[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10618-S10624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Under the previous order, the 
report on H.R. 3816 will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3816) making appropriations for energy and water development 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 12, 1996.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 11 a.m. will be divided: 15 
minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]; 15 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston]; 
15 minutes under the control of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin]; 
the remaining 15 minutes under control of the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Simon].
  The distinguished Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the floor the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997.
  This conference report passed the House last Thursday by a vote of 
383 to 29. I thank again the former chairman of the subcommittee, and 
now ranking member, for his assistance in developing this bill.
  I also thank the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, 
former chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee, Senator Hatfield, for his help in bringing this bill 
before the Senate. His guidance and assistance with regard to 
allocations has been of tremendous importance, and the subcommittee is 
indebted to his leadership.
  This conference report is consistent with the allocations set forth 
in the Senate Report 104-320. Specifically, the conference provides 
$11.352 billion in budget authority and $11.39 million in outlays for 
defense activities.
  For nondefense activities, the conference report provides 
$8,620,000,837 in budget authority and $8.884 billion in outlays.
  These levels are significantly above the levels of the House-passed 
bill but below the levels provided by the Senate and passed as its 
energy and water development bill.
  Of the $700 million difference between the House and Senate on the 
proposed level of defense spending in this act, the conferees retain 
$500 million--a long way toward the Senate position but still $200 
million less than the Senate-passed bill.
  In other words, we funded $200 million more of defense programs in 
this bill when it passed the Senate than this bill has in it as it 
returns from conference.

  For nondefense spending, the conferees were provided an allocation of 
$100 million above the original House allocation--better than a split 
of the $187 million difference between the two bills. Nonetheless, it 
is $87 million less for the nondefense portion than it was when it 
passed the Senate.
  Why do I make these points on the $200 million and the $87 million? 
Because some projects and activities that were in the bill as it passed 
the Senate are not in the bill as it returns from the House. That is 
because there was less money allocated and arrived at as an agreement 
between the two bodies on what could be spent from the overall budget. 
But, clearly, we are within the caps established for defense. We have 
not used any more than the allocation. In fact, we returned some of the 
defense allocation to the full committee for them to use either in 
defense or otherwise. That will, obviously, be reallocated if it is not 
very soon so that we can get on with trying to solve some of the 
problems in other bills and other needs.
  To the best of our abilities, the conferees have sought to protect 
science and technology programs from significant reductions while 
providing for the water projects of importance to so many Members.
  In essence, this is a very interesting bill. Clearly, a majority of 
the funding goes to the Department of Defense activities within the 
DOE. Nonetheless, there is a large portion that is not defense 
activities, and that is domestic activities which essentially are made 
up predominantly of water projects, reclamation projects, and the like, 
of both the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Everyone 
knows with reference to both of those entities and the projects that as 
they run, operate, start, and complete, the funding is going down, not 
up.
  Again, we were not able to give every State the projects in flood 
control and the like that Senators had requested, but we think we have 
done as good a job as the money would permit.
  Mr. President, on page 37 of the report before us there is a 
typographical error. I would like to just read the paragraph at the 
bottom of page 37.

       The conferees have, however, included language in the bill 
     which directs the Secretary of the Army to begin implementing 
     a plan to reduce the number of division offices to no more 
     than eight and no less than six on April 1, 1997, which 
     provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to transfer up 
     to $1.5 million into this account from other accounts in this 
     title to--

  ``Mitigate'' should be the word, and not ``investigate.''

       Mitigate impacts in the delay in the implementation of the 
     division closure plan.

  Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes and talk about the 
ranking member, Senator J. Bennett Johnston, from the State of 
Louisiana, who has for many years been chairman of this subcommittee 
and has served in various capacities, including chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee of the Senate. He has decided that he 
is not going to seek reelection, and thus will leave the Senate.
  In 1972, when I came to the U.S. Senate, I was met by a lot of new 
faces, people I had never known, or people I had perhaps read a little 
bit about. One of those new Senators was J. Bennett Johnston.
  I would like to state the relationship for the last 24 years. While 
we have to some extent gone our own ways in work around here, Senator 
Johnston and the Senator from New Mexico have had a rare opportunity to 
work together in many, many areas that I believe have been very 
important to our country. He has become an expert in the area of 
nuclear energy. He is courageous in that area second to none. He 
understands it. He is not frightened by it. He gets good science and 
good engineering. He takes the initiative to try to get the facts where 
many would seek not to have facts, but rather to predicate their 
arguments on sentiments

