[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9085-S9115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1959, 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

[[Page S9086]]

     year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

        Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 5094, to clarify that report language 
     does not have the force of law.
       McCain amendment No. 5095, to prohibit the use of funds to 
     carry out the advanced light water reactor program.
       Bumpers amendment No. 5096, to reduce funding for the 
     weapons activities account to the level requested by the 
     Administration.
       Johnston (for Wellstone) amendment No. 5097, to ensure 
     adequate funding for the biomass power for rural development 
     program.
       Grams amendment No. 5100, to limit funding for the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission and require the Commission to 
     be phased out in 5 years.
       Domenici (for McCain) amendment No. 5105, to strike section 
     503 of the bill.
       Feingold amendment No. 5106, to eliminate funding for the 
     Animas-LaPlata participating project.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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, parliamentary inquiry. What is the 
business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Currently, there is 20 minutes equally divided 
between the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Louisiana. At 
9:50 a.m., we will recognize Senator McCain for remarks concerning his 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just state for Senator Johnston's benefit, we 
have, as he probably knows, reached an agreement with Senator McCain on 
his report language. I think he will find that satisfactory.
  So, when Senator McCain arrives, when his time has expired, we will 
do this second-degree amendment, and then we will vote, if he desires a 
rollcall vote; if not, we will adopt the amendment.
  What would be the next order of business after that amendment is 
disposed of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent order from last night 
talks about a 10 a.m. vote, with 2 minutes allotted to each side and a 
vote on the McCain amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the next amendment after that, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Following that, amendment No. 5095, which is 
another McCain amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On advanced light water reactor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And there are 2 minutes on each side on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, 2 minutes on that, and then we will 
move to a Bumpers amendment No. 5096.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to yield now--we only have about 6 minutes--
if the Senator from Louisiana would like to speak to the light water 
reactor amendment or whatever he would like to speak to.


                           Amendment No. 5095

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
New Mexico. There is a McCain amendment on cutting the funds, $22 
million for the light water reactor. This is the fifth year of a 5-year 
program.
  There are many reasons to be against the McCain amendment, but the 
clearest, most indelible, most compelling reason is that to cut these 
funds now would subject the U.S. Government to greater penalties for 
termination costs than it would be to finish it.
  Moreover, the U.S. Government would lose, according to Terry Lash, 
who is the Director of the Department of Energy office in charge of 
this, the U.S. Government would lose up to $125 million to which they 
would otherwise be entitled. The reason for that is, the AP-600, which 
is the reactor, which is 90 percent complete would be completed by this 
last year. When the first of those is sold, the Federal Government is 
entitled to a $25 million recoupment, plus $4 million for every reactor 
sold after that, plus the United States Government is entitled right 
now to $3 million from GE for reactors already sold under this program 
to Taiwan and others in the pipeline.
  For the United States to, in effect, break their contract and 
terminate, subjects the Government not only to a greater amount in loss 
but the loss of future revenues as well.

  Mr. President, the AP-600, which is the Westinghouse reactor, which 
would be finished under this program, is exactly what all of us in the 
Congress have been saying all this time that we ought to be doing; that 
is, it is a passively safe reactor, it is one generically designed and 
is, I believe, going to be a very hot item, particularly in Asia. The 
Chinese have already obligated themselves to 6,000 megawatts of nuclear 
power between now and the year 2000 using Russian technology, Canadian 
technology, and French technology, because we do not permit our nuclear 
technology to go to China after Tiananmen Square. We expect that that 
negotiation will take place in the not too far distant future to allow 
American nuclear technologies to get in on that huge market.
  In the first decade after the year 2000, the Chinese expect to do 
another 11,000 megawatts, many, many billions of dollars, and they have 
a longstanding relationship with Westinghouse, they like the AP-600, 
and we ought to have it finished.
  So, Mr. President, you can finish it for less money than to terminate 
it, and then you lose all the additional funds you would get.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we will not be so foolish as in a fit of 
antinuclear pique to go out and accept one of these bumper-sticker-type 
arguments that this is corporate welfare. The fact of the matter is 
that the corporations involved here, relying upon the Government, have 
put up almost $500 million to get this program finished, and now it 
takes another $22 million to finish the program and the Congress is 
saying, ``Let's not do it.'' If this argument was to have been made and 
this decision was to have been made, it should have been made back in 
1992 when the Energy Policy Act was up, when the issue was debated and 
when the Congress decided to go ahead with the program.
  To stop it at the 11th hour at greater cost than to complete it is 
nothing short of madness, which is not to say that the Congress has not 
done that kind of thing before. We have done some exceedingly foolish 
things in this Senate before, as my colleagues all know. But at least 
we should not go into this one, which not only would be exceedingly 
foolish but exceedingly simple and exceedingly easy to understand. It 
ought to be easy for anyone to understand that you should not terminate 
a program that costs more money to terminate than to continue.
  Moreover, there would be a huge amount of potential profits to be 
lost and a very, very useful technology.
  One final note, Mr. President. I note that the United States is now 
getting serious about global warming, and in the New York Times of July 
17, 1996, there is an article entitled ``In a Shift, the U.S. Will Seek 
a Binding Agreement by Nations To Combat Global Warming.''
  Mr. President, if we are, in fact, serious about global warming--and 
I will submit that to the conscience and intelligence and state of 
knowledge of each Senator as to whether you are or not serious about 
global warming--I can tell you that there is one solution that stands 
out above all the rest, and that is nuclear energy, if you really are 
serious about global warming, because how else are you going to 
generate large amounts of power?
  We have a huge amount of money in this bill for renewables. We have 
increased it. You know, I am for it. But, Mr. President, if you think 
you are going to solve global warming by something short of major 
powerplants at a time when there is huge growth in the world, 
industrial growth, I believe, Mr. President, you would be mistaken.
  All over the Pacific rim where there are these enormous rates of 
growth, unparalleled in the history of the world for a region of such 
huge populations to be growing at such leaps and bounds, there is also 
an air pollution problem of unprecedented severity. That is why the 
Chinese and the Indonesians and the Japanese are very serious about a 
big nuclear program. All of those nations are. And American technology 
should be able to compete. This technology, which is almost complete,

[[Page S9087]]

about 90 percent complete, would be America's best way to get into that 
global competition.
  So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote against the McCain 
amendment when it is brought up, the McCain amendment with respect to 
the advanced light water program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona has the time from 
9:50 to 10 a.m. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5094

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New 
Mexico for his agreement on our changes to his amendment. I appreciate 
that very much. I do want to make it clear, though, that we are talking 
about a very important issue here; that is, the differentiation between 
report language and bill language. The report language is sometimes 
ignored. I understand that many of our Members are very frustrated from 
time to time when report language is ignored.
  The administration does sometimes ignore report language at its own 
peril. We know that if the administration acts in direct contradiction 
to report language that Members will come up with numerous ways to 
force the administration to do their bidding.
  The effective language contained in this bill--before the amendment--
I believe was dangerous for two reasons. First, by giving report 
language the force of law, we essentially passed statutory language 
that has not been agreed to by both Houses and signed into law. This 
is, on its face, unconstitutional.
  Mr. President, let me just quote from Justice Scalia where he said:

       As anyone familiar with modern-day drafting of 
     congressional committee reports is well aware, the references 
     to the cases were inserted, at best by a committee staff 
     member on his or her own initiative, and at worst by a 
     committee staff member at the suggestion of a lawyer-
     lobbyist; and the purpose of those references was not 
     primarily to inform the Members of Congress what the bill 
     meant. . .

  Mr. President, as I have been around here about 10 years, I agree 
with Justice Scalia. I have seen it time after time. Mr. President, the 
D.C. Circuit Court, in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 
Local Union No. 474 versus NLRB noted:

       . . . [w]hile a committee report may ordinarily be used to 
     interpret unclear language contained in a statute, a 
     committee report cannot serve as an independent statutory 
     source having force of law.

  And in Rubin versus U.S., the eighth circuit court stated:

       A conference report, moreover, is just that--a report, not 
     a legislative act requiring the votes of the requisite number 
     of legislators.

  Second, by codifying report language, which is written by the staffs 
of the 13 full committee chairmen, you have essentially disenfranchised 
every other Senator of his or her right to amend legislation. Report 
language cannot be amended. I cannot stand on the floor of the Senate 
and try to amend and change report language. The minority party cannot 
change report language. No one but that chairman that writes it can 
dictate what is in report language.
  Mr. President, codifying report language is creative budget chicanery 
and an affront to this institution and the Constitution, and it should 
not be done. If a Member of Congress wants to force the administration 
to take a certain specific action, whether to spend money on a project 
or do something else, then that Senator has the right to offer an 
amendment.
  We all know the rules here. An amendment can be debated, further 
amended, filibustered, or tabled. But report language cannot be 
touched. Therefore, it should not be codified into law.
  Mr. President, the Office of Management and Budget specifically 
mentioned its opposition to this language in the statement of 
administration policy. OMB is correct in that this provision should be 
struck from the bill.
  I recognize that report language has been codified in the past. It 
was wrong then, and it is wrong now. We should not do this ever, in my 
view.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of the Senator from New 
Mexico concerning the lack of cooperation on the part of the 
administration to carry out the will of Congress and the will 
especially expressed in legislation that he has so much expertise and 
knowledge of, and I respect all that.
  I appreciate the fact that Senator Domenici has modified his 
amendment. I also understand why he would want a report on how the 
Department is spending those appropriated funds. I would point out in 
passing, although I certainly agree with the amendment, that one of my 
goals has been to reduce the number of reports that flow over to the 
Congress and are demanded by the Congress of the executive branch.
  But, in this case, I understand the urgency that the Senator from New 
Mexico feels is associated with this language and with the efforts that 
he has made on behalf of the people of this country and, in the form of 
his chairmanship, this very proper appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The leader has asked that I make the following 
unanimous-consent request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the vote schedule at 10 a.m. be postponed until 10:15--that is because 
of an emergency that our leader recognizes--with the time before that 
being equally divided, if we want to use the time. We can yield it to 
other Senators.
  I say to Senator McCain, let me thank you for your efforts with 
reference to the report language that essentially was put in this bill 
at my request. I do understand that language that I have in the bill 
that says:

       Notwithstanding [other provisions of the law,] funds made 
     available by this Act . . . shall be available only for 
     the purposes for which they have been made available by 
     this Act and only in accordance with the recommendations 
     contained in this report.

  We are going to strike that with your amendment, and we are going to 
offer a second-degree amendment that requires regular reports to this 
subcommittee on how it has complied with this bill.
  I am going to cite only four or five examples of what I consider 
egregious departures from the intent of the bill. I will give you one. 
We worked very hard on technology transfer, and we got that to a dollar 
number of $150 million. It had been higher. The administration wanted 
less. We worked it out. We debated it. The Secretary decided to use 
only $50 million of it, and to put $100 million somewhere else at her 
choosing.
  That is nice. It is just that, for many of us who worked hard on 
these issues, it is sort of insulting to go through all this work and 
have it happen. We accepted, after debate, an amendment by Senator 
Kerrey with reference to a certain math and science initiative which 
the Department was requested and in report language required to do it. 
It was a half million dollars. Totally ignored. The money went 
somewhere else.
  The McCain amendment would strike ``and only in accordance with the 
recommendations contained in this report.''
  Why is the language necessary?
  The act provides funds in very large chunks. For example, the act 
provides $2.749 billion for energy supply, research, and development.
  Only the report indicates that $247 million should go to solar and 
renewably energy programs--that is not in the act.
  Only the report indicates that $389 million is for biological and 
environmental research which funds the Human Genome Program--that is 
not in the act.
  Without the proposed language, the DOE does not have to follow the 
Senate's guidance.
  Last year, I worked hard to provide $150 million for technology 
transfer--but it was only in the report and so DOE provided only $50 
million.
  Last year, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska included report language that 
$500,000 should go to the Nebraska math and science initiative--DOE did 
not provide the money--they did not have to, it was just report 
language.
  Last year, Congress eliminated funding for in-house energy 
management--private sector companies now offer the service for free. 
But, Congress only eliminated the program in report language so DOE 
provide $4 million for the program--after Congress thought we had 
eliminated it.
  Financial irregularities abound at the DOE:

[[Page S9088]]

  Funds have been reprogrammed from their original purpose to purposes 
specifically denied by the Congress last year;
  The Department created a furlough relief fund to augment 
appropriations specifically reduced by Congress;
  A recent draft inspector general report noted that the Department 
deliberately ignored a statutory funding limitation on the use of 
representational expenses and spent more than appropriated for 
receptions.
  The language is necessary for two reasons:
  First, it is the only way funding for programs of interest to Members 
can be assured, and;
  Second, without it, the Department can ignore congressional intent.
  Frankly, the Secretary and her administrative assistants understand 
the concern we have about departures from what is the clear intent. I 
will just ask those who are for renewable energy, if they know that we 
just put a very large sum of money in, and in report language we 
recommend the renewables that you just alluded to, I say to Senator 
Johnston.
  Obviously, if the Secretary wants to, the way they act on other 
things, they could decide to cut that in half and spend the money 
elsewhere. Now, we go through a lot of effort on those kinds of issues. 
Frankly, I believe we must do something.
  So you are right. My language went too far. I think language that 
comes after it saying we want you to report to us, we will set the 
right tone.


                Amendment No. 5121 To Amendment No. 5094

(Purpose: Second degree amendment to the McCain first degree amendment 
                       regarding report language)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk, to the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consider the second-
degree amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5121 to amendment No. 5094.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
       On line 3 of amendment number 5094, strike ``Act'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following: ``Act. The Department 
     of Energy shall report monthly to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate on the Department of 
     Energy's adherence to the recommendations included in the 
     accompanying report.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, if Senator McCain is willing, we 
will adopt the second-degree amendment by voice vote.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I compliment the Senator from Arizona on this amendment. It 
is the first time that I have been aware of language that, in effect, 
incorporates the committee report language as a part of the bill. The 
committee report language cannot be amended, and if we are going to 
start down this road, we are going to rue the day we began on this 
journey.
  I hope we will not have a voice vote in this. Have the yeas and nays 
been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
underlying amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I think we ought to have a vote and let that record be 
there for all to see in the future.
  Let me ask a question without losing my right to the floor, Mr. 
President. Does the distinguished Senator from Arizona know of any 
other bill, appropriations bill, in the recent past or ever in the 
past, that has utilized this approach of incorporating amendment 
language as a part of the bill?
  I have been unaware of it if this has been done before.
  Mr. McCAIN. Answering a question like that to the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia is like asking a minor league baseball 
player to pitch the World Series.
  The Senator from West Virginia is all corporate knowledge on these 
issues, and I bow to his knowledge. He has been intimately involved in 
this process for so long. I believe I am correct in responding when I 
say I know of no other case, except one case that took place sometime 
in the mid-1980's when this particular instance happened, but I have 
not heard of it before.
  I ask in return, does the Senator from West Virginia know of any 
place where this happened?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not know, but that is not to say that 
it has not been done. It may have escaped my attention, but whether or 
not it has been done heretofore, I think we ought to put a stop to it 
if it has been done. I think it ought to be stopped now.
  I congratulate the Senator on his amendment. I shall object to 
vitiating the yeas and nays on this amendment if the request is made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment to the McCain amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5121) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5095

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to discuss very briefly the other 
amendment that I have pending. I, of course respect the views of the 
Senator from Louisiana. Let me state at the beginning I am a supporter 
of nuclear energy and I believe at some point in our history we may 
turn back to that as a source of power for our energy needs.
  Continuing the advanced light-water reactor program is a mistake. I 
point out that this program has already received more than $230 million 
over the past 5 years. This amendment does not create any termination 
costs of the program. The contract between Westinghouse and the 
Department of Energy specifically provides reimbursement for costs 
incurred as a result of termination, ``shall be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.''
  General Electric recently announced it is canceling its simplified 
boiling water reactor after receiving $50 million from the Department 
of Energy under the program because ``extensive evaluations of the 
market competitiveness of the 600-megawatt-size advanced light-water 
reactor have not established the commercial viability of these 
designs.'' The Westinghouse AP-600 is a similarly designed reactor that 
is scheduled to receive advanced light-water reactor support and is of 
a similar size and design and is facing similar market forces that led 
General Electric to cancel that program.
  These facts are significant because the Government cannot recoup its 
costs for reactors not sold. The Westinghouse reactor is like the 
canceled reactor and will likely never be sold, and no costs can be 
recouped.
  Last year, there was opposition to end funding for the advanced 
light-water reactor program by arguing that this year, fiscal year 
1996, would be the fifth year of the 5-year program. Now, a year later, 
the same argument is being made.
  The way to end this taxpayer subsidy is by the will of the Congress 
exercised here today. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support 
the amendment. I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 5094, as Amended

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the first amendment by Senator 
McCain, as amended by the second-degree amendment, we are working to 
try to get that adopted.
  Senator Byrd, let me suggest we are ready to acknowledge openly that 
the amendment went too far. The intention, I still feel very 
comfortable with, because I believe the Department truly in egregious 
ways violates the intent and spirit by moving money around, but I think 
Senator Byrd has made the case, and Senator McCain has made the case. 
Clearly it is not going to happen.
  I think the Senate knows that we are not going to be doing this, but 
I would like to make sure that what comes out of the Senate is kind of 
balanced, that the Department does not get the idea that they have all 
the latitude in the world and will never be called to task. I think 
this would better be served, overall, if we just proceed to adopt the 
amendment by voice vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I think the two managers have made a very salient point. I 
have discussed this matter with them privately and the majority manager 
has stated the case well. I am willing to yield to their request that 
we vitiate the yeas and nays but I hope the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona will continue his superb surveillance of bill

[[Page S9089]]

language in the future so that we will be aware of any future attempt 
to incorporate, in essence, incorporate committee report language into 
the bill as a law.

  I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated, and we proceed to the McCain amendment, as 
amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment before the Senate is amendment 5094, as amended with 
the Domenici amendment. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5094), as amended, 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.


                           Amendment No. 5095

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment under consideration now is 
amendment numbered 5095.
  The Chair reminds Senators that by unanimous consent rollcall votes 
will commence at 10:15. Sponsors of the amendment and their opponents 
have 2 minutes each with which to comment on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is the understanding of Senator 
McCain from Arizona and the manager of the bill that Senator McCain has 
an additional 10 minutes reserved on the light water reactor amendment. 
He has indicated to me he would like to vitiate that.
  Mr. McCAIN. That was before final passage that I ask to vitiate that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, 10 minutes before final passage. He asks that that 
be vitiated at this point. On his behalf, I ask unanimous consent that 
it be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Has all the 
time provided been used on the second McCain amendment on the light 
water reactor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each proponent and opponent are reserved 2 
minutes each for debate. By previous agreement, votes will not commence 
until 10:15.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator McCain does not desire any further time at this 
point, and Senator Johnston needs no more time. I ask unanimous consent 
that the 2 minutes each be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the second McCain 
amendment, and 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 question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 5095.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
absent because of a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Grams
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frahm
     Pell
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5095) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5096

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the previous agreement, there are 
now 2 minutes equally divided on the motion to table the Bumpers 
amendment No. 5096. The Senate is reminded that the rollcall vote on 
the motion to table the Bumpers amendment will be reduced to 10 
minutes.
  The Senate will be in order. Members who wish to converse, please 
retire to the cloakrooms.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. This amendment deals with an account in this bill called 
weapons activities. This account has $516 million more than it had last 
year, which is a 14-percent increase--14 percent. Incidentally, it is 
$300 million above the House, $269 million more than the President 
requested. My amendment simply takes them down to a 7-percent increase.
  It is the account where you deal with testing. And we have had a 
testing moratorium for 3 years. Under the START Treaty we are going to 
go from 24,000 weapons and 25 types to 3,500 and 7 types. We are 
increasing the budget to do all of that by 14 percent. If they cannot 
get by with a 7-percent increase, they ought to be abandoned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, has a motion been made to table my 
amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The motion has been.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. President, the United States is committed now to a new stockpile 
stewardship program because we no longer will do underground testing. 
This amendment will take $269 million out of the stockpile stewardship, 
which means the building of the scientific capacity to make sure our 
nuclear weapons are adequate and trustworthy, a whole new effort on the 
part of the Department of Energy's DOD activities.
  Stockpile management is part of that. The maintenance of backup 
facilities to this stockpile stewardship are in States like Texas, 
Missouri, and INEL in Idaho, and also there is program direction for 
that entire new program.
  Frankly, in essence, we get the same increase in defense spending 
that the other parts of defense get. I think if we want a robust 
nuclear deterrent that is trustworthy and safe, and do not want to 
build any new ones, we better not take any risks with this part of the 
defense budget. And that is why I move to table. I believe we are right 
in our assessments. We want to leave that money in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to lay on the table the amendment No. 5096 offered by the 
Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Bumpers]. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. Those wishing to table the Bumpers amendment will vote yea. 
Those opposing the tabling of the Bumpers amendment will vote nay. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
absent because of a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``nay.''

[[Page S9090]]

  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frahm
     Pell
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5096) was agreed 
to.


                           Amendment No. 5106

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Feingold 
amendment number 5106.
  The Senator from Colorado is guaranteed 10 minutes under the previous 
agreement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado has been 
patiently waiting and attending our sessions. He is not on the floor.
  Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask to move now to the Feingold 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Feingold 
amendment.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this matter is of great importance to 
the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. President, it is said that the great Chief Ten Bears in his later 
life after being deprived of his freedom by Government troops, was 
asked if the U.S. Government had made his people any promises. His 
answer was this: ``They made us many promises, more than I can 
remember. And they broke all but one: they promised to take our land 
and they took it.''
  Mr. President, no matter how you sugarcoat this bitter pill--you can 
coat it in economic terms, you can coat it in environmental terms, you 
can coat it in endangered species terms but under all the sugarcoating, 
the bitter pill of another broken promise remains.
  I was not here when the Animas La Plata was authorized in 1968. Few 
of my colleagues were, but I knew Wayne Aspinall, the congressman of 
Western Colorado who had such great vision to include it in the 
original authorization, with both the Central Arizona Project and the 
Central Utah Project--of the three, only the Animas La Plata 
languishes. Wayne Aspinall was a man of great vision who helped the 
desert bloom where only parched land had been.
  Unlike the Senator from Wisconsin, I was here in 1988 when, after 
careful negotiations between the two Colorado Indian tribes, the States 
of Colorado and New Mexico, and nine separate Government agencies, we 
reached an agreement to share the scarce water in the San Juan Basin 
between Indians and their non-Indian neighbors. The tribes agreed to 
drop their lawsuit against the Federal Government, which they would 
have surely won since they have such ironclad priority rights in water 
matters, in return for a cash settlement and an agreement by this 
Government to proceed with a water storage project for both Indian and 
non-Indians to share. Two public votes were taken of all the people 
affected, and both the repayment contract for the water users and the 
compromise itself were overwhelmingly accepted by the people of 
southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico.

