[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________