[[Page S10619]]

and on ideologies. He seeks to get the facts in the field of energy.
  So I conclude that he is also one of the best experts on the research 
capabilities of our Nation in that he has worked diligently to 
understand the national laboratories, a number of which are under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Energy. In fact, I believe there is 
no better friend of basic science research than J. Bennett Johnston in 
the U.S. Congress. He has not only spoken to it and has become expert 
at it, he has acted accordingly. He has become an ally of the United 
States maintaining the highest level of science in the Department of 
Energy through its nuclear defense laboratories.
  Today, I want to thank him for his efforts, congratulate him for his 
wisdom, his vision and, most of all, his courage. And I believe I would 
be remiss if I did not say that J. Bennett Johnston is without peer in 
the U.S. Senate when it comes to legislators. When it comes to sitting 
around working with Senators, trying to get a bill passed, he is a 
master. He is going to be missed. This committee is going to miss him. 
The Energy and Water Committee is going to miss him. The U.S. Senate 
will miss him, and the Congress will miss him.
  Mr. President, I see Senator Coats, from Indiana, on the floor. I 
inquire, would he like to speak on the bill now?
  Mr. COATS. I have a hearing this morning at 10. If I could do that 
now, I will not take a lot of time. I will be happy to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to yield the floor so he can use some of his 
time. The other Senator who desired to speak, for whom time is 
reserved, is Senator Simon from Illinois. I would like to put him on 
notice, at this point we do not intend to use our 45 minutes, just a 
small portion of it. Senator Johnston is not going to use any of his 
time. So, it would seem that the Senator from Illinois should be 
prepared to make his 15-minute remarks very soon. I hope he will be 
prepared to do that.
  I do not mean to make things unaccommodating but, frankly, we do not 
need 45 minutes. I do not have any objections of any significant nature 
to this bill.
  I yield at this point to the distinguished Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
yielding this time. I asked for the time in order to explain the 
situation to our colleagues over the whole issue of out-of-State trash.
  As my colleagues know, this has been an issue that I have been 
relentlessly pursuing now for 7 years or so, with great success in the 
U.S. Senate but lousy success in the House of Representatives, in terms 
of getting a bill to conference that we can then work out our 
differences on and put on the President's desk for signature.
  Five times in the last 6 years the U.S. Senate has voted for 
legislation I have presented regarding this question of out-of-State 
trash, and voted so in a fairly overwhelming, bipartisan fashion. The 
bills that we have presented have been the work of some very diligent 
and painstaking work with our colleagues and their staffs to attempt to 
find a resolution to a very difficult problem that exists in almost 
every one of our States.
  Many of our States, because of their population or their geographic 
location, environmental concerns or others, find themselves in a 
position where they are not able to adequately dispose of the volumes 
of trash that are generated on a day-to-day basis. Other States have 
less density and capacity to receive some of that trash.
  We are not attempting to impede the negotiated transfer of that trash 
from exporting States to importing States. What we are attempting to 
do, and what I have attempted to do now over the last 6 or 7 years, is 
to fashion a way in which the importing States, of which I represent 
one, have a say in the process.
  Right now, because the Supreme Court has decreed over a number of 
decisions that garbage, interstate trash, is considered interstate 
commerce, the States have virtually no authority to regulate or to 
monitor or to place any limitations on the amount of out-of-State trash 
that comes into their particular States.
  My effort has been to put them at the table so that they can sit down 
with the exporting States and find a way to negotiate, if it is in 
their best interest--and it is in the interest of many States to 
receive this because it is commerce and it does generate revenue--but 
also to say that either we cannot do this now or our own needs have 
placed us in a situation where we are at capacity and we cannot receive 
your trash, and you will have to work something else out. In other 
words, we want to give the recipient communities and States the right 
to dictate their own environmental future as it relates to the 
generation of everyday trash, which is literally millions of tons 
across this country.
  Recognizing the problems of the exporting States, recognizing the 
problems of the importing States, we have been able to work with 
Senators, Governors, legislators, experts, waste haulers and others to 
fashion a compromise piece of legislation which gives importing States 
the right to say no or to limit reasonably, but which also preserves 
the right of exporting States to enter into agreements with the 
recipient States and/or counties and/or municipalities if they so 
desire.
  As I said, these measures have passed the Senate in an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan fashion, only to hit a roadblock, particularly in the last 
Congress, in the House of Representatives. The relevant subcommittee in 
the House passed out a measure, I believe, by unanimous vote but was 
never able to secure a full Commerce Committee hearing or full Commerce 
Committee disposition of that issue. And so, because that has been 
stalled in the other body now for more than a year, because our 
previous efforts have been frustrated, sometimes in the House, 
sometimes in the Senate, but frustrated in terms of completing the 
process, I took the opportunity, along with Senator Levin, to search 
out a vehicle which we thought was as close to relevant as we could 
get, and attach what the Senate had passed, on an overwhelming basis--
94-6, a pretty solid vote--attach that to the energy and water 
appropriations bill.
  That is not my preferred option. My preferred option is to make it a 
stand-alone bill, as we did in the Senate, and have the House take it 
up in a stand-alone bill, but we were thwarted in that effort on the 
House side. So we thought, is there a way we can jump-start this 
process in the House? So we attached it to the energy and water 
appropriations bill, which then passed the Senate and went over to the 
House.
  After some diligent efforts to encourage the conference committee to 
pass back to the House and the Senate their conference bill with the 
Senate trash amendment attached, we were disappointed to learn that the 
House, despite some diligent efforts on the part of some Indiana 
colleagues and others, friends in the House who supported this effort, 
Congressman Souder, Congressman Buyer, Congressman Visclosky, 
Republicans and Democrats, we were not able to secure approval from the 
House conferees on this matter. So the energy and water bill conference 
report comes back to us without the interstate trash measure attached.
  I am bitterly disappointed that once again we are unable to deal 
successfully with a problem that everybody knows needs to be dealt 
with. It is not just my State of Indiana, which has seen a fairly 
dramatic decrease in the amount of trash come into the State. Since I 
have taken such a vocal and active role, I think maybe the exporters 
and trash haulers are trying to tone down my rhetoric or dampen my 
enthusiasm for moving forward on this legislation. But what has 
happened is that trash has simply moved to another State--Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia. A number of other States have now 
become unwanted recipients and virtually have no power to do anything 
about it.
  By the same token, we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in the 
export of trash to Indiana. The first two quarters of 1996 now total 
almost the entire amount we received in 1995. So our line has gone back 
up, and the problem is becoming serious again in Indiana.
  But I am really here speaking for a broad coalition of States, of 
members of both parties, of Governors who represent both the Democrat 
and Republican parties, of States that feel that