  Still, as in matters such as this, there will always be voices of 
opposition, some saying we went too far and others saying we did not go 
far enough. We in this body have all experienced that reaction. 
However, since the 1988 agreement and subsequent law that I authored 
which implemented the agreement, those voices of opposition have made 
up in shrillness what they lack in reason and fairness. Yet, even above 
the Sierra Club's carping, virtually every elected official from the 
local level to the President of the United States supports this 
project. In fact, President Clinton had $10 million designated in his 
budget for this project. President Bush supported it, as did President 
Reagan before him. All of the Colorado delegation, save one person, 
support the project and voted for the necessary appropriations on the 
House side. The lone Member who opposed it neither lives in Colorado 
nor cares about abiding by this agreement, even though she voted for it 
in 1988. Our Governor supports it, our attorney general supports it, 
and all of Colorado's major newspapers support it.
  I ask those who want to strip the appropriation for this project just 
how is the State of Colorado going to be repaid under the Feingold 
amendment, if it prevails, for the $30 million we have spent of 
taxpayers' money as our part of the agreement? Who is going to repay 
the almost $60 million of taxpayers' money that the Federal Government 
has paid both of the tribes to drop the original lawsuit? Who will pay 
the hundreds of Indian and non-Indian ranchers who risk losing their 
water rights should the tribes go back to court, win the lawsuit, and 
claim their rightfully owned water, thereby drying up what some say is 
as much as one-fourth of all non-Indian irrigated farmland in the 
valley? Who pays for litigation when the Department of the Interior is 
put in the position where the Bureau of Indian Affairs has to defend 
the Indian tribes against its fellow agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, 
for nonperformance? The answer is that the taxpayer pays untold 
litigation fees on both sides.
  While many colleagues bring charts and graphs to the floor of the 
Senate to emphasize a point--there seems to be a common belief in this 
body that if you have a graph or chart, or it is written somehow, that 
it automatically becomes true--I bring two objects of great reverence 
to traditional Indian people. These objects are from a culture that did 
not need protection from one another by a written contract. They 
represent a culture that believed your word was your bond, in which 
honor was held in highest esteem. They represent a culture which never 
broke a treaty with the U.S. Government. Traditional Indian people 
committed nothing to written contract and yet believed that great 
nations, like great men, must honor their agreements. Yet, from the 
time the first Indian affixed his fingerprint to the first document 
with the U.S. Government, which he could not read and little 
understood, he has learned the hard way that all too often this 
Government does not keep its word.
  This is a pipe, Mr. President. In traditional Indian beliefs, before 
any words of import were spoken, a pipe like this was smoked. The 
traditional belief is that the smoke would take your words to the 
Creator. One does not lie or break his word to the Creator.
  This is a fan, a wing from Wanbli, the eagle who was designated by 
the Creator as the keeper of the Earth to oversee his children and to 
see that they did the right thing. I submit that the actions of this 
body, which begins its deliberations each day with prayer, could learn 
at least as much from the objects as they can from all the paper 
documents to which this Government subscribes. Why be a party to a 
legal document if we are going to break it?
  Just last week, this body reaffirmed its commitment to North Vietnam, 
of all places, to the tune of $1.5 million in order to teach them the 
American system of law. Shall we also teach them

[[Page S9091]]

that under our system of law it is perfectly acceptable to deceive 
people, to enter into agreements and to unilaterally break our word? 
How can we teach the Vietnamese a code of conduct based on legal 
agreements if we do not practice that code ourselves? Perhaps we should 
tell them that these principles of law do not apply to American 
Indians. They apply to everyone else, but not to American Indians. It 
is easy to break our word to American Indians--we have done it lots of 
times.

  In fact, Mr. President, from 1492 at Columbus' landing until the 
1900's when the new century began, according to the National Congress 
of American Indians, 473 treaties were signed. Of those, 371 were 
ratified by this body, the U.S. Senate. Some, as you know, were written 
virtually at gunpoint and others through clever maneuvering on the part 
of Government negotiators. Yet, as the American Indian lost more and 
more, as they lost their land, as they lost their water, as they lost 
their families and, finally, their freedom, they never broke a single 
treaty with the U.S. Government. How many has the Government broken 
with the Indians? I defy anybody in this Chamber to give me that 
number. I had to look it up myself. Mr. President, they broke every 
single one. They broke every one with the American Indian.
  I note with interest, Mr. President, there are a number of Indian 
people sitting in the gallery today as silent witnesses to our 
deliberations. I have to say that I salute them for their patience. I 
ask my colleagues to look into their hearts before voting on this 
amendment. Do not just compare statistics and charts and graphs and 
notes. Ask yourself, do you want to add one more broken promise to this 
infamous total of broken promises? Do you want to make this vote No. 
474 in broken promises? America is better than this, Mr. President. The 
American people are better than this. Let us keep our promise. Let us 
do the right thing and table this amendment.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a number of letters of support for this project. They 
include a letter from the City of Durango; a letter from the attorney 
general of the State of Colorado; a letter from the Native American 
Rights Fund; a letter from the Colorado House of Representatives; a 
letter from the Colorado General Assembly; and a Denver Post article 
dated July 28, 1996.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              City of Durango,

                                       Durango, CO, July 10, 1996.
       Honorable Members of the House of Representatives: The City 
     Council of the City of Durango, Colorado, urges your support 
     of ongoing funding for the Animas-La Plata Project.
       The public water supply needs of this community have been 
     put on hold for over a decade in anticipation that 
     Congressional commitments associated with the project would 
     be honored and funding would be authorized in a timely 
     fashion.
       The Animas-La Plata Project remains as the most economical 
     and efficient means of addressing the future water supply 
     needs of this region. Failure by Congress to provide 
     additional funding for the project at this time may bring 
     about its demise, thereby thrusting the responsibility of 
     developing future water resource needs back into the 
     shoulders of the local governments and Indian Tribes in this 
     region, thus eliminating the economies of scale inherent in 
     the federal project.
       Accordingly, we ask your positive support in providing 
     continued funding of the Animas-La Plata Project.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Lee R. Goddard,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

                                                State of Colorado,


                                            Department of Law,

                                         Denver, CO, July 5, 1996.
     Hon. Dick Zimmer
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Zimmer: I am writing to you to urge 
     your continued support of the Animas-La Plata Project. We 
     must not simply walk away from the solemn commitments made to 
     the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes in the Colorado 
     Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement and the 
     Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. The 
     Animas-La Plata Project should go forward because it settles 
     long-standing Tribal water claims.
       It is important to remember the reasons this project is 
     necessary. In 1976 the United States, on behalf of the 
     Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes filed an 
     application in Colorado water court for adjudication of their 
     reserved water rights on numerous tributaries covering 
     virtually all of southwestern Colorado. If these rights were 
     confirmed, numerous vested water rights would become junior 
     to the Tribes' water rights. Cities, industry, farmers, 
     ranchers and numerous other water users feared that the 
     Tribes could take water from existing uses and could 
     frustrate future non-tribal development.
       The underlying agreement took years to negotiate and was 
     based on commitments and compromises made by all parties, 
     Native Americans and non-native Americans alike. A look at 
     the general purposes set out in the settlement agreement 
     confirms the very importance of us meeting our obligations. 
     That agreement finally determined all rights and claims of 
     the Tribes for water, settled existing disputes and removed 
     causes of future controversy among the Tribes, State of 
     Colorado, the U.S. concerning the rights to beneficially use 
     water in southwestern Colorado. It secured for the Tribes an 
     opportunity to generate revenue from the use of reserved 
     water rights obtained under the agreement.
       Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, if parts of the 
     Animas-La Plata project are not completed by the year 2000, 
     the Tribes have the option to go back to water court and 
     pursue their original claims in the Animas and La Plata river 
     systems. The result could be costly litigation between the 
     U.S., State, and individual water right holders throughout 
     the region. Further uncertainty regarding the practical use 
     and value of many water rights would exist.
       Congress has recognized its contractual and moral 
     obligations to the parties of the settlement agreement by 
     continuing to fund the project. Congress further recognized 
     the project's importance by requiring the Bureau of 
     Reclamation to construct the project without further delay in 
     legislation passed last year.
       Critics have stated that the settlement agreement can no 
     longer be met. That, I believe, is a surprise to many of 
     those parties to the agreement. To completely scrap the 
     project by no longer funding it will wreak havoc on economies 
     and water administration in the State of Colorado. The Tribes 
     would most likely be forced to reopen their claims in a long 
     and costly court battle. Certainty, with respect to these 
     reserved rights could not be expected for many more years, 
     perhaps decades.
       Both the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes strongly 
     support building Animas-La Plata to implement the Settlement 
     Agreement. In fact, the Tribes have filed a civil action 
     against the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. 
     District Court in Denver to compel EPA to fulfill its 
     contractual and statutory duties to the Tribes and refrain 
     from obstructing construction of the project.
       The economic viability of the project has been criticized. 
     However, as the Bureau points out in its report, the analysis 
     does not take into account the tangible and intangible 
     benefits of resolving the Tribes' reserved rights claims 
     without lengthy, costly litigation that would pit Indian and 
     non-Indian neighbors against each other.
       The project will comply, as required by law, with the 
     Endangered Species Act and all other applicable environmental 
     statutes. The environmental effects of Animas-La Plata are 
     carefully considered and addressed in the April 1996 Final 
     Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement (FSFES). 
     Extensive mitigation measures are proposed for the project.
       Some project critics have urged that further studies be 
     done on the Project. Further studies would do nothing more 
     than delay the project beyond the settlement agreement 
     deadline and further escalate costs. Alternatives were 
     considered in the 1980 environmental impact statement, they 
     were considered again during negotiation of the Settlement 
     Agreement, and the Bureau took a fresh and extremely thorough 
     look at them in the FSFES, which took over four years to 
     complete.
       The Settlement Agreement requires that Animas-La Plata be 
     built without further delay. The State of Colorado has 
     already spent over $11,000,000 to implement the Settlement 
     Agreement, with an additional $48,000,000 set aside in 
     escrow. The United States should likewise honor its 
     commitment to the Tribes and the settlement. I strongly urge 
     you to oppose any attempt to delete appropriations for the 
     Animas-La Plata Project from the 1997 Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gale A. Norton,
     Attorney General.
                                                                    ____



                                  Native American Rights Fund,

                                        Boulder, CO, July 2, 1996.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The Native American Rights Fund 
     opposes any effort to delete funding for the Animas-La Plata 
     Project which would affect the implementation of the 1988 
     Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
       During the House consideration of the FY 1997 Energy and 
     Water Appropriations bill, it is anticipated that Congressmen 
     Petri and Defazio will offer an amendment to delete any 
     funding the bill contains for this project and settlement.
       The Ute Tribes and their non-Indian neighbors negotiated in 
     good faith, rather than pursuing long, costly and divisive 
     litigation. Their goal was to share invaluable water 
     resources and provide the Tribes with water

[[Page S9092]]

     promised them more than a century ago. Since the settlement 
     became law in 1988, the Tribes and project sponsors have 
     fully cooperated with federal agencies and complied with 
     environmental law.
       It is now time for the federal government to live up to its 
     moral and legal obligation to the Tribes. Denying funding and 
     forcing negotiation of a new deal is an extreme step which 
     breaches the United States' trust responsibility.
       Please vote against any amendment which would cut off 
     funding for the Animas-La Plata Project and the Colorado Ute 
     Tribes' Settlement.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John E. Echohawk,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                State of Colorado,


                                      House of Representatives

                                         Denver, CO, July 1, 1996.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Abercrombie, When the House considers 
     the FY 97 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, it is my 
     understanding that Congressmen Petri and DeFazio may offer an 
     amendment to delete any funding for the Animas La Plata 
     Project and therefore the related Indian water rights 
     settlement between the Ute Tribes and the State of Colorado.
       I, along with Sen. Ben Alexander (R-Montrose), represent 
     the project area, the Tribes and the non-Indian parties to 
     the settlement. We strongly encourage you not to pull the rug 
     out from under this negotiated agreement by withdrawing funds 
     to implement it.
       My constituents have negotiated in good faith, and avoided 
     costly litigation which in the end would not provide real 
     water to the Tribes and divide cultures which have worked 
     well together. When the parties signed the settlement 
     agreement, they took the federal government at its word. All 
     other parties have lived up to their end of the bargain, 
     including the State of Colorado which has a $60 million 
     commitment to this project and settlement.
       It is time for the United States Government to keep its 
     word and begin construction on at least those project 
     features defined in last year's appropriations bill, which 
     told the Secretary of the Interior to construct ``without 
     delay.''
       I respectfully request that you vote against any amendment 
     which would cut off funding for the Animas-La Plata Project 
     and the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
       Sincerely,
                                                         Jim Dyer,
     State Representative.
                                                                    ____

                                                 General Assembly;


                                             State of Colorado

                                         Denver, CO, July 1, 1996.
     Hon. Dick Zimmer,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Zimmer, when the House considers the FY 
     '97 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, it is my 
     understanding that Congressmen Petri and DeFazio may offer an 
     amendment to delete any funding for the Animas-La Plata 
     Project and therefore the related Indian water rights 
     settlement between the Ute Tribes and the State of Colorado.
       I, along with Rep. Jim Dyer (D-Durango), represent the 
     project area, the Tribes and the non-Indian parties to the 
     settlement. We strongly encourage you not to pull the rug out 
     from under this negotiated agreement by withdrawing funds to 
     implement it.
       My constituents have negotiated is good faith, and avoided 
     costly litigation which in the end would not provide real 
     water to the Tribes and divide cultures which have worked 
     well together. When the parties signed the settlement 
     agreement, they took the federal government at its word. All 
     other parties have lived up to their end of the bargain, 
     including the State of Colorado which has a $60 million 
     commitment to this project and settlement.
       It is time for the United States Government to keep its 
     word and begin construction on at least those project 
     features defined in last year's appropriations bill, which 
     told the Secretary of the Interior to construct ``without 
     delay.''
       I respectfully request that you vote against any amendment 
     which would cut off funding for the Animas-La Plata Project 
     and the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ben Alexander,
     State Senator.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Denver Post, July 28, 1996]

                       Senate Should Restore A-LP

       Environmental groups won a round against Western and Native 
     American interests last week when the U.S. House of 
     Representatives voted 221-200 to delete $10 million in 
     funding for the Animas-La Plata water project in Southwestern 
     Colorado. But prospects are good that the Senate will keep 
     the project alive.
       The thinly populated Rocky Mountain states have little 
     clout in the House, where environmental groups waged a 
     concerted assault on the water project. As Colorado Rep. 
     Scott McInnis whose 3rd District would host the project, 
     notes, it's easy for a member of Congress from the East or 
     South to please environmentalists by voting against a water 
     project in Colorado. But the Senate--where the sparsely 
     settled Rocky Mountain states have the same two senators as 
     larger states do--is a much more favorable battleground for 
     the West. And in Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the only Native 
     American now serving in Congress, the project has a powerful 
     champion.
       ``Look for Ben Campbell to come out swinging,'' a project 
     supporter told a Post editor Thursday, the day after the 
     House vote. We didn't have to look for long--Campbell called 
     minutes later to reaffirm his support for the project.
       ``The Senate Appropriations Committee has already 
     appropriated $9.5 million for Animas-La Plata,'' Campbell 
     said. ``I think it will stay in on the floor and stay in the 
     bill later after we go to conference with the House.
       ``A lot of those House members who voted against Animas-La 
     Plata weren't here in 1988 when the Indian Settlement Act 
     passed and the project was authorized,'' Campbell said. 
     ``There have been 270 treaties between the U.S. government 
     and the Indians and they have all been broken, without 
     exception. I would hope this is not another broken promise.''
       We share Campbell's hopes, for selfish as well as moral, 
     reasons. As part of the 1988 settlement, the Southern Ute and 
     Ute Mountain Ute tribes agreed to abide by the ``law of the 
     river,'' a complex set of regulations that includes the 
     Colorado River Compact. But if Congress repudiates its own 
     pledge to convert the abstract Indian water rights into ``wet 
     water'' the tribes can actually use to preserve their 
     lifestyle, the Utes can return to court. In the process, they 
     could rip huge holes in the fabric of state water law and of 
     the Colorado River Compact itself.
       That is decidedly not what the Utes want. What they want is 
     what they deserve--their water. We trust the Senate will 
     recognize that the Animas-La Plata project is the only 
     practical way to meet a long-standing obligation to a people 
     who have been cheated far too many times.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, an amendment to strike funding for the 
Animas-LaPlata project is an attempt to further delay a project that 
was first authorized by Congress in 1968 and is the cornerstone to 
fulfilling the provisions of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights 
Settlement Act, enacted and signed into law by President Bush in 1988.
  It seems to be that assumption of many people that ``a feasibility of 
the project study'' has not been completed, or that ``feasible 
alternatives that may be available to fulfill the water rights of the 
Ute tribes'', have not been explored. Frankly, Mr. President, the 
Senator from Wisconsin is mistaken.
  In an effort to further clarify the record, I would like to share 
with my colleagues a brief chronology of events that show that all 
possible alternatives have been explored, debated, and even voted on in 
various public referendums.
  In 1968: Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Project Act.
  Congress appropriated funds for advance studies.
  In 1974-1977: the Southwestern Water Conservation District and the 
Bureau of Reclamation sponsored a thorough process of public 
involvement that compared four major alternatives and dozens of sub-
alternatives for each of the four major plans. In total, approximately 
100 alternatives were considered.
  In 1979: The Definite Plan Report, detailing the new configuration of 
Ridges Basin and Southern Ute Reservoirs is completed.
  Endangered Species Act, nonjeopardy opinion on Animas-La Plata 
project is issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  In 1980: The final environmental statement is completed.
  In 1986: The Department of the Interior accepts cost-sharing 
arrangement that calls for State and local entities to provide 38 
percent of the upfront funding.
  Enactment of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
  In 1987 and in 1990, voters in La Plata County, CO, and in San Juan 
County, NM, overwhelmingly endorsed BOR's construction of the ALP 
project.

  October 6, 1991: Ground breaking ceremony is held in Durango.
  In 1992, the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program was 
executed with the dual goals of the recovery of the endangered fish in 
the San Juan River and allowing water development to go forward.
  And as recently as the last 2 months, again the city of Durango, in a 
vote of confidence for the project, approved a resolution in support of 
the ALP project.
  Since 1992, the project has been mired down in litigation by project 
opponents involving a laundry list of environmental related issues.

[[Page S9093]]

  The fact is that the Ute Indian Tribes own the water rights to the 
Animas La Plata system by virtue of various treaties with the U.S. 
Government. These treaty rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court 
of the United States when disputes have arisen in other States.
  The tribes and the water districts chose negotiation over litigation. 
Rather than engage in expensive and divisive legal battles, the tribes 
and the citizens of Colorado and New Mexico chose to pursue a 
negotiated settlement. The Ute Tribes agreed to share their water with 
all people. The people came together in partnership and cooperation 
with the Federal Government to reach a mutually beneficial solution: 
the construction of the Animas La Plata project. Their settlement 
agreement was executed on December 10, 1986. The Settlement Act was 
ratified by Congress and signed into law on November 3, 1988.
  The Settlement Act also approved a cost-sharing agreement. The water 
districts and the States of Colorado and New Mexico have put their 
money where their mouth is--and have already lived up to the terms of 
these agreements. Consider that:
  First, the State of Colorado has committed $30 million to the 
settlement of the tribes' water rights claims, has expended $6 million 
to construct a domestic pipeline from the Cortez municipal water 
treatment plant to the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation at Towaoc, 
and has contributed $5 million to the tribal development funds;
  Second, the U.S. Congress has appropriated and turned over to the Ute 
mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes $49.5 million as part of 
their tribal development funds, and
  Third, water user organizations have signed repayment contracts with 
Reclamation.
  The construction of the ALP project is the only missing piece to the 
successful implementation of the settlement agreement and the 
Settlement Act. It is time that the U.S. Government kept its' 
commitment to the people.
  Historically, this country has chosen to ignore its obligations to 
our Indian people. Members of the Ute Tribes had been living in a state 
of poverty that can only be described as obscene. Their only source of 
drinking water was from ditches dug in the ground. I find it most 
distressing that the same groups and special interests who are now 
scrambling to block this project also, in other contexts, hold 
themselves out as the only real defenders of minority rights in this 
country.
  This project would provide adequate water reserves to not only the 
Ute Nation, but to people in southwestern Colorado, northern New 
Mexico, and other downstream users who rely on this water system for a 
variety of crucial needs which range from endangered species protection 
to safe drinking water in towns and cities--perhaps even filling 
swimming pools for some of our critics.
  The Southern Ute Indians and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes have 
rejected any buy out proposals. They simply want decent and reliable 
water supplies--using their own water--for their people. In exchange, 
all the people of the area will benefit. The Sierra Club, National 
Wildlife, and other opponents are apparently willing to spend even more 
hundreds of millions of tax dollars to buy off the Indians than it 
would cost to complete the project.
  Mr. President, on March 1, of last year Secretary Babbitt testified 
before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development, that the Department of Interior has devoted the resources 
of his agency to carrying out the will of Congress on the ALP project, 
and will continue to do so.
  He further stated that ``the Benefit/Cost issue has already been 
settled and decided by the Congress.'' And further that ``it is no 
longer on the table as far as his [Secretary Babbitt's] experience over 
30 years across the West. And that is not an issue that any court is 
going to take up.
  And more recently, the Director of the Colorado Department of Natural 
Resources earlier this year testified before the House Energy and Water 
Subcommittee in support of the Animas-LaPlata project.
  In conclusion, I would like to include for the record several items 
that includes a letter from a Mr. Harrick Roth, chairman of the 
Colorado Forum, that appeared in the Denver Post.
  He writes:

       There are no secrets about ALP. There are 25 years of 
     documents produced by the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado River Salinity 
     Control Project, the EPA, the New Mexico Interstate River 
     Commission, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the 
     Colorado Water and Power authority--just to name a few.

  On the question of meeting the needs of the native Americans, he 
writes:

       To the Editor: You have done it yet again. Treat Indians as 
     our wards, you say. Give them ``taxpayer'' welfare benefits. 
     Your ``howevers'' continue as you argue that it will be 
     cheaper for taxpayers to take any alternative course. Since 
     paleface Americans, like yourselves and myself, have made it 
     historical practice to break treaties with Native American 
     nations and relegate tribes to ``reservations'' of limited 
     geography, your editorial prescribes ``continue the 
     course!!''.

