[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9038-S9050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1977

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1958, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative 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 continued with consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 5095

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain 
amendment, which would cut $22 million from the Advanced Light Water 
Reactor Program.
  Mr. President, there are a number of reasons not to cut this money. 
The clearest and simplest and most obvious and most unanswerable is 
this is the fifth year of a 5-year program, a program entered into at 
the behest of Congress with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for which 
contracts have been made and it would cost more to terminate the 
program, Mr. President, than to continue the program.
  This has been certified to by Assistant Secretary Terry Lash, who is 
Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, in his 
letter to Honorable Michael Doyle of July 24, 1996, which was entered 
into the Congressional Record on July 24, and certifies the fact that 
termination costs in the program would be considerably more than the 
continuation of the program.
  Moreover, the recoupment of cost by the Federal Government would be 
precluded, which would result in further lost revenue to the Federal 
Government of $125 million according to Director Lash's Department of 
Energy office.
  The reason for this is that, for example, with the AP-600, which is a 
Westinghouse reactor, the agreement requires that, upon the sale of the 
first reactor, they will have to repay the Department of Energy $25 
million, and $4 million for each reactor thereafter sold.
  The same thing is true with General Electric, which has already sold 
two reactors under this program to Taiwan for which there would be a 
required payment of $3 million for those reactors. That obligation 
would presumably be canceled.
  So, Mr. President, in order to make any nuclear demonstration, the 
McCain amendment would actually cost the Federal Government money 
without regard to whether or not you like the program. Whether you are 
antinuclear, or whatever, the fact of the matter is the Federal 
Government

[[Page S9039]]

would lose money under the McCain amendment. It is the fifth year of a 
5-year program, and it is very close to fruition. All of the money that 
has been spent on this program, most of it private, would be lost if 
the program is not finished.
  Why did the Congress see fit in 1992 to go into this program? Because 
the American nuclear program, from its inception I think, was not 
conceived in the way that it should have been in that each reactor 
which was built in America under this program was a one-of-a-kind 
reactor designed from the ground up as a separate reactor. Each had to 
be separately licensed. Each had to meet separate tests to determine 
whether design was sufficient.
  We found, after Three Mile Island, that many of these designs were 
lacking and had to be redesigned. During the construction of many of 
these reactors after Three Mile Island in the mid-70's, those were the 
days of very high interest rates. Interest rates were well over double 
digits at the time. You had to undo that which was done and start all 
over again. For that reason, those reactors are very high cost, some 
running between 5 cents and 10 cents a kilowatt hour, several times the 
amount for which electricity can be generated today.
  In order to remedy that situation, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
we, first of all, remember, did nuclear licensing to provide for what 
we call the generic design and the generic licensing of a new reactor, 
so that you would be able to go in and separate the construction 
license from the design license and be able to rely upon the fact that 
your design was a valid and safe design at the time you commissioned 
your reactor project. We amended the licensing act in order to do that.
  Also, as part of that, in tandem with that program, we entered into 
the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program, which was calculated to 
design a generic reactor so that each reactor of the time sought to be 
licensed would be the same reactor. Westinghouse has probably the lead 
design in this. It is called the AP-600. The AP-600 is unique for 
American reactors in two respects:
  First, it would be, as I say, generically designed and generically 
licensed so that when you go to buy an AP-600, wherever you are in the 
world, it would be the same AP-600. It would be largely manufactured at 
the factory so that you do not have to do everything out at the site, 
and each one will be the same.
  Second, Mr. President, and very importantly, it is what we call a 
passively safe reactor. It does not depend totally on pumps and sources 
of electricity and that sort of thing in order to provide coolant. So 
in case of a catastrophic failure, it is designed to have coolant which 
would automatically come down into the reactor and render it safe.
  Nuclear plants, as the Chair well knows, are designed to have many 
redundant safety features so that you have power lines coming in from 
two or three different places and generators on site so that in case 
one set of power lines goes out, another will be there. In the case of 
both of those or all three of those going out, then generators are 
designed to come on automatically.
  But the AP-600, the advanced light water reactor, is designed to be 
passively safe so that even if everything else fails, in effect the 
coolant water will automatically come down into the reactor vessel and 
render it safe in case of the most unimaginable catastrophic event.
  Now, Mr. President, we are very close to completing this program. The 
AP-600 was delayed not by the Department of Energy, not by Westinghouse 
but by the NRC in its licensing program which no one could control but 
the NRC. It is due to be finished in the next fiscal year, fiscal year 
1997, and the money provided in this bill will complete the job.
  The argument against this is apparently that no American utility at 
this point wants to buy one, and so therefore do not complete it and 
therefore we can be sure that no one is going to be able to buy one.
  The fact is it is unlikely that any American utility in the next few 
years will build a new nuclear plant, and that is because natural gas 
is relatively cheap. It is because the technology of natural gas 
turbines has advanced so far so fast that it is now the cheapest way to 
generate electricity, and I do not expect a big coal plant to be built 
and I do not expect big solar plants to be built as far as the eye can 
see. But I do expect additional natural gas plants to be built. And 
that is in this country.
  Mr. President, around the world, the situation is somewhat different. 
In China, for example, it has already commissioned some 6,000 megawatts 
of nuclear power. They really wanted American technology, and they have 
a very long and excellent relationship with Westinghouse, and I believe 
that the Chinese would purchase the AP-600. It will soon be licensed. 
It would be licensed in time for them to use the technology. But our 
Government prevents us from selling nuclear plants to China, this being 
an outgrowth of the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. We expect that 
agreement with respect to nuclear power will be in the not too distant 
future. At least I hope that we would have an agreement with China for 
the furnishing of nuclear technology. In fact, the 6,000 megawatts have 
been ordered from Russia, from France and from Canada, all of which 
have technology which is inferior to American technology and I think is 
far inferior to the newest technology, that is, the AP-600.
  The Chinese like the size of the AP-600--that is, 600 megawatts, a 
modular size. The Chinese have lots of dirty coal but virtually no 
natural gas and a huge population, a huge problem of So2, of global 
warming, of air pollution, and they believe that nuclear power is a 
very big part of their future, and that is why they have already 
commissioned some 6,000 megawatts. They have in future plans an 
additional, I believe it is, 11,000 megawatts for the first decade of 
the next century and a clear and strong commitment to nuclear power.
  I must say for those in this country who feel strongly about global 
warming--and I do--I submit that this is the best solution to the 
problem of global warming, clearly the best solution for the problem of 
air pollution. If the economics are right, clearly the environment so 
far as China is concerned, as well as other nations on the Pacific rim, 
this is an excellent solution. Other countries are moving ahead, 
particularly in the Pacific, with nuclear power including Japan and 
Taiwan, South Korea. Of course, North Korea will soon be getting a 
reactor built and designed principally by the South Koreans adopting 
the original Westinghouse technology.
  Mr. President, the point I am making is not that we are getting ready 
to sell a lot of these reactors in the United States. We are not. But 
on the Pacific rim they are moving forward; they have made the 
decision; they have made the commitments. And the question is, would 
you rather complete a 5-year program on which private industry has 
spent almost $500 million to complete and get the good out of it to 
build the most technologically proficient, the safest reactor in the 
world which would then be available for sale to these foreign countries 
or would you rather terminate the program and subject the Government to 
greater damages than it would cost to spend on the $22 million it takes 
to complete the program.

  No one has answered that overwhelming argument of why you would want 
to terminate a program that is so close to finishing when it cost more 
to terminate than it does to complete the program.
  One other thought. I believe the Federal Government needs to be true 
to its word and to its commitments just as individuals need to do that. 
And the reason is that if people are going to be encouraged and 
companies are going to be encouraged to do business with the Federal 
Government, to undertake research, to undertake the expenditure of 
large amounts of their own money, then they ought to have some 
assurance that the word of the Federal Government is good because to 
the extent that we terminate these projects--we terminated the SSC, we 
have terminated the other projects--then soon the reputation of the 
Federal Government will be such that no one will want to enter into the 
doing of business with it.
  In the home State of the occupant of the chair, they are now seeking 
to enter into large contracts with private firms in order to clean up 
the mess at Hanford, in order to vitrify the waste

[[Page S9040]]