[[Page S10620]]

they have no control over their environmental future, over their 
environmental destiny. And they are basically saying, ``Look, we're 
taking care of our problem intrastate, and we are simply asking that we 
have an opportunity to address successfully our environmental goals in 
disposing of our own waste without being overwhelmed by someone else's 
environmental problems that are loaded onto trucks and loaded onto 
trains, on a daily basis, shipped overnight, and dumped in our 
landfills.''
  We have landfills in Indiana that, by referendum and painstaking 
efforts on the part of municipalities, have been created, with the 
promise to the taxpayers, the promise to the citizens of the community, 
that it will take care of disposal needs for that municipality or that 
county for 15, 20, 30 years in the future. And so bond referendums are 
passed, the taxpayers commit to it, only to find out those landfills 
are filled up in 2 years by a massive influx of out-of-State waste over 
which we have no ability to say no or to let us reason together here. 
``We can't take yours, but there's one down the road that might be able 
to accept it, or you can enter into an agreement, and maybe if we can 
work out some negotiated payments, and so forth, we can create a bigger 
capacity, and we will take it to generate revenue for our communities 
and our schools and our roads,'' et cetera.

  So here we are now with the energy and water conference report back 
without the trash. Trash, once again, has been allowed to flow without 
any reasonable restraints. I regret that.
  But I wanted to let my colleagues know the diligent efforts that we 
have been making in the Senate, the representation of our Senate 
conferees, Senator Domenici, Senator Johnston, representing the Senate 
position, but we simply were not able to prevail over the House 
position and those in charge who wanted to keep the energy and water 
appropriations report free of this particular legislation. I realize it 
is not directly relevant, but I am frustrated that I do not have any 
opportunity to move the process forward except to offer these kinds of 
amendments.

