[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7459-S7485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate
turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 107, S. 1004, the energy and
water appropriations bill.
[[Page S7460]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1004) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that while this bill is on the
floor, Bill Perret, a congressional fellow, be extended floor
privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously, with the distinguished
chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, taking care of the
defense of our Nation in 1 day in the Chamber, I am challenged and
challenge the Senate to do likewise in this very important bill. I hope
we can finish tonight. Senators who are within earshot or their staffs,
clearly we intend to move right ahead. We know of only two amendments--
there may be many, many more, but we know of only two, and we expect
Senators who have those amendments to come down here as soon as
possible. It is not beyond reason that we can finish this this evening.
I have some brief opening remarks, Mr. President, that I will make at
this point. And, again, I ask that Senators who have amendments,
whether they be add-ons or deletions, come to the floor and we can
accommodate them almost forthwith.
I wonder whether Senator Reid would not agree with that statement
with reference to anyone on that side who has an amendment. We are
ready.
Mr. REID. Yes. I have communicated by telephone with the chief of
staff of one of the Senators who is going to offer an amendment, and
she indicated that that Senator would be available any time after 3
o'clock today.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, S. 1004 was reported by a vote of 28 to zero from the
Senate Committee on Appropriations on Thursday, July 10, was filed that
evening, and it has been available for Members since Friday, July 11.
Senator Reid, who this year became the ranking member of the
subcommittee, and I have worked closely together to craft a balanced
bill. We believe it addresses the concerns of the Members of the Senate
and the concerns of the President of the United States.
The recommendation before the Senate provides $20.7 billion in new
budget authority, $11.7 billion within the defense function, and $8.9
billion of that is within the domestic discretionary program. In this
appropriations bill, in essence, a little over half of its total money
is for defense purposes, and most of that, not all of it but most of
it, has to do with the preservation and retaining the fidelity of the
nuclear arsenal that the United States has in these very difficult
times when we are building down and we are no longer doing underground
testing.
The recommendation is $1.9 billion in budget authority below the
request of the President. That reduction results from the
subcommittee's recommendation that we not provide for full asset
acquisition, which saved about $800 million in budget authority, and
provide only $300 million of a requested $1 billion for an initiative
to privatize a portion of the Department of Energy's cleanup work.
Now, Mr. President, I might explain, in no way are we doing less in
cleanup. There is an effort to go at this waste cleanup program--which
is very, very difficult, very cumbersome, very bureaucratic and costing
a lot of money--there is an effort of the administration to move in
another direction and to try to come in with privatization, which would
permit somebody powerful of resources and of talent to bid a total
cleanup project for a certain amount of money and then the Federal
Government, when they are finished, would pay them for that.
The Department knows that this is a very big venture requiring some
very new management skills, and we in our bill are saying let us take
one-third of this new effort, not the whole thing. It was all budget
authority with no outlay request attendant to it to speak of. And we
said let us go with $300 million instead of $1 billion to see how the
program works.
It has been modified and language has been supplied in this bill so
that the major one that they wanted to go out to privatization bid
probably on the west coast will probably fit.
Now, it is interesting that while much time is spent on the defense
nuclear aspects, and we could spend this afternoon in debate on the
floor on that aspect, there is a large portion of this bill that has to
do with funding that is not defense. The discretionary function is $103
million less than the request.
However, within the lower amount, the subcommittee has increased
spending for water projects by $229.5 million above requests. The
offsetting savings were derived principally from the Department of
Energy's nondefense functions.
I must tell Senators that of all the subcommittees I have been on
that garner comments and letters and requests from fellow members, this
small portion of the bill, the water projects of America, brings us
more requests than any subcommittee I have served on, because all the
water projects in America, the flood protection projects that have the
Federal Government involved, the Bureau of Reclamation, and all the
Corps of Engineers projects across this land are all in this section--
the dredging, the ports that we maintain, and so it is not easy to make
ends meet here. Senators are not going to get everything they think
their projects need because we cannot afford them anymore, and two very
large projects that are ready to go through the Corps of Engineers, one
in West Virginia and one in the State of Kentucky, we cannot start them
because of all of the programs that are still backed up in terms of
available resources.
The time might come when perhaps a large bipartisan group might want
to tell the executive branch, in its next budget, that they better do a
little better in this field because we are going to have to take money
away from something else in Government to satisfy these needs because
so many Senators feel so strongly about them.
The savings that we have put in our bill with reference to the
domestic part are $43 million from solar and renewable energy. The
committee recommends $301 million, a $35 million increase over last
year. That is a $35 million increase. Mr. President, $67 million was
saved from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where it recommends $243
million, a $24 million increase over the current year; $20 million
saved from the nondefense cleanup, but we provide $437.6 million, a
$109 million increase over current year; $25 million is saved from
science by not providing for the next generation of Internet programs--
we believe that can wait a year--and $30 million for the Yucca Mountain
program; leaving $160 million on the nondefense side and $190 million
in the defense function.
We believe this is adequate to move ahead in a steady, go-as-you-can
approach that has been taking place for at least the last 3 years. Mr.
President, $18 million was saved from uranium decommissioning and
decontamination programs. The committee has protected science funding.
And, while it was unable to provide an increase, as many Members
requested, it did provide $2.2 billion of the $2.3 billion requested in
this field. Within the atomic energy defense activities budget, this
committee included $4.3 billion for weapons activities and $5.3 billion
for environmental restoration and waste management.
I think it is noteworthy that we are now beginning to spend more, and
this is in billions of dollars, on the environmental restoration and
waste management in this country, the result of our nuclear programs
with reference to our defense and the use of the various facilities for
atomic and hydrogen bombs--we are spending more than we are in the
actual weapons activities. And we are moving in a brand new direction
in terms of weapons activities, in that we no longer test our nuclear
weapons underground. Since we do not, because Congress has said let us
not do that, obviously we have to assure the fidelity, trustworthiness,
and safety of these weapons another way. And we are busy doing that
under the title of ``science-based stockpile stewardship,'' something
new. We hope in the next 4 or 5 years we can display to everyone that
indeed we can continue to certify
[[Page S7461]]
the well-being of this weapons system without underground testing
through the use of new devices and new science at the three major
nuclear Laboratories, Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia.
The committee reduced the Department of Energy's privatization
proposal. I have expressed that in my opening remarks. We continue to
maintain the ability to manage a technically challenged fixed-priced
contract. As a result, the House and Senate committee proposed
significant reductions for the $1 billion requested. That is because
there is general concern about whether the Department has the ability
to manage the technical part. The Committee on Appropriations
recommends $343 million, to be exact, with reference to this work.
The leadership has expressed its intent that the Senate this week
complete consideration of three appropriations bills: defense, which we
just completed; energy and water, a small bill compared to the defense
bill but a very important one from the standpoint of our defenses;
science, and our water resources.
