Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9052-S9061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.

Lake Traverse

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to take just a couple of minutes, I
will be very brief, to make a point to those managing this legislation.
My understanding is an amendment has been noticed dealing with the
issue of Lake Traverse. I want it to be clear that if an amendment is
offered on Lake Traverse, I will oppose that amendment.
The issue is a lake in South Dakota. There is some concern about the
water level in that lake. The water level and the amount of water held
for flood control disadvantages people around Lake Traverse. It is also
true, that Lake Traverse is used less for flood control and as the lake
water level is lowered, more water would be flushed out of the lake and
into the Red River, adversely affecting a good number of communities
along the Red River.
We did have a meeting with the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers
folks and the staffs of a number of congressional delegations about
what kind of collaborative effort could be developed to make sure the
interests of all parties are resolved in an appropriate way.
Legislation introduced here in the Senate, if such an amendment is
introduced, would represent a unilateral way to do this. I will not
support that.
It seems to me we have a circumstance where a lake project was
authorized many, many years ago for the purpose of flood control. I
understand some of the controversy about it. If the Congress is going
to instruct the Corps to manage that lake in a way that diminishes
opportunity for flood control, then the question is, who is going to
bear the cost of that?
There will be a number of communities in North Dakota and Minnesota
up on the Red River that will bear the cost of it. To the extent this
problem is addressed and resolved, it must be resolved in a
collaborative way, not through this kind of legislation.
If such an amendment is offered and I understand one has been
referenced, I intend to oppose it. I yield the floor.
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. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 5101

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am sending to the desk a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution on behalf of the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, and others regarding the United States-Japan
semiconductor trade agreement which is set to expire on July 31 of this
year.
His resolution, after recounting the history of this agreement,
resolves that: It is the sense of the Senate that, if a new United
States-Japan semiconductor agreement is not concluded by July 31 of
this year, that, first, it ensures continued calculation of foreign
market share in Japan according to the formula set forth in the current
agreement, and, second, provides for continuation of current measures
to deter renewed dumping of semiconductors in the United States and in
third country markets, the President shall do three things: First,
direct the Office of the Trade Representative to provide for unilateral
United States Government calculation and publication of the foreign
share of the Japanese semiconductor market, according to the formula
set forth in the current agreement; second, report to the Congress on a
quarterly basis regarding the progress, or lack thereof, in increasing
foreign market access to the Japanese semiconductor market; and, third,
take all necessary and appropriate actions to ensure that all United
States trade laws with respect to foreign market access and injurious
dumping are expeditiously and vigorously enforced with respect to the
United States-Japan semiconductor trade.
I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Johnston), for Mr.
Rockefeller, for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment
numbered 5101.

Mr. JOHNSTON. 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:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement is set to
expire on July 31, 1996;
The Governments of the United States and Japan are
currently engaged in negotiations over the terms of a new
U.S.-Japan agreement on semiconductors;
The President of the United States and the Prime Minister
of Japan agreed to the G-7 Summit in June that their two
governments should conclude a mutually acceptable outcome of
the semiconductor dispute by July 31, 1996, and that there
should be a continuing role for the two governments in the
new agreement;
The current U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement has
put in place both government-to-government and industry-to-
industry mechanisms which have played a vital role in
allowing cooperation in replace conflict in these important
high technology sector such as by providing for joint
calculation of foreign market share in Japan, deterrence of
dumping, and promotion of industrial cooperation in the
designing of foreign semiconductor devices;

[[Page S9053]]

Despite the increased foreign share of the Japanese
semiconductor market since 1986, a gap still remains between
the share U.S. and other foreign semiconductor makers are
able to capture in the world market outside of Japan through
their competitiveness and the sales of these suppliers in the
Japanese market, and that gap is consistent across the full
range of semiconductor products as well as a full range of
end-use applications;
The competitiveness and health of the U.S. semiconductor
industry is of critical importance to the United States'
overall economic well-being as well as the nation's high
technology defense capabilities;
The economic interests of both the United States and Japan
are best served by well-functioning, open markets and
deterrence of dumping in all sectors, including
semiconductors;
The Government of Japan continues to oppose an agreement
that (1) ensures continued calculation of foreign market
share in Japan according to the formula set forth in the
current agreement, and (2) provides for continuation of
current measures to deter renewed dumping of semiconductors
in the United States and in the third country markets; and
The United States Senate on June 19, 1996, unanimously
adopted a sense of the Senate resolution that the President
should take all necessary and appropriate actions to ensure
the continuation of a government-to-government U.S.-Japan
semiconductor trade agreement before the current agreement
expires on July 31, 1996:

SEC. 2.

It is the sense of the Senate that if a new U.S.-Japan
Semiconductor Agreement is not concluded by July 31, 1996,
that (a) ensures continued calculation of foreign market
share in Japan according to the formula set forth in the
current agreement, and (b) provides for continuation of
current measures to deter renewed dumping of semiconductors
in the United States and in third country markets, the
President shall--
(1) Direct the Office of the United States Trade
Representative and the Department of Commerce to establish a
system to provide for unilateral U.S. Government calculation
and publication of the foreign share of the Japanese
semiconductor market, according to the formula set forth in
the current agreement;
(2) Report to the Congress on a quarterly basis regarding
the progress, or lack thereof, in increasing foreign market
access to the Japanese semiconductor market; and
(3) Take all necessary and appropriate actions to ensure
that all U.S. trade laws with respect to foreign market
access and injurious dumping are expeditiously and vigorously
enforced with respect to U.S.-Japan semiconductor trade, as
appropriate.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that is
the result of the calendar. I appreciate, therefore, the cooperation
from the bill managers in allowing us to use the Energy-Water
appropriations bill as a vehicle for drawing attention to an important
issue for Americans. Today is July 29, and in 2 days, on July 31, the
Semiconductor Agreement between the governments of the United States
and Japan expires.
That is why I rise, on behalf of myself, and Senators Craig, Byrd,
Kempthorne, Bingaman, Domenici, and Boxer to offer a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that if our negotiators are unable
to reach a compromise on this important issue with the Government of
Japan, that we should continue calculating the foreign share of the
Japanese semiconductor market--with or without their formal
cooperation. We need to do this in order to ensure continued access to
the Japanese market, and to prevent illegal dumping into our market.
Since 1986, when the first Semiconductor Agreement was signed, the
U.S. share of the Japanese market has grown from 8.5 percent to a
little more than 17 percent. The United States share of the world
market, excluding Japan, is about 54 percent. Mr. President, each point
of the Japanese market is worth about $420 million in sales to the
American economy and jobs, which translates into about $46.2 million in
increased research and development, and $63 million in new capital
investment. With numbers like that, I think it is clear how important
it is that we ensure continued American access to the Japanese
semiconductor market.
Mr. President, I had hoped that we would start off this week
expressing relief that a new agreement between Japan and the United
States has been reached. But unfortunately, that has not happened yet.
This remains an example of a situation in which American trade
negotiators still are unable to succeed in convincing their Japanese
counterparts that it is in our mutual interest to resolve a trade-
related issue that is about market access and ensuring fair trade.
What surprises me is that industry on both sides of the Pacific, and
around the world, have generally applauded the two Semiconductor
Agreements. Things have come a long way since 1986, when the first
Semiconductor Agreement was reached and the U.S. semiconductor industry
was on death's door. Since then, that agreement and the subsequent 1991
agreement, along with initiatives like Sematech, have helped American
industry regain its footing and become the world leader that it is
today. Markets around the world are expanding, profits are up, and the
outlook for the entire industry is good.