  Just yesterday, July 28, yet another article appeared in the Denver 
Post in support of the ALP project.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is, there has been exhaustive efforts 
to accommodate all parties from an environmental perspective and an 
economic perspective. The completion of this project will summarily 
fulfill the obligations of the Federal Government to the Ute Indian 
Tribes. For these reasons would ask my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment that seeks to strike funding for the Animas-LaPlata project.
  Mr. President, is the time appropriate now to move to table the 
Feingold amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is appropriate.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I, therefore, move to table the Feingold 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion before the body is the motion to 
table the Feingold amendment No. 5106. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, there will be 2 minutes 
equally divided between the Senators.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I recognize there 
are strong feelings on this project and deep divisions in the region. I 
say to the junior Senator from Colorado, we must honor our commitment 
to this tribe. The question is how to honor the commitment.
  This project was first authorized in 1968. As I understand it, it had 
little or nothing to do at that time with the issue of water for the 
native American tribe. Three decades later, it has not been built. 
Realistically, my colleagues, it will never be built. It is not 
economically or fiscally feasible that we keep spending money on it. 
There are legitimate Indian needs that should be addressed and have to 
be addressed. Remember, only one-third of the water concerned here will 
go to native American tribes; two-thirds goes to others. Yet, there are 
substantial questions, in the end, under this project, that the tribes 
in consideration here will be able to obtain the water.
  This project is dead. Let us return to the drawing board and scale 
this down so it can meet our commitment without wasting substantial 
taxpayer dollars.
  I urge the members to support the amendment and oppose the motion to 
table.
  I want to make a few remarks to clarify several points in the 
committee report dealing with the Animas-La Plata water project. The 
committee report contains a discussion of the status of efforts by the 
Bureau of Reclamation to comply with numerous laws applicable to the 
project. It is my understanding that the committee report simply sets 
forth the views of the committee and is not intended to waive any 
provision of law or to declare that the Bureau's efforts at compliance 
are sufficient to satisfy any law.
  I want to make it clear, for the record, that the committee report 
cannot have the effect of circumventing

[[Page S9094]]

the jurisdiction or procedures of any administrative agency with 
respect to the Animas-La Plata project.
  It is important to make this clear because the project has been and 
is at present the subject of litigation concerning compliance with 
various environmental and reclamation laws. The committee report cannot 
have the effect of making any factual findings which would usurp the 
jurisdiction of the courts or the relevant administrative agencies with 
respect to whether the Animas-La Plata project is in compliance with 
applicable environmental, financial, and reclamation laws.
  I expect that the Congress will be revisiting the future of this 
project, regardless of the outcome this year, and it is important in 
the meantime that there be no misunderstanding as to the applicability 
of existing laws which constrain further development.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to compliment the distinguished 
junior Senator from Colorado. I believe that was as elegant a speech as 
we have ever heard. It did not take him very long, but he made the 
point.
  Actually, the United States of America has committed to two Indian 
tribes for which this project would proceed. I believe he stated it 
right. People with different ideas and different justifications enter 
this case, but I believe that the project has been proven technically 
sound. It has continued to receive the full support of those who will 
put it together and finalize it.
  I think the Senator has put the final touches on it with his argument 
that we ought to live up to our commitments to the Indian people.
  I might suggest, although all the water does not go to the Indian 
people, that there are non-Indian people who have been relying on this 
water and waiting for it, also. They should not be ignored just because 
some people want to now change midstream.
  I hope we support the motion to table and move on to take this to 
conference with the House.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin. Despite its superficial 
appeal, the effects of his amendment would be devastating not only to 
the Ute Tribes in Colorado, but also for every other tribe and State 
who are attempting to resolve disputes over water rights through 
negotiated settlement rather than endless litigation.
  The Senator from Wisconsin pretends that his amendment will save 
money--he is wrong. Indian litigation is the closest this country has 
come to the situation Dickens described in Bleak House. There are law 
firms that probably can no longer even remember who the partner was who 
first brought the litigation, but generations have profited--
generations of lawyers both within and without the Government.
  The Colorado Ute Settlement Act was a remarkable accomplishment, and 
it has served as a model for other settlements in Utah and Arizona. It 
would be unconscionable to overturn that settlement, especially for the 
specious arguments put forward by the opponents.
  Mr. President, even Secretary Babbitt has grudgingly endorsed 
completion of the Animas-La Plata project because of the importance of 
fulfilling the Federal obligations under the negotiated settlement. 
Remember, this is Secretary Babbitt--the Secretary who wants to take 
down a really big Federal dam, the Secretary who has waged an incessant 
war against farmers, ranchers, miners, and those who work the land to 
produce the food, fiber, and material to support this Nation. This is 
the Secretary who repeatedly has decried what he views as an 
individualistic concept of private property and who has attacked State 
jurisdiction over water resources. This is the Secretary who would have 
used the Reclamation Reform Act as a lever for Federal regulation of 
farm operations and proposed Federal definitions of what constituted 
beneficial use to override State water law in his proposed lower 
Colorado regulations. Even this Secretary, no friend to any farmer, 
Indian or non-Indian, has supported funding the Animas-LaPlata project.
  Mr. President, the funding in this appropriation measure is not some 
incidental addition from the Congress. This administration requested 
$10 million for the Animas-LaPlata project for work on the Ridges Basin 
Dam and Reservoir, and for preconstruction activities, cultural 
resource mitigation, environmental compliance, and endangered species 
studies. I hesitate to mention that the Fish and Wildlife Service is 
proximately responsible for the situation on the San Juan, and at least 
in this Senator's view, should bear all the costs associated with 
species recovery and mitigation. This administration--the same one that 
opposed $5 million to provide potable water to the rural residents at 
Fort Peck--this administration supports funding this project. That is 
how important having the Federal Government fulfill its obligations 
under the Colorado Ute Settlement Act is.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin 
and urge my colleagues to support the action taken by the 
Appropriations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Colorado to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Wisconsin. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
absent because of a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--33

     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frahm
     Pell
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5106) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the next amendment is the Grams 
amendment with reference to ARC.


                           Amendment No. 5105

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's record shows the next amendment in 
order is McCain amendment No. 5105. Does the Senator from New Mexico 
request the Grams amendment be taken up next?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe it is appropriate to withdraw that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 5105) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 5100

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Grams amendment. There 
are 2 minutes equally divided. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. This is a very 
moderate and very straightforward amendment. All it does is simply 
adopt the

[[Page S9095]]

funding of the Appalachian Regional Commission----
  Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will be 
in order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I just say to the Senators who are walking out of 
here, in 2 minutes, we are going to start voting again on this 
amendment. So it might be best to stay around.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, again, as I said, this is a very moderate and 
straightforward amendment. All it does is simply adopt the funding for 
the Appalachian Regional Commission at the House-passed level of $10 
million less than that approved by the Senate.
  It requires that the commission provide a specific plan for future 
downsizing. Like many Federal programs, the ARC was created back in 
1965 as a temporary response--temporary response--to poverty in 
Appalachia.
  Today, over 30 years later and despite the infusion of more than $7 
billion of taxpayer money into the region, we are still pouring money 
into the area under the pretext of fighting poverty. This program is 
one of 62 Federal economic development programs. The ARC is the only 
major Government agency targeted toward a specific region of the 
country.
  This program has outlived its original mandate. It is ineffective and 
it is expensive and simply does not work. American taxpayers can no 
longer afford such extravagant spending. That is why CBO, the Senate, 
the House budget committees all recommended elimination of the ARC. 
Even President Clinton recommended reducing it by $500 million in 
budget authority and $300 million in outlays over the next 5 years. 
Although I strongly believe the ARC should be terminated, the Grams-
McCain amendment does not zero out funding for the ARC, nor does it 
reduce it significantly. It simply reduces the level of funding to that 
approved by the House of $155 million, not the $165 million in the 
Senate budget. It also provides a specific plan for future downsizing. 
I urge my colleagues to support this very moderate amendment. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note that while we have been 
observing 2 minutes equally divided, there is not an agreement limiting 
debate on this amendment to that level. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we strongly oppose the Grams-McCain 
amendment and strongly support the Appalachian Regional Commission at 
this level. Mr. President, this has been an effective program to fight 
poverty in Appalachia. Appalachia is still one of the most expensive 
places to build roads, one of the poorest places on the face of the 
United States, and one of the most needed functions of Government that 
I can think of.
  It is an ongoing program that brings roads and access to people in 
the mountains and hollows and poor areas of West Virginia and other 
States in Appalachia. We strongly oppose the Grams amendment and 
support Senator Domenici's motion to table.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Grams 
amendment to further reduce spending for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. ARC serves parts of 13 States including 39 counties in my 
State, and I'm disappointed to see that may colleague from Minnesota is 
still not convinced of the importance of this program.
  The people of eastern Kentucky have much to be proud. That region of 
the country has a strong tradition of producing some of this country's 
most gifted musicians, writers, and artists. But, unfortunately, they 
also produce something none of us are particularly proud of--poverty.
  Back in 1993, the Washington Post wrote that ``the last time the 
United States fought a war on poverty here, poverty won.'' That's 
because the forces at work manufacturing this region's double-digit 
poverty figures and all the social disintegration that comes with those 
figures, are deeply imbedded in a region that was subjected to a 
century of economic exploitation and geographic isolation.
  While poverty claimed victory 30 years ago in the first years of 
President Johnson's admirable battle, those of us with a deep-seated 
commitment to the Appalachian region knew that the task of undoing a 
century of destruction would not be quick in coming. ARC was borne of 
this commitment to see the battle against entrenched poverty through to 
the end--to the time when poverty would no longer be the norm.
  And in fact ARC has had a dramatic effect in improving the lives of 
Appalachian citizens, including cutting the region's poverty rate in 
half, reducing the infant mortality rate by two-thirds, doubling the 
percentage of high school graduates, slowing the regions out migration, 
and reducing unemployment rates.
  With 115 of the region's 399 counties still classified as 
economically distressed, we certainly cannot say we have won the war. 
But, we can say that we have weakened poverty's hold on this region. * 
* * that we have given the proud people of this region a finger hold in 
the climb back to self-sufficiency and productivity.
  My colleagues should be aware that the ARC's fiscal year 1996 
appropriation represents a cut of almost 40 percent from the fiscal 
year 1995 funding level, while the bill we're considering today makes 
an additional cut of $5 million for fiscal year 1997. We have already 
had this debate last year, when my colleague also made an attempt to 
cripple this program and to cripple the Nation's ability to move an 
entire region of the country from poverty to productivity.
  On August 1 of last year, a very similar amendment offered by the 
Senator from Minnesota was tabled by a vote of 60 to 38. His amendment 
failed last year for the same reasons it should not prevail today. ARC 
is doing its job--helping communities put in place the building blocks 
of social and economic development to create self-sustaining local 
economies that can become contributors to the Nation's resources rather 
than drains on the Nation's resources.
  It does this by providing the glue money that leverages other 
investment from the private sector, other Federal programs, or State 
and local funds. Since 1992, in my State alone ARC has provided over 
$80 million that in turn leveraged more than $115 million in additional 
funds. These were for a wide range of projects from water and sewage 
systems to tourism to adult literacy.
  And as my colleagues pointed out last year, the ARC that is 
accomplishing this mission is lean and efficient. When it comes to 
administrative and personnel expenses you'd be hard pressed to find an 
agency as efficient. Total overhead accounts for less than 4 percent of 
all expenditures with State Governors contributing 50 percent of those 
administrative costs.
  I can assure you, those Governors wouldn't be made that contribution 
in these tight fiscal times if they didn't believe they were getting 
their money's worth.
  But, ARC work is far from done. As the national highway system began 
cris-crossing the country tieing State's together and creating jobs in 
its wake, the mountainous Appalachian region was left behind.
  Today, ARC's highway project has had a tremendous impact on the 
region. A 1987 survey showed that between 1980 and 1986, 560,000 jobs 
were created in the Appalachian counties with a major highway--4 times 
that of counties without.
  With only 76 percent of the 3,025 mile Appalachian development 
highway system constructed or under contract, those figures tell all 
too clearly why it's so important to let ARC complete its work.
  The same is true with ARC's involvement with a wide range of other

[[Page S9096]]

projects from health care to job training to water treatment to small 
business assistance. And, even with ARC funding, Appalachia receives 11 
percent less in total per capita Federal spending than the national 
average.
  And, I hope my colleagues will remember that this debate takes place 
just 1 week after this body made huge changes in the welfare program. 
We cannot ignore the total impact of changes to the welfare system and 
crippling cuts in ARC to this region of the country.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating this 
amendment and sending a strong signal to the people of Appalachia that 
we support their tremendous efforts to move their region forward and 
secure productive and prosperous futures for their children.
  Also, the Senator from Minnesota said that this duplicated a lot of 
other Federal programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a 
statement that shows that it does not duplicate other Federal programs 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             ARC Does Not Duplicate Other Federal Programs

       Many distressed Appalachian communities lack the resources 
     to meet the match requirement of other federal programs, 
     making them unable to take advantage of programs from EDA, 
     FmHA, HUD, Education or other agencies. Rather than 
     duplicating these other programs, ARC funds essentially make 
     the programs available to communities that otherwise could 
     not take advantage of them. In that sense our funds are 
     supplemental, not duplicative. This increases federal 
     participation in Appalachian areas, which was a part of the 
     original purpose of ARC. [The administration of these ARC 
     grants then goes through the basic agency whose program we 
     are supplementing.]
       ARC funds are more flexible than programs from other 
     federal agencies, allowing states and communities to tailor 
     the projects to their individual needs. An ARC project, for 
     example, could include elements of an EDA project, a FmHA 
     project, or a HUD project, while it would not have been fully 
     eligible for funding under any single program at another 
     federal agency.
       ARC projects originate from the local level and are 
     determined by each state's governor. Unlike most other 
     federal programs, this lets the governors decide which 
     projects will receive federal funding.
       Up until ISTEA in 1991, the ARC highway program was not on 
     the regular federal highway system. ISTEA added all but 
     roughly 240 miles of ARC highways to the National Highway 
     System. Separate highway funding is important for several 
     reasons. First, for those miles not covered by ISTEA the ARC 
     funding is the only federal source. Second, ARC funding 
     allows the highways to be constructed sooner than they might 
     be if they were funded solely through ISTEA. This is in 
     keeping with the commitment that the nation made to this 
     region almost 30 years ago to break down the isolation that 
     had plagued the region and ink it to national and 
     international commerce. Third, ARC sees highways as elements 
     of an economic development strategy, rather than just a 
     transportation strategy.
       Even with ARC's special assistance to the region, 
     Appalachia receives 11% less in total per capita federal 
     spending (including grants, contracts, and transfer payments) 
     than the national average.


                 why special assistance to appalachia?

       ARC was designed to address the special problems of an 
     entire region that had suffered from over a hundred years of 
     neglect, a region marked by profound problems of persistent 
     and widespread economic distress in a concentrated geographic 
     area that set it apart from the economic mainstream of the 
     nation.
       The economic problems of Appalachia are long-term, 
     widespread and fundamental. They are not, for example, the 
     result of short-term cyclical changes in the economy (to 
     which programs like EDA are designed to respond). Rather, the 
     region's economic troubles extend back for at least four 
     generations. Few other areas of the country have economic 
     problems that are so deeply ingrained. In addition, ARC's 
     problems reach broadly across state lines, affecting the 
     economies of the 13 states. This is not a case of sporadic 
     distress that affect single counties. Instead, it is the 
     result of region-wide historic patterns of underdevelopment, 
     isolation, exploitation and migration. Only a couple of other 
     areas of the country have such profound economic problems 
     that sweep across state lines the way Appalachia does.
       The economic challenges faced by communities in Appalachia 
     ultimately dampen the growth of the American economy. They 
     create a drain on the national economy, through lowered 
     productivity and reduced output, diminished economic growth 
     and investment, increased government support through transfer 
     payments, and a lowered standard of living. Half of the 
     counties in the ARC region receive federal transfer payments 
     in excess of the national average on a per capita basis. 
     Until we help these people and communities move into the 
     economic mainstream, they will continue to be a drain on the 
     national resources, diminishing our national wealth. It is, 
     therefore, in the interest of California, or Wisconsin or 
     Florida to help Appalachian communities become economically 
     strong and contributing their fair share to the national 
     wealth.
       Even with ARC's special assistance, Appalachia receives 11% 
     less in per capita federal spending than the national 
     average. Total per capita federal spending (including grants, 
     contracts, and transfer payments) in Appalachia is $4407, 
     while the national average is $4,917. Rather than giving 
     Appalachia something ``extra,'' ARC just helps the region 
     come closer to getting its fair share of federal resources.
       From its creation ARC has worked to develop regional 
     solutions to these economic problems that reach across state 
     lines. Much of the Commission's success flows from this 
     regional approach. No other federal program is deliberately 
     designed to address problems on a multistate basis.


                        general accomplishments

       ARC's diverse programs have produced tangible results 
     across the region:
       Water and Sewer Systems. ARC funding brought the first 
     sewer lines and clean drinking water to 700,000 residents of 
     Appalachian counties designated as ``distressed'' due to high 
     rates of poverty and unemployment, and low per capita income. 
     This often corrected severe public health problems. About 
     2,000 new water and/or sewer systems have provided the 
     infrastructure needed for job creation. As a result of these 
     projects, thousands of jobs have been created or retained.
       Access to Health Care. A network of more than 400 primary 
     health care clinics and hospitals has been completed with ARC 
     funding and now serves some 4 million Appalachians a year. 
     More than 5,000 new physicians have opened practices in 
     Appalachia just since 1980. Infant mortality has dropped from 
     26.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 8.3 in 
     1994.
       Child Care Centers. ARC has supported child development in 
     the Region by helping build child care centers that offer 
     low-income families a full range of educational, health and 
     social services. These services have assisted more than 
     220,000 pre-school-age children and allowed mothers to earn 
     income needed to keep their families above the poverty line.
       Educational Advancement. ARC has helped construct and/or 
     equip more than 700 vocational and technical education 
     facilities serving more than 500,000 students a year. In 
     1965, only 32% of Appalachians over age 25 had finished high 
     school. Today, that figure has risen to 68.4% Among young 
     adults age 18-24, 77% of Appalachians have completed 12 or 
     more years of school, compared with the national average of 
     76%.
       Job Skills Training. In the past 10 years, about 60,000 
     workers who lack a high school diploma or GED have been 
     retrained through basic skills training in the workplace. The 
     skills of more than 30,000 other workers have been upgraded 
     to compete for high-tech jobs or to provide specific skills 
     required by local employers.
       Affordable Housing. Housing shortages have been alleviated 
     by the rehabilitation and construction of more than 14,000 
     housing units, especially in areas hampered by the lack of 
     construction sites and construction loans. ARC has pioneered 
     innovative approaches to housing development finance to make 
     home ownership more affordable.
       Leveraged Investments. A sample of 556 ARC community 
     development projects that were funded between 1983 and 1996 
     showed that those grants had leveraged over $7.3 billion in 
     private sector investments in the region.
       Small Business Assistance. ARC grants to revolving loan 
     funds in ten stated totaled $18.7 million, thereby assisting 
     822 small businesses--the source of some 8,000 new jobs in 
     Appalachia. In the past, small businesses could not start and 
     grow due to the lack of capital and conservative lending 
     practices in small towns and rural areas, sources of most new 
     jobs in Appalachia. The ARC loan program has leveraged $328.9 
     million of small business investment in the region--a ratio 
     of almost 20 to 1.
       Local Leadership Development. ARC has actively supported 
     the Local Development District (LDD) concept, which was in 
     its infancy in 1965. These 69 multi-county local planning and 
     development agencies foster cooperation in decision-making 
     and leadership development among hundreds of locally-elected 
     officials and private citizens who serve on their boards. 
     LDDs have strengthened the ability of local governments to 
     provide efficient, modern services to their constituents.


                     socioeconomic accomplishments

       ARC's investments in the region have yielded impressive 
     measurable improvement in the lives of the people of 
     Appalachia and in the economic condition of the region.
       The poverty rate in has been cut in half, falling from 
     31.1% in 1960 to 15.2% in 1990.
       The infant mortality rate has been cut by two-thirds, going 
     from 26.5 (deaths per thousand births) in 1960 to 8.3 in 
     1994.
       Per capita income has improved dramatically. In 1960, the 
     region's income was 78.1% of the national average. Today it 
     is 83.5% of the national average.
       The percentage of adults with a high school degree has 
     doubled from 32.8% in 1960 to 68.4% in 1990.

[[Page S9097]]

       Among adults age 18-24, the high school graduation rate now 
     equals the national average (78%).
       Overall employment rates now approximate the national 
     average.
       New outmigration has slowed, from 12.2% during the 1950s to 
     2.2% in the 1980s.
       Population in growing. Between 1990 and 1995, the region's 
     population increased 4.6% with all parts of Appalachia 
     showing growth over the five-year period.
       Thirty-eight counties now have economies which are 
     performing at or near national norms of income, employment, 
     and poverty.


                        the task is not yet done

       Despite the significant progress the region has made, many 
     portions of Appalachia still do not participate fully in the 
     strength of the American economy. In a word, Appalachia has 
     become a region of contrasts in the past 30 years. The region 
     has made enormous strides, but because it began so far behind 
     the rest of the nation, there is need for continued special 
     assistance that will make these hundreds of communities and 
     millions of people contributors to, rather than drains on, 
     the national resources.
       115 of ARC's 399 countries are classified as severely 
     distressed. This means that they suffer from unemployment 
     rates that are at least 150% of the national average, poverty 
     rates that are at least 150% of the national average, and per 
     capita incomes that are no more than \2/3\ of the national 
     average. These are areas of persistent and widespread 
     economic distress.
       The region of contrasts means that while northern and 
     southern Appalachia have done relatively well, central 
     Appalachia is still severely distressed. In all three 
     sections, the non-metro counties lag the nation on almost all 
     socioeconomic measures.
       The poverty rate for Appalachia is 16% higher than the 
     national average.
       Appalachia's per capita income is only 83% ($17,406) of the 
     U.S. average ($20,800).
       Over 20% of the youth in northern and southern rural areas 
     are growing up in poverty, and an even higher 34% of youth in 
     central Appalachia live in poverty.
       Across the region as a whole, rural Appalachia is poorer 
     than the rest of rural America, and metropolitan Appalachia 
     is poorer than the rest of metropolitan America.
       The problems are particularly acute in Central Appalachia, 
     where the poverty rate is 27% rural per capita income is 
     still only two-thirds of the national average, and 
     unemployment rates are almost double the national average.
       The Appalachian Regional Development Highway System, the 
     federal government's commitment to ending the region's 
     isolation, is only 76% complete, with major segments not yet 
     under contract for construction.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that over 60 Members 
voted for tabling last time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Minnesota that would reduce the Committee 
recommendation for the Appalachian Regional Commission from $165 
million to $155.3 million. The House and Senate have voted on three 
different occasions against efforts to terminate or reduce funding for 
ARC, and I urge the Senate to reject again this attempt to penalize 
Appalachia.
  The Committee recommendation already reduces ARC by $5 million below 
the amount requested in the President's Budget. The recommendation of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee is $17 million below the amount 
approved by the Senate last year for ARC. And when compared to prior 
year funding levels, ARC has already borne more than its fair share of 
deficit reduction in this appropriations bill. When compared to the 
fiscal year 1995 funding level for ARC, the amount recommended in the 
bill by the Appropriations Committee is down $117 million, or 41 
percent. Let me repeat--in two years, the funding for this agency has 
decreased by $117 million.
  Mr. President, the Committee's recommendation is a responsible one. 
Funding for ARC is already reduced below the President's budget. The 
Energy and Water appropriations bill is within its 602(b) allocation. 
Because of the efforts of Senator Domenici, the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee has a higher allocation than the House. As a result, 
additional funds are allocated throughout the bill to produce a more 
balanced, reasoned approach to funding for the programs in the bill. 
The Senate version of the Energy and Water bill provides more funding 
than the House bill for several programs--not just ARC. For example, 
funding for flood control along the Mississippi River and its 
tributaries is above the House level, as is funding for the Bureau of 
Reclamation construction (which benefits just the 17 States west of the 
Mississippi River). The Senate bill provides considerably more funding 
than the House bill for Atomic Energy Defense Activities. However, it 
is only ARC that is targeted for further reduction.

