and we have to pay for that in this bill. Then we
have the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers.
Let me suggest that we are operating on the nondefense side. We are
operating at a freeze level for the corps and the Bureau. The Corps of
Engineers, nonetheless, in an overall macrosense, will increase $89
million. Energy supply and research, $22 million and high-energy
physics, $20 million. These are programs and activities that are
nondefense oriented.
Also, uranium supply enrichment, a minus $29 million; uranium
enrichment decontamination and dismantling, a minus $59 million;
departmental administration, we have reduced that by $149 million, $37
million more than the Department proposed when they suggested $122
million should be saved at the administrative level of the Department.
We have made some difficult decisions in the nondefense activities.
While we have reduced popular programs such as solar and renewables, we
have held the line on fusion, high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and
biological and environmental research, all very, very important
functions for our Nation's future.
There are many who are not even aware that these are taking place
within the Department of Energy, but they are, and they are programs
that contribute mightily to America's basic science and to the future
of our Nation. I am very hopeful that we can fund them adequately as we
come out of conference with the House, although I must say that the
allocation of resources to the House subcommittee, both for nondefense
and for defense activities, is substantially lower than the Senate's.
In fact the sum total by which it is lower than ours is almost $1
billion--$900 million. A little over $200 million of that is nondefense
work and about $700 million is DOE defense work.
Since we have a firewall, we cannot move the money back and forth in
this bill between the defense allocation and the nondefense allocation.
So some might want to offer an amendment to take something out of
defense and put it in domestic. They should know that is subject to a
point of order and will require 60 votes because it violates what the
U.S. Senate has agreed for this year as a firewall between defense
spending and domestic.

I could go on with a few more discussions of what we are doing here,
but let me just talk a minute further about the water resources
projects.
Frankly, the U.S. Senate should know that for all that is being said
by some in America that we should not be engaged in so many projects of
flood protection and Bureau of Reclamation-type activities, the
Senators and the States they represent seem to indicate with a very
loud voice that they need these projects. We received hundreds of
requests either to start projects or to put more money in projects that
we have for these two online agencies of the U.S. Government.
The Corps of Engineers, in its civil works program, has a budget
authority in this bill of $3,455,623,000, as I indicated, an increase
of $89 million.
Title II of the bill funds activities associated with the Department
of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and the central Utah completion
project. Total funding recommended for these activities is
$852,788,000. This is a reduction of a little over a half a million
dollars from the enacted level and about $8,900,000 above the budget
request.
We still have a number of requests in both title I and title 2 with
which we have been unable to comply. I must say to Senators, consistent
with a starting rule, that we will have no new starts. We have done our
very best to be fair and equitable and I believe satisfied many of the
requests.
I do not say that Senators request and we grant them their requests.
These are projects that go through the professionals in the Department
and actually are confirmed to us by them as being worthwhile and the
kind of things we ought to be doing.
Obviously, there is much more I could speak about of an exciting
nature that is going on in the science and research part of the
Department of Energy. I have just touched the surface of it, but if
there are amendments that address any of these projects or programs, we
will spend additional time with the Senate explaining why we think the
levels of funding in this bill are appropriate and the activities that
we have recommended be funded are in the best interest of the United
States.
As my ranking member and former chairman said, a lot of this bill is
investment, either investment in the water ports of this Nation or the
infrastructure of water projects, reclamation projects, flood
protection projects and a lot of it is an investment in the Department
of Energy, for when you invest in nuclear physics, when you invest in
the highest science around to determine what the atom is all about and
what the physics of that is, you are investing in the future of mankind
and certainly in America's future.
These kinds of funds do not stay in the Department, nor do they go
exclusively to laboratories. Much of it goes to the great universities
and science activities going on in this country.
So I am very proud of the bill. Let me repeat, many Senators have
stopped me on the floor and wanted to know if we are going to vote
today.