But this period of improving market access for the U.S. semiconductor
market and injecting more fairness in our trade relationship has also
been short enough that we still need another agreement to avoid
setbacks or suprises that could otherwise easily confront us and
escalate trade-related tension unnecessarily.
Because the stakes are so high, I offer this Sense-of-the-Senate
Resolution to call for appropriate action that should be taken if an
agreement is not reached. Our resolution says: if an agreement on
semiconductors is not reached by July 31--the date when the current
agreement expires, and the date that Prime Minister Hashimoto agreed
to--then the United States should unilaterally establish a system to
monitor the Japanese semiconductor market, and report to Congress on a
quarterly basis the progress, or lack thereof, in increasing foreign
access to the Japanese semiconductor market.
I have spent many years studying and working on issues involving
Japan, especially in the trade area. For that reason, I have watched
the semiconductor agreement with keen interest. Many observers think or
talk of this particular issue as one that just affects the businesses
and communities tied to making this technology. But we are actually
talking about a product often called chips that play a key role in the
condition and prospects of many other industries. This type of chips,
these semiconductors, form the guts of all those things shaped out of
the steel that my State of West Virginia produces, along with plastics
and practically everything else that makes our trains run on time,
inflates the airbags in our cars, makes the elevator stop on our
floors, and of course, powers our computers.
My State does not have an Intel or a Motorola that actually makes the
chips. But West Virginia and many other states have industries that
fall somewhere in what is called the high technology food chain.
Semiconductors are the result of companies and workers who make and
provide the materials that go into the end-product--sophisticated chips
that make the United States one of the world's powerhouses in high-
tech, and generate business and profits for many other industries
around the country.
Earlier this month, I visited PPG Industries in West Virginia. PPG
started more than 100 years ago as the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. They
are still one of the leading flat glass companies in the world, but
they no longer resemble their ancestor of the 19th century, or even the
early 20th century. They are a 21st century company that makes high
performance thermoplastics that go into the housing for Pentium chips--
the most advanced semiconductors in today's personal computers [PC's].
When Japan buys more American made semiconductors and computers, the
benefits are reaped all the way down the high technology food chain to
companies like PPG.
My hope is that Japan will see how they benefit, in so many ways,
from finding common ground with the United States in settling our trade
disputes and maintaining the fair and open trade arrangements we seek
in the case of semiconductors. The United States and Japan have deep,
meaningful ties with one another, from our security relationship which
forms the bedrock of security and stability in East Asia to the leading
role we both play in the world's economy. We must continue as friends
and as major economic players

[[Page S9054]]

in the world to try to make bilateral trade another area where we
resolve our differences, adhere to the principle of reciprocity and
fairness, and play by the same rules. In the case of semiconductors,
the United States should not be asked to risk going back to the days,
from not very long ago, when we could not reach the Japanese market
with products that are the best in the world. I hope Japan will soon
agree, but until that happens, I offer this resolution to highlight
Americans' stake in the outcome and to propose the steps that should be
taken to protect our economic interests.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment on
our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5101) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5099 to Amendment No. 5098, As Further Modified

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, Senator Domenici
introduced an amendment on his behalf and on my behalf a second-degree
amendment, and later we struck a paragraph of that amendment. I now,
Mr. President, would like to further correct our action.
On the first page of amendment No. 5098 to S. 1959, on the first page
we should strike the following language--strike the paragraph that
begins: ``Insert where appropriate: `Maintenance of Security' '' et
cetera, and ending with the phrase: ``Security at the Gaseous Diffusion
Plants;''.
I would like to vitiate that action with respect to that paragraph.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, did we not do that?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We took out part of it but not all of it.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that there is a McConnell amendment, and
we have the right in his behalf of offering it freestanding. Now, as
soon as we contact him, we will in short order offer it. This would not
preclude us from offering that; is that correct? I ask a parliamentary
inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 5099) to amendment No. 5098, as further 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: 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: ``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 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:
``Lake 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. Mr. President, in behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous
consent--and I understand this has been approved by the minority--at
the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, that is, July 30, there be 20 minutes
for closing remarks under the control of myself and Senator Johnston or
their designees, and at the hour of 9:50 a.m. there be 10 minutes under
the control of Senator McCain, and that at the hour of 10 a.m. there be
2 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form prior to
the vote in relation to amendment No. 5094, to be followed by votes on
or in relation to amendments Nos. 5095 and 5096, with the same 2
minutes for debate between each vote to be equally divided, provided
that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Just a moment.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the first stacked
rollcall vote, each remaining vote be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we have appropriately reserved
what everyone wanted us to preserve and protect, and if I understand
correctly--and perhaps Senator Johnston can listen and see if I am
right--Senator Grams' amendment on the Appalachian Regional Commission
is not provided for in this. Therefore, it will be taken up in due
course tomorrow. But none of this agreement with reference to time
limits and/or amendments applies.