there and be able to store it. It is a private undertaking. They are 
being encouraged to bid and to have a competition and to do business 
with the Federal Government.
  If we would adopt this amendment, it would make that kind of 
obligation and others like it less and less attractive to the private 
sector.
  I repeat, the most overwhelming and most unanswerable part of this 
argument is that it costs more to terminate than it does to finish this 
obligation of the Federal Government, and we ought therefore to do it. 
In addition to the fact that the Federal Government would lose the 
profit which it would get from the sale of these reactors in the future 
as well as those already sold to Taiwan, and that the Federal 
Government and our country would lose a great opportunity to do 
business in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know that Senator Bumpers wants to offer an amendment 
and he is going to be very generous in the agreement on time.
  I thank Senator Johnston for his argument, and I wish to indicate 
very openly and publicly that I support his position. I do not believe 
we ought to kill this program when it is about finished. We ought to 
let it complete its remaining 1 year.
  A couple things have not been said about the program. Obviously, the 
word subsidy is bantered around, but everyone should know that the 
advanced light water reactor program, first, is 90 percent complete.
  Second, there is $40 million in this entire appropriations bill to 
complete this project. When it is completed, that will complete a $713 
million advanced light water reactor program, of which $270 million is 
the DOE and, get this, $440 million is private industry funded. So for 
those who talk of a subsidy, we have $440 million coming from the 
private sector, $270 from DOE. This last $40 million will complete the 
work and wrap the program up and dismantle it. So the subsidy is there, 
but the ratio is pretty heavily in favor of the private sector putting 
the money in.
  I have looked at this. I understand what some of my colleagues are 
looking at. We are looking at this budget critically, but I am aware of 
the fact that we are not going to save any money by closing the program 
down now, and as a matter of fact we may throw away some real 
opportunities to have some really significant and new technology 
applied to nuclear reactors.
  Whether we think we want any more nuclear reactors or not is not the 
whole issue. American companies build nuclear reactors for the world, 
and we are the world's leader in that. We will continue as the leader 
and probably sell many of these types of reactors in the world market. 
To the extent that China chooses to use them, it is a very, very 
significantly appropriate environmental cleanup method, because if they 
do not use this, they use dirty coal, which they have in abundance. So, 
in a real sense we are being very, very irresponsible in closing down a 
program with 1 year left which has many qualities that will add to 
America's capability to employ our people and sell our products and at 
the same time help the world clean up some of the dirtiest environment 
around in some of the growing industrial areas of the world outside of 
our own country and Europe and the like.
  So, for those who wonder about frugality, I would be for cutting any 
program of $40 million I could take out of this bill, but this is not 
the one.
  Mr. President, opponents of the ALWR Program have argued with great 
indignation against continuation of what is called a corporate subsidy. 
It is only fair to note that U.S. electric utility companies and the 
ALWR contractors have contributed $3.50 for every $1.00 of DOE funds 
spent on the program.
  Most importantly, Mr. President, the ALWR Program is 90 percent 
complete. The modest funding contained in this bill is the last piece 
of Federal funding. It will complete the $713 million ALWR Program, of 
which almost $270 million is DOE funding the $444 million is private 
industry funding.
  Mr. President, may I assure my colleagues who are critical of the 
ALWR Program, that I am mindful of their point of view. And I would 
hope that their close examination of what the committee proposes to do 
in this bill will lead them to the conclusion which I myself have 
reached:
  That is, the ALWR Program funding in the bill is the best and most 
effective way to close out the program successfully and with the 
highest return to the taxpayer for the hundreds of millions of dollars 
already spent. Conversely, failure to close out the ALWR Program in the 
way the committee recommends creates a colossal waste of the money 
already spent.
  Mr. President, I believe prudence and thoughtfulness require support 
for the committee's position.


                     completion of the alwr program

  Starting in 1990--design certification--and in 1993--first of a kind 
engineering--the ALWR represents a joint commitment by government and 
industry to develop a new generation of standardized, advanced 
reactors, coupled with a one step NRC licensing process for such 
designs.
  In fulfilling the plan set out in the Energy Policy Act, both 
Congress and industry recognized that developing a new generation of 
reactors involved Government/regulatory risk as well as technological 
risk. While reactor manufacturers and the utility industry committed 
funds to develop the technology, the Government/regulatory risk with a 
new, untried licensing process was sufficiently significant to call on 
Government to share that risk and cost with the private sector.
  The innovative, passively safe systems involved in this new 
generation of reactors are recognized as a world class development. As 
an example, 20 nations are involved in the AP600 program and extensive 
testing programs both in the United States and abroad have demonstrated 
that the passive safety systems will work as predicted by the design 
codes.
  Congress directed that the program should be cost shared, with 
payback to the Federal Government from royalties on the sale of plants. 
To date $713 million has been invested in the program, of which $444 
million--62 percent--has come from private industry. In addition, $125 
million of the DOE funding will be repaid as royalties on the sale of 
plants.
  The program is 90 percent complete and will be completed with the 
modest funding provided by the $40 million DOE fiscal year 1997 
request. At the end of the design certification and first-of-a-kind 
engineering programs for the AP600, three new standardized American 
reactor designs will be ready for the market. This accomplishment will 
represent the only recent, successful completion of a major new energy 
design project to meet America's and the world's future energy needs. 
This could not have been accomplished without the shared commitment of 
government and the private sector to the Advanced Light Water Reactor 
Program.
  Failure to provide the final year of funding and abandoning DOE's 
role before completing the final year would result in the complete loss 
of the $713 million investment to date. The end goal of final design 
approval and design certification by the NRC would not be realized and 
the investment and years of effort wasted. Failure to complete would 
also be a clear signal that the United States no longer seeks to lead 
the world in developing standardized passively safe reactor designs for 
world wide application.
  I ask unanimous consent some material, a list of seven common myths, 
and a letter from the chairman of the advanced reactor corp. be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


        investments--through september 1996--total alwr program

       Design certification: DOE--$188 million; Industry--$305.7 
     million.
       Foake: DOE--$81.3 million; Industry--$138.4 million.
       Total program: DOE--$269.3 million; Industry--$444.1 
     million.
       TOTAL--$713.4 million.
       DOE--37.7 percent.
       Industry--62.3 percent.
                                                                    ____


   Seven Common Myths Regarding the DOE Advanced Light Water Reactor 
                                Program

         (Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, July 1996)

       Myth 1.--The Program's Authorization under the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 ends in FY 1996

[[Page S9041]]

       Reality: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) limits the 
     First-of-a-Kind Engineering (FOAKE) program to five years, 
     states that no entity shall receive assistance for a period 
     greater than 4 years, and limits total program funding to 
     $100 million. The EPACT became law in fiscal year 1993. 
     Therefore, the five year limit will not be reached until FY 
     1998 and the four year ``assistance'' limit will not be 
     reached until FY 1997. The Department is full authorized 
     under the EPACT to apply funds to the FOAKE program in FY 
     1997.
       Further, the Department has spent only about $82 million on 
     this program since it began in 1992. There have been 
     significant increases in program cost, but these have been 
     absorbed by industry. In any event, the Department is also 
     fully authorized by the Atomic Energy Act to conduct nuclear 
     energy research and development programs and the EPACT does 
     not limit this authority.
       Myth 2.--The FOAKE Program was to end in 1996 because the 
     EPACT mandated that any nuclear designs developed in the 
     program should receive certification in 1996
       Reality: In 1992, the Department expected that both of the 
     designs included in the FOAKE program--the Advanced Boiling 
     Water Reactor (ABWR) and the AP600--could be developed on 
     schedules which would have achieved NRC certifications by the 
     end of FY 1996. While the program was designed to lead to 
     certification in FY 1996, the Department had no control over 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's certification process, 
     which involved far more review and testing than the 
     Commission anticipated in 1992 (most of the delays are 
     associated with extra testing required to verify the 
     performance of advanced safety systems). As a result of these 
     delays, the Department expects certification of the ABWR by 
     late FY 1996 and of the AP600 by FY 1998. The EPACT does not 
     limit the Department's authority to conduct the program, but 
     merely guided DOE's selection of technologies to assure that 
     only near-term technologies would be included in the program.
       Myth 3.--The EPACT Prohibits the industry from seeking 
     export markets for ALWRs developed in the FOAKE program
       Reality: The EPACT places no restrictions on U.S. 
     industry's ability to compete in the international market. 
     Further, the fact that U.S. vendors participating in the 
     program are seeking overseas contracts to build ALWRs does 
     not suggest that ALWRs will not be built in the U.S. In fact, 
     since the market for new nuclear plants in the United States 
     is not expected to materialize for another ten years, it is 
     imperative that U.S. vendors win overseas orders if the U.S. 
     capability to build new plants is to be preserved.
       Myth 4.--The ALWR Program is Corporate Welfare
       Reality: The Department's program is designed to apply a 
     very limited allocation of federal funds to encourage U.S. 
     industry to pursue R&D that is in the interest of the United 
     States. The preservation of the nuclear energy option is 
     vital to the future of energy diversity in this country. It 
     is clear that the market in the United States for ALWRs will 
     not materialize for at least another ten years. In this 
     environment, U.S. industry could be forced to abandon the 
     nuclear power plant market to heavily subsidized foreign 
     industrial concerns. The future ability of U.S. industry to 
     build new plants in this country could be lost.
       To prevent this from occurring, the Department conduct a 
     very modest program--the last commercial nuclear energy 
     program conducted by the federal government--to work with 
     industry to maintain the nuclear option for the next century. 
     Since the ALWR program began in 1986, the Department has 
     conducted $800 million in program activities with a taxpayer 
     investment of only $300 million over ten years.
       Moreover, the Department receives reimbursements when 
     technology developed by the FOAKE program is sold. For 
     example, the federal government will receive approximately $3 
     million from General Electric as a result of its sale of 
     ABWRs to Taiwan (which, unlike the plants GE previously sold 
     to Japan, are based on technology developed by DOE's 
     program).
       Myth 5.--There is no U.S. utility interest in building new 
     ALWRs
       Reality: The fact that the electric utility industry has 
     provided hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct ALWR 
     activities indicates that utility executives remain 
     interested in the nuclear option. For obvious reason, no 
     utility that is interested in placing ALWR orders in the 
     future would be likely to indicate that interest publicly. 
     However, recent discussions between DOE officials and 
     electric utility chief executives have clearly indicated that 
     U.S. utilities continue to see the nuclear option as viable. 
     While the U.S. market for ALWRs is not expected to 
     materialize for another decade, these utilities seek the 
     Department's program as a critical step to assure that next-
     generation nuclear plant designs are available if they are 
     needed.
       Much has been said in recent months about a Washington 
     International Energy Group survey of utility executives that 
     indicates that 89% of utility CEOs would not consider 
     ordering any new nuclear power plants. It is important to 
     note that this survey received responses from only 397 of 
     nearly 3600 U.S. electric utilities--and it is not clear that 
     the respondents include the 44 utilities that currently own 
     and operate nuclear power plants. The Department does not 
     believe that this survey provides an accurate view of 
     utility interest in new nuclear plants.
       Myth 6: DOE is paying Nuclear Regulatory Commission fees 
     that should be paid by industry.
       Reality: No taxpayer dollars have been used to pay NRC 
     fees. It is true, however, that NRC's increased review and 
     testing requirements forced the program to perform additional 
     technical work. While most of the extra work was funded by 
     industry, part of the added cost was supported by the DOE 
     ALWR program. The additional technical work represented an 
     expansion in the work scope for the program, but is clearly 
     the type of expenditure anticipated by the EPACT.
       Myth 7: General Electric terminated its Simplified Boiling 
     Water Reactor (SBWR) activities because there is no market 
     for small plants. Similarly, there is no market for the 
     Westinghouse-designed AP600.
       Reality: While it is true that GE terminated its mid-sized 
     SBWR project, it must be recognized that GE's market strategy 
     is very focused on the east Asian market-particularly Japan. 
     In many of these countries, land is a scarce resource and 
     there is considerable incentive to build large plants with 
     high power capacity. Other potential markets are less 
     concerned with space and more interested in factors such as 
     lower capital cost and lower complexity--attributes natural 
     to mid-sized plants. These attributes are very attractive to 
     U.S. utilities and others as well--currently 22 countries 
     contribute funds and personnel to the AP600 program. The 
     Department believes that this represents a significant 
     international interest in advanced mid-sized nuclear power 
     plants with passive safety systems.
                                                                    ____