  I cannot help but wonder if this type of amendment would be proposed 
if the name of this agency were the Rural Development Commission. Is it 
appropriate for the Senate to punish the people who are served by an 
agency's programs by virtue of where they live? I do not believe this 
is the tradition of the Senate. The Senate supports those who are in 
need--whether it is through quick response with additional funds when 
disaster occurs, or through assistance to improve the opportunities 
available to those who are struggling.
  Mr. President, there are any number of programs in the Government 
that benefit a limited geographic area of the country. But in making 
decisions about Federal programs, the Appropriations Committee does not 
target spending reductions for programs based solely on geographic 
criteria. There are any number of programs that continue to receive 
funding even though they might not benefit all areas equally. In the 
Interior bill, for example, we appropriated over $113 million in fiscal 
year 1996 for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, even though 67 
percent of the funds went to just eight States. Similarly, the Oregon 
and California Grant Lands account, which benefits just one State, 
continues to receive funding. So it is extremely unfair to suggest that 
the ARC funding should be reduced simply because of the reference to 
Appalachia in the title.
  The mission of ARC is straightforward--to provide an effective 
regional development program that will create economic opportunity in 
distressed areas so that communities are better positioned to 
contribute to the national economy. Traditionally, there has been a 
great disparity in poverty and income levels between Appalachia 
and other parts of the country. And while great strides have been made, 
there is still much to be done. The programs of the ARC have 
contributed to improvements in the ability of the region to address the 
disparity in poverty and income levels between Appalachia and other 
parts of the country. Despite the progress in recent years, there is 
still much to be done. The income level in Appalachia is only 84 
percent of the national average. The poverty rate in Appalachia is 16 
percent above the national average. When it comes to United States 
expenditures on a per capita basis, even with the ARC funding, 
Appalachia receives 11 percent less in per capita Federal spending than 
the national average.

  Mr. President, the programs of ARC help communities to develop their 
resources so that they will contribute to the Nation's economy. Many of 
the communities which benefit from the resources provided to ARC are 
without some of the most basic of services, including water and sewer 
infrastructure, access to health care, and decent roadways. Unless a 
transportation network is put in place that provides access to and from 
the rest of the Nation, Appalachia will remain isolated, and thus 
removed from competing for jobs with other population centers.
  Some 30 years after establishment of the Appalachian Regional 
Corridor Highways, this network of 3,025 miles of highway is only about 
76 percent complete. At the funding levels recommended in this bill, it 
will be well into the next century before this highway system is 
completed. The amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota will 
delay further this access to safe and modern highways. The people of 
Appalachia deserve better from the United States Senate.
  Sadly, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent 
transportation routes to school. There are still pregnant women, 
elderly citizens and others who lack adequate, modern road access to 
area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who find 
it difficult to obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor 
road access to major employment centers. The ARC's limited resources 
play an important role in improving these circumstances. We should not 
reduce our efforts when so much work remains to be done.
  ARC's programs do not duplicate those of other Federal agencies. The 
highway funds in ARC are the only source of Federal funding for 
Appalachian miles not covered in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Act

[[Page S9098]]

[ISTEA]. Because of the poverty in Appalachia, many communities are 
unable to qualify for other Federal programs because they can't meet 
the matching requirements for local cost-sharing. How are communities 
ever to improve their circumstances if they are never given a helping 
hand? Because of the situations that exist in some of the small, 
isolated communities of Appalachia, flexibility is critical to 
successful problem solving. Thus, an existing program in one Federal 
agency may not suit the need--but the flexible nature of the ARC 
program does help solve problems.
  The ARC was not set up as a temporary agency. It was set up to deal 
with long-term, wide-spread fundamental problems in Appalachia. The 
problems with which ARC deals are not short term in nature. Rather, ARC 
deals with region wide problems of under development, isolation, and 
economic disparity. In no other region of the country do such problems 
stretch across such a vast area.
  Mr. President, we hear a great deal of talk in this body about 
empowering local communities and States to make decisions about what 
works best for them. The structure of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission does just that. ARC operates from the bottom up--projects 
originate at the local level, and the Commission is comprised of the 
Governors of the thirteen States in the region, along with a Federal 
co-chairman. At present, there are eight Republican and five Democratic 
Governors who serve on the Commission and who have endorsed its 
continuation. No policy can be set or any money spent unless the 
Federal representative and a majority of the Governors reach agreement.
  Mr. President, I urge Senators to reject this amendment. This agency 
is already funded $117 million below the fiscal year 1995 level, $17 
million below the fiscal year 1996 level approved by the Senate, and $5 
million below the fiscal year 1997 budget request level. Cuts are 
already being imposed on the ARC. I urge the Senate to stand by its 
earlier votes in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against the Grams amendment. It would be a mistake to cut funding for 
the Appalachian Regional Commission, a small and valuable agency that 
has earned strong, bipartisan support here in Congress and in the 13 
States it serves.
  Some Senators may think this is an amendment that only affects those 
of us representing Appalachian States. I want to explain why everyone 
in this body has reason to reject this amendment and its call for 
another cut in the ARC.
  The people of every State have a stake in the economic strength of 
the rest of the country. When floods ravage the Midwest or the Gulf 
States; when a major defense installation or space center is located in 
a State like Texas or Alabama; when payments are made to farmers for 
crop support or losses; when California, Colorado, or some other 
Western State needs water to survive; when Federal research labs are 
placed in New Mexico or Massachusetts--when any of this support and 
assistance is extended, it is the country's way of investing in each 
region and in the future of Americans everywhere.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is the Federal Government's 
principal means of helping one distinct part of the country overcome 
some very real barriers. Its mission is to act as a Federal partner 
with the States of the Appalachian region--to overcome barriers from 
geography to infrastucture to poverty, and to lay the foundation for 
economic growth and prosperity.
  The ARC has not exploded in size or scope or funding. Quite the 
opposite. In fact, as the dividends of its work have come through, 
Congress has been able to reduce its budget in the recent years.
  This agency is a success story, and it is in the national interest to 
keep its work going to get the job done.
  In many parts of the region, major progress has been achieved. But 
the ARC's job is not quite finished, and the agency needs adequate 
funding to continue its partnership with West Virginia and the 
Appalachian region to finish the foundation we need for more growth, 
more jobs, and more hope for our people.
  In the bill before us, ARC's budget is cut by $5 million from last 
year's level. And more importantly, Senators should know that last 
year's level was set after ARC was cut by close to 40 percent from its 
fiscal year 1995 funding. The ARC and the States served by this small 
agency are doing their share of sacrifice for deficit reduction. The 
appropriation in this year's bill is fully consistent with the budget 
resolution, which assumed the continuation of the ARC. Its funding 
should not be further reduced.
  The Grams amendment would cause real damage to the agency and to the 
parts of the Appalachian region where ARC's resources and expertise are 
still needed.
  As a former Governor, and now as a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, I 
know vividly the value of the ARC and how it improves the lives of many 
hard-working citizens. Whether the funding is used for new water and 
sewer systems, physician recruitment, adult literacy programs, or the 
Appalachian corridor highways, it has made the difference in West 
Virginia, Kentucky, and the other Appalachian States.
  The highways are the most visible and best known investments made by 
the ARC for the people of Appalachia. As of today, over two-thirds of 
the ARC highway system have been completed. But if the ARC is further 
cut, the job of bringing the Appalachian States up to the level of non-
Appalachian States will be further delayed or never achieved at all.
  At this very moment, some of these highways are called highways 
halfway to nowhere, because they are just that--half built, and only 
halfway to their destination.
  The job has to be completed, so these highways become highways the 
whole way to somewhere. And that somewhere is called jobs and 
prosperity that will benefit the rest of the country, too. Appalachia 
simply wants to be connected to our national grid of highways. Parts of 
the region weren't lucky enough to come out as flat land, so the job 
takes longer and costs more. But it is essential in giving the people 
and families in this part of the United States of America a shot--a 
chance to be rewarded for a work ethic and commitment with real 
economic opportunity and a decent quality of life.
  I won't speak for my colleagues from other Appalachian States, but 
West Virginia was not exactly the winner in the original Interstate 
Highway System. And Senators here represent many States that were. As a 
result, areas of my State have suffered, economically and in human 
terms. Without roads, people are shut off from jobs. That's obvious. 
But without roads, people also can't get decent health care. Dropping 
out of school is easier sometimes than taking a 2-hour bus ride because 
the roads aren't there.
  Long before it was fashionable, ARC used a from-the-bottom-up 
approach to addressing local needs rather than a top-down, one-size-
fits-all mandate of the type that has become all too familiar to 
citizens dealing with Federal agencies. It works, too.
  I urge everyone in this body to keep a promise made to a region that 
has been short-shrifted. Each region is unique. Solutions have to 
differ, depending on our circumstances. When it comes to Appalachia, a 
small agency called the Appalachian Regional Commission should finish 
its work. Cutting its budget further will only create more problems and 
more costs that should be avoided. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Grams amendment, and again, I remind everyone that it is in the 
entire Nation's interest to invest in each region and each State in 
ways that deal with their needs and their potential.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to an amendment 
offered by Senator Grams of Minnesota which would drastically reduce 
funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  At a time when we are correctly terminating or scaling back outdated 
Federal programs, I believe the Appalachian Regional Commission is the 
type of Federal initiative we should be encouraging. It is important to 
recognize that the ARC uses its limited Federal dollars to leverage 
additional State and local funding. This successful partnership enables 
communities in Virginia to have tailored programs which help

[[Page S9099]]

them respond to a variety of grass-roots needs.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, 21 counties rely heavily on the 
assistance they receive from the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
Income levels for this region of Virginia further indicate that on 
average my constituents who reside in this region have incomes which 
are $6,000 below the average per capita income for the rest of the 
Nation.
  In 1960, when the ARC was created, the poverty rate in Virginia's 
Appalachian region was 24.4 percent. Since that time the ARC has helped 
slash the region's poverty rate in half. However, we are still a long 
way from achieving the U.S. average poverty level of 13.1 and also the 
regional poverty level of other ARC-member States of 15.2 percent.
  In addition to the progress made on the region's staggering poverty 
rate, the ARC has made important inroads curbing several other problems 
inherent in Appalachia. Since the inception of the ARC, the infant 
mortality rate in the region has fallen by two thirds. The high school 
graduation rate has doubled, and unemployment rates have significantly 
declined.
  Even with these substantial improvements, however, the region still 
lags behind the rest of the Nation in all of these categories. Of the 
339 counties within the purview of the ARC, 115 are classified as 
economically distressed. Meanwhile, the ARC continues with a 40-percent 
reduction from fiscal year 1995, and the pending Senate appropriations 
bill contains a further reduction of $5 billion from fiscal year 1996.
  With these statistics in mind, I would like to offer some specific 
points one should keep in mind regarding the effectiveness of ARC 
programs, its relationship with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the 
direct impact that this relationship has on the private sector.
  In recent years, a significant portion of ARC funds have been 
dedicated to local economic development efforts. Were it not for this 
assistance, the LENOWISCO Planning District and Wise County would not 
have been able to complete construction of the water and sewage lines 
to provide utility services to the Wise County Industrial Park at 
Blackwood. These lines were financed by a $500,000 grant from the ARC 
and a $600,000 grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration. 
The construction of these utilities to serve a new industrial park has 
attracted a major wood products manufacturing facility which has 
created 175 new jobs for the community.

  The Fifth Planning District serving the Allegheny Highlands of 
Virginia is a prominent example of leveraging other State and local 
funds and stimulating economic development with partial funding from 
the ARC. For fiscal year 1995 with $350,000 from the ARC, the Allegheny 
Regional Commerce Center in Clifton Forge, VA was established. This new 
industrial center already has a commitment from 2 industries bringing 
new employment opportunities for over 220 persons.
  The ARC funds for this project has generated an additional $500,000 
in State funds, $450,000 from the Virginia Department of 
Transportation, $145,000 from Allegheny County, and $168,173 from the 
Allegheny Highlands Economic Development Authority. As a result of a 
limited Federal commitment, there is almost a 4 to 1 ratio of non-
Federal dollars compared to Federal funds.
  In many cases these funds have been the sole source of funding for 
local planning efforts for appropriate community development. For 
example, such funds have been used to prepare and update comprehensive 
plans which are required by Virginia State law to be updated every 5 
years in revise zoning, subdivision, and other land use ordinances. In 
addition funds are used to prepare labor force studies or marketing 
plans to guide industrial development sites.
  Mr. President, the mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
as relevant today as it was when the program was created. This rural 
region of our Nation remains beset with many geographic obstacles that 
have kept it isolated from industrial expansion. It is a region that 
has been attempting to diversify its economy from its dependency on one 
industry--coal mining--to other stable employment opportunities. It is 
a program that provides essential services and stimulates the 
contributions of State and local funds.
  I urge the Senate to reject the Grams amendment and supply the 
necessary funding for this crucial and important program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to lay on the table the Grams amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. Those in favor of tabling the Grams amendment will vote 
aye. Those opposed to tabling the Grams amendment will vote no. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Craig
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Frahm
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5100) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Wellstone has a colloquy in lieu 
of an amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Biomass Rural Electricity Projects

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me be quite brief because I know we 
are going to a final vote. One of the more exciting developments for 
rural America are biomass rural electricity projects. I was in Granite 
Falls, MN, yesterday, and the high school auditorium was filled with 
citizens excited about a project with the alfalfa producers co-op. This 
is biomass rural electricity. This is a value-added, farmer-owned co-
op. This is rural economic development. This is environmentally sound. 
This is new products for agriculture. It is renewable energy.
  The question I ask the managers of the bill is, will these projects 
be eligible for consideration for funding in fiscal 1997 out of the 
funds provided? My concern, as the Senator from Minnesota, is that, as 
a matter of fact, these kinds of projects, based upon this renewable 
energy policy, based upon this concern about the environment and rural 
economic development, will be eligible for funding.
  So my question, one more time, is whether or not these projects will 
be eligible for consideration of funding in fiscal 1997 out of the 
funds provided.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the answer is, yes, these projects for 
biomass electric will be eligible, and the Department should give full 
consideration to these projects along with those mentioned in the 
committee report. These appear to be promising technologies, and we 
will urge the department to fully consider them.

[[Page S9100]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have listened to the colloquy and 
reviewed it before. I agree.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from Louisiana 
and the Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 5122

  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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5122.

  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 22, line 17, following ``$92,629,000'' insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That in addition to any 
     other payments which it is required to make under subchapter 
     III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States 
     Code, the Department of Energy shall remit to the Office of 
     Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the 
     United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15 percent of the 
     final basic pay of each employee who is covered under 
     subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5 to whom 
     a voluntary separation incentive has bee paid under this 
     paragraph''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yesterday we accepted an amendment to 
the bill to provide the Secretary of Energy with buyout authority in 
fiscal year 1997. If buyouts are offered, the Civil Service Retirement 
and Disability Fund would be required to make previously unanticipated 
payments which results in a scoring issue.
  The technical amendment I offer will resolve the scoring issue by 
directing the Secretary of Energy to make appropriate payments to the 
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund on behalf of employees who 
accept buyouts.
  Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5122) 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.


            the advanced computational technology initiative

  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the bill 
manager, Senator Domenici, and Senator Bennett. The Advanced 
Computational Technology Initiative [ACTI] is an ongoing DOE advanced 
R&D Program involving joint research efforts by the national labs and 
the oil and gas industry. The program pairs the unique supercomputing 
capabilities of DOE's nine multi-purpose National Laboratories with the 
domestic oil and natural gas industry. These research capabilities that 
would not otherwise be readily available will enable American industry 
to solve some of the grand challenge problems that exist in exploration 
and production geophysics, engineering, and geoscience.
  Mr. BENNETT. This program is a collaborative effort that will produce 
significant energy security benefits. For example, the program is 
advancing technology to reduce the costs of acquiring seismic data and 
enhance 3D simulation using advanced visualization and virtual reality 
in reservoir engineering. These advances will bring down development 
costs in marginal areas thereby increasing net production and reducing 
the surface impacts of oil drilling. The application of advanced 
technologies will enhance oil recovery from current producing areas in 
Prudhoe Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Appalachian Basin.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Federal funding supports the national lab and 
university components, no Federal funds go to the industry. The 
projects have been selected on a competitive basis to ensure only 
relevant and widely beneficial research is supported by DOE. Industry 
contributes over 50 percent on a cost-sharing basis.
  Mr. BENNETT. In order to adequately fund this program, $9,000,000 
under Engineering and Geosciences in Basic Energy Sciences, and 
$5,000,000 in computational technology research in other energy 
research programs must be committed to the Department's Advanced 
Computational Technology Initiative.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with my colleagues as to the value of the ACTI 
Program and support Department funding of the program at this level.


                  solar, wind, and renewables account

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief 
colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee regarding the amendment that was adopted yesterday 
restoring funding to the solar, wind, and renewables account. Is it the 
chairman's understanding that $23.072 million has been transferred into 
the solar and renewables account in this appropriations measure, 
leaving a total of $269.713 million for the solar and renewable energy 
account.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is my understanding.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Is it also your understanding that of this $23.072 
million in the amendment, $16.5 million shall be for an increase in 
wind energy systems of which $2 million shall be for the Kotzebue, 
Alaska project. In addition, the amendment would provide increases of 
$2.0 million for international solar, $1.5 million for solar thermal; 
$1.0 million for resource assessment; $1.072 million for the renewable 
energy production incentive program; and $1 million for the utility 
climate challenge program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct, Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to thank the managers of this bill for 
their assistance with this important amendment.


                                  Inel

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Idaho, Mr. 
Craig, and I, should like to engage the chairman of the Senate Energy 
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Domenici, in a colloquy for 
purposes of clarification regarding the status of two INEL projects, 
funding for which is not specific in the report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, under the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management account for the Department of Energy; 
more specifically within the nuclear material and facility 
stabilization section, it is stated that the ``Committee is aware that 
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory has been designated the lead 
lab under DOE's National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program and that the 
Department has acknowledged that increased funding will be needed to 
carry out the additional responsibilities.'' In this regard, Mr. 
President, the Committee--Energy and Water Appropriations--
recommendation is consistent with the Senate authorizing committee 
action for this activity.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. As the distinguished chairman of the Senate Energy 
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from New Mexico, 
knows, the Senate Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997, H.R. 
3230, also authorizes funding under the nuclear material and facility 
stabilization provision for spent fuel vulnerabilities associated with 
activities at INEL's power burst facility. Was it the intent of the 
committee recommendation, to be consistent with the Senate authorizing 
committee action for the national spent fuel activity, to also include 
funding for this provision?
  Mr. DOMENICI. While the two INEL projects under the National Spent 
Nuclear Fuel Program were not actually described in report language, it 
was the intent of the committee to include both activities for funding 
under this section--nuclear material and facility stabilization.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from New Mexico indulge me in turning to 
another section of the energy and water appropriations bill, S. 1959; 
specifically the Waste Management Program under the Defense 
environmental restoration and waste management section for further 
clarification?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly.
  Mr. CRAIG. The fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill also 
provided authorization for a surety program at the INEL to improve 
waste minimization efforts in the new stockpile management 
modernization program. Was it the intent of the committee to also 
provide funding for this activity within the waste management section, 
which

[[Page S9101]]

received an additional $138.4 million from the President's budget 
request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The DOE Waste Management Program seeks to protect the 
public and workers by seeking to minimize, treat, store, and dispose of 
radioactive, hazardous, mixed and sanitary waste generated by past and 
ongoing operations at DOE facilities, which is consistent with the 
surety program.


                    Indian Energy Resources Program

  Mr. STEVENS. Included in this appropriations bill is funding for the 
Indian Energy Resources Grant program, which was originally authorized 
in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. As the Senator from New Mexico knows 
well, in its short history, this program has been put to good use in 
providing up to a 50-percent match for funding for sorely needed energy 
projects in Native communities.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I share the sentiments of the Senator from Alaska 
regarding the importance of the grants provided under the Indian Energy 
Resources Program.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate that the Senator's work on this year's bill 
included funding for three important renewable energy projects in 
Alaska--two are clean, small hydroelectric projects to partially or 
fully replace 100 percent diesel-generated electricity in rural parts 
of Alaska, which are predominantly Native. Funding for the third 
project will be for the construction of a transmission intertie to 
bring energy from a recently completed hydroelectric project to several 
communities.
  For rural Alaska, electric power is still expensive and limited in 
supply. Electricity is produced in rural Native villages by burning 
diesel fuel that is brought in to the villages during the summer months 
and stored in fuel tanks. For the past two decades the State of Alaska 
has been able to provide subsidies to rural Alaskans through its Power 
Cost Equalization Program. Because the oil fields of Alaska's North 
Slope are now in decline, however, and because development of the known 
oil field on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
is still restricted, the State's continuation of this program is 
uncertain.
  Rural Alaskans, therefore could be facing an increase in their energy 
bills on the order of 30 cents to more than $1 per kilowatt hour. The 
national average for electric power is just 7 to 8 cents per kilowatt 
hour. For this reason, development of renewable energy and energy 
transmission projects in rural Alaska is all the more important.
  My only disappointment regarding this program is that, with the 
limited funding we are able to provide this year, several worthy 
projects, such as the hydroelectric projects proposed for Old Harbor 
and Admiralty Island, Alaska, were not funded. Additionally, the 
authorization for the Indian Energy Resources Program is only through 
fiscal year 1997.
  It is my hope that the Department of Energy will give what support it 
can to Native projects such as the Old Harbor and Admiralty Island 
hydroelectric projects this year. I also fully support the 
reauthorization of this program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator that we would have hoped to 
provide funding to all the proposed worthy projects. As this was simply 
not possible, however, the absence of earmarks should not prohibit the 
Department of Energy from providing technical and financial assistance 
where possible. This program has been important to Indian projects in 
my State as well, and I look forward to working with the Senator from 
Alaska in its continuation.


                   title xvi water recycling program

  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from New Mexico, the distinguished 
chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for his 
leadership on this bill. I particularly wish to thank the Senator for 
his personal commitment to the Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI water 
recycling program. As the Senator knows, I am a strong advocate of this 
program. In arid Western States like Utah, water reuse is the next 
logical step, both economically and environmentally toward guaranteeing 
more dependable water supplies for our cities and towns.
  As the Senator knows, I have sponsored legislation to expand the 
existing title XVI program which I am hopeful will be enacted this 
year. This legislation includes projects in my own State of Utah as 
well as projects in New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, and California. In 
anticipation of the enactment of that legislation, I have asked the 
distinguished chairman to seek the inclusion of certain language in the 
conference report accompanying this bill at the proper time. This 
language that would instruct the Bureau of Reclamation to make 
available to other water recycling projects authorized under title XVI 
any funds appropriated by this bill of title XVI projects that the 
Bureau may be unable to obligate for whatever reasons when it is 
possible.
  Would the distinguished chairman agree to seek the inclusion of this 
language in the conference report?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Utah is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his courtesy in this regard.


                 advanced reservoir management program

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to point out to my 
colleagues the importance of an initiative within the Department of 
Energy [DOE] that represents the proper partnership role for the 
Department and our private sector. I speak of the advanced reservoir 
management [ARM] project that has been funded under the Defense 
Activities, Technology Transfer account within the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill. This program takes advantage of the unique 
computer capabilities of our national lab stockpile stewardship 
initiative and the common problems facing the independent oil and gas 
producers of the country. These problems involve complex legacy 
databases and require advanced computational challenges that are simply 
beyond the grasp of most independent oil and gas producers to solve on 
their own. This program represents a new model for industry-lab 
partnerships and serves the Nation by enhancing the stockpile 
stewardship mission while contributing to essential new knowledge and 
capability in our energy sector. In doing so, this partnership 
contributes to both our national defense and to the Nation's energy 
security. I suggest that this program should continue to be an 
important part of the DOE mission.