I understand we want to go ahead and do foreign operations also. We
would like very much to finish tonight so we can move right along on
this schedule.
So, I want to say to everyone, I am very hopeful we can handle this
bill in the manner that the chairman and Senator Inouye, the ranking
member, handled the previous bill.
My remarks are completed. I understand my good friend, the ranking
member from Nevada, wants to make opening remarks, and then we will be
ready for any other Senators.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this bill is the only one of the 13
appropriations bills that every dollar that is in the bill is
discretionary funding. It is extremely important, every dollar that we
have in this bill, that it go to the right source or sources. As the
ranking member of this subcommittee, I have worked very closely with
the chairman of the subcommittee. He has been very open, invited me to
meetings with Cabinet officers, and this has been a joint venture, this
legislation, as well it should be.
I know the chairman of the subcommittee worked very closely for many,
many years with the then chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bennett
Johnston, and then when the roles reversed, they also worked very
closely together. This is a bill that cries out for bipartisanship. It
is a bill that affects very important aspects of this, our Federal
Government.
The bill can be supported by the entire Senate because we have
approached it on this basis. It has been a difficult bill, but I think
what we have arrived at is equitable and good public policy, despite
very difficult circumstances. One of the difficulties the subcommittee
faced is one that cannot be solved easily and that is the significance
of these water projects around the Nation. The Corps of Engineers
programs, both general investigations and construction, received
balanced increases over last year's budget while the operation and
maintenance aspect of their program was reduced by some $200 million.
The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation, which for western Senators
is extremely important because the Bureau of Reclamation is principally
responsible for the arid States of the West, increased by $2 million
over last year despite the budget proposal that would reduce the
program account. The Bureau of Reclamation's first project ever in this
country was in Nevada. In 1902 that program started, named after a
Nevada Congressman named Newlands, who eventually became a Senator. So
we are very familiar in Nevada with the good that the Bureau of
Reclamation does and the bad they have done in years gone by.
During the process of their developing programs in this country, some
of the things they did simply have not worked out very well. But it was
not because there was any ulterior motive. It was simply the arid West
they were trying to make blossom like a rose. In some places they did,
in some places they didn't.
Water projects are often maligned as excessive and unnecessary items
in appropriations bills. Being from probably the most arid State in the
United States, I disagree. Water projects are extremely important. If
it were not for water projects, the city of Las Vegas, the county of
Clark, simply would not be the most rapidly growing area in the Union.
It is because of water programs sponsored by the Federal Government
that that area has been able to grow the way it has, because of the
Southern Nevada Water Project, funded by this Congress.
Our country has been described as a fortress nation with two large
coasts and waterways throughout the continent playing a role in
commerce, recreation and education as well as other functions.
Communities around the Nation are directly affected by water projects
that do, in fact, have Federal interests. I have given one example. I
want this Senate to know that what we have done has taken a great deal
of thought, the expertise of our very good staffs, and a lot of time.
Starting with the largest water concern in the Nation, I would like
to direct the Members' attention to a section of this bill dealing with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program entitled ``Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries.'' This is a so-called earmark. I
guess we could call it that. A lot of people deride this earmark. This
is for almost $300 million.
We know the Mississippi River is the most important waterway in this
country and has been for more than a century. The Mississippi River has
the third largest drainage basin in the world, draining over 41 percent
of the United States and covering 1,245,000 square miles.
The $289 million we have appropriated is probably not enough, but
it's the best we could do. The Mississippi River has flooded over the
years, but due to the flood control levee system as put in place by the
Corps of Engineers, over $8 billion in flood damages were averted in
the 1993 flood alone. So, I think, by anyone's estimate, we should
receive a passing grade on a cost/benefit scale. This is an earmark, a
huge one, that is important.
Let's take a smaller earmark, what some people direct their attention
to, the extensive coastline America has and other smaller drainage
basins and locations such as Assateague Island in Maryland. We have
recognized the importance of Assateague Island in Maryland, and since
1935, when a Federal navigation project was first started and disrupted
natural sand distribution, the shoreline has been eroding. There is now
a severe threat of unnatural erosion and accelerated shoreline
migration. We have appropriated money in this bill to stop this damage
from occurring. Because, if the damage occurred without Federal
intervention, the bays, commercial routes, the recreational island and
the mainland would be irreparably damaged.
This is an earmark. It is important for one of the States of the
Nation, and we have stepped forward and the Corps of Engineers has
developed a comprehensive water resources investigation in this area,
and we will complete the preconstruction engineer design
recommendations for this project. This is important.
There are numerous other projects just like this. Let me talk,
though, about a number that are important, I think, in this bill.
Because water is a precious commodity in the West, as I have already
talked about, the use and study of water impacts every community. Water
reclamation and desalinization projects, authorized in the last
Congress, are of vital importance to lower Colorado River communities,
the Columbia-Snake River area and to rural communities.
We know that desalinization is important. Senator Paul Simon, who has
recently retired, believed in this significantly. He asked me to make
sure that we did not forget about the things that he tried to do in
this Congress. I think we have done that in this bill. Desalinization
is important. It is more than finding out if we can change the ocean
water to fresh water. It is dealing with rivers that have become very
polluted and have too much salt in them. So, this is important.
We have done things dealing with desalinization in this bill. Of
particular note in this legislation, the importance of funding for the
CALFED Bay Delta Ecosystem Restoration Project, another earmark, $50
million, which is to
[[Page S7462]]
assist California to understand the water systems and developing a
balance to the uses of the vast California water system.
But the State of California has stepped forward. They have a
multiyear funding program that they are going to work on with us.
Theirs is almost $1 billion, the voters of the State of California
approved. We have an obligation to come forward, I believe, as does
this committee, and help them with this project. So I appreciate the
concerns expressed in the report language about the CALFED Project. I
think the concerns are fair and constructive, and I hope the Bureau and
many proponents recognize the necessity to design this project and
activities so we can feel confident in the use of taxpayers' moneys.
There is no mistake, this is important to California. I support the
committee in their efforts to fund this.
I have mentioned four or five projects in this bill. There are some
who come and say, ``Why do you earmark these?'' We earmark them because
that's our obligation. We have three separate but equal branches of
Government. I think we would be foolhardy and it would not make our
Founding Fathers smile if we just accepted everything that the
administration wanted. We have our own voice, our own concerns, and
they are expressed in this bill.
I support the subcommittee in the work that has been done dealing
with renewable projects. The chairman of the subcommittee has talked
about some of them, but I want to repeat, we have an almost $15 million
increase in this bill for solar energy--for solar energy. We have a $4
million increase for hydrogen energy development. We have almost $6
million for wind energy development. And we have geothermal energy
development at a slight increase. Alternative fuels are the answer to
the problem in the world to come in the United States. We have
recognized that.
I would have liked to give solar much, much more and hydrogen and
wind and geothermal. But we have increased these in spite of a budget
that is very spartan in nature.