[[Page S9055]]

Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator McCain has an amendment pending
striking section 503. It has not been disposed of, or provided for, I
should say, in this unanimous consent request. So unless we can dispose
of it, it will be pending also tomorrow. I understand that on the
Democratic side, you are trying to get Senator Feingold, if he can, to
come to the floor with reference to an Animas LaPlata amendment.
Is there any hope that that will be forthcoming soon, Senator
Feingold on Animas LaPlata?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am advised he has an amendment, but we do not have a
copy of it.
We are advised he is on his way.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right. There has been time provided for Senator
Campbell in a previous unanimous consent agreement, but I believe if
the amendment is offered tonight, the Senator has the privilege of 10
minutes in opposition to it.

Amendment No. 5095

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send a letter to the desk addressed to
me dated today and signed by Terry R. Lash, Director of the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, which details the principal
arguments against terminating the advanced light water reactor program
and, among other things, points out that in the fifth year of a 5-year
program, the cost to terminate this program would exceed the
Government's obligation, which is $22 million in this budget. So it
would seem foolhardy at best to do so.
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Department of Energy,

Washington, DC, July 29, 1996.
Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnston: We are pleased to respond to your
request for additional information about our Advanced Light
Water Reactor (ALWR) program. As we indicated in our recent
letter to Senator Domenici, the Department of Energy opposes
the amendment to eliminate funding for the ALWR program from
the FY 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
This amendment appears to be based on several important
misconceptions about the Department's ALWR program.
One misconception is that it is ``corporate welfare.'' We
strongly disagree with this characterization. The program
uses limited federal funds to encourage U.S. industry to
pursue R&D that is clearly in the long-term interests of the
United States. The preservation of the nuclear energy option
is vital to the future energy supply in this country.
In addition to serving the national interest, this program
is designed such that industry provides the majority of
program funding. With the Department's leadership, a unique
alliance of electric utilities, technology vendors, and
government have come together to conduct a highly focused and
goal-oriented technology development program. Since the ALWR
program began in 1986, the Department has conducted $800
million in program activities with a taxpayer investment of
only $300 million. Further, the federal government will
receive reimbursements when the technology developed by the
FOAKE program is sold. For example, the federal government
should 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 the Department's program). Westinghouse Electric
Corporation has agreed to pay $25 million to the government
with the sale of its first AP600 to repay design
certification funding and an additional $4 million for each
reactor sold to repay federal FOAKE contributions.
Second, critics of the program have stated that the
program's authority under the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT) ends in FY 1996. In truth, the EPACT limits the
First-of-A-Kind Engineering (FOAKE) program to five years and
limits total program funding to $100 million. The EPACT
became law in fiscal year 1993. The Department is, therefore,
fully authorized under the EPACT to apply funds to the FOAKE
program in FY 1997. Further, the Department has spent only
about $82 million on the FOAKE activity 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's General Counsel has determined
that 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.
Third, there have been recent statements to the effect that
there is no U.S. utility interested in building new ALWRs. In
our view, 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. The Department is aware of
an invalid recent survey which indicates that 89 percent of
utility CEOs would not consider ordering new nuclear power
plants, but even a casual examination of the response data
finds that its accuracy is suspect. 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.
Fourth, there has also been considerable discussion about
General Electric's decision to terminate its Simplified
Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) activities. The program's
critics theorize that this action was taken because there is
no market for small plants, including the Westinghouse-
designed AP600. It must be recognized that GE's market
strategy is very focused on the east Asian market--
particularly Japan. In many of these countries, there is
considerable incentive to build large plants with high power
capacity. Press accounts indicate that GE's intent apparently
is to abandon this small reactor in favor of a significantly
larger plant with the same technical approach as the SBWR.
Other potential markets are 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
twenty-two 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.
Regarding recent concerns about termination costs, the
Department has been informed by its program contractors that
significant termination costs may be sought from the
Department if the FOAKE program is terminated prematurely.
Many of these costs would result from the early termination
of personnel and subcontractors. Westinghouse, for example,
estimates that the early termination of its portion of the
design certification program would cost about $28 million.
Westinghouse also estimates that its FOAKE termination costs
would be approximately $10 million. Other contractors would
be expected to seek lesser amounts, because their
participation in the program is nearly complete. The Advanced
Reactor Corporation, which manages the FOAKE program, has
indicated that it may seek as much as $24 million from the
Department if the program is terminated at this stage.
Since the potential that these costs might have to be paid
by DOE has been raised only recently, we have not fully
evaluated the accuracy of this claim. The contract appears to
offer some protection from these costs, but it is possible
that the federal government could be held liable for some
termination expenses. A legal analysis has been initiated to
investigate this and other ramifications of an early shutdown
of the ALWR program.
I hope this information is of assistance to you. Do not
hesitate to call me if you would like additional information.
Sincerely,

Terry R. Lash, Director,

Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Louisiana a
question? In that $40 million that we have been talking to with
reference to----
Mr. JOHNSTON. It is $22 million.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator McCain's amendment on the light water reactor,
can the Senator inform me again what portion is the light water reactor
and what portion is now for wrapping up the program? There are two
pieces, are there not, 22 and 18?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. The 18 is for termination costs?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Of the first-of-a-kind engineering program.
Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
Mr. President, in the afternoon when I spoke about the $40 million
program, two programs that are being stricken by the McCain amendment,
I alluded to those collectively at 40 and as the light water reactor.
As a matter of fact, that is incorrect; $22 million is for the light
water reactor and $18 million is for termination of first-of-a-kind
engineering. Wherever I alluded to that, I ask unanimous consent that
the Record be corrected and there be the distinction made as to the two
parts of the $40 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S9056]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before Senator Feingold is recognized, I
wonder if I could offer first an amendment that has been approved on
the other side on behalf of Senator Simon. It is an amendment regarding
$5 million being made available for research in converting saline water
to fresh water.

Amendment No. 5102

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Simon,
proposes an amendment numbered 5102.