            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wonder if the chairman will yield for a 
moment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to my friend from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. President. Tonawanda, NY, is home to 
seven sites that are on the Department of Energy's Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] list. Four of these sites--
Ashland 1, Ashland 2, Seaway Industrial Park and Linde Air Products--
are collectively known as the Tonawanda Site. The Tonawanda site is a 
legacy of the Manhattan Project and contains approximately 350,000 
cubic yards of radioactive waste. For 18 years, the Department of 
Energy has engaged in study after study and has spent over $20 million 
to determine how to permanently dispose of this waste. There is no 
support for Tonawanda's 80,000 residents for siting this waste within 
the town. For 50 years they have had to endure this waste and the 
blight it has cast upon their town. They are sick of it and they want 
it gone.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. If I may add, the citizens of Tonawanda, through their 
elected officials, have engaged our offices and have asked Senator 
D'Amato and me to request that the Congress give direction to the 
Department of Energy in order to start the process towards removal and 
disposal of this waste. We both agreed that we would do what we could 
to relieve the town's burden. Now, Mr. President, this is a daunting 
task requiring many tens of millions of dollars. We do not believe for 
a moment that it will be easy. However, we are here today to ask the 
chairman's assistance with the next step.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the Department of Energy has indicated 
that moving this waste will be expensive, however, we are not aware of 
any fixed price of what it would cost to remove, transport and dispose 
of this waste. We do not know if a business, operating in the open 
market, can present a reasonable, competitive bid. We do not know 
because no bids have been put forth by the Department that would 
determine the private sector's

[[Page S9102]]

ability to manage this waste. Hence, the waste remains where it is, the 
studies continue and the citizens of Tonawanda grow frustrated.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Department should at least explore the options 
available to them. The private sector may be able to present a bid that 
would speed-up the clean-up of the Tonawanda site in a cost-effective 
manner. Maybe it cannot. The problem is the Department of Energy is 
reluctant to even find out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate hearing the concerns of my friends from 
New York. I can understand their wanting to see this site cleaned-up as 
quickly and efficiently as possible. I can also understand the concerns 
of the citizens of Tonawanda--they will only be pleased with the total 
removal of this 350,000 cubic yards of radioactive waste. Finally, I 
can understand the funding constraints of the FUSRAP program within the 
Department of Energy that can make decisions like these very difficult. 
Nevertheless, I believe that the Senators from the State of New York 
have a right to find out what analyses the Department of Energy 
possesses that indicate that removal, transportation and off-site 
storage appear unacceptable to the Department.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend from New Mexico for his indulgence.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the chairman, as well.


                  Renewable and Conservation Resources

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if I might have the attention of my 
friend from New Mexico, the distinguished manager of the pending 
legislation, I would like to clarify a clerical error which appeared in 
the Senate committee report on this legislation. The item I seek to 
clarify involves the role of the Bonneville Power Administration in 
advancing the use of renewable energy resources and promoting energy 
conservation in the Pacific Northwest.
  The following language was included in the subcommittee report to 
accompany S. 1959:

       Renewable Resource Development.--The Committee understands 
     that the BPA, in keeping with the goals of the 1980 Northwest 
     Power Planning and Conservation Act, is involved in four 
     renewable resource demonstration projects in the region. The 
     Committee supports BPA's efforts to confirm and expand the 
     supply of renewable resources in the Northwest, and expects 
     BPA to complete the two wind and two geothermal projects it 
     has underway. Completing these projects will lay the 
     foundation for building a renewable marketplace in the 
     region, and will benefit both the environment and the local 
     economy. The Committee understands that BPA may spend up to 
     $40,000,000 each year on these projects once they are all in 
     service, and encourages BPA to move forward expeditiously on 
     their completion. The Committee directs BPA to prepare a 
     report on the progress of this program by March 1, 1997.

  Subsequently, during the markup of S. 1959 in the full Appropriations 
Committee, language on renewable energy was agreed to which was 
intended to replace, not be added to, the above subcommittee report 
language. The language is as follows:

       Renewable and conservation resources.--The Committee 
     continues to strongly support conservation and renewable 
     energy resources. These resources remain the foundation for a 
     sustainable energy future in the Pacific Northwest as the 
     region approaches the new century. The Committee strongly 
     encourages the Bonneville Power Administration, the Northwest 
     Power Planning Council, and other participants in the 
     regional review being conducted by the Governors of the four 
     Northwest States, to explore all innovative measures to 
     assure achievement of pace-setting energy conservation and 
     renewable resource targets in the coming decade. The 
     Committee urges that new mechanisms be defined to assure 
     adequate funding to sustain and substantially expand energy 
     conservation and renewable resources as the electric power 
     industry transitions to a more deregulated energy 
     marketplace. While the Committee recognizes the BPA's need to 
     remain competitive and assure its payments to the U.S. 
     Treasury, BPA should make every effort to fulfill the 
     commitments it has made to renewable energy and energy 
     conservation resources.

  To summarize, the paragraph entitled, ``Renewable and conservation 
resources,'' adopted in the full committee markup, was meant to replace 
the paragraph entitled, ``Renewable Resource Development'', which was 
adopted in the subcommittee markup.
  My purpose in speaking on this issue is to clarify this point with 
the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Domenici. Does the Senator from 
New Mexico's understanding of committee's intent comport with what I 
just described.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has accurately 
described the intent of the committee. I thank my friend for clarifying 
the committee's intent with regard to this clerical error.


                       renewable energy programs

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill includes my amendment that increase funding 
for renewable energy programs. My amendment restore $23 million to 
solar and wind energy programs, bringing funding to these programs up 
to last year's levels.
  Mr. President, renewable energy technologies represent our best hopes 
for reducing air pollution, creating jobs and decreasing our reliance 
on imported oil and finite supplies of fossil fuels. These programs 
promise to supply economically competitive and commercially viable 
energy, while also assisting our Nation in reducing greenhouse gases 
and oil imports. I believe that the Nation should be looking toward 
alternative forms and sources of energy, not taking a step backward by 
cutting funding for these programs.
  My own State of Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 
1972, the University of Delaware established one of the first 
photovoltaic laboratories in the Nation. The University has been 
instrumental in developing solar photovoltaic energy, the same type of 
energy that powers solar watches and calculators.
  Delaware has a major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, which is 
now the fastest growing manufacturer of photovoltaic cells in the 
world. In collaboration with the University of Delaware and Astro 
Power, Delaware's major utility--Delmarva Power & Light--has installed 
an innovative solar energy system that has successfully demonstrated 
the use of solar power to satisfy peak electrical demand.
  Through this collaboration, my State has demonstrated that solar 
energy technology can be an economically competitive and commercially 
viable energy alternative for the utility industry.
  It is vital that we continue to manufacture these solar cell products 
with the high performance, high quality, and low costs required to 
successfully compete worldwide. Investment in Department of Energy 
solar and renewable energy programs has put us on the threshold of 
explosive growth. Continuation of the present renewable energy programs 
is required to achieve the goal of a healthy photovoltaic industry in 
the United States.
  While the solar energy industries might have evolved in some form on 
their own, the Federal investment has accelerated the transition from 
the laboratory bench to commercial markets in a way that has already 
accrued valuable economic benefits to the Nation.
  The solar energy industries--like Astro Power--have already created 
thousands of jobs and helped to reduce our trade deficit through 
exports of solar energy systems overseas, mostly to developing nations, 
where 2 billion people are still without access to electricity.
  International markets for solar energy systems are virtually 
exploding, due to several key market trends. Most notably, solar energy 
is already one of the lowest cost options available to developing 
countries that cannot afford to build large, expensive centralized 
power generation facilities with elaborate distribution systems.
  The governments of Japan, Germany, and Australia are investing 
heavily in aggressive technology and market development in partnership 
with their own solar energy industries. Until recently, Japan and 
Germany held the lead in world market share for photovoltaics; the 
United States has only recently recaptured international market 
dominance. Cutting funding for commercializing these technologies would 
have a chilling effect on the U.S. industry's ability to compete on an 
international scale in these billion-dollar markets of today and 
tomorrow. The employment potential of renewables represents a minimum 
of 15,000 new jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 the next decade.

[[Page S9103]]

  It is imperative that this Senate support solar and renewable energy 
technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our 
economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My State has 
done and will continue to do its part. I hope my colleagues in the 
Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and 
reliable energy future by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before final passage of this bill I wanted 
to make a few points.
  First, I want to thank the managers of the bill. Their job is a 
thankless task and they deserve great credit for moving this important 
measure with such speed through the Senate.
  But, Mr. President, this bill is fundamentally a flawed measure. As 
is the custom in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, we put into 
statute all of the Army Corps of Engineer projects. This practice is 
very disconcerting.
  After carefully examining where such funds are to be spent, one comes 
to the conclusion that the needs of the States represented by members 
of the Appropriations Committee have more weight than the needs of 
other States. It is for this reason that we should end this practice of 
earmarking Army Corps funds.
  Instead, Mr. President, we should develop a system where the States 
and the Corps work together, develop a priority list based on national 
needs, and then that list is funded from a lump sum. Such a practice 
would eliminate the earmaking of this money as it now occurs and 
would--I believe--prove much more fair.
  I am also concerned that some of the projects in the bill are fully 
funded by the Federal Government while others are not.
  I note that on page 5 of the bill a project in Shreveport, LA is 
funded ``at full Federal expense.'' I wonder why this is being done.
  On page 7, we do the same thing with a project in West Virginia.
  Mr. President, it is these kinds of earmarks that I believe we should 
all be concerned.
  Additionally, on page 11 of the bill, section 108, we are funding a 
wharf at the Charleston Riverfront Park in West Virginia. Why aren't 
there similar sections for other parks?
  Mr. President, it is this constant earmarking that leaves me no 
choice but to vote against this bill. I would hope that in the future 
we could develop a better system for spending this money.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1959, the fiscal 
year 1997 energy and water development appropriations bill.
  I am particularly pleased that the Senate is restoring funding for 
renewable energy programs. A portion of the restored funds will go to 
support a Federal interagency board, The Committee on Renewable Energy 
Commerce and Trade [CORECT]. This program came out of legislation 
authored by Senator Hatfield and myself in the 97th Congress which 
President Reagan signed. The premise of the legislation was simple: 
build effectiveness of Government export assistance programs by having 
Federal agencies work together, team together. CORECT has worked well. 
Not only has United States industry identified nearly $2 billion of 
potential in Latin America alone, but global sales for United States 
renewable energy equipment and services have more than doubled over the 
last few years.
  Mr. President, I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member 
for including funding for a particular project--the restoration of 
wetlands on the Williamson River in Oregon.
  This project is one of the results of an environmental initiative by 
my colleague, Senator Hatfield, over the past several years.
  When endangered fish concerns and other environmental problems 
started coming to light on the Upper Klamath River in the southern part 
of our state, it was Senator Hatfield who provided funding and 
direction to all the Federal agencies involved to work together on 
solutions, instead of standing around blaming each other for the 
problems. And, it was Senator Hatfield who got them to bring the local 
stakeholders together to work in league with the agencies in 
considering those problems and trying to agree on solutions--not in the 
courts, but sitting down face to face with each other.
  The people at that table--including the farmers who use water from 
the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath project, the Klamath Tribe, hydro 
generators, other commercial interests, Oregon Trout, and the Nature 
Conservancy--probably won't ever achieve perfect harmony. They each 
have their own priorities. But working together, they have been able to 
agree on positive steps to take to solve some of the environmental 
problems in the Upper Klamath Basin--and the Tulana Farms wetlands 
restoration project at the mouth of the Williamson River is one of 
those.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service identified this restoration as a key 
element in restoring two endangered fish species on the river, and the 
Nature Conservancy worked with CH2MHill to design the project in such a 
way that it adds flexibility to the use of the hydro and irrigation 
projects on the river, rather than constraining it.
  They also designed the project to keep a parcel of the Tulana Farms 
property in agricultural production, because of its role as an 
important source of seed potatoes for neighboring farmers.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to address the sorts of 
problems people are facing on the Upper Klamath. But I am proud to say 
that the Klamath Basin Working Group working with the Klamath Ecosystem 
Restoration Office did not simply pass the responsibility for solving 
these problems--or the bill--to the Federal Government.
  They have taken on a substantial part of that responsibility. The 
restoration work and management of the project will be done by the 
Nature Conservancy. PacifiCorp and the New Earth Co., both of which 
have operations on the Upper Klamath system, are contributing $4 
million of private funding to the project.
  Complaining about a problem is a whole lot easier than solving it, 
especially when a solution affects lots of different interests, and 
lots of different people. I want to congratulate the people who have 
worked together to make this project possible, and urge my colleagues 
to support the work they have taken on.


         tva competing with private sector on engineering work

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Congress has for many years provided a 
specific appropriation to fund the Environmental Research Center in 
Muscle Shoal, AL, until last year, when Congress directed TVA to begin 
looking for ways to finance the Center's operations with funds other 
than appropriations.
  The Chairman of TVA's Board, Craven Crowell, acknowledged this past 
March in testimony before our subcommittee that TVA had prepared a plan 
to continue operating the Environmental Research Center using outside 
funding sources. It has recently come to my attention that one of the 
ways TVA plans to continue the Center's operation is to compete for 
work with the private sector.
  Under the latest effort, TVA has produced and distributed materials 
intended to capitalize on their in-house expertise and resources to 
perform private sector engineering work. These services include: 
constructed wetland for wastewater treatment; removal of underground 
storage tanks; site assessment; environmental restoration; groundwater 
monitoring, and hazardous waste management. In Mississippi alone, there 
are over 78 private firms, many of them small businesses, who already 
provide these services.
  TVA's marketing of these activities to the private sector has not 
only created a competitive challenge because of TVA's reputation and 
resources, but their Government status has created a greater financial 
and marketing disadvantage to hundreds of private, small business 
engineering firms across the seven State Tennessee Valley region who 
are capable and have an excellent track record in performing these 
kinds of activities.
  I have serious concerns whenever the Federal Government or quasi-
governmental agencies attempt to unfairly compete with the private 
sector. I raise this issue today as we consider the energy and water 
appropriations bill because our friends in the other body have proposed 
to eliminate funding for the Environmental Research Center. The effect 
of their provision will be for TVA to accelerate its efforts to compete 
for private sector work.

[[Page S9104]]

  I encourage the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to look 
into this issue to ensure that TVA is not unfairly competing with 
private sector engineering consulting firms.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss 
the budget impact of S. 1959, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 1997.
  This bill as reported provides $20.3 billion in budget authority and 
$13.1 billion in new outlays to fund the civil programs of the Army 
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, certain independent 
agencies, and most of the activities of the Department of Energy. When 
outlays from prior year budget authority and other actions are taken 
into account, this bill provides a total of $19.9 billion in outlays.
  The subcommittee met its budget authority allocation for defense and 
nondefense. The bill falls below its defense discretionary outlay 
allocation by $305 million and its nondefense discretionary outlay 
allocation by $13 million.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   ENERGY AND WATER SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL  
               [Fiscal year 1997, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........      2,863
    S. 1959, as reported to the Senate............     11,600      8,065
    Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal defense discretionary..............     11,600     10,928
                                                   =====================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........      3,970
    S. 1959, as reported to the Senate............      8,708      4,986
    Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........      8,708      8,956
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........  .........
    S. 1959, as reported to the Senate............  .........  .........
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget.......................................  .........  .........
      Resolutoin assumptions......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal mandatory..........................  .........  .........
                                                   =====================
      Adjusted bill total.........................     20,308     19,884
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary.........................     11,600     11,233
    Nondefense discretionary......................      8,708      8,969
    Violent crime reduction trust fund............  .........  .........
    Mandatory.....................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................     20,308     20,202
                                                   =====================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
    Defense discretionary.........................  .........       -305
    Nondefense discretionary......................  .........        -13
    VIolent crime reduction trust fund............         NA         NA
    Mandatory.....................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................  .........       -318
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to go to third 
reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 3816.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3816) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause is stricken and S. 1959, as amended, will be inserted 
in lieu thereof, and the bill is considered read the third time.
  The bill was considered read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on passage of H.R. 3816, 
as amended.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Frahm], is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Brown
     Feingold
     Kerry
     Kyl
     McCain
     Roth

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Frahm
       
  The bill (H.R. 3816), as amended, was passed, as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 3816) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for 
     energy and water development for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1997, and for other purposes'', do pass with 
     the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, for energy and water development, 
     and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes.


                         General Investigations

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of 
     authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     $154,557,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     funds are provided for the following projects in the amounts 
     specified:
       Coastal Studies Navigation Improvements, Alaska, $500,000;
       Red River Navigation, Southwest, Arkansas, $600,000;
       Tahoe Basin Study, Nevada and California, $200,000;
       Walker River Basin Restoration Study, Nevada and 
     California, $300,000;
       Bolinas Lagoon restoration study, Marin County, California, 
     $500,000;
       Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey, 
     $300,000;
       South Shore of Staten Island, New York, $300,000; and
       Rhode Island South Coast, Habitat Restoration and Storm 
     Damage Reduction, Rhode Island, $300,000.


                         Construction, General

       For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
     shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws; 
     and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
     projects (including those for development with participation 
     or under consideration for participation by States, local 
     governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible 
     for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
     commitment of the Government to construction), 
     $1,049,306,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public Law 99-662 
     shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, for 
     one-half of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of 
     inland waterways projects, including rehabilitation costs for 
     the Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi River, Illinois and 
     Missouri, Lock and Dam 14, Mississippi River, Iowa, and Lock 
     and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri, 
     projects, and of which funds are provided for the following 
     projects in the amounts specified:
       Larsen Bay Harbor, Alaska, $2,000,000;
       Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska, $2,000,000;
       Valdez Harbor, Alaska, Intertidal Water Retention, 
     $1,000,000;
       Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas, $6,000,000;
       Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $2,000,000;
       Harlan (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and 
     Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $10,000,000;

[[Page S9105]]

       Williamsburg (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $4,700,000;
       Middlesboro (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $4,000,000;
       Pike County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $3,000,000;
       Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, $2,600,000;
       Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana, $18,525,000;
       Lake Pontchartrain (Jefferson Parish) Stormwater Discharge, 
     Louisiana, $3,500,000;
       Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Louisiana, $4,400,000;
       Mill Creek, Ohio, $500,000;
       Seelconk River, Rhode Island Bridge removal, $650,000;
       Red River Chloride Control, Texas, $4,500,000;
       Wallisville Lake, Texas, $5,000,000;
       Richmond Filtration Plant, Virginia, $3,500,000;
       Virginia Beach, Virginia, Hurricane Protection, $8,000,000;
       Hatfield Bottom (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River), West Virginia, $1,600,000;
       Lower Mingo (Kermit) (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River), $4,200,000;
       Lower Mingo, West Virginia, Tributaries Supplement, 
     $105,000; and
       Upper Mingo County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River), West Virginia, $4,000,000: 
     Provided, That of the funds provided for the Red River 
     Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, 
     project, $3,000,000 is provided, to remain available until 
     expended, for design and construction of a regional visitor 
     center in the vicinity of Shreveport, Louisiana at full 
     Federal expense: 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.


   Flood  Control,  Mississippi  River  and  Tributaries,  Arkansas, 
  Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee

       For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood 
     control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance 
     of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood, 
     as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), $312,513,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     President of the Mississippi River Commission is directed 
     henceforth to use the variable cost recovery rate set forth 
     in OMB Circular A-126 for use of the Commission aircraft 
     authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946, Public Law 526.


                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, 
     maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 
     control, and related works, including such sums as may be 
     necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by 
     a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of 
     harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce 
     and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and 
     northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and 
     straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to 
     navigation, $1,688,358,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as become available in the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662, 
     may be derived from that fund, and of which such sums as 
     become available from the special account established by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that fund for construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities 
     and of which $500,000 shall be made available for the 
     maintenance of Compton Creek Channel, Los Angeles County 
     drainage area, California: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army is directed to design and implement at full Federal 
     expense an early flood warning system for the Greenbrier and 
     Cheat River Basins, West Virginia within eighteen months from 
     the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of the Army is directed during fiscal year 1997 to 
     maintain a minimum conservation pool level of 475.5 at Wister 
     Lake in Oklahoma: Provided further, That no funds, whether 
     appropriated, contributed, or otherwise provided, shall be 
     available to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for 
     the purpose of acquiring land in Jasper County, South 
     Carolina, in connection with the Savannah Harbor navigation 
     project: 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: Provided further, That $750,000 is 
     for the Buford-Trenton Irrigation District, section 33, 
     erosion control project in North Dakota.


                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $101,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

       For expenses necessary for emergency flood control, 
     hurricane, and shore protection activities, as authorized by 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, 
     as amended, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                            General Expenses

       For expenses necessary for general administration and 
     related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and 
     offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal 
     Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center 
     Support Activity, the Engineering Strategic Studies Center, 
     and the Water Resources Support Center, and for costs of 
     implementing the Secretary of the Army's plan to reduce the 
     number of division offices as directed in title I, Public Law 
     104-46, $153,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no part of any other appropriation provided in 
     title I of this Act shall be available to fund the activities 
     of the Office of the Chief of Engineers or the executive 
     direction and management activities of the Division Offices: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army may not 
     obligate any funds available to the Department of the Army 
     for the closure of the Pacific Ocean Division Office of the 
     Army Corps of Engineers.


                       Administrative Provisions

       Appropriations in this title shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed 
     $5,000); and during the current fiscal year the revolving 
     fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase 
     (not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.


                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. The flood control project for Arkansas City, 
     Kansas authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, 100 Stat. 4116) 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
     construct the project at a total cost of $38,500,000, with an 
     estimated first Federal cost of $19,250,000 and an estimated 
     first non-Federal cost of $19,250,000.
       Sec. 102. Funds previously provided under the Fiscal Year 
     1993 Energy and Water Development Act, Public Law 102-377, 
     for the Elk Creek Dam, Oregon project, are hereby made 
     available to plan and implement long term management measures 
     at Elk Creek Dam to maintain the project in an uncompleted 
     state and to take necessary steps to provide passive fish 
     passage through the project.
       Sec. 103. The flood control project for Moorefield, West 
     Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-640, 104 
     Stat. 4610) is modified to authorize the Secretary of the 
     Army to construct the project at a total cost of $26,200,000, 
     with an estimated first Federal cost of $20,300,000 and an 
     estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,900,000.
       Sec. 104. The project for navigation, Grays Landing Lock 
     and Dam, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania (Lock and Dam 7 
     Replacement), authorized by section 301(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, 100 
     Stat. 4110) is modified to authorize the Secretary of the 
     Army to construct the project at a total cost of 
     $181,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of 
     $181,000,000.
       Sec. 105. From the date of enactment of this Act, flood 
     control measures implemented under Section 202(a) of Public 
     Law 96-367 shall prevent future losses that would occur from 
     a flood equal in magnitude to the April 1977 level by 
     providing protection from the April 1977 level or the 100-
     year frequency event, whichever is greater.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     is authorized to reprogram, obligate and expend such 
     additional sums as are necessary to continue construction and 
     cover anticipated contract earnings of any water resources 
     project that received an appropriation or allowance for 
     construction in or through an appropriations Act or 
     resolution of the then-current fiscal year or the two fiscal 
     years immediately prior to that fiscal year, in order to 
     prevent the termination of a contract or the delay of 
     scheduled work.
       Sec. 107. (a) In fiscal year 1997, the Secretary of the 
     Army shall advertise for competitive bid at least 7,500,000 
     cubic yards of the hooper dredge volume accomplished with 
     government owned dredges in fiscal year 1996.
       (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the 
     Secretary is authorized to use the dredge fleet of the Corps 
     of Engineers to undertake projects when industry does not 
     perform as required by the contract specifications or when 
     the bids are more than 25 percent in excess of what the 
     Secretary determines to be a fair and reasonable estimated 
     cost of a well equipped contractor doing the work or to 
     respond to emergency requirements.
       Sec. 108. The Corps of Engineers is hereby directed to 
     complete the Charleston Riverfront (Haddad) Park Project, 
     West Virginia, as described in the design memorandum approved 
     November, 1992, on a 50-50 cost-share basis with the City. 
     The Corps of Engineers shall pay one-half of all costs for 
     settling contractor claims on the completed project and for 
     completing the wharf. The Federal portion of these costs 
     shall be obtained by reprogramming available Operations & 
     Maintenance funds. The project cost limitation in the Project 
     Cooperation Agreement shall be increased to reflect the 
     actual costs of the completed project.