Before we go to the energy side of the bill, I would like to say,
considering the many demands on the Corps and the Bureau, nobody
received all the moneys they wanted or requested, but we tried to be
evenhanded about the projects, as well as taking into consideration the
position of the agencies themselves.
The nondefense programs in the Department of Energy were also
stretched due to the outlays and allocations, as well as the demands of
the activities.
The work at Yucca Mountain is continuing. I don't like Yucca
Mountain. I wish it weren't there. But I felt in fairness and being a
constructive member of this committee that we should continue the
funding. I think, though, for example, the latest work they did there,
building a 4\1/2\-mile tunnel through a mountain which cost $60,000 a
foot, the subcommittee was very responsive in setting the workload that
should take place with this facility at Yucca Mountain.
The budget authority and outlays do not provide for the entire
privatization effort but does support continued waste management and
cleanup at a level that will maintain a scheduled cleanup of sites that
have served the Nation in the past and now should be taken care of.
The atomic energy defense activities of this bill is, I feel, a grave
and momentous responsibility, and the chairman of the subcommittee and
I have recognized that. We may talk of these amounts as dollars, but we
recognize that literally the work we do here is the difference between
having a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal and one that is more prone
to accidental problems. We understand how important this is.
So, Mr. President, this appropriations bill is important, because it
provides a transition between a world in which we tested nuclear
devices--we tested almost 1,000 nuclear devices at the Nevada test
site. That program is over with, we hope. We hope that nothing occurs
that the President will have to exercise his emergency powers to again
start nuclear testing at the test site. What this bill has done is take
into consideration that for 50 years of brinkmanship, we can now look
at a world that is relatively safe. With these tens of thousands of
nuclear warheads, we have to make sure that they are, I repeat, safe
and reliable, and we have taken that into consideration with this
legislation that is now before the Senate.
The world still provides no safe haven from international conflict,
and some of our potential enemies remain armed with the most
destructive weapons in mankind's history. So we must remain ready and
capable of responding to many threats from those or other weapons of
mass destruction, not because we want or should wage war with these
demonic weapons, but because we want to wage peace by deterring their
use by any government forever.
If we could put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, we would do it.
But I am sure of one thing, and that is the nuclear threat still exists
and will continue for an indefinite period. Experience has shown the
best response to this threat is to remain so capable that no government
will ever perceive any advantage from a nuclear attack. So we must
retain indefinitely a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile.
Although we must remain ready, we want to reduce the incentive for
other countries to increase their arsenals. We want to stop the
unending spiral of development of increasingly dangerous weapons by
those nations that already have nuclear arsenals. I think this
legislation does that.
This country has advocated, through the President, a Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to stop that developmental spiral and remove that
incentive.
So now, for the foreseeable future, our country must maintain its
nuclear deterrent in a completely different way compared to past
practice and experience. No longer can we test new designs for their
safety and reliability. No longer can we test new designs of weapons,
we can only test weapons for safety and reliability. That is important.
No longer can we assure stockpile safety and reliability by replacing
old designs and weapons with new ones. We must get along with what we
have, and we have to make sure they are safe and reliable. We must rely
on present designs and weapons in the stockpile, so we have to develop
the understanding of how age will affect their safety and reliability,
and we must acquire this knowledge while testing the weapons and
designs.
The Department of Energy, in consultation with its National Weapons
Laboratories and with the Department of Defense, has concluded that the
only assured way of certifying an aging stockpile without testing in
the traditional fashion is to understand the science of weapons
materials, components and systems, and, with that understanding, to use
computer-based simulator performance to evaluate safety and
reliability, and that is what this legislation which is now before the
Senate does.
This so-called Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program has been
reviewed completely by experts from inside and outside the program and
experts both inside and outside the Government. These experts have
conditionally agreed the science-based program can succeed. It can
succeed provided appropriate investments are made in scientific
research, in experimental facilities and in advance computational
capabilities. These conditions are faithfully reflected by the atomic
defense activities budget and in the energy and water development
appropriations bill.
When this program was originally conceived, its budget dimensions
were estimated under a variety of assumptions, some of which have not
been realized. For example, it was assumed that START II ratification
by Russia would have been achieved. It hasn't. Failure to ratify START
II has required greater investments in weapons surveillance and
maintenance, causing unexpected costs for both the national
laboratories and the plants.
In addition, more weapons in the stockpile has accelerated the
required schedule for tritium production which is one of the elements
in a weapon that lasts a little over 10 years and must thereafter be
replaced. So we must periodically look at this product in our active
stockpile.
Guaranteeing tritium production capability on this new schedule has
required simultaneous exploration of two research options, neither of
which is
[[Page S7463]]
cheap. Furthermore, the greater maintenance load on our plants has
delayed our planned progress toward downsizing and has required
investments in plant infrastructure that we did not anticipate.
Finally, reductions in administration costs by the Department of
Energy has not been realized as quickly as expected.
The future will be defined by progress toward ratification and
implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it depends
critically on our confidence and reliability and safety of our enduring
strategic nuclear stockpile.
A principal discussion that has taken place is the role of the
stockpile stewardship and the science activities that need to occur to
maintain a certified state of readiness. Because we studied these
defense issues closely, this subcommittee has provided sufficient
funding for the national ignition facility as a cornerstone of the
science-based stewardship, and we integrated the Nevada test site and
national laboratories in the defense program to assure a certifiable
stockpile.
Mr. President, I wish it were possible for every Member of the U.S.
Senate to take a tour through our national laboratories to find out how
essential they are to the literal safety of this world. They do
tremendous work with little fanfare. I have become a real fan of our
national laboratories.
This bill is fair and reasonable. I support the efforts of this bill
to seek more efficiency within the Department of Energy.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are in the process of clearing a
number of amendments. I, once again, ask Senators who have any
amendments that they are certain have to be offered if they would get
down here as soon as possible. If they are the only two amendments, it
would seem to me it would be reasonable for us to be telling the
Senators and our leadership that we could finish tonight, provided we
don't have to just wait here with nothing to do. I understand the
schedules and other subcommittee hearings and the like. But I, once
again, urge either of the two Senators who have an amendment that we
understand might be offered that they get down here as soon as
possible.
Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators, I thought I would discuss a
little bit about this bill I think is interesting and might make it
easier for those who are wondering, as you look at the Department of
Energy's role--and it has a lot of roles, a lot of missions, it might
be a little easier to identify what we are doing as a Nation in various
areas.
So what we have done is we have kind of reorganized the way the bill
shows the functions at the Department of Energy. I call to anyone's
attention who is interested the report accompanying this bill at page
88, title III, the Department of Energy, because we have broken it down
into the energy research, we have broken it down into what we call
science.
I would just like to talk about science for a minute, because across
this country--incidentally, the science portion of this bill costs $2.2
billion. We hear, and I am sure the occupant in the Chair in his
capacity from his State with INL there and a lot of science going on,
our academic and business leaders say, if you are going to reduce
spending, don't reduce what we are spending on basic science. We are
all hearing that. We funded the President's request in basic science.