                                       Advanced Reactor Corp.,

                                                    June 28, 1996.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Abercrombie: On behalf of the member 
     utilities of the Advanced Reactor Corporation, we urge you to 
     support $40 million for research and development on Advanced 
     Light Water Reactors (ALWR) in the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. The 
     ALWR Program has an excellent record of achievement and is 
     nearing accomplishment of its goal to open the option for 
     future nuclear power electricity generation, as endorsed by 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
       The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted final design 
     approval for the evolutionary ALWR designs and formal design 
     certifications on both are awaiting formal resolution of NRC 
     regulatory process issues. The first-of-a-kind engineering 
     (FOAKE) portion of the ALWR program for the GE evolutionary 
     advanced boiling water reactor will be essentially completed 
     by certification and FOAKE for the new, midsize, passively-
     safe, pressurized water ALWR, the Westinghouse AP600.
       The ALWR program is a sound investment continuing to build 
     on the energy security and environmental benefits provided by 
     current plants. Risk sharing of the investment and commercial 
     interest are carefully balanced with industry paying about 62 
     percent of the total costs, coupled with subsequent pay-back 
     provisions. For example, Westinghouse will pay back $25 
     million of the Energy Department's contribution for design 
     certification as a royalty on the sale of the first AP600. 
     Additionally, all of the funds provided for FOAKE by both the 
     utilities and the Energy Department will be paid back to each 
     as royalties on sales of the AP600 by Westinghouse and by 
     General Electric on sales of its Advanced Boiling Water 
     Reactor.
       Our companies entered the government partnership for the 
     FOAKE portion of the ALWR program in February 1992. Later 
     that year, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
     which reaffirmed the nation's commitment to nuclear power and 
     to cost-shared energy research and development. At that time, 
     Congress recognized the time, costs, and risks associated 
     with the process of developing and certifying new reactor 
     designs. Congress has proceeded with this timely program, 
     sharing those costs and risks so that new reactor designs 
     will be a safe, cost-competitive option for future baseload 
     electricity needs.
       Clearly, America has benefited from the nation's investment 
     to date in nuclear energy technologies with about 20 percent 
     of our electricity coming from pollution-free nuclear power 
     plants.
       Although there is not an immediate need for new baseload 
     electricity in the United States, energy forecasts predict a 
     28 percent growth in demand by 2010. To meet this need, our 
     companies believe they must have the option to consider 
     standardized, NRC-approved nuclear plants as a part of a 
     balanced mix of power generation facilities. To obtain that 
     option, ARC member utilities are investing in the industry-
     government program to develop advanced light water nuclear 
     plants. No other type of nuclear plant for commercial 
     generation of electricity will be available in the U.S. 
     within our planning horizon. With this technology, we will 
     continue to lead the world and set high standards for safe 
     and reliable commercial nuclear power.

[[Page S9042]]

       We urge congress to continue its commitment for this vital 
     national energy investment by appropriating a supporting 
     government share of $40 million in FY97.
           Sincerely,
                                                James J. O'Connor,
                                  Chairman, Advanced Reactor Corp.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope we will not agree with Senator 
McCain when we vote tomorrow. If the unanimous consent agreement is 
complied with, it will be the first amendment up tomorrow. So we will 
remind you that is the first amendment tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is advised the 
yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry. They were not ordered because we did not 
have a sufficient second, but we assured Senator McCain we would 
cooperate with him getting the requisite yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 5096

 (Purpose: To reduce funding for the weapons activities account to the 
                 level requested by the Administration)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The two pending amendments will be set aside 
by unanimous consent. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 5096.

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

       On page 23, line 8, reduce the amount by $286,600,000.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent we 
limit this amendment to 15 minutes with the time equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I wholeheartedly agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which could get 
terribly complex. It involves a segment of the energy and water bill 
that is immensely complex. It is called ``Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities.'' Within that there is an account called ``Weapons 
Activities.''
  This bill contains $3.978 billion, almost $4 billion, for weapons 
activities. That is too much.
  Let me say by digression, there are not two people in the Senate for 
whom I have a greater respect and admiration and personal friendship 
than the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, Senators 
Domenici and Johnston. But I feel obligated to raise this issue and get 
the debate going on how much money we are putting into this weapons 
activities account. Mr. President, the Senate bill proposes to provide 
roughly $269 million more than the President's request and $300 million 
above the House level.
  The Senate bill's proposed funding level is actually $531 million 
above the amount provided in fiscal year 1996, a 14-percent increase. 
That is just entirely too much.
  I had a very good, lengthy letter from Senator Domenici pointing out 
that one of the reasons for this increase is that DOE had some 
carryover money in prior years that we are spending in 1996. However, 
that only accounts for a portion of the 14-percent increase. My 
amendment takes the carryover funds into account and proposes to reduce 
the weapons activities account by only $269 million, which is the 
difference between the amount provided in the Senate bill and the 
administration's request.
  The Senator makes what I know he considers to be plausible arguments, 
and I am not in a very good position to dispute some of the technical 
arguments made about why it was necessary to put all this extra money 
into this account. But any time you are offering a 14-percent increase 
in any kind of a budget in this day and time, with the budget 
constraints we are under, it ought to get every single Senator's 
attention.
  The OMB Acting Director, Mr. Lew, sent each Member of the Senate a 
letter outlining the administration's concerns about the Senate bill 
being $531 million above 1996 spending levels. And well he should be 
concerned. He is concerned because we are putting another $531 million 
into weapons activities, and the Department of Energy is suffering 
mightily from cuts in civilian energy and research programs.
  The Appropriations Committee report outlines the add-ons to the 
weapons activities programs. If you look over those add-ons, I am not 
sure exactly what they do, but there is one thing I do know. About $90 
million is not authorized.
  For example, there is an $80 million add-on for stockpile stewardship 
and $50 million of that is not authorized. What are we doing 
appropriating money that has not been authorized?
  There is an add-on for $40 million for the accelerated strategic 
computing initiative--a mighty fancy name and I am not sure what all it 
does. But it is not authorized. The request already proposes $120.6 
million for the program--a 43-percent increase from fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. President, I only have 7\1/2\ minutes on my time. I am not going 
to pursue this any further. I would just like to make a comment. I was 
speaking to 400 of the brightest kids in Arkansas at what is called 
Governor's School Saturday and about 800 parents. Politicians do not 
get a chance to talk to 1,200 people very often. I was trying to figure 
out what I could say to those youngsters that my father used to say to 
me about the nobility of being in politics and public service. Not too 
many people believe that anymore, including an awful lot of people in 
this Chamber. They do not think it is such a hot profession anymore, 
either, including the 15 colleagues that are leaving this body.
  But I tried to leave them on an upbeat note. I told them there were 
no problems in this country that were insurmountable. Indeed, if it 
weren't for the way we misspend money, I promise you we could have a 
balanced budget with a $100 billion surplus in 1997.
  When I talk about how we misspend our money, you bear in mind that 
this year, this fall, September 1, we will have for the third 
consecutive year less food carryover in our grain bins than we have 
ever had. The third straight year that our foodstuff carryover is going 
to be down, and in 1995, for the first time in 50 years, yields of 
foodstuff such as wheat, corn, rice, and so on, did not go up.
  So how are we dealing with that? We are putting $1.2 billion into 
agriculture research this year, 1996; $1.2 billion. What are we giving 
the Defense Department for research on things that will explode and 
kill people? Mr. President, $35 billion, almost 35 times more than what 
we are putting into agriculture research to feed our people and help 
feed the world, indeed.
  Mr. President, $14 billion is going to NASA, $2 billion of which will 
be for the space station, and nobody has ever explained why we are 
putting money in the space station.
  And $12 billion for medical research, which everybody heartily agrees 
with. Incidentally, one of my staff members, Tracy Alderson, is leaving 
my office to pursue a medical degree and hopefully advance the cause of 
medical research in the future.
  When you put it like that, there are very few people in America who 
would agree with those priorities. So while the $531 million increase 
in weapons development doesn't mean much around here in a $1.7 trillion 
budget, it ``ain't'' beanbag either. What it would do in medical 
research, what it would do in educating people, what it would do in 
providing more health care--and think about this--think what it would 
do in reducing the deficit, $531 million.
  Mr. President, my amendment does not even propose to eliminate the 
entire $531 million increase. Rather, I am only trying to get us back 
to what the President requested, which is a 7-percent increase in this 
account.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when we took testimony from Mr. Vic 
Reis, who is the Defense Department liaison with these programs, we 
established the basic proposition with him in the

[[Page S9043]]

record during his testimony, that the entire stockpile stewardship 
program, with all of the things we would have to add to it, to the 
previous programs and the maintenance of certain facilities that we 
hold in a contingency posture, should be about $4 billion.
  Having established that, we went through the budget and determined 
that the executive budget was only $3.7 billion. They were $300 million 
short of what Mr. Vic Reis, the leading expert in the Department of 
Energy for the DOD stockpile stewardship program, said.
  If one notices, the difference between $3.7 billion and $4 billion is 
very, very close to the $269 million that my good friend from Arkansas 
is seeking to take out of this bill. It doesn't quite get to the $4 
billion mark with $3.7 billion, but it gets close.
  The President's budget request said the following:

       Defense program 5-year budget projections contained in the 
     national security 5-year budget plan for 1996 through 2000 
     indicate that the stockpile stewardship and management 
     programs will require increased funding for a period of 
     several years after FY 1996. This baseline--

  That is starting point--

     has been modified to reflect fiscal year 1997 programs and 
     budget decisions, but the outlook is much the same. Near-term 
     investment must be increased to develop the new and 
     appropriately sized effective complex and to develop the new 
     tools required to maintain confidence in the safety, security 
     and reliability of the stockpile in the absence of 
     underground testing.