  I will conclude simply by putting the majority leader on notice that 
Senator Levin and I, Senator Specter and others, are seriously 
considering adding an amendment to a continuing resolution if, in fact, 
we have to have a continuing resolution--not because we want to make 
the majority leader's life any more difficult than it already is, not 
because we want to delay the Senate adjournment, not because we think 
it even necessarily belongs on a continuing resolution, but because we 
have literally run out of options.
  It will do no good in the Senate to pass the bill a third time. The 
House has made every possible effort--maybe there are some other means 
they could use between now and the end of the session to try to force 
the key people in the House to accept some type of legislation that 
deals with this so we can at least get to conference and resolve our 
differences. Every effort that has been attempted over there has come 
up with an inability to finalize the process. So we will be looking at 
that.
  I just want to put the majority leader and my colleagues on notice 
that this issue is not going to go away. It is not getting any better. 
It is getting much worse for many, many States. As long as I have 
breath and am privileged to represent the people of Indiana in the U.S. 
Senate, I am going to look for every way possible to pass this 
legislation to give our States and other States the right that I 
believe they should constitutionally have to make decisions that affect 
their own environmental destiny, their own futures, and deal with their 
problems.
  It is reasonable legislation. We have every reason to believe it is 
constitutional legislation. The Court has clearly said that this 
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. We are not 
attempting to stop interstate commerce. We are simply attempting to put 
the receiver and the Senator at the table so they can reasonably 
negotiate this flow of trash from one State to another without imposing 
one State's burden on another State, when that State has no ability to 
negotiate terms.
  I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his efforts in 
helping us to try to move the Senate position. I want to thank the 
Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, for his efforts. I know I 
have loaded their bill with something that they were not happy to see, 
but yet they attempted to advance the Senate position. They have been 
supporters of my efforts. I appreciate their efforts. I know they feel 
it is also unfortunate that we have not been able to move this. With 
that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 31 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to speak for 2 minutes 
because I see Senator Simon is here and would like to speak.
  Senator McCain asked that we seek a rollcall vote. Therefore, 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.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Coats, I think oftentimes in the 
Congress it takes a lot longer for good things to get done than anybody 
around would ever imagine. I believe the cause that the Senator is 
talking about here today is one of those.
  The reason I helped on the floor is because it is inconceivable to me 
that we will not make the Coats legislation the law of the land, it has 
such overwhelming support in this body. If you really have a vote in 
the House of Representatives, it has overwhelming support there.
  I am very sorry we are going to conference with a major piece of 
authorizing legislation that was not in the House bill--that I could 
not succeed in keeping it there. Obviously, the House has different 
factions in regard to this bill. We were caught by those factions and 
something procedural that is not part of the Senate's business. We did 
the right thing here in the Senate to give it a try.
  I thank you for your kind remarks this morning. I think we did 
everything we could and still get a bill on appropriations. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for 
yielding.
  I rise to express concern as to what is not in this bill. Thanks to 
the cooperation of Senator Domenici--on a piece of legislation that is 
cosponsored by Senator Brown, the Presiding Officer--we did pass 
legislation authorizing research in the area of converting salt water 
to fresh water.
  Now, that may seem not very important, but long term, 20 years from 
now--if I am around 20 years from now; the Presiding Officer will be 
around--the headlines in the newspapers are not likely to be about oil. 
They are likely to be about water.

  Let me give a capsule of where we are in the world and what we need 
to do to start moving ahead in the same way that Senator Domenici has 
been moving ahead on mental health. Sometimes you have to lose a few 
battles before you win the battles. We are in a situation where, 
depending on whose estimate you believe, in the next 45 to 60 years we 
will double the world's population. Our water supply, however, is 
constant. Now, you do not need to be an Einstein to understand we are 
headed for major problems. Yet 97 percent of the world's water we 
cannot use. It is salt water. We live on less than 3 percent of the 
water. I say less than 3 percent because a lot of the fresh water is 
tied up in snow and icebergs and other things. We are headed toward 
major problems.
  The World Bank says in 20 years 35 nations will have severe water 
problems. You can find substitutes for oil. There is no substitute for 
water. That is why people like President Sadat, the late Prime Minister 
Rabin and others have said if there is another war in the Middle East, 
it will not be over land, it will be over water.
  There have been people in the past who have recognized this need. It 
is interesting, Mr. President, that Dwight Eisenhower, President of the 
United States, did on several occasions mention that this is an area we 
have to move ahead on. In his final message to Congress, his final 
State of the Union Message, Dwight Eisenhower said one of the things we 
have to work on is finding less expensive ways of converting salt water 
to fresh water. The reality is the cost of fresh water is gradually 
going up, the cost of desalinating

[[Page S10621]]

water is gradually coming down, but there is a great gap there. That 
great gap is going to hurt us unless we move in the area of research. 
What I was trying to do and what we had on the floor here is we put $5 
million out of the $14 million that are authorized.
  Dwight Eisenhower was not alone. In 1962, John F. Kennedy was asked 
at a press conference, What is the most important scientific 
breakthrough you would like to see during your term as President? He 
said, ``You heard me talking about getting a man to the Moon, but let 
me tell you if you really want to do something for humanity, we should 
find a less expensive way of converting salt water to fresh water.''
  Almost 70 percent of the world's population lives within 50 miles of 
the ocean. If we could get a breakthrough on converting salt water to 
fresh water, California would not have the problems it is heading 
toward and California could share water with New Mexico and other 
States. I was looking through reports on rural water districts and was 
looking at New Mexico the other day, and in New Mexico, unlike Illinois 
and many other States, there is an inadequate water supply for a lot of 
rural communities. Desalination, in some cases converting brackish 
water to fresh water--primarily we have to be looking toward converting 
seawater to fresh water. And it is interesting--I was in Israel about 3 
weeks ago. I met with the new Prime Minister and with former Prime 
Minister Shimon Peres. Let me tell you, every Israeli public official 
can speak very knowledgeably about water because it is so crucial to 
their future. We have not had a significant breakthrough since 1978 in 
this research. At one point, in current dollars, we were up to about 
$121 million a year that we were spending in research. It has gone 
down. Incidentally, sometimes you accidentally get breakthroughs. 
Through the breakthrough in reverse osmosis, we developed a 
breakthrough in renal dialysis for people who have kidney disease. It 
used to be, if you had kidney disease and you wanted to have renal 
assistance, you had to go to a hospital. It was a very complicated 
process. It is still not good, but there was a significant 
breakthrough. But we need to get additional breakthroughs at this time. 
It is just vital to the future of humanity.