[[Page S9106]]

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project


                central utah project completion account

       For the purpose of carrying out provisions of the Central 
     Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575 (106 Stat. 
     4605), and for feasibility studies of alternatives to the 
     Uintah and Upalco Units, $42,527,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $16,700,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account: 
     Provided, That of the amounts deposited into the Account, 
     $5,000,000 shall be considered the Federal contribution 
     authorized by paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Act and $11,700,000 
     shall be available to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
     Conservation Commission to carry out activities authorized 
     under the Act.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior under 
     the Act, $1,100,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       For carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     as provided in the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 
     1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or 
     supplementary thereto) and other Acts applicable to that 
     Bureau as follows:


                         general investigations

       For engineering and economic investigations of proposed 
     Federal reclamation projects and studies of water 
     conservation and development plans and activities preliminary 
     to the reconstruction, rehabilitation and betterment, 
     financial adjustment, or extension of existing projects, 
     $18,105,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the total appropriated, the amount for program 
     activities which can be financed by the reclamation fund 
     shall be derived from that fund: Provided further, That funds 
     contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes similar to 
     this appropriation shall be available for expenditure for the 
     purposes for which contributed as though specifically 
     appropriated for said purposes, and such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended: 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.


                          construction program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For construction and rehabilitation of projects and parts 
     thereof (including power transmission facilities for Bureau 
     of Reclamation use) and for other related activities as 
     authorized by law, $398,596,700, 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 
     $58,325,700 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin Development Fund authorized by section 
     403 of the Act of September 30, 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1543), and 
     such amounts as may be necessary shall be considered as 
     though advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund for the 
     Boulder Canyon Project as authorized by the Act of December 
     21, 1928, as amended, and that $12,500,000 shall be available 
     for the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System: Provided, That of the 
     total appropriated, the amount for program activities which 
     can be financed by the reclamation fund shall be derived from 
     that fund: Provided further, That transfers to the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Fund and Lower Colorado River Basin 
     Development Fund may be increased or decreased by transfers 
     within the overall appropriation under this heading: Provided 
     further, That funds contributed by non-Federal entities for 
     purposes similar to this appropriation shall be available for 
     expenditure for the purposes for which contributed as though 
     specifically appropriated for said purposes, and such funds 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     all costs of the safety of dams modification work at Coolidge 
     Dam, San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona, performed under 
     the authority of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 
     (43 U.S.C. 506), as amended, are in addition to the amount 
     authorized in section 5 of said Act: Provided further, That 
     section 301 of Public Law 102-250, Reclamation States 
     Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, is amended by inserting 
     ``1996, and 1997'' in lieu of ``and 1996'': Provided further, 
     That the amount authorized by section 210 of Public Law 100-
     557 (102 Stat. 2791), is amended to $56,362,000 (October 1996 
     prices plus or minus cost indexing), and funds are authorized 
     to be appropriated through the twelfth fiscal year after 
     conservation funds are first made available: 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.


                       operation and maintenance

       For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or 
     parts thereof and other facilities, as authorized by law; and 
     for a soil and moisture conservation program on lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
     law, $280,876,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the total appropriated, the amount for 
     program activities which can be financed by the reclamation 
     fund shall be derived from that fund, and the amount for 
     program activities which can be derived from the special fee 
     account established pursuant to the Act of December 22, 1987 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), may be derived from that 
     fund: Provided further, That funds advanced by water users 
     for operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or 
     parts thereof shall be deposited to the credit of this 
     appropriation and may be expended for the same purpose and in 
     the same manner as sums appropriated herein may be expended, 
     and such advances shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That revenues in the Upper Colorado River 
     Basin Fund shall be available for performing examination of 
     existing structures on participating projects of the Colorado 
     River Storage Project.


               bureau of reclamation loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $12,290,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small 
     Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $37,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000: 
     Provided, That of the total sums appropriated, the amount of 
     program activities which can be financed by the reclamation 
     fund shall be derived from the fund.


                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, such sums as may be 
     collected in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund 
     pursuant to sections 3407(d), 3404(c)(3), 3405(f) and 
     3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Bureau of Reclamation is 
     directed to levy additional mitigation and restoration 
     payments totaling $30,000,000 (October 1992 price levels) on 
     a three-year rolling average basis, as authorized by section 
     3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.


                    general administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses of general administration and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $48,307,000, to be derived from the reclamation fund and to 
     be nonreimbursable pursuant to the Act of April 19, 1945 (43 
     U.S.C. 377): Provided, That no part of any other 
     appropriation in this Act shall be available for activities 
     or functions budgeted for the current fiscal year as general 
     administrative expenses.


                             special funds

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sums herein referred to as being derived from the 
     reclamation fund or special fee account are appropriated from 
     the special funds in the Treasury created by the Act of June 
     17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391) or the Act of December 22, 1987 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), respectively. Such sums shall be 
     transferred, upon request of the Secretary, to be merged with 
     and expended under the heads herein specified.


                        administrative provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed 6 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only.

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Energy Programs


           Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy activities 
     including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant 
     and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for energy 
     supply, research and development activities in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the acquisition or 
     condemnation of any real property or any facility or for 
     plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion; 
     purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 24 for 
     replacement only), $2,764,043,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That $5,000,000 shall be available for 
     research into reducing the costs of converting saline water 
     to fresh water.


                Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy in connection with 
     operating expenses; the purchase, construction, and 
     acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other expenses 
     necessary for uranium supply and enrichment activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.) and the Energy 
     Policy Act (Public Law 102-486, section 901), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion; purchase of electricity as necessary; and the 
     purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 3 for 
     replacement only); $42,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That revenues received by the Department 
     for uranium programs and estimated to total $42,200,000 in 
     fiscal year 1997 shall be retained and used for the specific 
     purpose of offsetting costs incurred by the Department for 
     such activities notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 
     3302(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2296(b)(2): Provided further, That the 
     sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues are 
     received during fiscal year 1997 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 1997 appropriation from the General Fund 
     estimated at not more than $0.
       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:

[[Page S9107]]

       ``(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).''.


      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 1992, $205,200,000, to be derived from the Fund, to remain 
     available until expended.


                General Science and Research Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy activities 
     including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant 
     and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for 
     general science and research activities in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the acquisition or 
     condemnation of any real property or facility or for plant or 
     facility acquisition, construction, or expansion, 
     $1,000,626,000, to remain available until expended.


                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $200,028,000, to remain available until expended, 
     to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That no 
     later than June 30, 1998, the Secretary shall provide to the 
     President and to the Congress a viability assessment of the 
     Yucca Mountain site. The viability assessment shall include:
       (1) the preliminary design concept for the critical 
     elements for the repository and waste package;
       (2) a total system performance assessment, based upon the 
     design concept and the scientific data and analysis available 
     by June 30, 1998, describing the probable behavior of the 
     repository in the Yucca Mountain geological setting relative 
     to the overall system performance standards;
       (3) a plan and cost estimate for the remaining work 
     required to complete a license application; and
       (4) an estimate of the costs to construct and operate the 
     repository in accordance with the design concept.


                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for Departmental Administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     (not to exceed $35,000), $218,017,000, to remain available 
     until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to 
     cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
     others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 1511, et seq.): Provided, That such increases 
     in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same 
     or greater amount, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for 
     miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $125,388,000 in 
     fiscal year 1997 may be retained and used for operating 
     expenses within this account, and may remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal 
     year 1997 so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $92,629,000: Provided further, 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 employement with 
     the Federal Government, or enter into a personal services 
     contract with the Federal Government within five years after 
     separation shall repay the entire amount to the Department of 
     Energy: Provided further, That in addition to any other 
     payments which it is required to make under subchapter III of 
     chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, the 
     Department of Energy shall remit to the Office of Personnel 
     Management for deposit in the Treasury of the United States 
     to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund an amount equal to 15 percent of the final basic pay of 
     each employee who is covered under subchapter III of chapter 
     83 or chapter 84 of title 5 to whom a voluntary separation 
     incentive has been paid under this paragraph.


                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $23,103,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities

                           weapons activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 94 for replacement 
     only), $3,988,602,000, to remain available until expended.


         defense environmental restoration and waste management

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental restoration and waste management activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion; and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
     (not to exceed 20, of which 19 are for replacement only), 
     $5,605,210,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That an additional amount of $182,000,000 is available for 
     privatization initiatives: Provided further, That 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.
       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.


                        other defense activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other 
     defense activities, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 2 for replacement 
     only), $1,606,833,000, to remain available until expended.

                     defense nuclear waste disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    Power Marketing Administrations


         Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     projects in Alaska and of marketing electric power and 
     energy, $4,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $3,000.
       During fiscal year 1997, no new direct loan obligations may 
     be made.


      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southeastern power area, $13,859,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, and for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southwestern power area, $25,210,000, to remain available 
     until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $3,787,000 in 
     reimbursements, to remain available until expended.


 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7101, et seq.), and other related activities including 
     conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized, 
     including official reception and representation expenses in 
     an amount not to exceed $1,500, $201,582,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $172,378,000 shall be 
     derived from the Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: 
     Provided, That of the amount herein appropriated, $5,432,000 
     is for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
     Conservation Account pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation 
     Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
     transfer from the Colorado River Dam Fund to the Western Area 
     Power Administration $3,774,000 to carry out the power 
     marketing and transmission activities of the Boulder Canyon 
     project as provided in section 104(a)(4) of the Hoover Power 
     Plant Act of 1984, to remain available until expended.


           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $970,000, to remain

[[Page S9108]]

     available until expended, and to be derived from the Falcon 
     and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund of the Western 
     Area Power Administration, as provided in section 423 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994 and 
     1995.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $146,290,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $146,290,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 1997 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues are 
     received during fiscal year 1997 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 1997 appropriation from the General Fund 
     estimated at not more than $0.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, and for 
     necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the 
     alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for 
     payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses 
     of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $165,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $17,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                    Delaware River Basin Commission


            Contribution to Delaware River Basin Commission

       For payment of the United States share of the current 
     expenses of the Delaware River Basin Commission, as 
     authorized by law (75 Stat. 706, 707), $500,000.


                         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.

            Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin


    Contribution to Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

       To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay in advance 
     to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin the 
     Federal contribution toward the expenses of the Commission 
     during the current fiscal year in the administration of its 
     business in the conservancy district established pursuant to 
     the Act of July 11, 1940 (54 Stat. 748), as amended by the 
     Act of September 25, 1970 (Public Law 91-407), $508,000.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including the employment of aliens; services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; publication and dissemination of atomic 
     information; purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms; 
     official representation expenses (not to exceed $20,000); 
     reimbursements to the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft, $471,800,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $11,000,000 
     shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, subject to the 
     authorization required in this bill under the heading, 
     ``Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund'': Provided further, That from 
     this appropriation, transfer of sums may be made to other 
     agencies of the Government for the performance of the work 
     for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the 
     sums so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That moneys received by 
     the Commission for the cooperative nuclear safety research 
     program, services rendered to foreign governments and 
     international organizations, and the material and information 
     access authorization programs, including criminal history 
     checks under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act may be 
     retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with 
     those activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other 
     services and collections estimated at $457,300,000 in fiscal 
     year 1997 shall be retained and used for necessary salaries 
     and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
     and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That the funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and 
     other activities pertaining to waste stored at the Hanford 
     site, Washington, shall be excluded from license fee 
     revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214: Provided further, 
     That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the 
     amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1997 from 
     licensing fees, inspection services and other services and 
     collections, excluding those moneys received for the 
     cooperative nuclear safety research program, services 
     rendered to foreign governments and international 
     organizations, and the material and information access 
     authorization programs, so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 1997 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $14,500,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, including services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended; 
     and in addition, an amount not to exceed 5 percent of this 
     sum may be transferred from Salaries and Expenses, Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission: Provided, That notice of such 
     transfers shall be given to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House and Senate: Provided further, That from this 
     appropriation, transfers of sums may be made to other 
     agencies of the Government for the performance of the work 
     for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the 
     sums so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That revenues from 
     licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and 
     collections shall be retained and used for necessary salaries 
     and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
     and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the 
     amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1997 from 
     licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and 
     collections, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $2,531,000, to be transferred from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund and to remain available until expended.

                   Susquehanna River Basin Commission


           Contribution to Susquehanna River Basin Commission

       For payment of the United States share of the current 
     expenses of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, as 
     authorized by law (84 Stat. 1530, 1531), $300,000.


                         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.

                       Tennessee Valley Authority

       For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
     ch. 12A), including hire, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft, and purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $113,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the funds provided herein, not more than $20,000,000 
     shall be made available for the Environmental Research Center 
     in Muscle Shoals, Alabama: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided herein, not more than $8,000,000 shall be made 
     available for operation, maintenance, improvement, and 
     surveillance of Land Between the Lakes: Provided further, 
     That of the amount provided herein, not more than $9,000,000 
     shall be available for Economic Development activities: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided herein, 
     shall be available for detailed engineering and design or 
     constructing a replacement for Chickamauga Lock and Dam on 
     the Tennessee River System.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       Sec. 502. The Secretary of the Interior shall extend the 
     construction repayment and water service contracts for the 
     following projects, entered into by the Secretary of the 
     Interior under subsections (d) and (e) of section 9 of the 
     Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h) and section 
     9(c) of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 
     665), for a period of 1 additional year after the dates on 
     which each of the contracts, respectively, would expire but 
     for this section:
       (1) The Bostwick District (Kansas portion), Missouri River 
     Basin Project, consisting of the project constructed and 
     operated under the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 
     chapter 665), as a component of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 
     Program, situated in Republic County, Jewell County, and 
     Cloud County, Kansas.
       (2) The Bostwick District (Nebraska portion), Missouri 
     River Basin Project, consisting of the project constructed 
     and operated under the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 
     887, chapter 665), as a component of the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
     Basin Program, situated in Harlan County, Franklin County, 
     Webster County, and Nuckolls County, Nebraska.
       (3) The Frenchman-Cambridge District, Missouri River Basin 
     Project, consisting of the project constructed and operated 
     under the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 
     665), as a component of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 
     Program, situated in Chase County, Frontier County, Hitchcock 
     County, Furnas County, and Harlan County, Nebraska.

[[Page S9109]]

       Sec. 503. Notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C., 
     funds made available by this Act to the Department of Energy 
     shall be available only for the purposes for which they have 
     been made available by this Act. The Department of Energy 
     shall report monthly to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House and Senate on the Department of Energy's adherence 
     to the recommendations included in the accompanying report.
       Sec. 504. Following section 4(g)(3) of the Northwest Power 
     Planning and Conservation Act, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``(4)(g)(4) Independent scientific review panel.--(i) The 
     Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) shall appoint an 
     Independent Scientific Review Panel (Panel), which shall be 
     comprised of eleven members, to review projects proposed to 
     be funded through that portion of the Bonneville Power 
     Administration's (BPA) annual fish and wildlife budget that 
     implements the Council's annual fish and wildlife program. 
     Members shall be appointed from a list submitted by the 
     National Academy of Sciences: Provided, That Pacific 
     Northwest scientists with expertise in Columbia River 
     anadromous and non-anadromous fish and wildlife and ocean 
     experts shall be among those represented on the Panel.
       ``(ii) Scientific peer review groups.--The Council shall 
     establish Scientific Peer Review Groups (Peer Review Groups), 
     which shall be comprised of the appropriate number of 
     scientists, from a list submitted by the National Academy of 
     Sciences to assist the Panel in making its recommendations to 
     the Council for projects to be funded through BPA's annual 
     fish and wildlife budget: Provided, That Pacific Northwest 
     scientists with expertise in Columbia River anadromous and 
     non-anadromous fish and wildlife and ocean experts shall be 
     among those represented on the Peer Review Groups.
       ``(iii) Conflict of interest and compensation.--Panel and 
     Peer Review Group members may be compensated and shall be 
     considered as special government employees subject to 45 CFR 
     684.10 through 684.22.
       ``(iv) Project criteria and review.--The Peer Review 
     Groups, in conjunction with the Panel, shall review projects 
     proposed to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife 
     budget and make recommendations on matters related to such 
     projects, to the Council. Project recommendations shall be 
     based on a determination that projects are based on sound 
     science principles; benefit fish and wildlife; and have a 
     clearly defined objective and outcome with provisions for 
     monitoring and evaluation of results. The Panel, with 
     assistance from the Peer Review Groups, shall review, on an 
     annual basis, the results of prior year expenditures based 
     upon these criteria and submit its findings to the Council 
     for its review.
       ``(v) Public review.--Upon completion of the review of 
     projects to be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife 
     budget, the Peer Review Groups shall submit their findings to 
     the Panel. The Panel shall analyze the information submitted 
     by the Peer Review Groups and submit recommendations on 
     project priorities to the Council. The Council shall make the 
     Panel's findings available to the public and subject to 
     public comment.
       ``(vi) Responsibilities of the council.--The Council shall 
     fully consider the recommendations of the Panel when making 
     its final recommendations of projects to be funded through 
     BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget, and if the Council 
     does not incorporate a recommendation of the Panel, the 
     Council shall explain in writing its reasons for not 
     accepting Panel recommendations. In making its 
     recommendations to BPA, the Council shall: consider the 
     impact of ocean conditions on fish and wildlife populations; 
     and shall determine whether the projects employ cost 
     effective measures to achieve project objectives. The 
     Council, after consideration of the recommendations of the 
     Panel and other appropriate entities shall be responsible for 
     making the final recommendations of projects to be funded 
     through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget.
       ``(vii) Cost limitation.--The cost of this provision shall 
     not exceed $2,000,000 in 1997 dollars.
       ``(viii) Expiration.--This paragraph shall expire on 
     September 30, 2000.''.

     SEC. 505. 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. 506. 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.

     SEC. 507. 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. 508. 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.

     SEC. 509. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       (a) Interstate Waste.--
       (1) Interstate transportation of municipal solid waste.--
       (A) Amendment.--Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 4011. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID 
                   WASTE.

       ``(a) Authority To Restrict Out-of-State Municipal Solid 
     Waste.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (4), immediately 
     upon the date of enactment of this section if requested in 
     writing by an affected local government, a Governor may 
     prohibit the disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     in any landfill or incinerator that is not covered by the 
     exceptions provided in subsection (b) and that is subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the Governor and the affected local 
     government.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4), immediately upon 
     the date of publication of the list required in paragraph 
     (6)(C) and notwithstanding the absence of a request in 
     writing by the affected local government, a Governor, in 
     accordance with paragraph (5), may limit the quantity of out-
     of-State municipal solid waste received for disposal at each 
     landfill or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in 
     subsection (b) that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Governor, to an annual amount equal to or greater than the 
     quantity of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for 
     disposal at such landfill or incinerator during calendar year 
     1993.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (4), any State 
     that imported more than 750,000 tons of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste in 1993 may establish a limit under 
     this paragraph on the amount of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste received for disposal at landfills and incinerators in 
     the importing State as follows:
       ``(i) In calendar year 1996, 95 percent of the amount 
     exported to the State in calendar year 1993.
       ``(ii) In calendar years 1997 through 2002, 95 percent of 
     the amount exported to the State in the previous year.
       ``(iii) In calendar year 2003, and each succeeding year, 
     the limit shall be 65 percent of the amount exported in 1993.
       ``(iv) No exporting State shall be required under this 
     subparagraph to reduce its exports to any importing State 
     below the proportionate amount established herein.
       ``(B)(i) No State may export to landfills or incinerators 
     in any 1 State that are not covered by host community 
     agreements or permits authorizing receipt of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste more than the following amounts of 
     municipal solid waste:
       ``(I) In calendar year 1996, the greater of 1,400,000 tons 
     or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar 
     year 1993.
       ``(II) In calendar year 1997, the greater of 1,300,000 tons 
     or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar 
     year 1996.
       ``(III) In calendar year 1998, the greater of 1,200,000 
     tons or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in 
     calendar year 1997.
       ``(IV) In calendar year 1999, the greater of 1,100,000 tons 
     or 90 percent of the amount exported to the State in calendar 
     year 1998.
       ``(V) In calendar year 2000, 1,000,000 tons.
       ``(VI) In calendar year 2001, 750,000 tons.
       ``(VII) In calendar year 2002 or any calendar year 
     thereafter, 550,000 tons.
       ``(ii) The Governor of an importing State may take action 
     to restrict levels of imports to reflect the appropriate 
     level of out-of-State municipal solid waste imports if--
       ``(I) the Governor of the importing State has notified the 
     Governor of the exporting State and the Administrator, 12 
     months prior to taking any such action, of the importing 
     State's intention to impose the requirements of this section;

[[Page S9110]]

       ``(II) the Governor of the importing State has notified the 
     Governor of the exporting State and the Administrator of the 
     violation by the exporting State of this section at least 90 
     days prior to taking any such action; and
       ``(III) the restrictions imposed by the Governor of the 
     importing State are uniform at all facilities and the 
     Governor of the importing State may only apply subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) but not both.
       ``(C) The authority provided by subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     shall apply for as long as a State exceeds the permissible 
     levels as determined by the Administrator under paragraph 
     (6)(C).
       ``(4)(A) A Governor may not exercise the authority granted 
     under this section if such action would result in the 
     violation of, or would otherwise be inconsistent with, the 
     terms of a host community agreement or a permit issued from 
     the State to receive out-of-State municipal solid waste.
       ``(B) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a Governor may 
     not exercise the authority granted under this section in a 
     manner that would require any owner or operator of a landfill 
     or incinerator covered by the exceptions provided in 
     subsection (b) to reduce the amount of out-of-State municipal 
     solid waste received from any State for disposal at such 
     landfill or incinerator to an annual quantity less than the 
     amount received from such State for disposal at such landfill 
     or incinerator during calendar year 1993.
       ``(5) Any limitation imposed by a Governor under paragraph 
     (2) or (3)--
       ``(A) shall be applicable throughout the State;
       ``(B) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any particular landfill or incinerator within the State; and
       ``(C) shall not directly or indirectly discriminate against 
     any shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste on the 
     basis of place of origin and all such limitations shall be 
     applied to all States in violation of paragraph (3).
       ``(6) Annual state report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Within 90 days after enactment of this 
     section and on April 1 of each year thereafter the owner or 
     operator of each landfill or incinerator receiving out-of-
     State municipal solid waste shall submit to the affected 
     local government and to the Governor of the State in which 
     the landfill or incinerator is located, information 
     specifying the amount and State of origin of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste received for disposal during the 
     preceding calendar year, and the amount of waste that was 
     received pursuant to host community agreements or permits 
     authorizing receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste. 
     Within 120 days after enactment of this section and on May 1 
     of each year thereafter each State shall publish and make 
     available to the Administrator, the Governor of the State of 
     origin and the public, a report containing information on the 
     amount of out-of-State municipal solid waste received for 
     disposal in the State during the preceding calendar year.
       ``(B) Contents.--Each submission referred to in this 
     section shall be such as would result in criminal penalties 
     in case of false or misleading information. Such information 
     shall include the amount of waste received, the State of 
     origin, the identity of the generator, the date of the 
     shipment, and the type of out-of-State municipal solid waste. 
     States making submissions referred to in this section to the 
     Administrator shall notice these submissions for public 
     review and comment at the State level before submitting them 
     to the Administrator.
       ``(C) List.--The Administrator shall publish a list of 
     importing States and the out-of-State municipal solid waste 
     received from each State at landfills or incinerators not 
     covered by host community agreements or permits authorizing 
     receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste. The list for 
     any calendar year shall be published by June 1 of the 
     following calendar year.