  From a base of about $3.6 billion in 1996, the annual total may reach 
$4 billion by the year 1998. In August of 1995, President Clinton 
announced the United States would pursue a zero yield comprehensive 
test ban treaty as a condition. The President outlined a series of 
conditions under which the United States could enter this comprehensive 
test ban treaty.
  The first condition was the implementation of a stockpile stewardship 
program. In January 1996, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the START 
II Treaty. The ratification text committed the United States to, one, a 
robust stockpile stewardship program; two, maintain sufficient 
production capabilities; three, maintain the national laboratories and 
the core competencies within them; four, maintain the Nevada test site 
in case the President determines a case of supreme national interest 
necessitated an underground test.
  Where the increases go: $82.5 million of the $269 million that 
Senator Bumpers is referring to for the stockpile stewardship program 
will be spent on the following: $20 million is for enhanced 
surveillance to monitor the aging of weapons. That is perilously 
important. We must develop new techniques to monitor the aging of these 
weapons, some of which are 30 years old, and they contain hydrogen and 
nuclear blast capabilities and they must be safe, they must be 
trustworthy, and they must be maintained.
  Of that $82.5 million, $40 million is for advanced scientific 
computing programs. Incidentally, the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas questions that program. Last Friday, the President announced 
that these funds would be used by IBM to build a computer 300 times 
faster than existing computers to model the inside of nuclear weapons. 
The computer will be installed at Lawrence Livermore in California. I 
am certain that within the confines of the money here for this area of 
endeavor that there will be some other major advanced scientific 
computing programs announced.
  Mr. President, $10 million is for software for these new 
supercomputers, and $10 million is for advanced manufacturing 
techniques.
  The second item that he would strike is $171 million from stockpile 
management, of which $100 million is to upgrade production plants in 
Texas, South Carolina, and Missouri. This money will ensure the plants 
will be able to remanufacture weapons as needed. This is also a 
condition that I understand those in charge of our national defense 
insist upon if we are going to abide by the ``no additional underground 
nuclear testing'' position. Fifteen million dollars of that $171 
million is to enhance surveillance activities at plants to assess the 
reliability and safety of the weapons stockpile.
  Fifty million dollars is for new tritium sources so that the total 
amount of $150 million may be provided.
  Mr. President, having worked on this bill for a long time, I am 
concerned that we provide adequate defense money to the Department of 
Energy so they can do their job, for there are many who would like to 
accuse it of not doing its job but are not considerate of the money 
needed for the defense work.
  We believe we are moving rapidly in the direction recommended by the 
President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff with reference to the science-
based program for stockpile safety and maintenance. We think these 
items are absolutely essential to get us there and keep us there for 
the next few years as we see whether or not we can actually accomplish 
this without underground testing.
  If I have any additional time, I yield it back. I ask Senator 
Johnston, do you want to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield whatever time I have remaining to Senator 
Johnston.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I simply rise in support of the position of the Senator 
from New Mexico. I was here several years ago speaking in favor of the 
continuation of the testing program, because I thought it was important 
for both reliability and safety.
  The Senate saw fit to do away with that testing program. The 
justification was that there were other ways with this stockpile safety 
program to achieve the same ends. That is why we have funded the 
program as we have. That is to achieve those same ends for reliability 
and safety of our nuclear deterrent. I think it would be a great 
mistake to cut that funding.


                           Amendment No. 5097

 (Purpose: To ensure adequate funding for the Biomass Power for Rural 
                          Development Program)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I have been requested by the Senator 
from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], to offer an amendment on his behalf. I 
will shortly send that to the desk. Let me state what it does. I am 
sorry that I will not be able to support the amendment. In fact, I will 
oppose the amendment. But nevertheless, as a courtesy to my colleague, 
I will offer it.
  What it would do is to take four-tenths of 1 percent of each program 
in R&D, energy supply, and put that into a program called Biomass Power 
for Rural Development. The money now available, some $55 million, in 
biomass fuels in the bill, part of that could be used for the purposes 
for which the Senator from Minnesota would like it used, that is, the 
Niagara Mohawk power project, involving short rotation willows, which 
would be grown and harvested every 3 years, and also another project 
involving alfalfa stems. The alfalfa stem program would be a total of a 
$232 million project, where the DOE cost share would be 20 percent of 
that, or approximately $46 million.
  Mr. President, it seems to me we should not get into one of these 
projects unless it can pass muster against the other programs. These 
would be available to be funded under the program--Mr. President, I 
just misspoke. I said $55 million would be available for the program. 
Actually, only a part, $27 million, would be available for biomass 
electric program.
  All of these projects ought to compete for that $27 million. We 
should not come in and, in effect, specify by limiting it to the 
Biomass Power for Rural Development Program, which is a very narrowly 
defined program. We should have all of these projects compete for the 
amounts available.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] for Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes amendment numbered 5097.

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

       On page 19, line 4, strike ``expended.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``expended; Provided, That funds appropriated for 
     energy supply, research and development activities shall be 
     reduced by four-tenths of one percent from each program and 
     that the amount of the reduction shall be available for the 
     biomass power for rural development program.''

[[Page S9044]]

                           Amendment No. 5096

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on Senator 
Bumper's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second for the yeas and 
nays on the Bumpers amendment? There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I might move to table. Let us get 
that done. I move to table the Bumpers amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is an amendment in order now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An amendment is in order if unanimous consent 
is granted to set aside the pending amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside so Senator Kyl can offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5098

(Purpose: To reduce by $13,402,300 funding of the Lower Colorado River 
                        Basin Development Fund)

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5098.

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

       On page 14, line 1, strike ``$410,499,000'' and insert 
     ``397,096,700''.
       On page 14, line 5, strike ``$71,728,000'' and insert 
     ``$58,325,700''.
       On page 14, line 14, before the colon insert ``: Provided 
     further, the amounts allocated by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House in accordance with sections 
     602(a) and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and 
     pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1997 shall be adjusted downward by $13,402,300 
     and the revised levels of budget authority and outlays shall 
     be submitted to each House by the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget of that House and shall be printed in the 
     Congressional Record''.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment may sound a little strange at 
first because it actually reduces funding for an Arizona project, but 
this is important to do.
  Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the 
central Arizona project (CAP) by $13,402,300. The amendment would bring 
the bill's fiscal year 1997 appropriation for CAP to $58,325,700. That 
would represent a cut of about 19 percent in this project, and about a 
3.2-percent reduction from the total Bureau of Reclamation construction 
budget.
  Mr. President, I want to begin by commending the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senator Pete Domenici, 
for his work on this bill and for his unwavering support of the CAP, a 
project that provides central and southern Arizona with its lifeblood--
water.
  The amendment I am offering today is the result of information 
received since the subcommittee took action on the energy and water 
bill a few weeks ago. Had the chairman been aware of the information at 
that time, I believe the funding levels in the bill would have been 
adjusted accordingly. In any event, it is appropriate that we adjust 
the figures now to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of hard-earned 
tax dollars.
  The House of Representatives has already approved a similar 
amendment, which was offered with the unanimous support of Arizona's 
House delegation, during floor action in that body on July 24. My 
amendment differs somewhat from the House measure because of a 
difference of opinion between the Bureau and staff about how certain 
funds are accounted for. Although my amendment uses the more 
conservative numbers provided by the Bureau, the savings could rise 
depending upon how that dispute is resolved. If more could be saved, I 
would hope the conference committee would adopt that higher amount of 
savings.