  In areas that do not grow any crops, like much of New Mexico, if you 
get enough water there, all of a sudden, it is going to be very 
productive land. There is nothing that could do as much to lift the 
standard of living of humanity, as a whole, than to find less expensive 
ways of converting salt water to fresh water. When you double the 
world's population--and I stress that every estimate is that we are 
going to double the world's population either in 45 years or 60 years. 
I have seen, in my lifetime--and I was born in 1928--a tripling of the 
world population. Fortunately, we have been able to produce enough food 
so that the quality of life for most people on the face of the Earth 
has gone up. That will not continue, unless we find another supply of 
water.
  Converting salt water to fresh water is inexpensive enough for 
drinking purposes. But the difficulty is that almost 90 percent of the 
water we use is for industrial and agricultural purposes. That, today, 
is far too expensive.
  One of our problems in Government--and I say this to the Presiding 
Officer, who is retiring along with me and, I think, maybe looks at 
these things from a little perspective--one of our problems in 
Government, as is the problem in American business today, is that we 
are much too short term in our outlooks. In politics, we are looking at 
the next election and what is going to happen. In business, it is the 
next quarterly report or the next stockholders meeting. One of the 
things, long term, that is vital to humanity, is seeing to it that we 
have water--water to grow crops, water for industry, water to drink. 
This water that we take for granted is not something that can be taken 
for granted in the future.
  I mention this now not to raise opposition to this bill, but I will 
be trying to put this small--and it is small, relative to where we 
should be--my colleague, Senator Harry Reid said to me, ``It is almost 
embarrassing that we are just asking for $5 million when you have such 
a pressing need.'' I am going to do my best to see that on the 
continuing resolution we have some money for this purpose. It really is 
vital to the future of our country. It is vital to the future of 
civilization. I hope we can move in a constructive direction.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. How much time 
remains now, and who has time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 29 minutes 22 
seconds. The Senator from Illinois has 4 minutes 54 seconds.
  In addition, other time is reserved for Senator Levin from Michigan, 
who has 15 minutes, and Senator Johnston from Louisiana, who has 15 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me repeat, using my time, for Senator Levin, I 
understand that, according to the consent order, we could be here until 
11, and, technically, he could come here 15 minutes before and use his 
time. I hope he tries to get here sooner than that because we are going 
to be finished soon, and I will yield back whatever time I have and 
leave the floor for Senator Levin. Let me take a couple of minutes to 
engage in dialog.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On my time, let me compliment the Senator from 
Illinois. As on much legislation around here, he has, again, taken a 
farsighted view. I hope when you speak of living near oceans, you will 
add to your thoughts and comments that there are millions who live near 
brackish pools that look like seas, they are so big. We have a giant 
one around the community of Alamogordo, NM, a huge brackish underground 
reservoir. It varies in its degree of salinization. On one end, it is 
almost fresh. On the other end, it is contaminated mostly by salt.
  It would transform many situations in our Nation, much less the 
world, to water-supply long instead of water-supply short. I am not 
sure that $5 million would do the job. I think it is appropriate--and 
the Senator alluded to it--other countries are spending significant 
money. I know that in the Middle East substantial money is being spent 
by Israel, and others, in attempting to make the scientific 
breakthroughs. Obviously, we have many ways that we have proven up 
scientifically to produce potable water for drinking. It is economic in 
that sense. People are going to have drinking water, because of a 
number of breakthroughs of the last decade, at rather reasonable rates. 
It is the larger context of need that desalinization looks like a very 
exciting and much-needed technology that we ought to work on.
  The Senator alluded to the last time we funded desalinization 
projects. The last desalinization plant attempting to make 
breakthroughs was actually Roswell, NM. It existed for 3 or 4 years 
after everything else was shut down in the program. Frankly, the costs 
were extremely high at that point, in terms of whether we were anywhere 
close to a breakthrough. I assume much technology has gone through the 
pipeline since then, and we are probably getting closer.
  I am sorry that the House would not accept your $5 million proposal. 
Obviously, we had a lot of requests and a shortage of money. On the 
domestic side, which this would be, it is not part of the defense 
programs in this bill. We actually had to remove many projects, or 
reduce them dramatically, that both Houses considered as being good. 
That is because we did not have enough money. This one fell to the 
House's action on the basis that they did not consider it and they did 
not have appropriate hearings in the House. I regret that is the case.
  I thank the Senator for his efforts.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield, let me say that the conversion 
of brackish water is less expensive than the conversion of sea water. 
It is one of these areas where the two work together. If we can find 
the answer for one, we are going to find the answer for the other.
  The Senator is correct that other nations are doing more. It is very 
interesting that the metropolitan water district of Los Angeles, which 
is the biggest water district in the United States--maybe in the world, 
I don't know--is doing some research on desalinization. They are 
getting $3 million in aid from Israel for their experiment, for their 
research. You know, we really should not have to depend on foreign aid 
to get this research done.