     For purposes of developing the list required in this section, 
     the Administrator shall be responsible for collating and 
     publishing only that information provided to the 
     Administrator by States pursuant to this section. The 
     Administrator shall not be required to gather additional data 
     over and above that provided by the States pursuant to this 
     section, nor to verify data provided by the States pursuant 
     to this section, nor to arbitrate or otherwise entertain or 
     resolve disputes between States or other parties concerning 
     interstate movements of municipal solid waste. Any actions by 
     the Administrator under this section shall be final and not 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(D) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to preempt any State requirement that requires 
     more frequent reporting of information.
       ``(7) Any affected local government that intends to submit 
     a request under paragraph (1) or take formal action to enter 
     into a host community agreement after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection shall, prior to taking such action--
       ``(A) notify the Governor, contiguous local governments, 
     and any contiguous Indian tribes;
       ``(B) publish notice of the action in a newspaper of 
     general circulation at least 30 days before taking such 
     action;
       ``(C) provide an opportunity for public comment; and
       ``(D) following notice and comment, take formal action on 
     any proposed request or action at a public meeting.
       ``(8) Any owner or operator seeking a host community 
     agreement after the date of enactment of this subsection 
     shall provide to the affected local government the following 
     information, which shall be made available to the public from 
     the affected local government:
       ``(A) A brief description of the planned facility, 
     including a description of the facility size, ultimate waste 
     capacity, and anticipated monthly and yearly waste quantities 
     to be handled.
       ``(B) A map of the facility site that indicates the 
     location of the facility in relation to the local road system 
     and topographical and hydrological features and any buffer 
     zones and facility units to be acquired by the owner or 
     operator of the facility.
       ``(C) A description of the existing environmental 
     conditions at the site, and any violations of applicable laws 
     or regulations.
       ``(D) A description of environmental controls to be 
     utilized at the facility.
       ``(E) A description of the site access controls to be 
     employed, and roadway improvements to be made, by the owner 
     or operator, and an estimate of the timing and extent of 
     increased local truck traffic.
       ``(F) A list of all required Federal, State, and local 
     permits.
       ``(G) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to any violations of 
     environmental laws (including regulations) by the owner and 
     operator, the disposition of enforcement proceedings taken 
     with respect to the violations, and corrective measures taken 
     as a result of the proceedings.
       ``(H) Any information that is required by State or Federal 
     law to be provided with respect to compliance by the owner or 
     operator with the State solid waste management plan.
       ``(b) Exceptions to Authority To Prohibit Out-of-State 
     Municipal Solid Waste.--(1) The authority to prohibit the 
     disposal of out-of-State municipal solid waste provided under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to landfills and 
     incinerators in operation on the date of enactment of this 
     section that--
       ``(A) received during calendar year 1993 documented 
     shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste; and
       ``(B)(i) in the case of landfills, are in compliance with 
     all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations 
     relating to operation, design and location standards, 
     leachate collection, ground water monitoring, and financial 
     assurance for closure and post-closure and corrective action; 
     or
       ``(ii) in the case of incinerators, are in compliance with 
     the applicable requirements of section 129 of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7429) and applicable State laws and 
     regulations relating to facility design and operations.
       ``(2) A Governor may not prohibit the disposal of out-of-
     State municipal solid waste pursuant to subsection (a)(1) at 
     facilities described in this subsection that are not in 
     compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and 
     regulations unless disposal of municipal solid waste 
     generated within the State at such facilities is also 
     prohibited.
       ``(c) Additional Authority To Limit Out-of-State Municipal 
     Solid Waste.--(1) In any case in which an affected local 
     government is considering entering into, or has entered into, 
     a host community agreement and the disposal or incineration 
     of out-of-State municipal solid waste under such agreement 
     would preclude the use of municipal solid waste management 
     capacity described in paragraph (2), the Governor of the 
     State in which the affected local government is located may 
     prohibit the execution of such host community agreement with 
     respect to that capacity.
       ``(2) The municipal solid waste management capacity 
     referred to in paragraph (1) is that capacity--
       ``(A) that is permitted under Federal or State law;
       ``(B) that is identified under the State plan; and
       ``(C) for which a legally binding commitment between the 
     owner or operator and another party has been made for its use 
     for disposal or incineration of municipal solid waste 
     generated within the region (identified under section 
     4006(a)) in which the local government is located.
       ``(d) Cost Recovery Surcharge.--
       ``(1) Authority.--A State described in paragraph (2) may 
     adopt a law and impose and collect a cost recovery charge on 
     the processing or disposal of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste in the State in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The authority to impose a cost 
     recovery surcharge under this subsection applies to any State 
     that on or before April 3, 1994, imposed and collected a 
     special fee on the processing or disposal of out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste pursuant to a State law.
       ``(3) Limitation.--No such State may impose or collect a 
     cost recovery surcharge from a facility on any out-of-State 
     municipal solid waste that is being received at the facility 
     under 1 or more contracts entered into after April 3, 1994, 
     and before the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(4) Amount of surcharge.--The amount of the cost recovery 
     surcharge may be no greater than the amount necessary to 
     recover those costs determined in conformance with paragraph 
     (6) and in no event may exceed $1.00 per ton of waste.
       ``(5) Use of surcharge collected.--All cost recovery 
     surcharges collected by a State covered by this subsection 
     shall be used to fund those solid waste management programs 
     administered by the State or its political subdivision that 
     incur costs for which the surcharge is collected.
       ``(6) Conditions.--(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and 
     (C), a State covered by this subsection may impose and 
     collect a cost recovery surcharge on the processing or 
     disposal within the State of out-of-State municipal solid 
     waste if--
       ``(i) the State demonstrates a cost to the State arising 
     from the processing or disposal within the State of a volume 
     of municipal solid waste from a source outside the State;
       ``(ii) the surcharge is based on those costs to the State 
     demonstrated under clause (i) that, if not paid for through 
     the surcharge, would otherwise have to be paid or subsidized 
     by the State; and

[[Page S9111]]

       ``(iii) the surcharge is compensatory and is not 
     discriminatory.
       ``(B) In no event shall a cost recovery surcharge be 
     imposed by a State to the extent that the cost for which 
     recovery is sought is otherwise paid, recovered, or offset by 
     any other fee or tax paid to the State or its political 
     subdivision or to the extent that the amount of the surcharge 
     is offset by voluntarily agreed payments to a State or its 
     political subdivision in connection with the generation, 
     transportation, treatment, processing, or disposal of solid 
     waste.
       ``(C) The grant of a subsidy by a State with respect to 
     entities disposing of waste generated within the State does 
     not constitute discrimination for purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(iii).
       ``(7) Definitions.--As used in this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `costs' means the costs incurred by the 
     State for the implementation of its laws governing the 
     processing or disposal of municipal solid waste, limited to 
     the issuance of new permits and renewal of or modification of 
     permits, inspection and compliance monitoring, enforcement, 
     and costs associated with technical assistance, data 
     management, and collection of fees.
       ``(B) The term `processing' means any activity to reduce 
     the volume of solid waste or alter its chemical, biological 
     or physical state, through processes such as thermal 
     treatment, bailing, composting, crushing, shredding, 
     separation, or compaction.
       ``(e) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted or construed--
       ``(1) to have any effect on State law relating to 
     contracts; or
       ``(2) to affect the authority of any State or local 
     government to protect public health and the environment 
     through laws, regulations, and permits, including the 
     authority to limit the total amount of municipal solid waste 
     that landfill or incinerator owners or operators within the 
     jurisdiction of a State may accept during a prescribed 
     period: Provided That such limitations do not discriminate 
     between in-State and out-of-State municipal solid waste, 
     except to the extent authorized by this section.
       ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1)(A) The term `affected local government', used with 
     respect to a landfill or incinerator, means--
       ``(i) the public body created by State law with 
     responsibility to plan for municipal solid waste management, 
     a majority of the members of which are elected officials, for 
     the area in which the facility is located or proposed to be 
     located; or
       ``(ii) the elected officials of the city, town, township, 
     borough, county, or parish exercising primary responsibility 
     over municipal solid waste management or the use of land in 
     the jurisdiction in which the facility is located or is 
     proposed to be located.
       ``(B)(i) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     section, a Governor may designate and publish notice of which 
     entity listed in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall 
     serve as the affected local government for actions taken 
     under this section and after publication of such notice.
       ``(ii) If a Governor fails to make and publish notice of 
     such a designation, the affected local government shall be 
     the elected officials of the city, town, township, borough, 
     county, parish, or other public body created pursuant to 
     State law with primary jurisdiction over the land or the use 
     of land on which the facility is located or is proposed to be 
     located.
       ``(C) For purposes of host community agreements entered 
     into before the date of publication of the notice, the term 
     means either a public body described in subparagraph (A)(i) 
     or the elected officials of any of the public bodies 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(2) Host community agreement.--The term `host community 
     agreement' means a written, legally binding document or 
     documents executed by duly authorized officials of the 
     affected local government that specifically authorizes a 
     landfill or incinerator to receive municipal solid waste 
     generated out of State, but does not include any agreement to 
     pay host community fees for receipt of waste unless 
     additional express authorization to receive out-of-State 
     waste is also included.
       ``(3) The term `out-of-State municipal solid waste' means, 
     with respect to any State, municipal solid waste generated 
     outside of the State. Unless the President determines it is 
     inconsistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement and 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the term shall 
     include municipal solid waste generated outside of the United 
     States. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     generators of municipal solid waste outside the United States 
     shall possess no greater right of access to disposal 
     facilities in a State than United States generators of 
     municipal solid waste outside of that State.
       ``(4) The term `municipal solid waste' means refuse (and 
     refuse-derived fuel) generated by the general public or from 
     a residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial 
     source (or any combination thereof), consisting of paper, 
     wood, yard wastes, plastics, leather, rubber, or other 
     combustible or noncombustible materials such as metal or 
     glass (or any combination thereof). The term `municipal solid 
     waste' does not include--
       ``(A) any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous 
     waste under section 3001;
       ``(B) any solid waste, including contaminated soil and 
     debris, resulting from a response action taken under section 
     104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604 or 
     9606) or a corrective action taken under this Act;
       ``(C) any metal, pipe, glass, plastic, paper, textile, or 
     other material that has been separated or diverted from 
     municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in this 
     paragraph) and has been transported into a State for the 
     purpose of recycling or reclamation;
       ``(D) any solid waste that is--
       ``(i) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(ii) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated by the 
     generator of the waste, or is located on property owned by 
     the generator of the waste, or is located on property owned 
     by a company in which the generator of the waste has an 
     ownership interest;
       ``(E) any solid waste generated incident to the provision 
     of service in interstate, intrastate, foreign, or overseas 
     air transportation;
       ``(F) any industrial waste that is not identical to 
     municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in this 
     paragraph) with respect to the physical and chemical state of 
     the industrial waste, and composition, including construction 
     and demolition debris;
       ``(G) any medical waste that is segregated from or not 
     mixed with municipal solid waste (as otherwise defined in 
     this paragraph); or
       ``(H) any material or product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer for credit, evaluation, or 
     possible reuse.
       ``(5) The term `compliance' means a pattern or practice of 
     adhering to and satisfying standards and requirements 
     promulgated by the Federal or a State government for the 
     purpose of preventing significant harm to human health and 
     the environment. Actions undertaken in accordance with 
     compliance schedules for remediation established by Federal 
     or State enforcement authorities shall be considered 
     compliance for purposes of this section.
       ``(6) The terms `specifically authorized' and `specifically 
     authorizes' refer to an explicit authorization, contained in 
     a host community agreement or permit, to import waste from 
     outside the State. Such authorization may include a reference 
     to a fixed radius surrounding the landfill or incinerator 
     that includes an area outside the State or a reference to any 
     place of origin, reference to specific places outside the 
     State, or use of such phrases as `regardless of origin' or 
     `outside the State'. The language for such authorization may 
     vary as long as it clearly and affirmatively states the 
     approval or consent of the affected local government or State 
     for receipt of municipal solid waste from sources outside the 
     State.
       ``(g) Implementation and Enforcement.--Any State may adopt 
     such laws and regulations, not inconsistent with this 
     section, as are necessary to implement and enforce this 
     section, including provisions for penalties.''.
       (B) Table of contents amendment.--The table of contents in 
     section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 
     6901) is amended by adding at the end of the items relating 
     to subtitle D the following new item:

``Sec. 4011. Interstate transportation of municipal solid waste.''.

       (2) Needs determination.--The Governor of a State may 
     accept, deny or modify an application for a municipal solid 
     waste management facility permit if--
       (A) it is done in a manner that is not inconsistent with 
     the provisions of this section;
       (B) a State law enacted in 1990 and a regulation adopted by 
     the governor in 1991 specifically requires the permit 
     applicant to demonstrate that there is a local or regional 
     need within the State for the facility; and
       (C) the permit applicant fails to demonstrate that there is 
     a local or regional need within the State for the facility.
       (b) Flow Control.--
       (1) State and local government control of movement of 
     municipal solid waste and recyclable material.--Subtitle D of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.), as 
     amended by subsection (a)(1)(A), is amended by adding after 
     section 4011 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4012. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF MOVEMENT 
                   OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE 
                   MATERIAL.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Designate; designation.--The terms `designate' and 
     `designation' refer to an authorization by a State, political 
     subdivision, or public service authority, and the act of a 
     State, political subdivision, or public service authority in 
     requiring or contractually committing, that all or any 
     portion of the municipal solid waste or recyclable material 
     that is generated within the boundaries of the State, 
     political subdivision, or public service authority be 
     delivered to waste management facilities or facilities for 
     recyclable material or a public service authority identified 
     by the State, political subdivision, or public service 
     authority.
       ``(2) Flow control authority.--The term `flow control 
     authority' means the authority to control the movement of 
     municipal solid waste or voluntarily relinquished recyclable 
     material and direct such solid waste or voluntarily 
     relinquished recyclable material to a designated waste 
     management facility or facility for recyclable material.
       ``(3) Municipal solid waste.--The term `municipal solid 
     waste' means--
       ``(A) solid waste generated by the general public or from a 
     residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial source, 
     consisting of paper, wood, yard waste, plastics, leather, 
     rubber, and other combustible material and noncombustible 
     material such as metal and glass, including residue remaining 
     after recyclable material has been separated from waste 
     destined for disposal, and including waste material removed 
     from a septic tank, septage pit, or cesspool (other than from 
     portable toilets); but
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste under 
     section 3001 of this Act or waste regulated under the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.);
       ``(ii) waste, including contaminated soil and debris, 
     resulting from a response action taken

[[Page S9112]]

     under section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9604, 9606) or any corrective action taken under this Act;
       ``(iii) medical waste listed in section 11002;
       ``(iv) industrial waste generated by manufacturing or 
     industrial processes, including waste generated during scrap 
     processing and scrap recycling;
       ``(v) recyclable material; or
       ``(vi) sludge.
       ``(4) Public service authority.--The term `public service 
     authority' means--
       ``(A) an authority or authorities created pursuant to State 
     legislation to provide individually or in combination solid 
     waste management services to political subdivisions;
       ``(B) other body created pursuant to State law; or
       ``(C) an authority that was issued a certificate of 
     incorporation by a State corporation commission established 
     by a State constitution.
       ``(5) Put or pay agreement.--(A) The term `put or pay 
     agreement' means an agreement that obligates or otherwise 
     requires a State or political subdivision to--
       ``(i) deliver a minimum quantity of municipal solid waste 
     to a waste management facility; and
       ``(ii) pay for that minimum quantity of municipal solid 
     waste even if the stated minimum quantity of municipal solid 
     waste is not delivered within a required period of time.
       ``(B) For purposes of the authority conferred by 
     subsections (b) and (c), the term `legally binding provision 
     of the State or political subdivision' includes a put or pay 
     agreement that designates waste to a waste management 
     facility that was in operation on or before December 31, 1988 
     and that requires an aggregate tonnage to be delivered to the 
     facility during each operating year by the political 
     subdivisions which have entered put or pay agreements 
     designating that waste management facility.
       ``(C) The entering into of a put or pay agreement shall be 
     considered to be a designation (as defined in subsection 
     (a)(1)) for all purposes of this title.
       ``(6) Recyclable material.--The term `recyclable material' 
     means material that has been separated from waste otherwise 
     destined for disposal (at the source of the waste or at a 
     processing facility) or has been managed separately from 
     waste destined for disposal, for the purpose of recycling, 
     reclamation, composting of organic material such as food and 
     yard waste, or reuse (other than for the purpose of 
     incineration).
       ``(7) Waste management facility.--The term `waste 
     management facility' means a facility that collects, 
     separates, stores, transports, transfers, treats, processes, 
     combusts, or disposes of municipal solid waste.
       ``(b) Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State, political subdivision of a 
     State, and public service authority may exercise flow control 
     authority for municipal solid waste and for recyclable 
     material voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator 
     of the material that is generated within its jurisdiction by 
     directing the municipal solid waste or recyclable material to 
     a waste management facility or facility for recyclable 
     material, if such flow control authority--
       ``(A)(i) had been exercised prior to May 15, 1994, and was 
     being implemented on May 15, 1994, pursuant to a law, 
     ordinance, regulation, or other legally binding provision of 
     the State or political subdivision; or
       ``(ii) had been exercised prior to May 15, 1994, but 
     implementation of such law, ordinance, regulation, or other 
     legally binding provision of the State or political 
     subdivision was prevented by an injunction, temporary 
     restraining order, or other court action, or was suspended by 
     the voluntary decision of the State or political subdivision 
     because of the existence of such court action;
       ``(B) has been implemented by designating before May 15, 
     1994, the particular waste management facilities or public 
     service authority to which the municipal solid waste or 
     recyclable material is to be delivered, which facilities were 
     in operation as of May 15, 1994, or were in operation prior 
     to May 15, 1994 and were temporarily inoperative on May 15, 
     1994.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The authority of this section extends 
     only to the specific classes or categories of municipal solid 
     waste to which flow control authority requiring a movement to 
     a waste management facility was actually applied on or before 
     May 15, 1994 (or, in the case of a State, political 
     subdivision, or public service authority that qualifies under 
     subsection (c), to the specific classes or categories of 
     municipal solid waste for which the State, political 
     subdivision, or public service authority prior to May 15, 
     1994, had committed to the designation of a waste management 
     facility).
       ``(3) Lack of clear identification.--With regard to 
     facilities granted flow control authority under subsection 
     (c), if the specific classes or categories of municipal solid 
     waste are not clearly identified, the authority of this 
     section shall apply only to municipal solid waste generated 
     by households.
       ``(4) Duration of authority.--With respect to each 
     designated waste management facility, the authority of this 
     section shall be effective until the later of--
       ``(A) the end of the remaining life of a contract between 
     the State, political subdivision, or public service authority 
     and any other person regarding the movement or delivery of 
     municipal solid waste or voluntarily relinquished recyclable 
     material to a designated facility (as in effect May 15, 
     1994);
       ``(B) completion of the schedule for payment of the capital 
     costs of the facility concerned (as in effect May 15, 1994); 
     or
       ``(C) the end of the remaining useful life of the facility 
     (as in existence on the date of enactment of this section), 
     as that remaining life may be extended by--
       ``(i) retrofitting of equipment or the making of other 
     significant modifications to meet applicable environmental 
     requirements or safety requirements;
       ``(ii) routine repair or scheduled replacement of equipment 
     or components that does not add to the capacity of a waste 
     management facility; or
       ``(iii) expansion of the facility on land that is--

       ``(I) legally or equitably owned, or under option to 
     purchase or lease, by the owner or operator of the facility; 
     and
       ``(II) covered by the permit for the facility (as in effect 
     May 15, 1994).