  Mr. President, I want to give credit to the Central Arizona Water 
Conservation District, the local sponsor of the CAP, for helping to 
identify savings that could be achieved, and I want to specifically 
list those savings here:
  Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: Siphon repairs, $1,616,000;
  Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: Other repairs, $1,509,000;
  Modified Roosevelt Dam: Noncontract costs, $214,000;
  Other project costs: Water allocations--noncontract costs, $500,000;
  OPC O&M during construction, $350,000;
  Curation facilities, $400,000;
  Native fish protection, $2,775,000;
  Native fish protection--noncontract costs, $332,000;
  Environmental Enhancement: Major contracts, $1,100,000
  Noncontract costs, $801,300;
  New Waddell Dam: New recreation enhancement contracts, $1,550,000; 
and
  Noncontract costs, $2,255,000.
  Total reduction in fiscal year 1997 CAP budget--$13,402,300.
  Included in these reductions, for example, is $1.5 million that was 
in the Bureau's budget request for Reach 11 dike repairs. But our 
information is that the Bureau has already completed such repairs and 
has no need for more money related to those repairs.
  Another $1.6 million relates to repair and replacement of siphons, 
but the Bureau has refused to complete the remaining siphon repairs.
  I want to make clear that nothing in my amendment is intended to 
hamper work on Indian distribution systems. Funding for work related to 
this activity is contained in a separate line item within the CAP 
budget that is left untouched by the amendment. I fully intend that 
these projects go forward as we have promised. Any effort by the Bureau 
to reprogram moneys set aside for such contracts would require the 
approval of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy 
and Water Development. Such approval is highly unlikely.
  If there are any activities that are adversely affected and 
proponents can justify why they should legitimately be supported 
through the CAP budget, I know the Arizona delegation would be glad to 
revisit the issue next year. Until then, however, I believe it is 
appropriate for the Senate to accept the savings being proposed today.
  Mr. President, we have a unique opportunity today to save taxpayers 
some money without harming ongoing activities that are vital to the 
CAP. I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to first reassure the Senator 
from Arizona that I have not in any way diminished my support for the 
project he alluded here today, the great Arizona water project. I am 
totally in favor of it and have been a part of funding it for as long 
as I have been here, and, as chairman, I remain committed.
  I thank the Senator for reducing the costs this year. He has found a 
way to save some money. I gather the amount is about $13.4 million that 
he thinks we can save. The Senator proposes to save that and still keep 
the project on course. Is that not correct, Senator Kyl?
  Mr. KYL. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator, in behalf of the people of his State, is 
fully aware this project is fully funded in this bill, and he is going 
to leave it fully funded in the best interests of his State. I give my 
commitment to keep that going in that manner.


                Amendment No. 5099 to Amendment No. 5098

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having said that, the amendment has a 
provision in it with reference to what the money can be used for that 
is saved, and I have a second-degree amendment that I will offer which 
makes that no longer subject to a point of order, because it directs 
where the money must be spent. I provide a number of amendments that I 
have agreed to with other Senators to clean up this bill. These will 
all be offered as second-degree amendments to the Kyl amendment.
  I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask for immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Johnston, proposes an amendment numbered 5099 to 
     amendment No. 5098.


[[Page S9045]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. This is offered not only in my behalf, but the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Johnston, is a cosponsor of this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has to have unanimous consent for 
dispensing of the reading.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In amendment No. 5098, strike lines 3 through 9 and inset 
     in lieu thereof:
       On page 19, line 3, strike ``2,749,043,000,'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``2,764,043,000,'' and on page 20, line 9, 
     strike ``220,200,000 and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``205,200,000.''
       Insert where appropriate: ``Technology Development for the 
     Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.--
     Within available funds, up to $2,000,000 is provided for 
     demonstration of stir-melter technology developed by the 
     Department and previously intended to be used at the Savannah 
     River site. In carrying out this demonstration, the 
     Department is directed to seek alternative use of this 
     technology in order to maximize the investment already made 
     in this technology.''
       Insert where appropriate: ``Maintenance of Security at 
     Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--Section 161k. of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201k.) is amended by striking 
     `subsection;' and inserting the following: `subsection. With 
     respect to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky, and 
     the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio, the guidelines 
     shall require, at a minimum, the presence of an adequate 
     number of security guards carrying sidearms at all times to 
     ensure maintenance of security at the gaseous diffusion 
     plants;'.''
       Insert where appropriate: ``Technical Correction to the 
     USEC Privatization Act.--Section 3110(b) of the USEC 
     Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134, title III, chapter 1, 
     subchapter A) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) The Corporation shall pay to the Thrift Savings Fund 
     such employee and agency contributions as are required or 
     authorized by sections 8432 and 8351 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for employees who elect to retain their coverage 
     under CSRS or FERS pursuant to paragraph (1).''
       Insert where appropriate: ``Provided, That funds made 
     available by this Act for departmental administration may be 
     used by the Secretary of Energy to offer employees voluntary 
     separation incentives to meet staffing and budgetary 
     reductions and restructuring needs through September 30, 1997 
     consistent with plans approved by the Office of Management 
     and Budget. The amount of each incentive shall be equal to 
     the smaller of the employee's severance pay, or $20,000. 
     Voluntary separation recipients who accept employment with 
     the Federal Government, or enter into a personnel services 
     contract with the Federal Government within 5 years after 
     separation shall repay the entire amount to the Department of 
     Energy.''
       On page 2, between lines 24 and 25, insert the following: 
     ``Tahoe Basin Study, Nevada and California, $200,000; Walker 
     River Basin restoration study, Nevada and California, 
     $300,000;''
       On page 3, line 20, strike ``construction costs for 
     Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas, and''.
       On page 13, line 21, after ``expended'' insert ``: Provided 
     further, That within available funds, $150,000 is for 
     completion of the feasibility study of alternatives for 
     meeting the drinking water needs of Cheyenne River Sioux 
     Reservation and surrounding communities''.
       On page 7, line 19, add the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army is 
     directed to use $600,000 of funding provided herein to 
     perform maintenance dredging of the Cocheco River navigation 
     project, New Hampshire.''
       On page 5, after line 2, insert the following: ``Mill 
     Creek, Ohio, $500,000;''.
       On page 5, line 8, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``8,000,000''.
       On page 23, line 22, strike ``$5,615,210,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,605,210,000''; and on page 23, line 8, strike 
     ``$3,978,602,000'' and insert ``$3,988,602,000''.
       On page 14, on line 12, after ``amended'' insert 
     ``$12,500,000 shall be available for the Mid-Dakota Rural 
     Water System''.
       On page 6, line 24, strike ``$1,700,358,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,688,358,000''.
       On page 3, line 15, strike ``$1,024,195,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,049,306,000''.
       On page 5, line 25, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to 
     initiate construction on the following projects in the 
     amounts specified:
       ``Kake Harbor, Alaska, $4,000,000;
       ``Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas, $150,000;
       ``San Lorenzo, California, $200,000;
       ``Panama City Beaches, Florida, $400,000;
       ``Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, $1,300,000;
       ``Pond Creek, Jefferson City, Kentucky, $3,000,000;
       ``Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, $500,000;
       ``Poplar Island, Maryland, $5,000,000;
       ``Natchez Bluff, Mississippi, $5,000,000;
       ``Wood River, Grand Isle, Nebraska, $1,000,000;
       ``Duck Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio, $466,000;
       ``Saw Mill River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $500,000;
       ``Upper Jordan River, Utah, $1,100,000;
       ``San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico, $800,000; and
       ``Allendale Dam, Rhode Island, $195,000: Provided further, 
     That no fully allocated funding policy shall apply to 
     construction of the projects listed above, and the Secretary 
     of the Army is directed to undertake these projects using 
     continuing contracts where sufficient funds to complete the 
     projects are not available from funds provided herein or in 
     prior years.''
       On page 14, line 1, strike ``$410,499,000'' and insert 
     ``$398,596,700''.
       On page 15, line 13, insert the following before the 
     period: ``: Provided further, That $1,500,000 shall be 
     available for construction of McCall Wastewater Treatment, 
     Idaho facility, and $1,000,000 shall be available for Devils 
     Lake Desalination, North Dakota Project''.
       On page 29, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:


                        ``salaries and expenses

       ``For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     United States member of the Delaware River Basin Commission, 
     as authorized by law (75 Stat. 716), $342,000.''
       On page 33, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:


                        ``salaries and expenses

       ``For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     United States member of the Susquehanna River Basin 
     Commission as authorized by law (84 Stat. 1541), $322,000.''
       On page 17, line 19, strike ``$48,971,000'' and insert 
     ``$48,307,000''.
       On page 7, line 19, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That $750,000 is for the Buford-Trenton 
     Irrigation District, Section 33, erosion control project in 
     North Dakota''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Johnston be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator has a schedule 
problem. I indicate we ought to adopt the amendment, and then I will 
brief the Senate on what is in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment sent to the desk by the Senator 
from New Mexico is not a formal second-degree amendment to the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the second-
degree amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5099) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this 
legislation for working with me to protect our country's renewable 
energy programs. The amendment I offered, along with Senators Roth, 
Leahy, Murkowski, Chafee, Bumpers, Daschle, Kohl, and Conrad, will 
essentially maintain fiscal year 1996 spending levels for most solar, 
wind, biomass, and other renewable energy programs. The amendment 
restores $23 million to these accounts, preserving our nation's main 
efforts to attain energy independence.
  Mr. President, the United States imports in excess of 50 percent of 
the oil we use to power our homes, automobiles, and workplaces. Our 
dependence on this foreign oil continues to be a risk to our national 
security and is running up our trade deficit. Despite this fact, we 
continue to reduce funding for the few programs which lead us down the 
path of energy independence. In the legislation we are debating today, 
funding for solar, wind, biomass, and renewable energy programs is cut 
by almost 30 percent and a number of important programs are eliminated 
completely.
  I am very aware of the constraints the managers of this legislation 
have had with this bill and I commend them