On page 19, line 4 add the following before the period: ``:
Provided, That $5,000,000 shall be available for research
into reducing the costs of converting saline water to flush
water''.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is there objection to the amendment that is pending?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We are in full agreement with that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5102) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5103

(Purpose: To provide that $10,000,000 shall be available for the
electrometallurgical treatment of spent nuclear fuel at Argonne
National Laboratory)

Mr. DOMENICI. In behalf of Senator Kempthorne and Senator Craig, I
offer an amendment with reference to the Environmental Restoration
Waste Management Program, a $5 million add-on for the
electrometallurgical treatment of spent nuclear fuel at Argonne
Laboratory. It has been approved on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr.
Kempthorne, for himself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment
numbered 5103.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``Of
amounts appropriated for the Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Technology Development
Program, $5,000,000 shall be available for the
electrometallurgical treatment of spent nuclear fuel at
Argonne National Laboratory.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5103) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5104

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which also has been
cleared on the other side in behalf of Senator Hatfield, an amendment,
``Opportunity to review and comment by the State of Oregon on certain
remedial actions at Hanford Reservation.'' I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
Hatfield, proposes an amendment numbered 5104.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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 37 add the following new section:

SEC. . OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT BY STATE OF OREGON
ON CERTAIN REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT HANFORD
RESERVATION, WASHINGTON

``(a) Opportunity.--
(1) Subject to subsection (b), the Site Manager at the
Hanford Reservation, Washington, shall, in consultation with
the signatories to the Tri-Party Agreement, provide the State
of Oregon an opportunity to review and comment upon any
information the Site Manager provides the State of Washington
under the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement if the agreement
provides for the review and comment upon such information by
the State of Washington.
(2) In order to facilitate the review and comment of the
State of Oregon under paragraph (1), the Site Manager shall
provide information referred to in that paragraph to the
State of Oregon at the same time, or as soon thereafter as is
practicable, that the Site Manager provides such information
to the State of Washington.
(b) Construction.--This section may not be construed--
(1) to require the Site Manager to provide the State of
Oregon sensitive information on enforcement under the Tri-
Party Agreement or information on the negotiation, dispute
resolution, or State cost recovery provisions of the
agreement;
(2) to require the Site Manager to provide confidential
information on the budget or procurement at Hanford under
terms other than those provided in the Tri-Party Agreement
for the transmission of such confidential information to the
State of Washington;
(3) to authorize the State of Oregon to participate in
enforcement actions, dispute resolution, or negotiation
actions, conducted under the provisions of the Tri-Party
Agreement;
(4) to authorize any delay in the implementation of
remedial, environmental management, or other programmatic
activities at Hanford; or
(5) to obligate the Department of Energy to provide
additional funds to the State of Oregon.

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE, HANFORD MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING.

It is the Sense of the Senate that--
(1) the State of Oregon has the authority to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with the State of Washington, or
a memorandum of understanding with the State of Washington
and the Site Manager of the Hanford Reservation, Washington,
in order to address issues of mutual concern to such States
regarding the Hanford Reservation; and
(2) such agreements are not expected to create any
additional obligation of the Department of Energy to provide
funds to the State of Oregon.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5104) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5105

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator McCain is not present today. He
has asked me to submit--he had three reservations. This is the third
one striking section 503 from the bill. I send the amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. McCain,
proposes an amendment numbered 5105.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

Strike section 503 of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is not going to be accepted today.
It is an amendment which will be pending at the close of business
today. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 5106

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Animas-LaPlata Participating
Project)

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

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 5106.

Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 14, lines 1 through 5, strike ``$410,499,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $23,410,000 shall
be available for transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin
Fund authorized by section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (43
U.S.C. 620d),'' and insert ``$400,999,000, to remain
available until

[[Page S9057]]

expended, of which $13,910,000 shall be available for
transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund authorized by
section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620d) (of
which no amount may be used for the Animas-LaPlata
Participating Project),''.

.Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for
a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.
Mr. DOMENICI. The next bill up will be legislative appropriations.
They are wondering when we will conclude. I understand this is the last
matter of business pertaining to this bill. Could the Senator indicate
to us how much time he might need?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my statement, in answer to the question
of the Senator from New Mexico, is about 15 to 20 minutes at the most.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator agree to 20 minutes for himself and
10 minutes for the opposition, which will be used at a later time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree to that, Mr. President.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent there be 20 minutes allotted to
Senator Feingold, and the order already has 10 minutes in it for
Senator Campbell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers, the Senator from
Mexico and Louisiana, for their management of the bill and for their
cooperation in making it possible for me to offer this amendment at
this time.
I rise today to discuss a matter of concern to me and many other
Senators, the $10 million in funding for the initiation of construction
of the Animas LaPlata water project that is contained in the Senate
version of the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill.
This project is a perfect example of water policy from a by-gone era.
For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Animas LaPlata project is a
$714 million taxpayer-funded water development project planned for
southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico. Designed to supply 191,230
feet of water, the Animas LaPlata project consists of two major
reservoirs, seven pumping plants, and 200 miles of canals and pipes.
The project will pump water over 1,000 feet uphill, consuming enough
power to run a city of 60,000, to supply municipal, industrial, and
irrigation interests.
I am concerned about this project because of its extremely high
projected cost to the taxpayer. This is among the last of the big
Federal water projects, and the kind I believe we can no longer afford.
The cost to the Federal Government of this project will amount to $481
million, nearly 68 percent of the total cost--an expense which has led
opponents of the project to label it ``Jurassic Pork.'' My fiscal
concerns are compounded by the likelihood that, as a remedy to address
the legitimate water rights concerns of the Ute Mountain Ute and
Southern Ute tribes, it may fall short of achieving even its
nonmonetary benefits.
The high cost of the project makes the water it seeks to store
incredibly expensive. The construction cost allocated to irrigation
amounts to $7,467 per acre of irrigated land--for land currently worth
about $500 per acre. The project provides an average irrigation subsidy
of over $2 million per farm over the 100-year life of the project. I
believe that the Congress should act to seek the consideration of
lower-cost alternatives and terminate this project rather than initiate
construction. My concerns are heightened now that the House has acted
to terminate Animas LaPlata. I believe it would be additionally costly
and wasteful to allow Animas LaPlata to move forward with limited
appropriations in this and the next few fiscal years only to find the
project will be terminated in the coming years. This seems pretty
wasteful.
I would like to discuss each of my concerns in greater detail, and to
try to provide more extensive background on the history of this matter.
First, while there are concerns about the fulfillment of Ute tribal
water rights now associated with this project, I wanted to make it
clear to my colleagues that this project was not initiated as a way to
address these claims. Animas LaPlata has a much longer history. It was
authorized in 1968 as a project to supply irrigation water to farmers
growing low value forage crops. Even back then in the days of big water
projects, this one was so bad it could not get going. In 1988, nearly
20 years after it was authorized, the settlement of the Ute Indian
water rights claims became an additional justification for pushing the
project through; but it was an additional justification, not the
initiation. Yet, as with any bad idea that is dressed up to appear
better, this project continues to be riddled with many problems.