If you look in this reorganization effort, science is made up of high-
energy physics, nuclear physics, biological and environmental research,
basic energy sciences, and other energy research.
It is very, very important that everybody understand that this is not
just a Department of Energy bill that has to do with petroleum and
natural gas. It has to do with subjects I spoke about, some of the most
profound and deep science that America is doing anywhere with reference
to physics, with reference to biological and environmental research.
For instance, this Department has one-third of the budget, Mr.
President, of the human genome research project. The human genome
research project is about 7 years old, maybe 8, and two-thirds of it is
run by the National Institutes of Health and one-third by the
Department of Energy. Many scientists have said it is mankind's most
serious and potentially effective research project for wellness. For
what we have been doing with the genome project is to map all of the
chromosomes of the human body and to discern from within those
chromosomes where the dread diseases are located. It doesn't mean we
know how to cure them because we know how to locate them, but for most
of our adult life, we heard every 3 or 4 or 5 years a group of great
scientists would announce they had located the genes for multiple
sclerosis. They were in an effort that might have taken 20 years to
locate that, because they had to do it without regard to the relevancy
of doing all of the chromosomes of the human body.
Because of computers and other things, we are well on the way to
handing to the scientists of the future the chromosome locations inside
us for all of the dread diseases, and then it will be up to
pharmaceutical researchers and basic researchers to find if there is
some way that we can effect cures. That is why it is seen as the
biggest wellness effort, and one-third of that lies within the
Department of Energy. It is interesting, it is there for a number of
reasons. I won't talk about the parochial interests which I had
something to do with. But essentially, this Department was doing a
great deal of genetic work, as the occupant of the Chair knows. Because
of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, some of the most indepth preservation of
radioactive impacts on the human genetic system and research on that,
instruments to do the research were within this Department. So when
Senators wonder what the Department of Energy does, that is one. That
is $1.2 billion.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.
Mr. REID. While we are waiting for amendments to come, I will also
ask the Senator, I was struck after having become the ranking member of
the committee going to one of the national laboratories not in your
State--I want to make sure everybody understands the national
laboratories are important. They are important because they are in New
Mexico, California and other places. Let's talk about the one in
California.
Much of the research we hear so much about dealing with genomes,
trying to determine what our bodies are made of started in national
laboratories.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. REID. The work we are doing in Lawrence Livermore in California
is mind-boggling work done there.
I ask the Senator, what would the state of scientific research be in
our country today if it were not for the national laboratories?
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, you know, everybody around would
say you asked the right person, because I am absolutely convinced that
the national laboratories--and there are more than the big three we
have just alluded to that are part of this, the Department of Energy--
while they may not have been created in their inception to do the kind
of research they are doing today, or the three we speak to, they were
created and started up because of atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs and
nuclear energy. And everybody related to that, the design, the making,
the disarming, huge assemblages of the greatest physicists and
scientists that America has ever brought up, ended up in these
laboratories doing this kind of work.
The result of that is they are doing all kinds of basic research
because they are there and they have big equipment to do their jobs. I
would surmise that as many breakthroughs in science have come about
because of the national laboratory system as any other single
institution or entity in America's modern history.
Mr. REID. If the Senator would yield, maybe even in the history of
the world.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could be.
Mr. REID. For example, at Lawrence Livermore, I spent some time with
a Dr. Campbell, who is one of the leading experts in the world on
lasers. Lasers were invented in 1917 by Albert Einstein. It took
scientists 43 years, and it was finally proven at Lawrence Livermore
that he was right, that the formula he came up with in 1917 dealing
[[Page S7464]]
with laser technology, that he really knew what he was talking about.
But for the work done in our laboratories, things like this, they may
have come to be, but it would have been years in the future. If you
talk about great scientific minds in the last 50 years, they have all
worked in these laboratories.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is right.
I want to, again, if there is a little bit of time, to remind fellow
Senators of another thing.
You know, a very large group of Senators, just speaking of our body,
our Senate, are always very concerned about the adequacy of defense
spending. And I think we see that in the bill that just passed with
very large support. We see it in the willingness of the U.S. Senate to
set up a wall and say the appropriations for defense are separate from
the domestic appropriations, and you cannot take from defense to spend
in domestic. You need a supermajority to do that because we think it is
so important that we do right by defense.
But I think what happens is that sometimes many of the Senators do
not realize, and maybe it is because we have not done a very good job
of telling them, that a portion of the defense of our Nation is done
not in the defense budget but in this budget, by the Department of
Energy in its nuclear weapons work. All of the money for that comes out
of this defense pot of money that I just talked about, with a wall
saying this money cannot be used for anything else; it is transferred
for that part of Government to this subcommittee and to the Department
of Energy to do the nuclear deterrent work in the broadest sense of the
word.
Now we have decided to engage in a big, vast experiment regarding the
preservation of these nuclear weapons in terms of their safety,
reliability, and trustworthiness. We have said no more underground
testing, which my friend from Nevada had a very major parochial
interest in and which went on in his State for many, many decades, that
offered direct objective proof of the reliability and the qualitative
capability and quantitative capability of the weapons. We decided as a
Congress, and the President agreed, that we would not do that anymore.
Now, it is obvious that we have not gotten rid of our nuclear
weapons, and we will not for a long time, even though we are hopeful
that with the various treaties we will get this number down, and
hopefully there may be even a giant effort to get it down even more.
But in the meantime, what nobody seems to understand--or, I should say,
few understand--is that we have to spend money on some new techniques
to make sure the weaponry is safe and trustworthy and that it will be
faithful to its mission because we cannot test it anymore.
So we are engaged in a major transition. I have alluded to it, my
ranking member has. It is called science-based stockpile stewardship.
The greatest scientists and physicists and others have joined together
with the Department of Energy saying, ``Since we can't test, we have
got to find some other ways based on science.'' And, Mr. President, we
are engaged in very large computer experiments. In fact, we are pushing
the threshold of computer capability more by this requirement than any
other requirement in America. The push for bigger and faster computers
is being done by our response to the science-based stockpile
stewardship.
In addition, each of the major laboratories, since we will no longer
make new bombs, no longer design new bombs, are engaged in their part
of trying to make sure that the weapons are reliable. If, indeed, there
is a dispute today on the floor on whether we are spending too much for
this, I am prepared to go into a lot of detail, none of which is
secret, about the certification process as to the well-being of the
weapons.
These three laboratories, headed by civilians, have essentially
maintained our nuclear deterrent position for all these decades because
they surround themselves with the best; we fund the best equipment, and
they have always kept us from having a war. They have kept us highly,
highly competitive so that nobody, including the Soviet Union, dared
venture anything in the field of nuclear weapons.