[[Page S9046]]

for their efforts. However, I feel strongly that this Nation and this 
congress should continue to support investment in renewable 
technologies. The cost of wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal, and 
biomass have dropped more than ten fold over the last 15 years. Wind 
energy, which has been cut 50 percent from last year's levels in this 
bill, has developed into the major alternative energy contributor. Over 
5,000 megawatts of wind energy electricity has been installed to date--
or energy equal to five nuclear power plants.
  Due to cost-shared research and development on materials, turbine 
blade design, and manufacturing, the U.S. wind industry leads the world 
in the lowest-cost and most efficient wind generators. The combined 
research and development budget of the European Community equals $130 
million. This legislation provides the entire research and development 
funding for our renewable efforts, which is only while this bill 
provides only $15 million. Clearly this is inequitable and does not 
provide a sufficient threshold to continue the basic research and cost-
shared applied research necessary to maintain the lead in both the 
domestic and global markets. The amendment I am offering will provide 
$31.5 million for wind programs, $1 million lower than fiscal year 1996 
levels.
  Our Nation should be proud of its lead in developing advanced wind 
energy systems. My State of Vermont certainly takes pride in its 
growing wind industry. One of our utilities, Green Mountain Power, has 
been a national wind energy leader, and is currently constructing a 6 
megawatt project that will utilize eleven 550 kilowatt turbines 
manufactured by Zond Systems of California. The Zond turbine has been 
participating in cost-shared development with the U.S. Department of 
Energy and the National Wind Technology Center at NREL. Green Mountain 
Power's Vice President, Norm Terreri, is now serving as president of 
the American Wind Energy Association.
  Vermont is also home to NRG Systems, of Hinesburg, VT, one of the 
world's leading high technology manufacturers of wind measuring devices 
and a company that has made export sales in over 50 countries. Atlantic 
Orient, of Norwich, VT, has manufactured a 50-kilowatt wind turbine in 
cooperation with the Department of Energy that has become one of the 
most popular turbines for wind-diesel hybrid locations for remote 
locations such as Alaska and the Canadian Arctic. The New World Power 
Technology Company of Waitsfield, VT, is a leading manufacturer of 
wind-PV village power systems.
  Wind companies around the country, like those in Vermont, look to the 
Federal Government for support in this new, booming market. We cannot 
let these companies fall behind their European or Asian competitors as 
this market expands.
  Solar thermal electricity has been on a major growth spurt, with the 
United States leading the world. In June, the Solar Two project was 
ribbon-cut in California. At this site, the heat from solar mirror 
concentrating sunlight atop a tower is stored in nitrate salt which can 
then create steam-to-electricity day or night, rain or shine. A solar 
dish/engine manufacturing facility was ribbon-cut in Texas. Both 
projects came from cost-shared research and development at the 
Department of Energy. In this bill we are including funding for solar 
industrial research and development to bring this same technology to 
industrial process heat, new material creation from photon 
concentration, and some interagency cost share research on solar 
detoxification.
  Over 70 percent of photovoltaics are exported overseas and over 50 
percent of wind, solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass equipment and 
services are exported primarily to third world countries. To this end, 
the amendment has included $1.5 million directed explicitly to continue 
the work of the Federal interagency activity called the Committee on 
Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade [CORECT] signed into law by 
President Reagan to ensure that the U.S. Government coordinates its 
export capabilities. The European Community and Japan provide 
subsidized export financing to their respective industries and other 
incentives which equal hundreds of millions of dollars of support. The 
funding for this program is to make U.S. Federal agencies maximize 
their efficiency by utilizing existing programs to promote the 
exportation of renewable energy equipment and services. Nearly 2 
billion people on the globe do not have access to electricity and this 
program has made great strides in rectifying that situation. To that 
end, three new automated manufacturing facilities in the United States 
have been recently ribbon-cut to manufacture photovoltaics for this 
growing overseas market.
  This bill also provides support to an effective program at the $1 
million level for the Renewal Energy Production Incentive [REPI]. REPI 
provides support to municipal electric utilities and rural electric 
cooperatives to utilize solar and renewable energy. This program was 
established under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 because at that time 
only private utility subsidiaries could access the solar and geothermal 
tax credits. REPI allows the rest of the industry an equivalent program 
to utilize tax credits. The response from the municipal utilities and 
cooperatives has been enthusiastic and this program has over 18 
renewable energy projects underway.
  Another voluntary program is also funded at $1 million level for all 
utilities to integrate renewable energy in an effort to offset 
emissions that have wrought global climate change. The Utility Climate 
Challenge Program has been supported by all of the electric utilities 
as a stellar example of the way Government should work--encouraging 
innovation rather than command-and-control measures.
  The final program funded is the Resource Assessment Program at $1 
million. This is a program carried our primarily by the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] which analyzes satellite and other 
data for those that want to know the extent of renewable energy in 
their area, whether that be solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal. This 
program can only be carried out by national laboratories and would put 
our industries at a competitive disadvantage if not explicitly funded.
  Mr. President, this amendment is an extremely modest investment to 
preserve U.S. energy options, create U.S. jobs, and protect our 
environment. I commend the managers of this bill for recognizing the 
importance of these programs and for supporting this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support the efforts of Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Roth to maintain level funding for renewable 
energy programs. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment and join their 
efforts.
  Mr. President, this amendment restores our investment in the future 
of sustainable energy. Unfortunately, this Congress has cut funding for 
renewable energy by 38 percent over the last two years. These cuts are 
shortsighted. To ensure that future generations can enjoy clean energy, 
we must maintain our commitment to support funding for research and 
development of solar, wind, and biomass energy.
  In particular, I firmly believe that Congress has a responsibility to 
reaffirm its commitment to wind energy funding. Wind energy is now a $4 
billion industry in the United States. Department of Energy funding has 
been key to this success by developing wind energy projects for 
commercialization.
  In my home State of Vermont, for example, Department of Energy 
funding for wind energy has helped develop a growing environmentally-
friendly industry. With DOE support, Vermont companies have developed 
state-of-the-art wind turbines and other high technology products at 
wind energy projects in the Green Mountains of Vermont, in rural 
villages in Alaska and even on the top of the South Pole. And these 
DOE-supported projects have become proving grounds for Vermont 
companies to tap into a growing wind energy export market around the 
world.
  But the wind energy industry in Vermont and across the country is at 
a critical stage in its development. European and Asian wind 
industries--which are heavily subsidized by their governments--are 
emerging as competitive rivals. As a result, we must continue strong 
DOE funding to maintain America's leadership role in the global wind 
energy market.
  Mr. President, this amendment makes sense for our future and our

[[Page S9047]]

children's future. Our children and grandchildren should be able to 
enjoy sustainable, clean and renewable energy. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5098) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will go through and make sure the 
Senators know which of their requests are in this amendment, but I will 
go through the comprehensive amendment that takes care of many 
amendments that were pending, not all of which cost money, and some of 
these have offsets from other provisions in the bill.
  An increase in solar and renewable energy by $2,372,000 in behalf of 
Senator Jeffords and others; stir-melter technology, Senator Lott and 
others, $2 million; allow guards at enrichment plants to carry 
sidearms, McConnell and others; technical corrections to the USEC 
Privatization Act regarding the Thrift Savings Plan, McConnell and 
others; provide DOE authority to offer voluntary separation incentives, 
requested by the Secretary; Tahoe Basin study, Senator Reid; Walker 
River Basin study, Senator Reid; study of the water needs of the 
Cheyenne River Sioux, Daschle; language that would require 50 percent 
of the Montgomery Point lock and dam project be derived from the Inland 
Waterway trust fund, Senator Bumpers; maintenance of dredging at 
Cocheco River project, Senator Smith; Mill Creek project in Ohio, half 
a million dollars; Virginia Beach erosion control for the State of 
Virginia; tritium production, additional $10 million requested by the 
Senator from South Carolina; rural water system development mid-Dakota, 
for Senators Pressler and Daschle.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Helena and vicinity, Arkansas.
  I am happy to yield.


                    Amendment No. 5099, as Modified

  Mr. JOHNSTON. I am advised there was a pending objection by Senator 
Glenn to part of the first amendment relating to the U.S. Enrichment 
Corporation.
  Therefore, I move to vitiate the action just taken with respect to 
the following language. In other words, the following language of that 
first amendment should be deleted.
       Insert where appropriate: Technical correction to the USEC 
     Privatization Act--Section 3110(b) of the USEC Privatization 
     Act (Public Law 104-134, title III, chapter 1, subchapter A) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       (3) The Corporation shall pay the Thrift Savings Fund such 
     employee and agency contributions as are required or 
     authorized by sections 8432 and 8351 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for employees who elect to retain their coverage 
     under CSRS or FERS pursuant to paragraph (1).