By way of background, I do not need to tell the current Presiding
Officer, he knows very well, this project is scheduled to be built in
two phases. Phase 1 of the project is to be constructed entirely at
Federal cost in two stages, A and B. And then phase 2 is to be
constructed at non-Federal cost.
At the present time, there are at least 6 overlapping impediments to
this project going forward successfully:
First, conflicts under the Endangered Species Act;
Second, failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act,
NEPA;
Third, violation of the Water Supply Act of 1954 regarding repayment
of construction costs;
Fourth, a 1994 inspector general's audit determining that the project
is not economically feasible;
Fifth, the Bureau of Reclamation's own 1995 economic analysis
supporting the 1994 IG's report conclusions;
And finally, six, persistent questions about the ability of this
project to meet the regional Indian water rights claims, even if that
was the original purpose, which it was not.
I would like to discuss each of these concerns a little bit more. In
1990, the Bureau was notified that the project would trigger Endangered
Species Act protections because withdrawal of water from the rivers
affected would result in the demise of certain fish native to the area.
The issue was reviewed, and the Bureau is currently permitted to
build only one-third of the project, the portion known as phase 1,
stage A. Building only this portion of the project would not allow the
project to actually fulfill the tribal water rights claims that are
often cited as the reason to go forward.
In 1992, the Bureau was sued because it had failed to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act, and the court upheld that claim. The
Bureau of Reclamation took 3 years to complete its supplemental
environmental impact statement, and within days, the EPA promptly found
the supplemental EIS unsatisfactory, and now the project is a likely
candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality.
In May 1996, the EPA wrote to the Bureau to express its concerns. All
Members of the Senate should have received a copy of the EPA letter
when they received my Dear Colleague letter on this amendment last
Friday. A letter to Mr. Martinez, Bureau Director, from Richard
Sanderson, Director of EPA's Office of Federal Activities, dated May 1,
1996, states:

We remain concerned that the Bureau of Reclamations's
present formulation of the Animas LaPlata project will result
in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts that should be
avoided.

The letter cites, among those consequences, impacts to water quality,
Navajo water rights, mitigation concerns, and impacts associated with
municipal and industrial uses. The letter concludes:

It is unclear whether the fully sized Animas LaPlata
project will ever be constructed if the current constraints
remain unchanged. We believe that the Bureau of Reclamation
needs to reexamine whether there are more appropriate
alternatives that meet these constraints instead of merely
constructing stage A of the Animas LaPlata project.

In addition, municipal and industrial users are required under the
Water Supply Act of 1958 to fully repay all the construction costs and
operation and maintenance costs attributable to the supply of municipal
and industrial water. Those repayment contracts are to be in place
before construction begins.
Currently, a number of repayment contracts have not been signed.
Those that have been signed and those that

[[Page S9058]]

are anticipated to be signed are over $100 million short of the
projected municipal and industrial cost. It is questionable if the
project will ever comply with the law and obtain full reimbursement of
municipal and industrial costs from the project beneficiaries.
In addition, in 1994, the Interior Department's inspector general
audited the project and declared that the project was neither
financially feasible nor economically justifiable.
A July 1995 economic analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation, the only
analysis that used economic procedures approved for Bureau analyses and
a current discount rate, reported that the project's benefit cost ratio
is 36 to 1. That is 36 to 1. In other words, the project will only
return 36 cents for every tax dollar invested. That is not a very good
ratio.
Given all of these failures to comply with the Federal laws designed
to protect the taxpayer and the environment, Mr. President, one has to
question the advisability of moving forward with such a troubled
project.
In addition to Federal law concerns, the project does face some State
legal problems, as raised by the attorney general of the State of New
Mexico in a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee on July 17, 1996. Our colleagues should have received a copy
of this letter on Friday, as well, in their offices. Attorney General
Udall's letter states, ``The ALP project threatens to violate or
exacerbate existing violations of multiple State water quality
standards, including selenium, mercury, and others.''
Now, Mr. President, having listed these six concerns, I want to
specifically address the issue of the effect of the termination of this
project on the legitimate water rights claims of the Ute Mountain Ute
and Southern Ute tribes. This is an issue of grave concern to me, and I
know it is of paramount importance to the occupant of the chair, the
junior Senator from Colorado, who has longstanding ties to the Ute
Nations that predate his service in the U.S. Senate. As a Senator from
a State with 11 federally recognized tribes, I take tribal issues
extremely seriously and know, as does the junior Senator from Colorado,
that tribal issues are often the least well understood and can be very
divisive.