These same laboratories must continue to certify the reliability of
these weapons. It is not just some figment of someone's imagination
that they are important. The truth of the matter is, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, in agreeing to no more underground testing, studied it and
worked with the best scientists around and concluded that they would go
along if, in fact, the national laboratories were given sufficient
resources and the lab directors could certify to them and the President
regularly that we were able to verify the effectiveness, the safety of
these weapons systems in ways that did not need underground testing as
a quantifier or objective determinator.
That makes the work of this Department in this regard as important,
in my opinion, as anything within the defense budget of the United
States. I do not believe, properly presented to any legislator and any
policymaker, they could disagree.
In this bill, there is about $4.3 billion--and remember, we just
passed a defense budget an hour ago, about $250 billion. So let us put
it in perspective. The science-based stockpile stewardship, the
maintenance of and attesting to the reliability of the nuclear weapons,
is being done for about $4.3 billion by essentially three national
laboratories who work for us.
It seems to me that when it comes to these budgets, we ought to not
fail to understand that it is part of the defense of our Nation. When
it comes to maintaining these science-based efforts, some of them are
new and very major. A whole new device and system will be established
at Lawrence Livermore. A lesser facility is almost completed to do an
x-ray type activity at Los Alamos. And all three laboratories are
beginning to do, with early completion dates, major, major computer
programs so that many of the tests can be done by simulation that were
done before by actual tests.
So I hope, when it comes to where does the money go from the Defense
Department, that everyone will understand it is very, very important
that we adequately fund defense, but it is probably even more important
that we properly allocate money to the laboratories of this Nation
which are doing the deterrent work with reference to our nuclear
arsenal.
Now, there are many other great laboratories--one is in the State of
the occupant of the chair--that do great science work for the
Department of Energy. One could stand here and go through each one and
say how important it is, and much of it is not discernible easily as
being directly related to energy because it is science of some very
special quality that can be done by the people and the other things
that are present in these various facilities.
So the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which I have not yet mentioned,
is the natural next episode that follows on the American Government's
agreement not to do any more nuclear underground testing. And the next
thing will be, can the world agree to it? That treaty is going to be
called the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Obviously, it is ready. It is
in the possession of the executive branch. And soon--I do not know
when, but it cannot be a long way off--it will be submitted to the
Senate for its approval and ratification and/or amendment, I assume.
I think it is important that everyone know that the questions that
are going to be asked have to do with this appropriations bill,
questions like, are we adequately funding what is required by the
laboratory directors of the laboratories that are nuclear weapons
laboratories? Are we funding the program properly for the next 5-year
interval so that we can say with confidence that the international test
ban treaty can be entered into?
Obviously, I am putting the Senate on notice, in a way, that some
work has to be done clearly to make sure that the Joint Chiefs and the
lab directors, the three laboratory directors, can be assured there
will be adequate funding. We are working on that now with the
administration and the Departments of Defense and Energy so we are able
to come to the floor and say with as much certainty as we can,
considering our democratic processes, that we are funding the basic
institutional thrusts required to make an international treaty a valid
and good thing for America set up alongside of the test ban that we
have passed.
There will be many other ramifications to that test ban treaty, and I
[[Page S7465]]
think one is obvious. If we find out that we absolutely cannot get
along without it, what happens? I think that will be addressed, too.
These scientists will tell us whether this science-based stewardship is
working or not. And if they end up saying it cannot work, it cannot do
the job, then what happens if we are bound in a treaty? And I think
that will be addressed in due course.
I still do not see any Senators present who want to offer amendments,
so I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges
of the floor be granted to Dr. Robert M. Simon, on detail from the
Department of Energy on the staff of Senator Jeff Bingaman, during the
pendency of S. 1104 and any votes occurring thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendments Nos. 859 through 866, en bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while no amendments have been offered,
we have been doing our very best to work with any amendments that we
are aware of, and starting late yesterday and today we have had some
amendments that we have cleared on both sides. There are eight in
number. I am going to send these eight amendments to the desk shortly.
They are an amendment on behalf of Senator Byrd regarding Stonewall
Jackson Lake, an amendment on behalf of Senator Daschle regarding the
Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, Senator Kempthorne regarding a McCall
area waste water reclamation and reuse, an amendment on behalf of
Senators Bingaman and Domenici regarding the Butte Reservoir pipeline,
an amendment on behalf of Senator Wyden regarding watershed agreements,
Senator Biden and Senator Roth regarding the Delaware coast, an
amendment on behalf of Senator Bumpers regarding the Southwest
experimental fast oxide reactor, and an amendment on behalf of Senator
Boxer regarding Greenville Road.
I send the amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en
bloc, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments numbered 859 through 866, en bloc.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that further reading of the amendments be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 859
Following Section 503, insert the following new section:
Sec. 504. (a) The State of West Virginia shall receive
credit towards its required contribution under Contract No.
DACW59-C-0071 for the cost of recreational facilities to be
constructed by a joint venture of the State in cooperation
with private interests for recreation development at
Stonewall Jackson Lake, West Virginia, except that the State
shall receive no credit for costs associated with golf course
development and the amount of the credit may not exceed the
amount owed by the State under the Contract.
(b) The Corps of Engineers shall revise both the 1977
recreation cost-sharing agreement and the Park and Recreation
Lease dated October 2, 1995 to remove the requirement that
such recreation facilities are to be owned by the Government
at the time of their completion as contained in Article 2-06
of the cost-sharing agreement and Article 36 of the lease.
(c) Nothing in this section shall reduce the amount of
funds owed the United States Government pursuant to the 1977
recreation cost-sharing agreement.
____
amendment no. 860
On page 15, line 10, insert the following before the
period: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior may use $80,000 of funding appropriated herein to
complete the feasibility study of alternatives for meeting
the drinking water needs on the Cheyenne River Sioux
Reservation and surrounding communities in South Dakota''.
____
amendment no. 861
On page 15, line 10, insert the following before the
period: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior may use $2,500,000 of funds appropriated herein to
initiate construction of the McCall Area Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse, Idaho project''.
____
amendment no. 862
On page 15, line 10, insert the following before the
period: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior may use $300,000 of funding appropriated herein to
undertake feasibility planning studies and other activities
for the Ute Reservoir Pipeline (Quay County portion), New
Mexico project''.
____
amendment no. 863
At the appropriate place, insert the following new general
provision:
Sec. . (a) In General.--For fiscal year 1998 and each
fiscal year thereafter, appropriations made for the Bureau of
Reclamation may be used by the Secretaries of Interior for
the purpose of entering into cooperative agreements with
willing private landowners for restoration and enhancement of
fish, wildlife, and other resources on public or private land
or both that benefit the water and lands within a watershed
that contains a Bureau of Reclamation project.