[[Page S10622]]

  We ought to be working with other countries. I am not going to be 
here next year. I hope we can get a small start for the $5 million yet 
this year in the continuing resolution. And then I hope in the future, 
when Senator Domenici, Senator Specter, and others are here, that 
Senator Domenici can push this area that is so important.
  Let me just add one final word. Shimon Peres wrote a book in which he 
says that the real key to stabilizing the Middle East is finding less 
expensive ways of converting saltwater to freshwater. That was one of 
the points that Dwight Eisenhower made a long time ago.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.


                       budget impact of h.r. 3816

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1997, is well within its budget 
allocation of budget authority and outlays.
  The conference report provides $20 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 dependent 
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.
  For defense discretionary programs, the conference report is below 
its allocation by $248 million in budget authority and $194 million in 
outlays. The conference report also is below its nondefense 
discretionary allocation by $87 million in budget authority and $85 
million in outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this conference report be inserted 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--CONFERENCE REPORT   
               [Fiscal year 1997, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Budget          
                                                      authority  Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........    2,863
    H.R. 3816, conference report....................    11,352     8,176
    Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Subtotal defense discretionary..............    11,352    11,039
                                                     ===================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........    3,970
    H.R. 3816, conference report....................     8,621     4,914
    Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........     8,621     8,884
                                                     ===================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed......................................  .........  .......
    H.R. 3816, conference report....................  .........  .......
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget Resolution assumptions..................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Subtotal mandatory..........................  .........  .......
                                                     ===================
        Adjusted bill total.........................    19,973    19,923
                                                     ===================
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...........................      -248      -194
    Nondefense discretionary........................       -87       -85
    Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .......
    Mandatory.......................................  .........  .......
                                                     -------------------
        Total allocation............................      -335      -279
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield to my friend from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank my friend. While there has been an overall 
reduction from the budget request for the environmental restoration and 
waste management nondefense account, I would like to get an 
understanding from the chairman as to the priority the committee places 
on meeting the vitrification and closure schedule at the West Valley 
demonstration project in western New York. The project has been able to 
maintain schedule and progress while accommodating budget reductions 
over the past 6 years.
  The project began pouring glass this summer and is currently poised 
to complete this phase on or ahead of schedule. The project is also at 
a crucial juncture regarding the completion of the work necessary to 
ultimately close the site. Would the chairman agree that the Department 
of Energy should spend the funds from this account necessary to keep 
this project on schedule?
  Mr. DOMENICI. In order to stay within the nondefense allocation 
provided to the conferees it was necessary to reduce funding for a 
number of programs including the nondefense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management Program. To the extent possible, the Department 
should apply those reductions in a manner that minimizes delay and 
impact on on-going, high priority activities such as the West Valley 
demonstration project.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.


                  Animas-Laplata Participating Project

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to make just a few brief 
comments on one important provision adopted into the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 3816, the fiscal year 1997 energy and water 
appropriation measure. However, I would first like to recognize and 
commend the work of the conference committee for their efforts to 
develop a conference agreement that is acceptable to many Members of 
this Chamber, recognizing and settling several controversial issues 
that had to be dealt with in conference.
  Mr. President, one provision the conference committee had to address 
during its deliberations was the issue of continuing funding for the 
Animas-LaPlata participating project in southwestern Colorado. I 
appreciate the efforts of the conference committee for appropriating $9 
million in fiscal year 1997 to permit the Bureau of Reclamation to 
continue their efforts with construction costs associated with the A-LP 
project.
  As was discussed in great length and voted upon previously in both 
Chambers of the Congress, the completion of the A-LP participating 
project has both tremendous Federal Indian policy implications as well 
as an incalculable tangible impact for many water users in southwest 
Colorado and northern New Mexico. When the Congress passed, and 
President Reagan signed into law, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 1988, the Federal Government guaranteed to the two 
Colorado Ute Indian tribes a final settlement of their outstanding 
water rights claims in a solution that would also allow them to put to 
use their entitled share of settlement water.
  In addition, the 1988 Settlement Act reconfirmed the commitment of 
the Federal Government to assist water users in the San Juan River 
basin in the development of an adequate water storage system. Cities 
such as Durango, CO, to Farmington, NM, stand to benefit from 
completion of the A-LP project, and equally important, traditional 
agricultural users will also benefit.
  While I am glad the conference committee provided funding based on 
the practical merits of the A-LP project, I am dismayed that actions of 
the administration, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency 
[EPA], continue to cause undue and very costly delays to full 
implementation of the 1988 settlement. One very clear example of the 
egregious behavior on the part of the EPA is their inability to work 
actively and constructively with the Bureau of Reclamation and other 
Department of Interior agencies to resolve outstanding environmental 
compliance issues on the project.
  As recently as a few weeks ago, the EPA again requested of the 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation an additional 90 days to 
review the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [FSEIS]. 
Mr. President, this action comes after the EPA had already requested 
one other 90-day extension for review.
  Further, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee 
on VA, HUD, and independent agencies in May of this year, EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner testified that by August 26, 1996, the EPA 
would make a determination to, either, sign off on the project or refer 
the matter to the President's Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. 
Well, here we are, September 17, and no decisions have been made.