I believe it is of paramount importance to fulfill the Federal
Government's obligations to the tribes. And as the junior Senator from
Colorado will undoubtedly state, both Ute tribal governments do
formally support Animas LaPlata. However, it is also important to place
the Ute's interest in perspective. Of the 191,230 acre-feet of water
supplied by the project, two-thirds of that water will go to nontribal
interests with only 62,000 acre-feet of the total to be supplied to
both tribes.
I am concerned that the Animas LaPlata, despite the best of
intentions and arguments of proponents' attorneys, simply cannot meet
the needs of the tribes because the initial construction phase of the
project will neither provide the delivery system nor the quantity of
water needed to fully honor the Federal Government's commitments to the
tribe. We should not spend hundreds of millions of dollars and still
find the tribal needs potentially unmet. Instead, we should begin to
have the Bureau examine alternatives that would fully meet the needs of
the tribes in a timely way and at less cost.
There is at least a portion of the Southern Ute tribe, as you well
know, Mr. President, that shares these concerns. From the perspective
of the tribal councils, majority rules and the majority position of the
councils is to support this project. However, we in the Senate know
well the importance of protecting minority voices. Indeed, that is
exactly what this body is designed to do. Those in the Southern Ute
Tribe who oppose Animas LaPlata, the Southern Ute Grassroots
Organization, are on the committee of elders and have strong concerns.

On Friday, every Member of this body should have received another
copy of the letter they sent to Members of the Senate in April 1995.
That letter specifically asked Congress to refuse to appropriate money
to the Animas LaPlata until the Bureau thoroughly studies the other
alternatives. I think it important for all Members of the Senate to be
aware that there is actually a substantial division among the members
of the Southern Ute Tribe about the wisdom of this project.
If we do not reexamine this project, a future Senate will be right
back where we are today. The Ute Tribes' water rights settlement says
if the project isn't built and fully functional by the year 2000, the
tribes may, and are able to, void the settlement and go back into
negotiations or litigation. The Bureau of Reclamation, most in this
body would agree, is not an agency whose operating history has been
free from cost overruns and delays. The Bureau now indicates, before
the commencement of the project, that it cannot complete the project at
least before the year 2003, Mr. President.
I am afraid what will likely happen if Congress moves forward with
this project is that the project may be in some sort of state of
construction in 2003, the tribal governments will examine the cost they
will have to pay for Animas LaPlata water, which will be about twice
the local cost for municipal and industrial water, and they simply
might decide they will not be able to use the water or sell it. It is
not unreasonable to expect the Utes may seek to avoid their settlement,
wherein the non-Indian irrigators will get their project with its
$5,000 an acre subsidy and Congress, in the year 2005 or so, will have
to fund a new water rights settlement anyway, without resolving the
legitimate concerns of the two tribes.
Mr. President, I also want to raise another question relating to
tribal water rights, and that is the rights of the Navajo Nation who
live downstream of this project in New Mexico.
The Navajo Nation has not formally opposed this project, but they are
concerned about the impacts it will have on their nation. In an August
1995 letter to the Bureau of Reclamation Denver office, the Navajo
Nation indicated that the Animas LaPlata project would adversely affect
their trust water resources by decreasing the amount of water in the
San Juan River basin for their use and development. The Navajo Nation
as expressed in their letter ``exert sovereign control over its water
resources through the Navajo Nation Water Code * * * Depletions
resulting from ALP development will affect the sovereign administration
and management of Navajo water resources. Projected ALP development and
Navajo reservoir operation may require the reevaluation of existing
water uses permitted under the Water Code, with potentially adverse
consequences for the Navajo Nation.''

So, Mr. President, my understanding is that Navajo's rights to use
water within the San Juan River have not yet been adjudicated, yet as
the San Juan is the only reliable developable source of water in the
northern portion of the Navajo Nation these issues will continue to be
important.
I want to make the record clear however, that the Navajo Nation, in a
follow-up letter, clearly stated its concern that they did not want to
adversely affect the Utes' legitimate claims. Nevertheless, their
Nation has made it clear that they are prepared and ready to assert
their own water claims.
In other words, Mr. President, the continuation of Animas LaPlata is
not likely to settle tribal water rights claims in this region.
Therefore, it is critical before construction begins, that we take a
second look at whether there is a better way, a small, less
controversial means of satisfying the Ute claims without the massive
Animas LaPlata project.
By every indication, even the Bureau recognizes the massive project
originally envisioned will never be built. At best, a much smaller,
less ambitious project is the only feasible outcome. Yet the Bureau has
never formally acknowledged this fact, nor has Congress taken an active
role in shaping a project modification. Instead we are asked to
continue to appropriate funds for an infeasible project.
There are those in the Senate that may ask why this Senator has such
significant concerns about a very old water project for which some
individuals have such strong support. I have some personal experience,
Mr. President, of a situation like this in Wisconsin because people in
the western part of my State are living with the legacy of a failed
Army Corps of Engineers water project, the La Farge Dam. In 1962
Congress authorized $15.5 million--which would today cost about $102
million to build the same thing--for La

[[Page S9059]]

Farge dam and lake to be constructed along the Kickapoo River in
Wisconsin. They touted the tourism opportunities of lake and flood
control for neighboring residents not unlike the Animas LaPlata. And
144 farms and homes were condemned. Families were relocated. It
Impacted both the tax base and local business. Construction began in
1971 and was their discontinued in 1975, due to its environmental
impact and the presence of native archeological sites, when the project
was three-quarters complete.
At one point passions over this issue became so intense that former
Senators Proxmire and Nelson, and former Governor Lucey were burned in
effigy. The area, already struggling economically prior to the dam's
development, was devastated. By 1990, it was estimated that annual
losses resulting from the cessation of family farm operations and the
unrealized tourism benefits that had been promised with the dam totaled
more 300 jobs and $8 million for the local economy per year.
In fact, Mr . President, the only remaining legacy of the project is
a fragmented landscape. It is dotted with scattered remains of former
farm homes, and a 103 foot tall, concrete shell of the dam, with the
Kickapoo River flowing unimpeded through a 1,000-foot gap. The most
important benefit of the dam, its flood control protection, was never
realized. The legacy of La Farge, which only recently has begun to have
a silver lining with the passage last month of language to deauthorize
the project and turn the lands over to control by the State and the Ho
Chunk Nation, a Wisconsin tribe, is one that I think should not be
forgotten. It is a serious example of the Federal Government's mistake
with a big project that did not work.
Last week, as you well know, the House of Representatives finally
voted 221-200 to stop the funding for the Animas LaPlata project as it
is currently designed. That effort was led by my colleagues from
Wisconsin, Representative Petri, and Congressman DeFazio from Oregon.
Members in the other body made it very clear that they want the
Department of the Interior to review and develop a sensible alternative
that will effectively meet the legitimate needs of the tribes in a more
cost-effective and environmentally sound fashion.