[[Page S8969]]

The answer is, there is a way that we will not have any votes, and
that is if Senators will cooperate, as they have been, and tell us
whether they have amendments. If they have amendments, we want to list
them, and then we will be here part of today to accept any of them that
Senators want to offer. Then we will ask in a consent request that on
Monday, there also be an opportunity for further offering of those
amendments that we have agreed to, with votes on Tuesday, is what I
understand on this bill. There may be other votes on Monday, but on
this bill, I assume that is going to be the scenario.
I yield the floor at this point, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I came to the Senate in January 1989. I was
not here very long before I realized our State was facing a very
difficult problem with the sudden surge of the importation of out-of-
State waste. Our capacity to dispose of our own waste was quickly being
filled to overflowing, and action needed to be taken.
The State of Indiana Legislature has taken a number of steps to
attempt to limit this flow of unwanted waste coming from other States.
Yet, each one of their attempts was met by a court challenge, and a
challenge that was successful in that it said we were violative of the
interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
In reviewing the court opinions on that subject, we discovered the
court said if the Congress specifically and affirmatively grants States
the authority to regulate its flow of out-of-State waste, then it would
meet constitutional muster. So, I then proceeded to offer legislation
on that subject to find a solution to not only our problem but a number
of importing States' problems throughout the country.
That was a contentious issue at the time, and it was tied up in
filibuster and a whole number of procedural delays. We persisted, and
in September of 1990, a modified version of my original amendment
passed the Senate by a vote of 67 to 31, as an amendment to the
District of Columbia appropriations bill. It was not a partisan issue.
It was a bipartisan issue--Democrats and Republicans joined together to
pass this legislation.
Unfortunately, in the conference on the appropriations bill in 1990
in October, just before we adjourned for the elections, that provision
was stripped. That was the 101st Congress.
In the 102d Congress, early on in that Congress, March of 1992, I
introduced new legislation which, after some considerable debate and
maneuvering, we managed to pass by an even more overwhelming vote. I
was joined by the Senator from Montana in that effort. He was very
helpful in allowing us to move forward on that legislation. It passed
the Senate in July of 1992 by a vote of 89 to 2. We had addressed a
number of the objections that were raised in the original legislation,
States that had particular and peculiar problems, and we even worked
with the exporting States that were putting the waste into play on an
international basis, and satisfied a number of their demands.
In other words, we achieved a balance, a balance between the
legitimate needs of those States that found State waste overwhelming
their own environmental plans to adequately dispose of their own waste
to protect their environment, and we addressed the needs of the
exporting States who needed some time to ratchet down their exports,
out-of-State exports, and deal with their waste on an intrastate basis.
That accommodation resulted, as I said, in that vote in 1992. The
support from the Senator from Montana was critical to that success.
Unfortunately, the House failed to act on that legislation, which
brought us to the 103d Congress. In February 1993, I again introduced
the interstate waste bill, and after considerable negotiations and
work, we passed that bill in the Senate, the Coats-Baucus bill, in
September 1994. In October, it passed the House and came to the waning
days of the 103d Congress, and because of procedural reasons we needed
unanimous consent to proceed with that. We moved the legislation
through the House, through some very difficult negotiations, got 435
Members of the House to agree to that, and we got 99 Members of the
U.S. Senate to agree. Unfortunately, we could not get that last vote.
Because we needed all 100 and needed unanimous consent to proceed to
the legislation, it failed.