  I send a modification of amendment No. 5099 to the desk deleting the 
language I just read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment 
is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 5099), as modified, is as follows:
       In amendment No. 5098, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert 
     in lieu thereof:
       On page 19, line 3, strike ``2,749,043,000,'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``2,764,043,000,'' and on page 20, line 9, 
     strike ``220,200,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``205,200,000.''.
       Insert where appropriate: ``Technology Development for the 
     Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.--
     Within available funds, up to $2,000,000 is provided for 
     demonstration of stir-melter technology developed by the 
     Department and previously intended to be used at the Savannah 
     River site. In carrying out this demonstration, the 
     Department is directed to seek alternative use of this 
     technology in order to maximize the investment already made 
     in this technology.''.
       Insert where appropriate: ``Maintenance of Security at 
     Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--Section 161k. of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201k.) is amended by striking 
     `subsection;' and inserting the following: `subsection. With 
     respect to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky, and 
     the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio, the guidelines 
     shall require, at a minimum, the presence of an adequate 
     number of security guards carrying sidearms at all times to 
     ensure maintenance of security at the gaseous diffusion 
     plants;'.''
       Insert where appropriate: ``Provided, That funds made 
     available by this Act for the departmental administration may 
     be used by the Secretary of Energy to offer employees 
     voluntary separation incentives to meet staffing and 
     budgetary reductions and restructuring needs through 
     September 30, 1997 consistent with plans approved by the 
     Office of Management and Budget. The amount of each incentive 
     shall be equal to the smaller of the employee's severance 
     pay, or $20,000. Voluntary separation recipients who accept 
     employment with the Federal Government, or enter into a 
     personal services contract with the Federal Government within 
     5 years after separation shall repay the entire amount to the 
     Department of Energy.''.
       On page 2, between lines 24 and 25, insert the following: 
     ``Tahoe Basin Study, Nevada and California, $200,000; Walker 
     River Basin restoration study, Nevada and California, 
     $300,000;''
       On page 3, line 20, strike ``construction costs for 
     Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, Arkansas, and''
       On page 13, line 21, after ``expended'' insert ``: Provided 
     further, That within available funds, $150,000 is for 
     completion of the feasibility study of alternatives for 
     meeting the drinking water needs of Cheyenne River Sioux 
     Reservation and surrounding communities''.
       On page 7, line 19, add the following before the period: 
     ``Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army is 
     directed to use $600,000 of funding provided herein to 
     perform maintenance dredging of the Cocheco River navigation 
     project, New Hampshire.''.
       On page 5, after line 2, insert the following: ``Mill 
     Creek, Ohio, $500,000; ''.
       On page 5, line 8, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$8,000,000''.
       On page 23, line 22, strike ``$5,615,210,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,605,210,000''; and on page 23, line 8, strike 
     ``$3,978,602,000'' and insert ``$3,988,602,000''.
       On page 14, on line 12, after ``amended'' insert 
     ``$12,500,000 shall be available for the Mid-Dakota Rural 
     Water System''.
       On page 6, line 24, strike ``$1,700,358,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,688,358,000''.
       On page 3, line 15, strike ``$1,024,195,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,049,306,000''.
       On page 5, line 25, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to 
     initiate construction on the following projects in the 
     amounts specified:
       ``Kake Harbor, Alaska, $4,000,000;
       ``Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas, $150,000;
       ``San Lorenzo, California, $200,000;
       ``Panama City Beaches, Florida, $400,000;
       ``Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, $1,300,000;
       ``Pond Creek, Jefferson City, Kentucky, $3,000,000;
       ``Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, $500,000;
       ``Poplar Island, Maryland, $5,000,000;
       ``Natchez Bluff, Mississippi, $5,000,000;
       ``Wood River, Grand Isle, Nebraska, $1,000,000;
       ``Duck Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio, $466,000;
       ``Saw Mill River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $500,000;
       ``Upper Jordan River, Utah, $1,100,000;
       ``San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico, $800,000; and
       ``Allendale Dam, Rhode Island, $195,000: Provided further, 
     That no fully allocated funding policy shall apply to 
     construction of the projects listed above, and the Secretary 
     of the Army is directed to undertake these projects using 
     continuing contracts where sufficient funds to complete the 
     projects are not available from funds provided herein or in 
     prior years.''
       On page 14, line 1, strike ``$410,499,000'' and insert 
     ``$398,596,700''.
       On page 15, line 13, insert the following before the 
     period: ``: Provided further, That $1,500,000 shall be 
     available for construction of McCall Wastewater Treatment, 
     Idaho facility, and $1,000,000 shall be available for Devils 
     Lake desalination, North Dakota project''.
       On page 29, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:


                        ``salaries and expenses

       ``For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     United States member of the Delaware River Basin Commission 
     as authorized by law (75 Stat. 716), $342,000.''
       On page 33, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:


                        ``salaries and expenses

       ``For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the 
     United States member of the Susquehana River Basin 
     Commission, as authorized by law (84 Stat. 1541), $322,000.''
       On page 17, line 19, strike ``$48,971,000'' and insert 
     ``$48,307,000''.
       On page 7, line 19, insert the following before the period: 
     ``Provided further, That $750,000 is for the Buford-Trenton 
     Irrigation District, Section 33, erosion control project in 
     North Dakota''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know the extent of the 
disagreement on that amendment. But I won't object. We will try to work 
it out. It seems there is a difference of opinion. We will get the 
staff and Senators together quick and see what we can do.
  I will continue to read the list:
  San Lorenzo, CA, $200,000; Panama City FL, $400,000; Shoreline in 
Chicago, $1.3 million; $3 million for Pond Creek in Jefferson City, KY; 
Boston Harbour, $500,000; Poplar Island, MD, a program

[[Page S9048]]

both Senators support and the administration supports, $5 million; 
Natchez Bluff, MS, $5 million; $1 million for Wood River, NE; and, 
hence, others not listed here that are clearly stated.
  Mr. President, that means we have adopted the underlying amendment 
and the amendment that Senator Johnston and I offered. We are now ready 
for additional amendments.
  Mr. President, 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. GRAMS. 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. GRAMS. Mr. President, may I also ask what the pending business is 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Johnston, for 
Wellstone, amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current 
business be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5100

   (Purpose: To limit funding for Appalachian Regional Commission at 
  House-passed level and require the Commission to be phased out in 5 
                                 years)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5100.

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

       On page 28, line 16, strike ``$165,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$155,331,000''.
       On page 28, line 17, at the end of the sentence, add the 
     following: ``The Commission shall provide the House and 
     Senate Appropriations Committee a specific plan for 
     downsizing.''

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a very moderate and a very 
straightforward amendment. It would simply adopt the funding for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission at the House-passed level of $10 
million less than the Senate level and require that the commission 
provide a specific plan for future downsizing and elimination.
  Mr. President, this is not a new issue. We have debated it many times 
before, and I offered a very similar amendment last year. The reason I 
bring it up again is simple. I want to remind the American people that 
pork-barrel spending is alive and well in Washington, and Congress has 
demonstrated little courage to phase out or eliminate these costly 
types of programs.
  For a number of years, the Congressional Budget Office has 
recommended the elimination of the ARC as one of the many options for 
deficit reduction. Last year, both the Senate and the House passed a 
budget resolution calling for the elimination of ARC. This year, the 
House budget resolution has again assumed further savings from a 
phased-in downsizing of ARC. While the House-passed appropriations bill 
provides $155 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission and 
requires continued downsizing, the Senate bill grants $165 million--
that is $10 million more than approved by the House--and it does not 
address the question of downsizing.
  There are no persuasive justifications for the Senate funding level. 
The program should be terminated. Yet there appears to be no 
congressional will to end any program once it has been authorized. That 
is why I have sought to sunset Federal programs since I came to 
Congress.
  Mr. President, the Appalachian Regional Commission was created in 
1965 as a temporary response to poverty in Appalachia. Let me say that 
again. In 1965, it was created as a temporary response to poverty in 
Appalachia. Today, over 30 years later, despite the infusion of more 
than 7 billion taxpayer dollars into the region, we are still pouring 
money into the area under the pretext of fighting poverty. If the 
Appalachia region is still impoverished, we should ask ourselves why we 
have spent so much money for so many years, and why poverty in this 
region requires still more Federal dollars than other poverty-stricken 
areas of our country.
  We should also question the real contribution the ARC has made to any 
long-term economic development of the Appalachia.
  A study conducted by scholar Michael Bradshaw in 1992 might help to 
provide us with some kind of an answer. After analyzing 25 years of 
Government policy in the region, Mr. Bradshaw concludes:

       The great paradox of Appalachian development since 1960 is 
     that although relatively greater sums of money have been 
     invested in central Appalachia, this part of the region has 
     shown the lowest ability to increase its economic and social 
     indicators relative to the rest of the United States.

  The region as a whole has made strides over the past 25 years toward 
improving conditions for attracting new sources of employment, but Mr. 
Bradshaw goes on to say that ``these changes have had more to do with 
external economic factors than with the influence of the ARC.''
  Now, in the 1980's, there was strong growth in the area which 
mirrored the economic growth of the country at large. During this time, 
ARC funding was reduced by 40 percent. Did the region suffer? On the 
contrary. Taxes were cut and unemployment rates fell by 38 percent.
  That is how President Kennedy created jobs back in the 1960's, that 
is how President Reagan created jobs in the 1980's, and that is how we 
need to create jobs as we approach the year 2000.
  Mr. President, what does not make any sense about this program is 
that it is one of 62 Federal economic development programs that are 
under the jurisdiction of 18 different departments and agencies. Yet 
the ARC is the only major Government agency targeted toward a specific 
region of the country. Many of the projects funded by the ARC duplicate 
activities are already funded by other Federal agencies.
  For instance, the $104 million Appalachian highway development 
project provided by the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
also falls under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Department's 
Federal highway program. Other projects of the ARC are funded by 
agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

  As one Member of Congress rightly pointed out, ``What the Appalachian 
Regional Commission does is essentially allow 13 States in this country 
to double dip into infrastructure money, money to do economic 
development and money also to do highway and water construction and 
projects like that.''
  While the ARC claims to allocate funds for the poor rural communities 
of Appalachia, these areas are no worse off than rural communities in 
Minnesota, in Arizona, or the 35 other States that do not benefit from 
ARC funding. In fact, in my home State of Minnesota, 12.8 percent of my 
constituents live below the poverty level, and that is a disturbing 
statistic. It is higher than many States which benefit from the ARC 
funding, such as Virginia, which is at 9.4 percent; Maryland, at 11.6; 
Pennsylvania, at 11.7; and Ohio, at 12.6 percent.
  So these States benefit from ARC funding because of poverty levels, 
yet my home State of Minnesota, which does not, of course, enjoy ARC 
funding, is at 12.8 percent. But do Minnesotans have a Federal program 
designed just for them? Of course not, and I am not advocating that we 
should.
  To pay for something like the ARC on a nationwide basis would require 
billions of dollars, funded either by cutting more from other programs, 
borrowing money from our children, increasing the deficit, or by 
raising taxes. The first option is unlikely. The remaining three are 
completely unacceptable. Already, for every dollar the taxpayers of my 
State send to the Federal Treasury, they receive only 82 cents of 
Government services. For every dollar they send to the Federal 
Treasury, Minnesotans receive only 82 cents worth of the Government's 
services, but the States which benefit from ARC funding receive on 
average $1.21 for every tax dollar they contribute.
  So for every dollar they send in, they get $1.21 back from 
Washington, while in my State of Minnesota, for every dollar we send 
in, we get 82 cents back.