We should do the same in the Senate for the sake of the taxpayers,
sound water policy and those tied to a project that will not deliver
what was promised. However, even if we do not do the correct thing, the
wise thing, let us make no mistake: The project as currently designed
is dead, and we will impose far greater costs if we decide to continue
to make infrastructure investments in its future when it is never going
to go anywhere.
The House has heard the voices of citizen groups and taxpayer groups,
tribal members and environmentalists. The House is no longer going to
support this bad idea. It is no longer a question of whether the
project will die. It is now a question of how much money and time will
be wasted in the end game. Yes, we could go back and forth for a few
years with the House terminating funding and then the Senate restoring
the money. That has happened before in other projects where we wasted
money. But eventually, the House will resist, and ultimately--
hopefully, sooner rather than later--so will the Senate. Meanwhile we
will waste millions more of taxpayers' money.
That is why, Mr. President, it is time for us to step up now and put
this matter on a positive track. Let us stop funding this project as
currently designed and tell the Bureau of Reclamation to use the
unobligated funds available in the Animas account to size the project
to legitimate water needs and then explore all the alternatives to
meeting those needs in an effective, environmentally sound and cost-
efficient manner. Mr. President, to conclude, my amendment is identical
to that which passed the House, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
lend their support.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator use all his time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used all of his time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a couple of items I have to clean
up before I take a few minutes in opposition. For Senator Mack, who is
waiting, it will not be long. We will be through very soon.
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. 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, for purposes of timing, I yield myself 5
minutes in opposition.
Mr. President, before I start using that time, I say to the Senate,
we are within a couple of minutes of completing the work on this bill.
I understand that pursuant to the understanding, the next bill will be
legislative appropriations. So we will not be long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to take 5 minutes to talk about
the Animas LaPlata project. The occupant of the chair is very familiar
with the fact that there are two issues--big, big issues--in this
Animas LaPlata.
One issue is frequently forgotten when people talk about whether this
project has earned its spurs in terms of costs to the taxpayer.
Frequently, the only thing that is used is the dollars versus what
physical improvements we will produce and what they mean in terms of a
cost-benefit ratio. That is well and good. And we will say that cost-
benefit ratio is not very high.
There is a second part to this bill. It is a very, very big part of
this bill. We do not even know how many millions of dollars it would
cost the Federal Government, but we know this: The U.S. Government is
assumed and presumed by many to have violated the rights of two Indian
tribes with reference to taking care of their water. The United States
of America, as evidenced in other cases, can be liable in dollars for
that when there is no other way to give to the Indian people what we
had committed as a nation to do for them. In this case, that is
frequently forgotten in terms of a justification for this project.
The Southern Utes and the Mountain Ute Tribes will have no remedy for
the abuse of their water if this project is not completed, and thus we
give them water, irrigatable land, and a way to use water that is
available to them which would otherwise disappear because of
malfeasance on the part of the U.S. Government.
Now, I, for one, have taken that very seriously, even though it is
not totally applicable to my State, the State of New Mexico. Most of
those claims and most of that water and most of the Indians represented
by those two groups of Indians are in the State of Colorado, the State
that the occupant of the chair represents in this body.
Speaking for my own State, so that it is clear, I know there is a
letter from our attorney general, but let me say the cities of
Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield all need the water provided in this
project. All these communities are strongly committed to the projects.
They committed resources to it to meet repayment obligations under the
1986 cost sharing.
In addition, the State of New Mexico is strongly committed to the
project, as shown by the 1986 cost-sharing agreement for the project,
to support for the Colorado Ute water rights settlement, allocation of
consumptive use required for the project from New Mexico's
apportionment on the Colorado River basin compact, and fourth,
participation of the San Juan River recovery implementation program.
Having said that, obviously, there will be more said on this
amendment and probably much more eloquently and in a more relevant
matter by the distinguished occupant of the chair who has time reserved
to make an argument against the amendment. I do not intend to spend any
more time on it. I am ready to finish the bill and yield whatever time
I might have had with reference to it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S9060]]

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 have five amendments that I will
submit en bloc. Let me quickly describe them and then submit them en
bloc.
I offer one in behalf of Senator Hutchison regarding the abatement of
payments because of drought on two projects in the State of Texas; one
in behalf of Senator McConnell, which has been totally worked out now
with Senator Glenn, and that is Enrichment Corporation, with reference
to the presence of an adequate number of security guards and a few
other items relating to that; third, I offer in behalf of Senator
Chafee a 50 percent match program on the Seekonk River, Rhode Island
Bridge; the last one, two distinct amendments for Senator Boxer
regarding the Bolinas Lagoon restoration study, and the other is
regarding a facility on Compton Creek Channel in Los Angeles.

Amendments Nos. 5107 through 5111

Mr. DOMENICI. I send the amendments to the desk and ask for their
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], proposes
amendments en bloc numbered 5107 through 5111.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments en bloc (No. 5107 through 5111) are as follows:

amendment no. 5107

On page 37 add the following after line 25:

SEC. . CORPUS CHRISTI EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.

For the purpose of providing emergency drought relief, the
Secretary of the Interior shall defer all principal and
interest payments without penalty or accrued interest for a
period of one year for the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, and
the Nueces River Authority under contract No. 6-07-01-X0675
involving the Nueces River Reclamation Project, Texas.

SEC. 2. CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY EMERGENCY
DROUGHT RELIEF.

The Secretary shall defer all principal and interest
payments without penalty or accrued interest for a period of
one year for the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
under contract No. 14-06-500-485 as emergency drought relief
to enable construction of additional water supply and
conveyance facilities.
____

amendment no. 5108

On page 20 after line 2 add the following:
``Section 161k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2201k) 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 side arms at
all times to ensure maintenance of security at the gaseous
diffusion plants;''
Section 311(b) of the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law
104-134, title III, chapter 1, subchapter A) insert 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).''