(b) Direct and Indirect Watershed Agreements.--The
Secretary of Interior may enter into a watershed restoration
and enhancement agreement.--
(1) directly with a willing private landowner, or
(2) indirectly through an agreement with a state, local, or
tribal government or other public entity, educational
institution, or private non-profit organization.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--In order for the Secretary to
enter into a watershed restoration and enhancement
agreement--
(1) the agreement shall--
(A) include such terms and conditions mutually agreed to by
the Secretary and the landowners;
(B) improve the viability of and otherwise benefit the
fish, wildlife, and other resources in the watershed;
(C) authorize the provision of technical assistance by the
Secretary in the planning of activities that will further the
purposes of the agreement;
(D) provide for the sharing of costs of implementing the
agreement among the Federal government, the landowners, and
other entities, as mutually agreed on by the affected
interests, and
(E) ensure that any expenditures by the Secretary pursuant
to the agreement is determined by the Secretary to be in the
public interest, and
(2) the Secretary may require such other terms and
conditions as are necessary to protect the public investment
on private lands, provided such terms and conditions are
mutually agreed to by the Secretary and the landowner.
____
amendment no. 864
On page 2, line 26, insert the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, may use $200,000 of funding
appropriated herein to initiate preconstruction engineering
and design for the Delaware Coast from Cape Henlopen to
Fenwick Island, Delaware project''.
____
amendment no. 865
On page 19, line 7, insert before the period the following:
``: Provided, That from funds available herein, the
Department of Energy will assess the cost of decommissioning
the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor site''.
____
amendment no. 866
On page 23 of the bill, line 5, insert the following before
the colon: ``, of which $2,000,000 is provided for
improvements to Greenville Road in Livermore, California''.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand these amendments have been cleared by
Senator Reid on behalf of the Democratic Members.
Mr. REID. They have been.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 859 through 866) were agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, once again I would like to repeat and
urge that our fellow Senators come down here if they have amendments. I
know we have to protect Senators and we
[[Page S7466]]
have rules, but it would not be too farfetched for third reading to
occur here any time if no amendments are in order. And I do not want to
pursue that very vigorously even under regular order or the rules, but
I do think there are a number of Senators and a lot of people waiting
on the floor for what may be one or two amendments.
I certainly once again urge and beg my fellow Senators to get them
down here so we can finish this work. All of us have many things to do,
and we are very cognizant of your responsibilities, I say that to those
Senators who have amendments, but we ought to try to keep the Senate
busy when we are open and this would help us very much.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have told the Democratic Senators who have
indicated they may offer amendments that we are going to go to third
reading in the near future, and I do not know when that will be, but I
told them it would be relatively soon. I do not have nearly the
experience that the chairman of the full committee has, the manager of
the bill, but I have been here going on 15 years, and that is one of
the things that is really concerning to me, that is, how long we wait
until we wrap these things up. I know the Senator would use good
judgment in that regard, but I think all good things must come to an
end, and I think in a reasonable period of time we should go to third
reading.
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. BUMPERS. 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is there anything pending? What is the
parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are no amendments pending.
Amendment No. 867
(Purpose: To fund the Department of Energy's Weapons Activities Account
at the level requested by the Administration)
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 867.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Reduce the amount on line 4 of page 23 by $258,000,000.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we discussed this for just a moment the
other day in the full Appropriations Committee, but here is my concern.
I want to voice those concerns both for the Record and for a response
by the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with weapons activities.
Now, for the Record and people who read it and may not know, the
Energy Department not only tries to develop solar energy and better
ways to explore for oil and gas and that sort of thing, the Energy
Department is also charged with the responsibility of developing and
maintaining our nuclear weapons. They build them, they stockpile them,
they guarantee to the people of this country their safety and
reliability. They guarantee the safety of them for our benefit; they
guarantee the reliability of them for the benefit of the Defense
Department which is going to put these nuclear weapons on submarines,
missiles, and so on.
But I have been concerned about the amount of money we are spending
on that. What I wanted to do was to engage the chairman in a discussion
of why we are spending the kind of money we are on this project.
For example, this year, 1997, the year we are in right now, we are
spending somewhere around $120 million to $200 million more on the so-
called DOE weapons activities account than we did in 1996. Senator
Harkin and I offered an amendment last year to strike that or to lower
it. I forget exactly how the amendment read, but we tried to cut this
last year, as the chairman will recall. We got 37 votes.
You know, I am tired of jousting with windmills around here. I have
enough sense to know when you are going to prevail, when you have a
fighting chance and when you do not.
But in any event, this year the President requested--these figures
blow your mind--the President requested $4.044 billion for this so-
called DOE weapons activities account--$4.044 billion. And this bill
contains $258 million more than the President requested.
This is a very arcane account, very difficult for laymen to
understand. I must say, I am a layman from the standpoint of the
complexities of testing or trying to make sure that our weapons
stockpile is safe and reliable. I am a layman in that regard. I am not
a layman in regard to money. I understand that $258 million is a lot of
money. When we appropriate $258 million more than the President
requested--and the President asked for a fairly substantial increase--
when we go above that by $258 million, then I think I am within my
right and, as a matter of fact, my duty to raise the question of why we
are spending this much money when you consider the fact that there is
no Soviet Union. They do not exist anymore, and so far as I know, they
do not represent a nuclear threat to this country at this point and,
hopefully, never will again. By the same token, Mr. President, we do
not represent a nuclear threat to the people of Russia today.
If I had asked this question--I do not want to go too far afield from
the specifics of what I want the chairman to address, but I daresay, in
1987, for example--the Soviet Union essentially folded in 1990, 1991;
and for all the years after World War II until that point, the defense
budget was driven, driven almost exclusively, by the threat of the
Soviet Union. I daresay, if I had asked any Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs during that period, from 1947 to 1948 until 1990, how much could
we cut the defense budget if the Soviet Union suddenly went away, I
would guess that the smallest number I would have gotten would have
been $50 billion and the maximum number at least $100 billion. I am
talking about from generals and admirals.
So, all of a sudden, here we are 7 years after the demise of the
Soviet Union, and the defense budget we approved in the authorization
bill that we just passed yesterday is $268 billion. Now, I voted for
it--but I felt it was way too much money--because there were some
things in it that I thought were fairly important, and we are always
trying to balance things. Anybody can pick one thing out of a bill they
do not like and vote no. I dislike this so much I am tempted to vote
against energy and water, but I am not going to vote against the bill
because there are a lot of good things in it.
I am not going to accord, indulge, myself the luxury of saying,
simply because there are half a dozen things in there I object to I am
not going to vote for it. There are all sorts of water projects and
energy things that are very important to me. This is about a $21
billion bill. I am not objecting to the $4 billion in weapons
development. I am only objecting to what I consider excessive
increases.
Now, having said all of that to the Senate, I am a strong believer in
the test ban treaty. The Senator from Nevada may correct me on this,
but I believe 1993 was the last year we had underground tests of
nuclear weapons in Nevada. When we quit testing in Nevada, I considered
that a hallelujah day in this country. I had been fighting for a long
time, even before the Soviet Union disappeared, to stop nuclear
testing, underground testing, in Nevada. I thought it was senseless. I
thought there must be other ways that we could test and determine
the reliability of weapons without actually setting off those
explosions.