[[Page S9049]]

  Minnesota has been a good neighbor and has contributed more than its 
fair share, but when Minnesotans see $750,000 of ARC funds spent on a 
summer practice stadium for the National Football League's Carolina 
Panthers, this is a huge slap in the face.
  My point, Mr. President, is not that Minnesota and other States with 
high poverty levels in this country should get more Federal assistance 
but that there is a compelling reason to reduce the funding for ARC and 
compelling reasons to continue downsizing a program that has outlived 
its original mandate. It is ineffective, it is expensive, and it simply 
does not work.
  American taxpayers can no longer afford such extravagant spending. It 
is time to let this important region of our country benefit from the 
same myriad of programs that serve other poverty areas. These programs 
can be improved and streamlined to help stimulate economic development 
and thereby provide needed Federal assistance to all of the country. 
Our first priority, however, is to balance our budget, provide tax 
credits for working Americans, and to create an environment that will 
stimulate job growth and help to boost all salaries.
  So, Mr. President, although I strongly believe that the ARC should be 
terminated, my amendment does not zero out funding for the ARC, nor 
does it reduce it significantly, but it simply reduces the level of 
funding to that already approved by the House, and that is to take the 
$165 million in the Senate bill and to match it with the $155 million 
currently in the House bill.

  I urge my colleagues to support this moderate amendment. Congress 
should show the American people at least a little courage by slowing 
down this Federal spending ``Energizer Bunny,'' or we could say the 
``Energizer Piggy,'' which keeps going on and going on and going on.
  I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator McCain as an original 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Domenici). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. If there is no further debate, I ask for the yeas and nays 
on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending 
appropriations bill, and I thank the manager of the bill, the able 
Senator from New Mexico, who is currently the Presiding Officer of the 
Senate, Senator Domenici, for his tremendous leadership on these issues 
dealing with energy and water, and the senior Senator from Louisiana, 
Bennett Johnston, noting that this will be the culmination of his 
service in the Senate. He will be greatly missed because of the 
expertise and experience and enthusiasm that he brings to today's 
issues of energy and natural resources. A wealth of knowledge goes with 
him and with him our best wishes as well.
  The fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill provides 
funding for some of the highest priority Federal responsibilities. For 
example, the bill provides a total of $5.6 billion, an increase of $205 
million above the budget request for the Department of Energy's defense 
environmental management program. The DOE defense environmental 
management program includes the safe handling and the treatment of some 
of the most toxic materials on this planet Earth such as spent nuclear 
fuel, high-level liquid waste and surplus weapons grade plutonium--
certainly the appropriate use of funds and in fact the addition of 
these funds.
  The budget increase recommended by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee is consistent with the increase authorized by the defense 
authorization bill passed by the Senate just a few weeks ago. The 
pending appropriations bill provides increases for important programs 
in Idaho including an increase in funding for the Department of 
Energy's national spent nuclear fuel program.
  In testimony earlier this year, Secretary O'Leary acknowledged that 
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory had been designated as the 
DOE lead lab for the spent nuclear fuel program but additional funds to 
meet these new responsibilities had not been provided.
  The bill now before the Senate addresses this shortfall. The pending 
bill also provides $200 million to move forward with the effort to open 
a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. In 
light of the ongoing Senate debate regarding the Craig bill, this 
funding, which represents a 32 percent increase over the fiscal year 
1996 level, is certainly appropriate and needed.
  The bill also provides almost $4 billion, an increase of $269 
million, for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program. These 
funds are essential to ensure that our nuclear stockpile remains safe 
and reliable.
  The pending bill also funds important energy functions of the 
Department of Energy. The bill provides $20 million for the 
electrometallurgical demonstration program at Argonne National Lab. 
This important program to treat DOE spent nuclear fuel for final 
disposition is reduced by $5 million from the budget request. I will 
address this reduction with the chairman and the ranking member at the 
appropriate time.
  I want to offer my praise for the funding levels provided in this 
bill and to the leadership, again, of the two managers of this bill. 
The funding increase for the defense environmental management program 
will expedite cleanup and remediation at sites like INEL, Savannah 
River, and Hanford, and save American taxpayers money in the long run. 
These funds will show the American people that this Senate will deal 
with the environmental challenges left over from our victory in the 
cold war.
  I urge adoption of the pending bill and thank the managers again for 
this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


    the pacific ocean division office, u.s. army corps of engineers

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the managers of this 
bill for including my language in committee to prohibit the Army Corps 
of Engineers from obligating funds to close the Pacific Ocean Division 
[POD] office.
  The Pacific Ocean Division has the largest civil works jurisdictional 
area, covering almost a one-third of the globe. Maintaining the POD 
office is very important to the United States' ability to deliver 
critical military and civil works assistance to our allies in the Asia-
Pacific region.
  The POD has been characterized as a model of efficiency and 
effectiveness, particularly in military construction. In this age of 
restructuring to improve efficiency, the Army Corps of Engineers 
proposal seems to undermine these goals.
  I have requested that the Army Corps of Engineers provide me with a 
detailed cost/benefit analysis justifying closing the POD. I have not 
been provided with this analysis. Until an analysis is provided that 
demonstrates that the POD is not a model of efficiency and 
effectiveness, I will fight to see that the POD remains open.
  I request that the chairman and ranking member make every effort to 
ensure that the Senate position is maintained in conference with the 
House.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan bill. It contains funding for many programs and projects 
important to our Nation and my region. I thank Chairman Domenici and 
Senator Johnston--and their very capable staffs--for the superb jobs 
they have done.
  Cleanup and restoration of the Hanford site is one of my top 
priorities. In this bill, the Department of Energy's Environmental 
Management program is well funded. While I disagree with the allocation 
of resources between defense and nondefense programs in the majority's 
budget, I appreciate that some of that extra defense money goes to 
worthwhile programs, like environmental management.
  One aspect of the EM program that continues to trouble me is the 
approach the Department has taken to privatization at Hanford. I 
appreciate the subcommittee's effort to minimize the impact of 
privatization by suggesting that only $150 million, rather than $185 
million, be taken from the tank farm operating budget in order to

[[Page S9050]]

make a down payment on the tank waste remediation program. Senators 
Gorton, Domenici, Johnston, and I have sent a letter to the Department 
asking a number of questions about this approach to privatization. 
While I am a supporter of privatization, I believe sweeping changes 
must be well thought out and should not harm ongoing efforts to 
stabilize the tank farms.
  Mr. President, this administration has done a terrific job of moving 
Hanford cleanup forward. For years, Hanford has been largely a money 
hole into which enormous Federal dollars were thrown, but little was 
accomplished. I want to recognize the accomplishments of Secretary 
O'Leary's Department of Energy and the people at Hanford who have done 
such an outstanding job of reducing costs and increasing results.
  Let me share some of the latest results at Hanford.
  There are several specific cleanup programs that have made 
significant progress recently. One of those is at the Plutonium Uranium 
Extraction [PUREX] Plant where the criticality system was shut off 
forever last month. The alarm is not necessary because there is no 
longer a chance of a nuclear accident at the 40-year-old plant. This 
shows tremendous progress and is evidence of the dedication of Hanford 
employees--who reached this goal 16 months ahead of schedule and $47 
million under budget.
  The K-basin's spent fuel project is also on track. The canister 
storage building is 15 percent complete and the managers estimate they 
can begin large-scale spent fuel removal by December 1997. At that 
time, fuel will be removed from both K-basins to be cleaned, loaded 
into baskets, placed in multi-canister overpacks, dried in a cold 
vacuum, and placed in the canister storage building. Already, several 
hundred spent fuel canisters have been removed and cleaned; and the 
system is working as planned. Another point of interest is that project 
acceleration decisions made and implemented in 1995 have saved $350 
million and will allow the project to be completed 4 years early. This 
is great progress.
  The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is in the final stages of 
construction of the new Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 
[EMSL]. The lab is a critical component of our efforts to develop the 
scientific understanding needed to create innovative and cost-effective 
technologies for environmental remediation. EMSL scientists will 
research soil and water quality, waste characterization, processing, 
and health effects. This state-of-the-art facility will complement the 
Hanford cleanup mission and make a positive contribution to many of our 
most troubling environmental and pollution problems.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the commitment of this body and the 
administration to the cleanup of former defense production sites, like 
Hanford. I pledge to work with my colleagues to see that progress 
continues and that the Federal Government fulfills its responsibility 
to the people of this Nation who fought and won the cold war.
  I would also like to voice my strong support for an amendment offered 
by Senator Jeffords regarding funding for renewable energy. In the last 
2 years, funding for wind, solar, and other renewable energy research 
and development programs has been cut by almost 40 percent. Last year, 
the Senate restored some of the funding for these important programs, 
but eventually the renewables program lost ground in conference with 
the House. I want to lend my voice to many of my colleagues who support 
renewable energy and see such programs as a critical component of the 
Federal Government's commitment to future generations and a healthy 
environment.
  Again, I thank Senators Domenici and Johnston for their work on this 
important bill and urge my colleagues to support final passage.
  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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with the consent of the manager, if no one 
is here to offer amendments or speak on the bill, I ask unanimous 
consent to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business, with the 
understanding that if someone comes to present an amendment, I will be 
happy to relinquish the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy of the managers. Again, 
business on the bill itself takes precedence. I will not continue if 
someone comes to do business on this bill.

                          ____________________