Then the 104th Congress came, and in March 1995 I reintroduced the
legislation. In May, on May 16, 1995, on my birthday--I do not think it
was a birthday present from the Senate to me, but it happened to fall
on that particular date--the Senate passed that new legislation by a
vote of 94 to 6. The House subsequently has done nothing.
Now, I am hoping that Members will detect there is a pattern here,
that there is a pattern that this issue is not going to go away, and
that I will keep introducing that as long as I have voice to speak and
the good people of Indiana choose to send me back to the U.S. Senate.
This is an issue that is not only important to my State, the people who
I represent, but it is important to the Nation.
Given the votes that we have had here in the Senate, a lot of people
are wondering, why can't we finalize this? We cannot finalize it now
because the House refused to act on it for a number of reasons.
We are not going to give up. The pattern is we will just keep coming
back and back and back and back and back until this issue is resolved
and we strike the necessary legislation and put it into law, giving
States control over their own borders.
The legislation before the Senate is a bipartisan effort. I am being
joined this morning by Senator Levin from Michigan, another importing
State. I know a number of other Senators here have a vested interest in
this issue, and whether they need to come to the floor to discuss this
or not, I am not sure. I am confident we can move forward. But, again,
we want to make the point that this legislation is not going to go
away. My effort is not going to go away. We are going to persist with
this until we finalize this.
This is an amendment, with due respect to the chairman and the
ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee,
this is an effort to try to attach it to somewhat relevant legislation
so that we can get it into conference and hopefully convince the
conferees that this strongly bipartisan, strongly supported effort,
after literally years of intense negotiations--with importing States,
exporting States, all involved; waste haulers, all involved--we have
reached a reasonable agreement that ought to be enacted into law.
I am offering it this morning along with my colleague from Michigan,
Senator Levin. We do strike an appropriate balance. What we are
offering today is exactly the same legislation that the Senate has
voted on in this Congress and passed by a vote of 94 to 6. In the
interests of time and in the interests of Senators who I know are
trying to make plans to travel back to their States for this weekend,
and to move this appropriations bill forward, I am going to limit my
remarks to this, unless I need to respond to questions or opposition
raised on this particular legislation.
I thank the chairman for his tolerance and willingness and his
support in this effort to, once again, move this legislation. I yield
the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know Senator Levin wants to speak to
this very important legislation.
Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Amendment No. 5092

(Purpose: To provide authority for States to limit the interstate
transportation of municipal solid waste)

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself and Mr.
Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 5092.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S8970]]

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I think we are willing to accept it.
Mr. DOMENICI. I believe we are willing to accept it. That is what I
told the Senator.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will withhold that request at this time.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will have to talk about it. We are working on the
premise that if we get all the Senators to agree to the amendments on a
list, there would be no votes today. We would like very much to see if
we can get that worked out.
That would not preclude the Senator from having a yea and nay vote on
Tuesday, although I recommend that he not do that. We are not taking
anything away.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw the request for the
yeas and nays?
Mr. COATS. I temporarily withdraw that request.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, once again, I want to say publicly what
I told the distinguished Senator from Indiana. We are willing to accept
this amendment and take it to conference. It is obvious that, at one
time or another, legislation like this has received almost the
unanimous support of Congress. Because of that, we will take it.
I want to say to Senators one more time--not those here, but Senators
and staff in their offices--who are concerned about what is going to
happen for the rest of today, Monday, and Tuesday. We are asking each
office to tell us if they have amendments to this bill. We are making
some real headway. There are a few offices we have not been able to
work this out with. But it is important to get that done. That will
define the schedule for the remainder of the day.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment of
the Senator from Indiana. He has worked on it so long and hard, and so
many other Members of this body, particularly Senator Baucus of
Montana, the Senators from Louisiana, and so many others, to finally
give States and local government some control over the flow of waste
both into their jurisdictions and out of their jurisdictions.
The Senate has expressed its will on this issue over and over again--
most recently, in May of last year by an overwhelming vote of 94 to 6.
The Senator from Indiana has gone through the number of times that the
Senate has expressed its will. He has gone through the number of ways
in which the vast majority of House Members have expressed their will
on this matter in support of this legislation, made necessary by a
Supreme Court decision which said it is up to Congress to decide
whether or not it wants to give these powers to the State and local
governments.
Now, Michigan, my State, my counties, and my townships have plans for
waste disposal. They have invested in it. They spent a lot of time with
these investments and a lot of money on these investments to dispose of
their waste locally. Those plans and those investments are totally
disrupted when contracts are entered into without consideration by
State, county, or local government of the impact of those contracts for
importing waste into those areas, because when you import waste in that
way, without consideration of plans, and without consideration of
the efforts that local governments have made to dispose of their own
waste, it totally disrupts those efforts and those expenditures. It is
not right.