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment to
protect the safety of employees at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
as well as the safety of the greater Paducah community.
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant produces enriched uranium and
employs some 1,800 people. By all who live in the Paducah area, the
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which occupies more than 3,400 acres, is
regarded as a nuclear plant. This year, the plant is undergoing a
transition from being a Department of Energy owned and operated
facility to one owned by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation and operated
by private contract. The plant will be under the regulatory authority
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by year's end.
Historically, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant has maintained an
on-premises security force to protect the plant and employees from
sabotage, theft or unauthorized control of the nuclear material. The
security personnel are currently authorized to make arrests, and they
carry firearms in support of their mission. In the past several years,
these plant security officers have foiled a number of unauthorized
entries onto plant premises, protected the facility from disgruntled
former employees and enforced security rules against contract employees
who have access to the plant. In an era of domestic terrorism, as in
the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, these security
employees perform an increasingly vital function.
In the transition from DOE to NRC supervision, the security force
currently employed at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, absent
adoption of this amendment, will be downgraded. under current NRC
regulations, they will lose their authority to make arrests and carry
firearms. But privatization does not change the nature of the work or
the risk at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The plant will
continue to produce radioactive enriched uranium.
The amendment simply continues the authority of the plant security
personnel at enriched uranium facilities to execute arrests and carry
firearms. Without this authority for the security officers at the
plant, the plant will have to rely on area law enforcement officials to
respond in emergency situations. The city of Paducah has informed plant
officials that their response time for their police and firefighters
will be approximately 20 minutes. The Kentucky State Police has a
special response team which would assist the Paducah facility in the
event of a threat to public safety. That special response team is
located in Frankfort, halfway across the State from Paducah and it
would take 4 hours to have a helicopter respond to an emergency at the
Paducah plant. The McCracken County Sheriff's Department has expressed
serious concern at the prospect of the security force losing its arrest
authority. McCracken County Sheriff Frank Augustus has advised the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation of the problems his department would encounter
in responding to an emergency call by the Paducah plant:

If a hostile situation should occur, I could not guarantee
adequate personnel or response time due to our department's
manpower shortage. When only seconds matter I am very much
afraid it would take many minutes to adequately respond.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Sheriff Augustus be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Sheriff of McCracken County,

Paducah, KY, July 10, 1996.
Bern Stapleton,
Safeguard and Security Associate, U.S. Enrichment Corp.,
Bethesda, MD.
Dear Mr. Stapleton: It has recently been brought to my
attention that Security personnel at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant may possibly lose their arrest authority and
their ability to be armed. This issue causes me a great deal
of concern.
I understand the police operation of the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant is responsible for the protection of
classified material, sensitive nuclear material, government
property, and over 2,200 employees situated on 3,423 acres,
including 748 acres of fenced area. In contrast, the
McCracken County Sheriff's department is responsible for
patrolling over 250 square miles in order to meet the needs
of our County's citizens. Since I took office in 1994,
citizens' calls for law enforcement have increased by 23,000
calls. Crime is on the rise in McCracken County and due to
financial constraints, my department has only 17 full-time
road deputies to handle these increases.
I am extremely concerned that if a major problem should
arise at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant it would be
extremely difficult for my department to provide proper
security for such a sizable site until more enforcement could
arrive. If a hostile situation should occur, I could not
guarantee adequate personnel or response time due to our
department's manpower shortage. When only seconds matter I am
very much afraid it would take many minutes to adequately
respond.
Another issue that must be addressed is our officers' lack
of knowledge in regard to the actual facility and surrounding
grounds. As noted above, the immense size of this facility
poses many problems in regard to providing adequate safety to
plant employees as well as my deputies.
In my opinion, the current security staff is of immense
value to the safety of the plant facility and the employees
that work within. I fully understand the move toward
privatization necessitates many changes in operations that
have been in place for many years. I would like to strongly
recommend, however, that a long serious look be taken at
proposed changes in the security force at the Paducah Plant
before a final decision is made. I am sure that your utmost
concern,

[[Page S9061]]

as well as it is mine, is for the safety of the people of
McCracken County as well as the safekeeping of the Plant,
whether it remains a government facility or is privatized in
the future.
I would be more than happy to discuss this matter with you
in more detail at your convenience. Please feel free to call
me.
Very truly yours,
Frank Augustus,
McCracken County Sheriff.
Mr. McCONNELL. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that the employees
of the Gaseous Diffusion Plant, as well as the residents of Paducah are
entitled to an immediate response to an emergency situation. While the
security force may need assistance in the event of a serious threat,
the employees should not be left unprotected while local law
enforcement responds.
This amendment does not add any additional security protection to the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant; it maintains the status quo, allowing
the current security officers to continue doing their job, protecting
the plant and employees from danger. I urge the adoption of my
amendment.

amendment no. 5109

On page 5 add the following between lines 2 and 3:
``Seekonk River, Rhode Island bridge removal $650,000;''.
____

amendment no. 5110

(Purpose: To provide funding for the Secretary of the Army to maintain
Compton Creek Channel, Los Angeles County drainage area, California)

On page 7, line 6, after ``facilities'', insert the
following: ``, and of which $500,000 shall be made available
for the maintenance of Compton Creek Channel, Los Angeles
County drainage area, California''.
____

amendment no. 5111

(Purpose: To provide funding for the Secretary of the Army to carry out
the restoration study for Bolinas Lagoon, Marin County, California)

On page 2, between lines 24 and 25, insert the following:
``Bolinas Lagoon restoration study, Marin County, California,
$500,000;''.

Mr. DOMENICI. For the record, let me state these have all been
approved by the minority. They have no objection, or, in some
instances, they were the supportive cause for a couple of the
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments en bloc are
agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 5107 through 5111) en bloc were agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that is all the amendments I
know of regarding this energy and water bill. I believe we can announce
in the morning further amplification of the record, but I think we know
we will start with 20 minutes of debate by the managers, to be followed
by 10 minutes by Senator McCain regarding the McCain amendment, and
then there is a list of amendments that would follow with time limits,
and 2 minutes for each side.
We have four or five amendments pending that have not been agreed to
in that sequence, and we will just have to attend to those in due
course in the morning.
I yield the floor. I thank the Senate for its consideration.

____________________