[[Page S10623]]

  I make this point, because as a Member of this Chamber, each of us is 
responsible and accountable for every taxpayer dollar we spend. When 
the actions of an agency, such as the EPA, continue to stall the full 
implementation of a statute signed into law in 1988, merely for 
political purposes, who loses? The taxpayer loses due to added costs 
associated with further delay.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the energy and water 
conference committee for their continued support for the A-LP project, 
and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the respective 
committees of jurisdiction to ensure that adequate congressional 
oversight is put in place to permit the timely progression of the 
project.


                             Corect Program

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in 1988, Congress passed and President 
Reagan signed in law the CORECT program. This program established a 
federal interagency board to coordinate renewable energy exports and 
has been a very successful example of how a very small program, funded 
at $2 million per year, can drive the tools of the U.S. Government to 
assist small businesses in gaining international market share. For 
example, the U.S. solar industry exports over 85 percent of its product 
and has now ribbon-cut four new automated manufacturing plants in the 
United States to meet the growing global markets.
  I am concerned that the energy and water development appropriations 
conference report, now before the Senate, could be interpreted as 
closing down the CORECT program. Let me clarify with my friend from New 
Mexico, Mr. Domenici, that the pending legislation is not to be 
interpreted as terminating the CORECT program and that the Department 
of Energy may utilize other available funds to continue this program, 
even though Congress has provided no funding for the coming fiscal 
year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am well aware of the CORECT program. I 
want to assure the Senator from Oregon that the Department of Energy is 
free to propose reprogramming up to $2 million from other programs to 
support the CORECT program. I assure my colleague from Oregon that the 
subcommittee will expeditiously review any such request.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I want to thank my friend for his clarification of this 
important matter.