States and local governments have a right to do that planning and to
make those investments in order to dispose of their own waste and not
see their own plans displaced by the import of waste from other places,
based on contracts between haulers and those other places.
Our local people should not be dumped on any longer. They should have
some control over their own jurisdictions, and over their own land.
That is what this issue is really all about. And so I want to commend
all the Senators who have been involved in this effort for so many
years. It has been truly a bipartisan effort all along. It will
continue to be that. It will continue to be made until we finally not
just get a bill passed in the Senate, which we have done over and over
again, but get the same bill passed by the Senate and the House. And
this effort to adopt this amendment on this particular appropriations
bill is another statement to the House that we expect action this year.
Here we are with, perhaps, 30 legislative days left in this session.
Last year the Senate expressed itself. I, on at least one occasion,
have stood up saying I was going to offer this kind of amendment, and
have been dissuaded from doing so based on the assurance that there
would be efforts made to get the House to act. The House has not acted.
There are a few people there who oppose it, who have been able to
displace the will of what appears to be a clear majority of House
Members.
It is simply time that we again express ourselves as a Senate on this
issue, not just speaking into the ether, but speaking directly to the
House and saying we are very serious that we want this bill--at least
we want consideration of both parts of this bill by the House this
year, on both the questions of interstate waste coming into a State and
the question of flow control of waste from a State. Both of those
subjects are covered in this bill in a balanced way, as the Senator
from Indiana has said, in consideration of both importing and exporting
States.
Before I yield the floor, I simply again want to thank my good friend
from Indiana, and particularly single out the Senator from Montana,
who, for so many years, has fought this battle. It will be essential
not just to his State, my State, Indiana, Louisiana, and other States,
but to all of our States that we finally have some control over our own
land, over our own plans, over our own investment for waste disposal.
The Senators from Indiana and Montana have been leaders in that effort.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield. Mr. President, I cosponsored
a bill on this subject matter filed by my colleague, Senator Breaux, a
few years ago. Does this differ in any way from that?
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could ask my friend from Indiana, I
understand this bill is precisely the same as S. 534, which passed in
May 1995 by a vote of 94 to 6, and that that bill is this amendment.
That is my understanding.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The amendment we
are offering today is identical, word-for-word, to the legislation that
passed this body earlier in this session of Congress.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That was this session?
Mr. COATS. Yes, it was. I can give you the exact date.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Is it the same as we had a few years ago?
Mr. COATS. It has been modified from the original legislation. We
have addressed some of the concerns of the exporting States and struck
a balance between the timetables, in terms of their ratcheting down the
exports, and we made some adjustments on the importing State side. We
allow, for instance, local jurisdictions to enter into what are called
host agreements. We do not upset those agreements. We don't want to
breach any contractual obligations already entered into. We have added
flow control language to address that particular issue, also. This is
identical to what we passed in 1995 in this Congress.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, Mr. President, I commend the Senators for
proposing this legislation. Being one of these recipient States of this
waste, who has never been able to control this situation, I commend
them for coming up with a solution that I believe will work. Of course,
the minority will enthusiastically accept the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't want the sponsors to have any
concern about whether the Senator from New Mexico favors this when we
go to conference. I favor it 100 percent.
We were a State that was at least threatened with all kinds of
external dumping of garbage in our State. We talk about solid waste,
but this is not nuclear waste. This is essentially garbage with maybe a
little frill on the edges.
So I will take the bill. I want the Senator to know I will take it. I
will take it and try to keep it. I think we ought to pass it. Whether
our bill gets to the President and gets signed, we

[[Page S8971]]