Mr. President, here we are now. We are still talking about a
comprehensive test ban treaty, which I strongly favor. We do not have
it. There are a lot of people in this body who would not vote for it if
the Russians unilaterally disarmed tomorrow. But I happen to think it
would take us a long way further than we are right now down the path
toward the kinds of, what shall I say, comfort and good feeling we have
about the future of nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, when I look at these figures, this $4.302 billion
account, which is $258 million more than the President requested,
considerably
[[Page S7467]]
more, over $300 million more than the House bill provides--let me
repeat that. While we are at $4.302 billion, the House is at $3.943
billion, or $350-plus million less than the Senate; and both the House
and Senate authorizing bills are less--are less--than the Senate
appropriations bill which we are considering on the floor at this
moment.
So, Mr. President, I intended to offer this amendment as much as for
any other reason to engage the distinguished Senator from New Mexico in
a colloquy and let him explain. I know he has an explanation. He is
very knowledgeable on these things. Let him explain to the Senate why
these rather unusual increases, when everybody else is taking a hit--
there are a lot of water projects in this bill that he could not fund
because they do not have the money to do it. Of course you couldn't.
Before I finish, I ask the Senator from New Mexico, do the firewalls
that we have in place apply to the Department of Energy's defense
activities?
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, only in this respect. The money
for the DOE defense work comes out of the total amount available for
defense under the budget, and that total amount is subject to a
firewall. Whatever you take out of it, like the money you are
describing, the firewall carries with it, so that in this bill you
could not move defense money to water projects because there is a
firewall around the subdefense money, which is exactly the same as the
big defense 050 function called defense.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say, the $268 billion defense authorization bill
we passed last evening, does that include the roughly $17 billion in
this bill for nuclear weapons?
Mr. DOMENICI. There is not $17 billion in here.
Mr. BUMPERS. I think $17 billion is the right figure, roughly $17
billion in nuclear, is there not, in the bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. There is $11.8 billion in total defense money in this
bill.
Mr. BUMPERS. OK.
Mr. DOMENICI. And $4.3 billion is weapons.
Mr. BUMPERS. So $11.8 billion. Is that all in the $268 billion
authorization bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. It is. There will not be more money spent. There will
not be any accumulation. The total amount we put in the budget will
include the bill Senator Stevens passed and this money. It will equal
the total amount of defense money. There is no add-on for this.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me close with one observation, because I did not
have the correct figure a while ago.
Last year's bill, last year's Senate energy and water bill, the same
bill we have on the floor right now, provided $270 million more than
the President asked for and $300 million more than the House provided.
So we had $270 million more last year than the President requested and
$258 million more this year than the President requested. That is well
over half a billion dollars in 2 years, as I say, when everybody else
has suffered.
So I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he would care to respond to
my complaints about what I consider excessive increases in the DOE
weapons development activities.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me first say to you, I believe that this discussion
and what you have done in the past in an effort to make sure that we
can answer and respond to inquiries about the sufficiency or whether we
appropriated too much are good for the Senate and good for the American
people. So from my standpoint, I am glad you are here on the floor. And
I am glad you in the past have challenged us.
I have tried very hard to answer up to a responsibility that almost
no one understands, and that is that the entire safety of the nuclear
arsenal is funded in this bill. Most people think it is in that big
defense bill. It is in this bill.
Let me move on to a couple of other things. The overall expenditures
in this bill, compared to the present, the overall amount in budget
authority is $1.9 billion less between defense, nondefense, water and
everything else. But we had increased water projects, which you alluded
to, on their own by $229 million. You have been an advocate, and we
worked with you, on many of those. They are tough to fund. But they did
not come out of the defense money anyway. You quite appropriately
asked, are they walled off? They are. That is a big part of this bill,
and growing in difficulty.
If you would have come down and said, ``I would like to engage you,
Senator, in about an hour discussion on whether we're going to be able
to pay for water projects,'' I would be a little more concerned,
because I am not sure we can, because we are not putting any more money
in this domestic part of this bill, and we are asking for more and more
water projects.
One part of our Government says, we do not want to do any more, we
want to increase the ratio of support locally. And we keep saying we
have to keep doing them because they are needed.
So I want to establish those fundamental issues.
Now, let me move on. If I were the only one, singularly, who thought
we had to have an increase of about $300 million in the defense part of
this bill for nuclear weapons safety, I would probably be a little
frightened here on the floor because you are very persuasive. But I
worked with the ranking member, who is a diligent Senator. He started
saying, ``I want to learn everything I can. I want to meet with
everybody you meet with. When you bring the Secretary of Defense in, I
want to be there. When you bring in the DOE, I want to be there. When
you bring in the security people out at Berger's office, I want to be
there.''
We have both concluded that there have been some things that have
occurred since the President submitted his idea of about $4 billion a
year for the safety, well-being, and fidelity of the nuclear arsenal.
We are going to discuss those with you here in a minute.
But let me first say, that $4.3 billion is not to manufacture a
single new weapon. I think everybody should know that. People keep
saying we are making nuclear weapons. You know we are not--no nuclear
weapons and no nuclear weapons designs. But what we have, Senator--and
this is not a secret number, and it is not subject to my call--is we
have a minimum of 6,500 nuclear weapons. That is the allowable under
START II.
Now, I am not, in this bill, permitted to challenge whether we need
them or not. I am only permitted to respond to lab directors and the
national security advisers on how much do we need to make sure they are
safe, and some of them are running out of their durability. A number of
them will be old in 5 years, sufficient for us to wonder what we should
do with them.
Now, what we used to do, Senator, is perform some rather objective
tests in Nevada. On this floor, the three of us probably have discussed
that as much as anyone else, and the Senator from Nevada knows about
all that testing. That used to be an objective way of measuring certain
things. Now, before we entered into that agreement, before the
President said let's cut off underground testing and sent up his
proposal and started lobbying for it, and before Congress would approve
it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had a lot of questions. Essentially,
believe it or not, they literally had to do with, how do we maintain
the arsenal without the tests?
Frankly, Senator, I didn't make that deal either, although I am glad
to live with it. I will say what you have said. I hope the whole world
joins us now. In fact, I am leaning strongly in support of the
international treaty banning it. But I guarantee you that it has no
chance of passing, if Senators can come to the floor and have credible
information that those who are in charge of making sure those weapons
are safe, the parts are replaceable, if they are broken down. If
anybody in the security department of our country can say we don't have
enough money in there to do that, that treaty will go down in flames.
And I can tell you there will be Senators who are going to say that,
regardless of what we put in this bill.