       ``(5) Additional authority.--
       ``(A) Application of paragraph.--This paragraph applies to 
     a State or political subdivision of a State that, on or 
     before January 1, 1984--
       ``(i) adopted regulations under State law that required the 
     transportation to, and management or disposal at, waste 
     management facilities in the State, of--

       ``(I) all solid waste from residential, commercial, 
     institutional, or industrial sources (as defined under State 
     law); and
       ``(II) recyclable material voluntarily relinquished by the 
     owner or generator of the recyclable material; and

       ``(ii) as of January 1, 1984, had implemented those 
     regulations in the case of every political subdivision of the 
     State.
       ``(B) Authority.--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 
     in this section (including subsection (m)), a State or 
     political subdivision of a State described in subparagraph 
     (A) may continue to exercise flow control authority 
     (including designation of waste management facilities in the 
     State that meet the requirements of subsection (c)) for all 
     classes and categories of solid waste that were subject to 
     flow control on January 1, 1984.
       ``(6) Flow control ordinance.--Notwithstanding anything to 
     the contrary in this section, but subject to subsection (m), 
     any political subdivision which adopted a flow control 
     ordinance in November 1991, and designated facilities to 
     receive municipal solid waste prior to April 1, 1992, may 
     exercise flow control authority until the end of the 
     remaining life of all contracts between the political 
     subdivision and any other persons regarding the movement or 
     delivery of municipal solid waste or voluntarily relinquished 
     recyclable material to a designated facility (as in effect 
     May 15, 1994). Such authority shall extend only to the 
     specific classes or categories of municipal solid waste to 
     which flow control authority was actually applied on or 
     before May 15, 1994. The authority under this subsection 
     shall be exercised in accordance with section 4012(b)(4).
       ``(c) Commitment to Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1) (A) 
     and (B), any political subdivision of a State may exercise 
     flow control authority under subsection (b), if--
       ``(A)(i) the law, ordinance, regulation, or other legally 
     binding provision specifically provides for flow control 
     authority for municipal solid waste generated within its 
     boundaries; and
       ``(ii) such authority was exercised prior to May 15, 1995, 
     and was being implemented on May 15, 1994.
       ``(B) prior to May 15, 1994, the political subdivision 
     committed to the designation of the particular waste 
     management facilities or public service authority to which 
     municipal solid waste is to be transported or at which 
     municipal solid waste is to be disposed of under that law, 
     ordinance, regulation, plan, or legally binding provision.
       ``(2) Factors demonstrating commitment.--A commitment to 
     the designation of waste management facilities or public 
     service authority is demonstrated by 1 or more of the 
     following factors:
       ``(A) Construction permits.--All permits required for the 
     substantial construction of the facility were obtained prior 
     to May 15, 1994.
       ``(B) Contracts.--All contracts for the substantial 
     construction of the facility were in effect prior to May 15, 
     1994.
       ``(C) Revenue bonds.--Prior to May 15, 1994, revenue bonds 
     were presented for sale to specifically provide revenue for 
     the construction of the facility.
       ``(D) Construction and operating permits.--The State or 
     political subdivision submitted to the appropriate regulatory 
     agency or agencies, on or before May 15, 1994, substantially 
     complete permit applications for the construction and 
     operation of the facility.
       ``(d) Formation of Solid Waste Management District To 
     Purchase and Operate Existing Facility.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (b)(1) (A) and (B), a solid waste management 
     district that was formed by a number of political 
     subdivisions for the purpose of purchasing and operating a 
     facility owned by 1 of the political subdivisions may 
     exercise flow control authority under subsection (b) if--
       ``(1) the facility was fully licensed and in operation 
     prior to May 15, 1994;
       ``(2) prior to April 1, 1994, substantial negotiations and 
     preparation of documents for the formation of the district 
     and purchase of the facility were completed;
       ``(3) prior to May 15, 1994, at least 80 percent of the 
     political subdivisions that were to participate in the solid 
     waste management district had adopted ordinances committing 
     the political subdivisions to participation and the remaining 
     political subdivisions adopted such ordinances within 2 
     months after that date; and
       ``(3) the financing was completed, the acquisition was 
     made, and the facility was placed under operation by the 
     solid waste management district by September 21, 1994.
       ``(e) Constructed and Operated.--A political subdivision of 
     a State may exercise flow control authority for municipal 
     solid waste and for recyclable material voluntarily 
     relinquished by

[[Page S9113]]

     the owner or generator of the material that is generated 
     within its jurisdiction if--
       ``(1) prior to May 15, 1994, the political subdivision--
       ``(A) contracted with a public service authority or with 
     its operator to deliver or cause to be delivered to the 
     public service authority substantially all of the disposable 
     municipal solid waste that is generated or collected by or is 
     within or under the control of the political subdivision, in 
     order to support revenue bonds issued by and in the name of 
     the public service authority or on its behalf by a State 
     entity for waste management facilities; or
       ``(B) entered into contracts with a public service 
     authority or its operator to deliver or cause to be delivered 
     to the public service authority substantially all of the 
     disposable municipal solid waste that is generated or 
     collected by or within the control of the political 
     subdivision, which imposed flow control pursuant to a law, 
     ordinance, regulation, or other legally binding provision and 
     where outstanding revenue bonds were issued in the name of 
     public service authorities for waste management facilities; 
     and
       ``(2) prior to May 15, 1994, the public service authority--
       ``(A) issued the revenue bonds or had issued on its behalf 
     by a State entity for the construction of municipal solid 
     waste facilities to which the political subdivision's 
     municipal solid waste is transferred or disposed; and
       ``(B) commenced operation of the facilities.

     The authority under this subsection shall be exercised in 
     accordance with section 4012(b)(4).
       ``(f) State-Mandated Disposal Services.--A political 
     subdivision of a State may exercise flow control authority 
     for municipal solid waste and for recyclable material 
     voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator of the 
     material that is generated within its jurisdiction if, prior 
     to May 15, 1994, the political subdivision--
       ``(1) was responsible under State law for providing for the 
     operation of solid waste facilities to serve the disposal 
     needs of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of the 
     county;
       ``(2) is required to initiate a recyclable materials 
     recycling program in order to meet a municipal solid waste 
     reduction goal of at least 30 percent;
       ``(3) has been authorized by State statute to exercise flow 
     control authority and had implemented the authority through 
     the adoption or execution of a law, ordinance, regulation, 
     contract, or other legally binding provision;
       ``(4) had incurred, or caused a public service authority to 
     incur, significant financial expenditures to comply with 
     State law and to repay outstanding bonds that were issued 
     specifically for the construction of solid waste management 
     facilities to which the political subdivision's waste is to 
     be delivered; and
       ``(5) the authority under this subsection shall be 
     exercised in accordance with section 4012(b)(4).
       ``(g) State Solid Waste District Authority.--A solid waste 
     district or a political subdivision of a State may exercise 
     flow control authority for municipal solid waste and for 
     recyclable material voluntarily relinquished by the owner or 
     generator of the material that is generated within its 
     jurisdiction if--
       ``(1) the solid waste district, political subdivision or 
     municipality within said district is currently required to 
     initiate a recyclable materials recycling program in order to 
     meet a municipal solid waste reduction goal of at least 30 
     percent by the year 2005, and uses revenues generated by the 
     exercise of flow control authority strictly to implement 
     programs to manage municipal solid waste, other than 
     development of incineration; and
       ``(2) prior to May 15, 1994, the solid waste district, 
     political subdivision or municipality within said district--
       ``(A) was responsible under State law for the management 
     and regulation of the storage, collection, processing, and 
     disposal of solid wastes within its jurisdiction;
       ``(B) was authorized by State statute (enacted prior to 
     January 1, 1992) to exercise flow control authority, and 
     subsequently adopted or sought to exercise the authority 
     through a law, ordinance, regulation, regulatory proceeding, 
     contract, franchise, or other legally binding provision; and
       ``(C) was required by State statute (enacted prior to 
     January 1, 1992) to develop and implement a solid waste 
     management plan consistent with the State solid waste 
     management plan, and the district solid waste management plan 
     was approved by the appropriate State agency prior to 
     September 15, 1994.
       ``(h) State-Authorized Services and Local Plan Adoption.--A 
     political subdivision of a State may exercise flow control 
     authority for municipal solid waste and for recyclable 
     material voluntarily relinquished by the owner or generator 
     of the material that is generated within its jurisdiction if, 
     prior to May 15, 1994, the political subdivision--
       ``(1) had been authorized by State statute which 
     specifically named the political subdivision to exercise flow 
     control authority and had implemented the authority through a 
     law, ordinance, regulation, contract, or other legally 
     binding provision; and
       ``(2) had adopted a local solid waste management plan 
     pursuant to State statute and was required by State statute 
     to adopt such plan in order to submit a complete permit 
     application to construct a new solid waste management 
     facility proposed in such plan; and
       ``(3) had presented for sale a revenue or general 
     obligation bond to provide for the site selection, 
     permitting, or acquisition for construction of new facilities 
     identified and proposed in its local solid waste management 
     plan; and
       ``(4) includes a municipality or municipalities required by 
     State law to adopt a local law or ordinance to require that 
     solid waste which has been left for collection shall be 
     separated into recyclable, reusable or other components for 
     which economic markets exist; and
       ``(5) is in a State that has aggressively pursued closure 
     of substandard municipal landfills, both by regulatory action 
     and under statute designed to protect deep flow recharge 
     areas in counties where potable water supplies are derived 
     from sole source aquifers.
       ``(i) Retained Authority.--
       ``(1) Request.--On the request of a generator of municipal 
     solid waste affected by this section, a State or political 
     subdivision may authorize the diversion of all or a portion 
     of the solid waste generated by the generator making the 
     request to an alternative solid waste treatment or disposal 
     facility, if the purpose of the request is to provide a 
     higher level of protection for human health and the 
     environment or reduce potential future liability of the 
     generator under Federal or State law for the management of 
     such waste, unless the State or political subdivision 
     determines that the facility to which the municipal solid 
     waste is proposed to be diverted does not provide a higher 
     level of protection for human health and the environment or 
     does not reduce the potential future liability of the 
     generator under Federal or State law for the management of 
     such waste.
       ``(2) Contents.--A request under paragraph (1) shall 
     include information on the environmental suitability of the 
     proposed alternative treatment or disposal facility and 
     method, compared to that of the designated facility and 
     method.
       ``(j) Limitations on Revenue.--A State or political 
     subdivision may exercise flow control authority under 
     subsection (b), (c), (d), or (e) only if the State or 
     political subdivision certifies that the use of any of its 
     revenues derived from the exercise of that authority will be 
     used for solid waste management services or related landfill 
     reclamation.
       ``(k) Reasonable Regulation of Commerce.--A law, ordinance, 
     regulation, or other legally binding provision or official 
     act of a State or political subdivision, as described in 
     subsection (b), (c), (d), or (e), that implements flow 
     control authority in compliance with this section shall be 
     considered to be a reasonable regulation of commerce 
     retroactive to its date of enactment or effective date and 
     shall not be considered to be an undue burden on or otherwise 
     considered as impairing, restraining, or discriminating 
     against interstate commerce.
       ``(l) Effect on Existing Laws and Contracts.--
       ``(1) Environmental laws.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to have any effect on any other law relating to the 
     protection of human health and the environment or the 
     management of municipal solid waste or recyclable material.
       ``(2) State law.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize a political subdivision of a State to 
     exercise the flow control authority granted by this section 
     in a manner that is inconsistent with State law.
       ``(3) Ownership of recyclable material.--Nothing in this 
     section--
       ``(A) authorizes a State or political subdivision of a 
     State to require a generator or owner of recyclable material 
     to transfer recyclable material to the State or political 
     subdivision; or
       ``(B) prohibits a generator or owner of recyclable material 
     from selling, purchasing, accepting, conveying, or 
     transporting recyclable material for the purpose of 
     transformation or remanufacture into usable or marketable 
     material, unless the generator or owner voluntarily made the 
     recyclable material available to the State or political 
     subdivision and relinquished any right to, or ownership of, 
     the recyclable material.
       ``(m) Repeal.--(1) Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     title, authority to flow control by directing municipal solid 
     waste or recyclable materials to a waste management facility 
     shall terminate on the date that is 30 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       ``(2) This section and the item relating to this section in 
     the table of contents for subtitle D of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act are repealed effective as of the date that is 30 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       ``(n) Title Not Applicable To Listed Facilities.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the 
     authority to exercise flow control shall not apply to any 
     facility that--
       ``(1) on the date of enactment of this Act, is listed on 
     the National Priorities List under the Comprehensive 
     Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); or
       ``(2) as of May 15, 1994, was the subject of a pending 
     proposal by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to be listed on the National Priorities List.''.
       (2) Table of contents amendment.--The table of contents for 
     subtitle D in section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901), as amended by subsection (a)(1)(B), 
     is amended by adding after the item relating to section 4011 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 4012. State and local government control of movement of 
              municipal solid waste and recyclable material.''.

       (c) Ground Water Monitoring.--
       (1) Amendment of solid waste disposal act.--Section 4010(c) 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6949a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Criteria.--Not later'' and inserting the 
     following: ``Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Additional revisions.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     requirements of the criteria described in paragraph (1) 
     relating to ground water monitoring shall not apply to an 
     owner or operator of a new municipal solid waste landfill 
     unit, an existing municipal solid waste landfill unit, or a 
     lateral expansion of a municipal solid

[[Page S9114]]

     waste landfill unit, that disposes of less than 20 tons of 
     municipal solid waste daily, based on an annual average, if--
       ``(A) there is no evidence of ground water contamination 
     from the municipal solid waste landfill unit or expansion; 
     and
       ``(B) the municipal solid waste landfill unit or expansion 
     serves--
       ``(i) a community that experiences an annual interruption 
     of at least 3 consecutive months of surface transportation 
     that prevents access to a regional waste management facility; 
     or
       ``(ii) a community that has no practicable waste management 
     alternative and the landfill unit is located in an area that 
     annually receives less than or equal to 25 inches of 
     precipitation.
       ``(3) Protection of ground water resources.--
       ``(A) Monitoring requirement.--A State may require ground 
     water monitoring of a solid waste landfill unit that would 
     otherwise be exempt under paragraph (2) if necessary to 
     protect ground water resources and ensure compliance with a 
     State ground water protection plan, where applicable.
       ``(B) Methods.--If a State requires ground water monitoring 
     of a solid waste landfill unit under subparagraph (A), the 
     State may allow the use of a method other than the use of 
     ground water monitoring wells to detect a release of 
     contamination from the unit.
       ``(C) Corrective action.--If a State finds a release from a 
     solid waste landfill unit, the State shall require corrective 
     action as appropriate.
       ``(4) Alaska native villages.--Upon certification by the 
     Governor of the State of Alaska that application of the 
     requirements of the criteria described in paragraph (1) to a 
     solid waste landfill unit of a Native village (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1602)) or unit that is located in or near a small, 
     remote Alaska village would be infeasible, or would not be 
     cost-effective, or is otherwise inappropriate because of the 
     remote location of the unit, the State may exempt the unit 
     from some or all of those requirements. This subsection shall 
     apply only to solid waste landfill units that dispose of less 
     than 20 tons of municipal solid waste daily, based on an 
     annual average.
       ``(5) No-migration exemption.--
       ``(A) In general.--Ground water monitoring requirements may 
     be suspended by the Director of an approved State for a 
     landfill operator if the operator demonstrates that there is 
     no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the 
     unit to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the 
     unit and the post-closure care period.
       ``(B) Certification.--A demonstration under subparagraph 
     (A) shall--
       ``(i) be certified by a qualified ground-water scientist 
     and approved by the Director of an approved State.
       ``(C) Guidance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall issue a 
     guidance document to facilitate small community use of the no 
     migration exemption under this paragraph.
       ``(6) Further revisions of guidelines and criteria.--Not 
     later than April 9, 1997, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     revisions to the guidelines and criteria promulgated under 
     this subchapter to allow States to promulgate alternate 
     design, operating, landfill gas monitoring, financial 
     assurance, and closure requirements for landfills which 
     receive 20 tons or less of municipal solid waste per day 
     based on an annual average: Provided That such alternate 
     requirements are sufficient to protect human health and the 
     environment.''.
       (2) Reinstatement of regulatory exemption.--It is the 
     intent of section 4010(c)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
     as added by paragraph (1), to immediately reinstate subpart E 
     of part 258 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     added by the final rule published at 56 Federal Register 
     50798 on October 9, 1991.
       (d) State or Regional Solid Waste Plans.--
       (1) Finding.--Section 1002(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6901(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) that the Nation's improved standard of living has 
     resulted in an increase in the amount of solid waste 
     generated per capita, and the Nation has not given adequate 
     consideration to solid waste reduction strategies.''.
       (2) Objective of solid waste disposal act.--Section 1003(a) 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6902(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) promoting local and regional planning for--
       ``(A) effective solid waste collection and disposal; and
       ``(B) reducing the amount of solid waste generated per 
     capita through the use of solid waste reduction 
     strategies.''.
       (3) National policy.--Section 1003(b) of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6902(b)) is amended by inserting 
     ``solid waste and'' after ``generation of''.
       (4) Objective of subtitle d of solid waste disposal act.--
     Section 4001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941) 
     is amended by inserting ``promote local and regional planning 
     for effective solid waste collection and disposal and for 
     reducing the amount of solid waste generated per capita 
     through the use of solid waste reduction strategies, and'' 
     after ``objectives of this subtitle are to''.
       (5) Discretionary state plan provisions.--Section 4003 of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6943) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Discretionary Plan Provisions Relating to Solid Waste 
     Reduction Goals, Local and Regional Plans, and Issuance of 
     Solid Waste Management Permits.--Except as provided in 
     section 4011(a)(4), a State plan submitted under this 
     subtitle may include, at the option of the State, provisions 
     for--
       ``(1) establishment of a State per capita solid waste 
     reduction goal, consistent with the goals and objectives of 
     this subtitle; and
       ``(2) establishment of a program that ensures that local 
     and regional plans are consistent with State plans and are 
     developed in accordance with sections 4004, 4005, and 
     4006.''.
       (6) Procedure for development and implementation of state 
     plans.--Section 4006(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6946(b)) is amended by inserting ``and discretionary 
     plan provisions'' after ``minimum requirements''.
       (e) General Provisions.--
       (1) Border studies.--
       (A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       (i) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (ii) Maquiladora.--The term ``maquiladora'' means an 
     industry located in Mexico along the border between the 
     United States and Mexico.
       (iii) Solid waste.--The term ``solid waste'' has the 
     meaning provided the term under section 1004(27) of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)).
       (B) In general.--
       (i) Study of solid waste management issues associated with 
     north american free trade agreement.--As soon as practicable 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator is 
     authorized to conduct a study of solid waste management 
     issues associated with increased border use resulting from 
     the implementation of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement.
       (ii) Study of solid waste management issues associated with 
     united states-canada free-trade agreement.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator may conduct a similar study focused on border 
     traffic of solid waste resulting from the implementation of 
     the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, with respect 
     to the border region between the United States and Canada.
       (C) Contents of study.--A study conducted under this 
     paragraph shall provide for the following:
       (i) A study of planning for solid waste treatment, storage, 
     and disposal capacity (including additional landfill 
     capacity) that would be necessary to accommodate the 
     generation of additional household, commercial, and 
     industrial wastes by an increased population along the border 
     involved.
       (ii) A study of the relative impact on border communities 
     of a regional siting of solid waste storage and disposal 
     facilities.
       (iii) In the case of the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), research concerning methods of tracking of the 
     transportation of--

       (I) materials from the United States to maquiladoras; and
       (II) waste from maquiladoras to a final destination.

       (iv) In the case of the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), a determination of the need for solid waste materials 
     safety training for workers in Mexico and the United States 
     within the 100-mile zone specified in the First Stage 
     Implementation Plan Report for 1992-1994 of the Integrated 
     Environmental Plan for the Mexico-United States Border, 
     issued by the Administrator in February 1992.
       (v) A review of the adequacy of existing emergency response 
     networks in the border region involved, including the 
     adequacy of training, equipment, and personnel.
       (vi) An analysis of solid waste management practices in the 
     border region involved, including an examination of methods 
     for promoting source reduction, recycling, and other 
     alternatives to landfills.
       (D) Sources of information.--In conducting a study under 
     this paragraph, the Administrator shall, to the extent 
     allowable by law, solicit, collect, and use the following 
     information:
       (i) A demographic profile of border lands based on census 
     data prepared by the Bureau of the Census of the Department 
     of Commerce and, in the case of the study described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i), census data prepared by the Government 
     of Mexico.
       (ii) In the case of the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), information from the United States Customs Service of 
     the Department of the Treasury concerning solid waste 
     transported across the border between the United States and 
     Mexico, and the method of transportation of the waste.
       (iii) In the case of the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), information concerning the type and volume of 
     materials used in maquiladoras.
       (iv)(I) Immigration data prepared by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice.
       (II) In the case of the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), immigration data prepared by the Government of 
     Mexico.
       (v) Information relating to the infrastructure of border 
     land, including an accounting of the number of landfills, 
     wastewater treatment systems, and solid waste treatment, 
     storage, and disposal facilities.
       (vi) A listing of each site in the border region involved 
     where solid waste is treated, stored, or disposed of.
       (vii) In the case of the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), a profile of the industries in the region of the 
     border between the United States and Mexico.
       (E) Consultation and cooperation.--In carrying out this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall consult with the following 
     entities in reviewing study activities:

[[Page S9115]]

       (i) With respect to reviewing the study described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i), States and political subdivisions of 
     States (including municipalities and counties) in the region 
     of the border between the United States and Mexico.
       (ii) The heads of other Federal agencies (including the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Housing, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, and the Secretary of Commerce) and with 
     respect to reviewing the study described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), equivalent officials of the Government of Mexico.
       (F) Reports to congress.--On completion of the studies 
     under this paragraph, the Administrator shall, not later than 
     2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress reports that summarize 
     the findings of the studies and propose methods by which 
     solid waste border traffic may be tracked, from source to 
     destination, on an annual basis.
       (G) Border study delay.--The conduct of the study described 
     in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not delay or otherwise affect 
     completion of the study described in subparagraph (B)(i).
       (H) Funding.--If any funding needed to conduct the studies 
     required by this paragraph is not otherwise available, the 
     president may transfer to the administrator, for use in 
     conducting the studies, any funds that have been appropriated 
     to the president under section 533 of the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3473) that are 
     in excess of the amount needed to carry out that section. 
     States that wish to participate in study will be asked to 
     contribute to the costs of the study. The terms of the cost 
     share shall be negotiated between the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the State.''.
       (2) Study of interstate hazardous waste transport.--
       (A) Definition of hazardous waste.--In this paragraph, the 
     term ``hazardous waste'' has the meaning provided in section 
     1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903).
       (B) Study.--not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this act, the administrator of the environmental 
     protection agency shall conduct a study, and report to 
     congress on the results of the study, to determine--
       (i) the quantity of hazardous waste that is being 
     transported across state lines; and
       (ii) the ultimate disposition of the transported waste.
       (3) Study of interstate sludge transport.--
       (A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       (i) Sewage sludge.--The term ``sewage sludge''--

       (I) means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated 
     during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works; 
     and
       (II) includes--

       (i) domestic septage;
       (ii) scum or a solid removed in a primary, secondary, or 
     advanced wastewater treatment process; and
       (iii) material derived from sewage sludge (as otherwise 
     defined in this clause); but

       (III) does not include--

       (i) ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge (as 
     otherwise defined in this clause) in a sewage sludge 
     incinerator; or
       (ii) grit or screenings generated during preliminary 
     treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
       (ii) Sludge.--The term ``sludge'' has the meaning provided 
     in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6903).
       (B) Study.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this act, the administrator of the environmental 
     protection agency shall conduct a study, and report to 
     congress on the results of the study, to determine--
       (i) the quantity of sludge (including sewage sludge) that 
     is being transported across state lines; and
       (ii) the ultimate disposition of the transported sludge.

     SEC. 510. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING UNITED STATES 
                   SEMICONDUCTOR TRADE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) The United States-Japan Semiconductor Trade Agreement 
     is set to expire on July 31, 1996;
       (2) The Governments of the United States and Japan are 
     currently engaged in negotiations over the terms of a new 
     United States-Japan agreement on semiconductors;
       (3) The President of the United States and the Prime 
     Minister of Japan agreed at 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;
       (4) The current United States-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 to replace conflict in this 
     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 design-in of foreign semiconductor 
     devices;
       (5) Despite the increased foreign share of the Japanese 
     semiconductor market since 1986, a gap still remains between 
     the share United States 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;
       (6) The competitiveness and health of the United States 
     semiconductor industry is of critical importance to the 
     United States' overall economic well-being as well as the 
     nation's high technology defense capabilities;
       (7) 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;
       (8) The Government of Japan continues to oppose an 
     agreement 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 the third country markets; and
       (9) 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 United States-
     Japan semiconductor trade agreement before the current 
     agreement expires on July 31, 1996.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that if 
     a new United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement is not 
     concluded by July 31, 1996, 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 third country 
     markets, the President shall--
       (A) Direct the Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative and the Department of Commerce to establish a 
     system 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;
       (B) 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
       (C) 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 U.S.-Japan semiconductor 
     trade, as appropriate.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1997''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1959, 
the fiscal year 1997 energy and water development appropriations bill, 
be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Ashcroft) 
appointed Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
McConnell, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Burns, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerrey and Mrs. Murray conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the combined staff--the 
Republican staff and the Democratic staff--for the marvelous job they 
did. I, most of all, thank all the Senators for being as cooperative as 
they were. This is a bill that is not singular in purpose but has an 
awful lot of facets to it. We were able in 2 days to complete it, and 
that is because we got great cooperation.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________