may have that confronting us. We are going to do our share of trying to
keep it in conference.
Mr. COATS. If the Senator will yield, I am fully aware of the perils
and pitfalls of moving appropriations bills to the executive branch and
having the President sign them. I know that is not directly related,
although I think it is indirectly related to energy and water.
I appreciate the commitment from the Senator from New Mexico in doing
his very best to see if we can add this in an appropriations bill and
get it accepted in conference.
As I said, this is not a partisan issue. The President has already
indicated that he would sign this particular provision. So this will
not be a deal breaker.
If I can get the commitment from the Senator from New Mexico and the
Senator from Louisiana that they will fight for this effort in
conference and do their best to reflect the Senate position on this, in
deference to my colleagues, who I know are seeking to catch planes and
wrap up the session, if there are no other votes ordered on this
legislation, I will not be the one to scuttle the picnic here. So I
will make that commitment to the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to make one additional point. I have just
received word that Senator Chafee wants to come down and speak on the
measure. I think it is quite appropriate. He is chairman of the
subcommittee of original jurisdiction. We did not intend to vote or
accept this in the next few minutes anyway. So if Senator Chafee wants
to speak, we urge that he come down as soon as he can.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy the Senator from Indiana
offered this amendment. He has been committed, including the Presiding
Officer, for many years to trying to get this passed.
There has been a development which makes this legislation more
imminent. Recently, the city of New York announced that it is going to
close its Fresh Kills landfill. Fresh Kills landfill is probably the
biggest landfill in this country. They receive 13,000 tons of garbage a
day at Fresh Kills landfill in New York. That amounts to 1,200 trucks a
day of garbage dumped at the Fresh Kills landfill. That is going to be
closed. It will be closed in 2 years. I think it will be phased out
ultimately by the year 2001.
That is a problem. It is a problem for a lot of so-called importing
States, States that receive other States' garbage. It is a problem
because States are having a very difficult time enacting laws providing
for incinerators. People do not want incinerators to burn garbage.
This is a major proposal in the State of New York for the State of
New York to build a major incinerator in Brooklyn. It has been turned
down. It is the old not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Nobody wants an
incinerator in their backyard.
So incinerators are not getting anywhere, which means that New York
has a problem. New York City has a big problem with Fresh Kills closed.
Where is all that garbage going to be, 13,000 tons, 1,200 trucks a day?

That is just an example of the problem that we face.
I might say that my State is typical; that is, Montana has wide open
spaces. A lot of folks from the East think that is a good place to dump
garbage. ``Let's dump it out in the West. They have wide open space out
there.''
Regrettably, a major entrepreneur in an Eastern State decided that he
wanted to open up a big landfill in Miles City, MT. We in Montana do
not want this big landfill in Miles City. He was able to cut a deal
with a couple of folks in Miles City to build this landfill, whereas
the vast majority do not want this landfill in Montana. The State of
Montana could not pass legislation prohibiting this, could not pass
legislation limiting the dumping of out-of-State garbage in our own
State. Why? Because the Supreme Court says the States cannot do that.
It is in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution.
Very simply, this is a very basic proposal. Basically, we are saying
that by the passage of this legislation, with some modifications, the
States have the right to say no. They have a right to say no to the
shipment of out-of-State garbage being dumped in their State.
We talk a lot around here about local control. We talk a lot around
here, ``Gee, let States decide their own destiny, and let local
communities decide their own destiny.'' This legislation will allow
States to do that. They will be able to say no to the dumping of out-
of-State garbage in their own States.
I hope that the House conferees take this provision. It is going to
be difficult.
I very much appreciate the statement of the manager of the bill, the
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, as well as its
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Johnston, that they will
push for this amendment in conference. The trouble is that the House
has not looked very favorably on this legislation recently. It is
basically because of who is on what committee over in the House and
what States are exporting States. It is a problem.
But I urge our Senate conferees to be very vigorous in pushing this
amendment in conference, because then, finally, we are going to get
this thing enacted.
I can tell you that there are a lot of people in our country who very
much want to control their own destiny in a lot of ways, and one way is
to be able to say no to the shipment of out-of-State garbage. I have
been working with Senator Coats on this for years.
When the Democrats were in the majority, I had the subcommittee that
got this legislation passed a couple of years ago. This is very similar
to that legislation, this proposal before us.
I very strongly commend the Senator from Indiana for his very, very
deep dedication to this issue. I hope we can finally get it passed.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to add as original cosponsors
to the bill Senator Specter, Senator Baucus, and Senator McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of this amendment that will get a grip on the serious problem
of interstate waste. I am also pleased to be working again with Senator
Coats on an issue that affects both our States--the unchecked flow of
interstate waste.
As you and many of my colleagues are aware, out-of-State waste
creates problems for States that are unable to control the amount of
trash that is sent across the border for disposal. This imported waste
takes up landfill space, which complicates State and local waste
planning and requires States to devote valuable resources to the
problem other States have neglected. Scarce landfill space in Kentucky
should be allocated for Kentuckians, not trash from hundreds of miles
away.
During my tenure in this Senate, I have committed myself to resolving
this issue and ensuring that Kentucky doesn't become a dumping ground
to out-of-State waste. In 1990, and every year since, I have introduced
legislation or worked with Senator Coats in crafting language that has
ultimately led to the compromise legislation that came so close to
passing last year.
In 1990, I introduced S. 2691, a bill to give States the ability to
fight long-haul dumping by charging higher fees for disposal of waste
coming from other States. This bill passed the Senate with 68 votes.
During the 102d Congress, I introduced S. 197 to once again provide
States the authority to impose a fee differential for out-of-State
waste. In 1992, Senator Coats and I joined forces and produced
comprehensive legislation to provide States the authority to regulate
waste. That same year, the Senate passed an interstate waste bill by an
overwhelming vote of 88 to 2. Unfortunately, the bill died in the
House.
During the 103d Congress, I joined with Senators Coats and Boren in
introducing S. 439. Although the Senate didn't act until late in the
session, Congress came extremely close to passing an interstate waste
bill. Again, the House stalled long enough to effectively kill the bill
on the last day of the session.
Last year, the Senate passed a waste bill, S. 543 which passed 94 to
6. This legislation is a fair proposal that gives communities control
of not only their own waste streams, but the flow of trash from other
States, it will protect