                                 Fusion

  Mr. JOHNSTON. As my good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and many other Members are 
aware, the subcommittee continues to support a strong Fusion Energy 
Sciences Program. As noted in the report language accompanying the 
Senate bill, the committee is pleased by the efforts of the fusion 
community over the past year to restructure the fusion program. 
However, despite our best attempts to keep the budget essentially level 
this year, we were forced to accept a cut in this important program 
because of the constraints imposed by the overall low level of funding 
for the nondefense programs in this bill.
  Mr. President, I want to get some additional clarification from my 
good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Development Subcommittee, about the statement of managers language 
accompanying the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. The language calls for 
the operation and safe shutdown of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor in 
fiscal year 1997. Is it the chairman's understanding that this language 
can in any way be interpreted to imply a particular funding level or 
length or operation for the TFTR in fiscal year 1997?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my good friend from Louisiana for pointing out 
the importance of the Fusion Energy Sciences Program and for his 
question. The conferees did not specify the level of funding to be 
provided to the TFTR in fiscal year 1997. We recognized that, because 
the Congress has not provided the full amount of the request for the 
Fusion Program, reductions within the program will be necessary. Those 
reductions will include a reduction in the funds provided to the TFTR. 
It is the Department's responsibility to determine the proper 
allocation of funds from within the amount provided in the conference 
report.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the chairman and note for the record that his 
understanding and expectation on this issue match mine.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I strongly support the conference report 
to accompany the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill. 
Included in the fiscal year 1997 energy and water conference report is 
an amendment that I authored to amend the Northwest Power Act. My 
amendment, which has received bipartisan support, would amend the 
Northwest Power Act to establish an independent scientific review panel 
and peer review groups, to review annual projects to be funded with BPA 
ratepayer moneys.
  Each year, roughly $100 million in BPA ratepayer dollars are spent to 
fund fish and wildlife projects that support the Northwest Power 
Planning Council's fish and wildlife plan. The Northwest Power Planning 
Council is the regional body, created by the Northwest Power Act, that 
provides advice and input to BPA in spending the annual $100 million in 
fish and wildlife funds. The purpose of the council program is to 
protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife populations along the 
Columbia and Snake River system.
  Currently, the single body that provides advice to the council on the 
expenditure of these funds, is the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife 
Authority [CBFWA]. CBFWA is made up of affected tribal officials, State 
fish and wildlife managers, and representatives from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Prior to my 
amendment, CBFWA members had recommended that roughly 75 percent of the 
$100 million annual expenditure go to fund projects that would be 
carried out by CBFWA members. This is a most serious conflict of 
interest, one that was brought to my attention several months ago by 
constituents in my State.
  Let me be clear, CBFWA's advice is important. But, I believe that BPA 
ratepayers expect their hard earned dollars to be spent wisely--not to 
fund the projects of a select number of groups.
  My amendment requires the independent scientific review of projects 
proposed for funding under BPA's annual program and would remove any 
suggestion of conflict of interest in prioritizing programs. I believe 
that advice of independent scientists with expertise on the enhancement 
of Columbia River fish and wildlife will result in successful 
implementation of the Northwest Power Planning Council's fish and 
wildlife program. The council recently recognized the need for 
independent science recently, and together with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, has established an Independent Scientific Advisory 
Board [ISAB] in order to provide scientific advice to the council and 
NMFS on the council's plan for fish and wildlife for the river system.
  My amendment directs the National Academy of Sciences to submit a 
list of individuals to the council to serve on an Independent 
Scientific Review Panel to review projects for funding under BPA's 
annual fish and wildlife program. I would like to make clear that 
nothing in the bill language precludes NAS from recommending the same 
scientists that serve on the ISAB to serve on the newly created 
Independent Scientific Review Panel, provided that members meet the 
conflict of interest standards spelled out in the bill language. If 
ISAB scientists are selected to serve on the newly created panel, such 
scientists should not be compensated twice for their services.
  My amendment also requires that the council establish, from a list 
submitted by NAS, scientific peer review groups to assist the panel in 
making its recommendations to the council. Projects will be reviewed 
based upon the following criteria: Projects benefit fish and wildlife 
in the region; have a clearly defined objective and outcome; and are 
based on sound science principles.
  After review of the projects by the panel and peer review groups, the 
panel will submit its recommendations on projects priorities to the 
council for consideration. The council will then make the panel's 
recommendations available to the public for review.
  The council is required to review recommendations of the panel, the 
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority,

[[Page S10624]]

and others, in making its final recommendations to BPA of projects to 
be funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. If the council 
does not follow the advice of the panel, it is to explain in writing 
the basis for its decision.
  Mr. President, an important part of my amendment requires the council 
to consider the impacts of ocean conditions in making its 
recommendations to BPA to fund projects. Ocean conditions include, but 
are not limited to, such considerations as El Nino and other conditions 
that impact fish and wildlife populations. My amendment also directs 
the council to determine whether project recommendations employ cost 
effective measures to achieve its objectives. I want to make an 
important point here, Mr. President, the bill language expressly states 
that the council, after review of panel and other recommendations, has 
the authority to make final recommendations to BPA on project(s) to be 
funded through BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget. This language was 
included to clear up any confusion as to the council's authority to 
make final recommendations to BPA on projects to be funded through its 
annual fish and wildlife budget.
  The amendment goes into effect upon the date of enactment, and it is 
intended that the provision be used to start the planning process for 
the expenditure of BPA's fiscal year 1998 fish and wildlife budget. 
This provision will expire on September 30, 2000.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would like to thank Senator Hatfield and 
Senator Murray, and the Northwest Power Planning Council for their 
input in the development of the amendment. I believe that the final 
language, as it appears in the fiscal year 1997 energy and water 
conference report, reflects a bipartisan effort to make sure that BPA 
ratepayer dollars are spend wisely.
  I believe that my amendment is the first step to restoring 
accountability in the decisionmaking process for the expenditure of BPA 
ratepayer dollars for fish and wildlife purposes. I look forward to 
working, on a bipartisan basis, with my Northwest colleagues to rewrite 
the Northwest Power Act during the next Congress to ensure that 
Northwest ratepayer dollars are spent effectively for fish and 
wildlife, and that the people of the Northwest are given a greater role 
in the decisionmaking process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand Senator Levin does not need 
his time. In his behalf, I yield back his time. Mr. President, I 
understand Senator Johnston will yield back his time. In that he is in 
another hearing, I yield back his time in his behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time except the time of the Senator from 
New Mexico has been yielded back. The Senator from New Mexico retains 
14 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania how much time does he desire?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I 
would appreciate 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the suggestion of the majority 
leader, I yield back all time on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________