[[Page S8972]]

importing States like Kentucky and Indiana from becoming garbage
colonies for States who aren't willing to deal with their own waste
problems.
Mr. President, this issue has recently come to the forefront of
national news with the announcement of the closure of Fresh Kills
landfill in New York. This 3,000-acre monstrosity located on Staten
Island receives 26 million pounds of garbage daily. The 48-year-old
landfill, known as the world's largest garbage dump, is so enormous
that it can actually be seen by orbiting astronauts.
Closure of this facility will necessitate an astounding outflow of
garbage from New York City that will be absorbed by States as far away
as Kentucky. I, for one, refuse to stand by and allow Kentucky to
become a garbage colony.
Unfortunately, the House has absolutely stalled on this issue.
Hopefully, with the inclusion of the Coats amendment, interstate waste
problems will finally be addressed during a conference with the House
of Representatives.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the interstate
waste amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana.
Last Congress, I introduced legislation to give localities the
opportunity to restrict the flow of interstate waste into landfills in
their communities. In my view, it is essential that local governments
be given the authority they need to determine for themselves whether to
accept out-of-State waste. I am pleased that S. 534, the legislation
which passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year, contained provisions
that will help protect communities from being inundated with unwanted
garbage generated out-of-State and provide localities with some
leverage to deal with landfill developers who seek to dispose of out-
of-State trash.
The pending amendment--identical to the one we passed last year--
deserves the support of all Members. In my view, it strikes the
appropriate balance between importing States and exporting States, and
solves a problem which has persisted for too many years. Because this
issue deals with interstate commerce, only Congress has the authority
to resolve the problem of unwanted out-of-State garbage, as the
Senators from Indiana, Michigan, and Montana have discussed. Therefore,
I urge my colleagues to reaffirm our support for this legislation, and
make passage of this bill a priority during the remainder of this
session.
With that, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
Mr. COATS. I yield the floor, 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. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the committee and
the ranking member on the floor. I mentioned earlier that I very much
appreciate the statements by them, if they will urge the House to adopt
this amendment.
Might I ask the chairman of the committee, along with the ranking
Member, if they will, in pushing this, consult with the chairman of our
committee, Senator Chafee, as well as the ranking member as you work
with the House in attempting to persuade them to adopt the amendment.
As we all know, there might be give and take and some modifications. I
very much hope that the managers would consult the managers of the
authorizing committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me respond. This is not just a Republican bill. So
I would say for the Record that we will consult not only with the
chairman, but we will consult with the ranking member of the committee
of jurisdiction as it moves its way through.
Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I thank the Senator.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________