But I am not convinced that $4 billion, which was in the President's
budget, and $4 billion for the next 5 years, will do that. Now, it
seems simple, Mr. President, that we ought to just go from underground
testing, get a few scientists and a few machines ordered, and we ought
to test these weapons. But I tell you, if you want me to, I will read
you the definition of safety that has been in existence regarding
nuclear weapons since 1968.
Mr. BUMPERS. I wish you would do that.
(Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)
[[Page S7468]]
Mr. DOMENICI. They are incredible. America wants them safe. In 1968,
the then President of the United States entered into the following
understanding, and the criteria are summarized as follows:
One, in the event of a detonation, initiated at any one
point in the high-explosive system----
That is not the bomb----
the probability of achieving nuclear yield of greater than 4
pounds of TNT shall not exceed 1 in a million.
Not that it will cause a bomb. Just 4 pounds of TNT, a chance of 1 in
a million.
The probability of premature nuclear detonation of a bomb
due to bomb component malfunction shall not exceed one in a
billion in any environment the bomb is designed to
experience, or one in a million for accident when the weapon
is exposed to an environment outside its designed parameters.
Quantitative criteria are also used to certify weapon
reliability.
Now, Senator Bumpers, the answer to your question is that the
scientists who developed them, the scientists who designed them, the
scientists who supervised their building and their destruction are now
asked to try a whole new approach and come up with a science-based
stockpile stewardship initiative. And they are not going to be
absolutely certain that it is going to work. But we have to give them
what is necessary for them to say we are moving toward making sure that
it will work.
Now, I am not going to go into any more detail about the Nevada Test
Site or anything else. I am merely going to say that we have concluded
that a number of things must be done in order to achieve this stockpile
stewardship relationship. One--and you will understand this in a
minute--massive new supercomputer capability to model, in three
dimensions, the workings of the nuclear weapon is required in these
laboratories. Massive. In fact, it will be the driving force for
supercomputing in the future, because you need so much computer
capability. Facilities that improve our understanding of how material
behaves at very high temperatures and pressures found within nuclear
weapons, and the enhanced diagnostic capability.
See, now we have to have some diagnostic capability to look into the
bombs and into the explosives and see how things are working. We didn't
have those like we now are going to have in the next 5-year program.
And then I add, Senator, five things that have happened since the
President and many of us--in fact, I will confess to you that I worked
with the administration on this $4 billion idea, which was $4 billion a
year. Let's see if it will make that stockpile stewardship solid. But
there are five things that haven't come to fruition that cost more
money.
One--and you know this--START II has not been ratified. So the
laboratories are having to maintain a larger number of weapons of more
designs than they anticipated.
Second, the plants that we have to produce more spare parts and
replacements are not being built down because we haven't built down the
stockpile. And the delay in reducing the stockpile has increased the
need and the schedule for tritium production. All of these were
discussed, incidentally, in your absence, not only by me, but by
Senator Reid when we explained what was in our bill during the
introduction of it today.
And then there have been some very expensive, unexpected maintenance
costs. I trust we will leave it at that. DOE's administrative costs
have not declined as were envisioned in 1992.
I would like, if the Senator would agree, to let Senator Reid take a
few moments to also address your inquiry. Before I do that, I wonder,
on the Democrat side, if the Senator knows of any additional amendments
besides the amendment that is expected to be voted on. We are not ready
yet. We would like to make a list so we know there are no further
amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arkansas that I
think he has rendered service to the Senate and this country by coming
here today and allowing us to speak about something that the manager of
the bill and I feel is the most important obligation we have, and that
is to make sure that our nuclear deterrent is safe and reliable. There
is no better spokesperson for that than the senior Senator from
Arkansas, who not only has, over his many years in the Senate, been
concerned about the weapons system of this country, but also, I say,
with the greatest respect, his wife Betty Bumpers has worldwide fame as
a result of the organization she formed called Peace Links and has been
involved for many, many years in making our world a more peaceful
place. So I think it is very appropriate that the Senator would come
and talk about this issue today.
I say to my friend from Arkansas that the appropriations for atomic
energy defense activities aren't driven by any parochial interests or
State interests. These appropriations are driven by the program
requirements to provide for the national and strategic security of our
country.
Mr. President, we have the stockpile. We are going to have it for the
foreseeable future. We must continually study it and assess it for
safety and reliability. The Senator from Arkansas said in his statement
that when the moratorium came on underground nuclear testing, as we
have known in the past, that he anticipated there would be other ways
of testing. That is absolutely right. The scientists have come up with
other ways than the underground testing that we had for so many years.
The first such test was conducted in Nevada just a few weeks ago. It
was called a sub-critical test. It is just as stated. They start
conducting an experiment using nuclear materials, but the experiment is
controlled so that a critical mass is never achieved. That means that
no significant nuclear reaction, no nuclear chain reaction can occur.
That is what Senator Domenici was talking about. The computers take
over. There is no explosion, but they are able to determine, through
the computers, what would have happened had the test gone critical. And
the first test was extremely successful. They had 140 optical channels
to acquire data from the experiment, and they were able to get
information from 139 of those.
The reason those tests are important, I say to my friend from
Arkansas, is we have to manage the stockpile because it is continually
changing as it gets older. We have to look at some of the nuclear
materials that decay with time and need periodic replacement. Some of
the bonding materials that hold the components together, or in place,
change chemically over time and become less effective as bonding
agents. Some of the products of chemical change inside the weapon are
caustic and attack or corrode other materials and components. It's like
when you go to a drugstore and you go to the pharmacist and you order a
medication. Right now, many of the big drugstore chains are able to
determine if you are taking other medication that might interact with
the stuff that you are getting from the drugstore. Well, the same basic
function is performed here. We need to know what happens when these
chemicals react because this is one of the main aging effects that
might make the weapon unsafe or unreliable.
Some materials corrode from other effects, including exposure to the
atmosphere and to radioactivity that is unavoidable in these kinds of
terrible weapons of destruction.
So the safety and reliability of the stockpile will change with time.
Deterrence requires that we understand these processes and their
consequences far better now because the stockpile will never again be
tested under the new international agreements we have sponsored.
When I first came to the House of Representatives, one of the first
votes I cast was a very controversial vote for the Congressman from the
State of Nevada, and that was regarding the nuclear freeze. I voted for
that nuclear freeze when I was in the House of Representatives because
I believe the problem in the world today is not nuclear testing, it's
nuclear weapons; we have too many of them. The manager and I have
worked on a way of reasonably testing these weapons. I refer the
Senator from Arkansas, and everybody within the sound of my voice, to
the report filed with this bill. I am not going to read all of the
language in the report, but I am going to read a few things because I
think it answers many of the questions that the Senator propounded.
[[Page S7469]]
The second paragraph:
The mission of defense programs is to maintain the safety,
security, and reliability of the Nation's enduring nuclear
weapons stockpile within the constraints of a comprehensive
test ban, utilizing a science-based approach--
I repeat that: ``a science-based approach''
--to stockpile stewardship and management in a smaller, more
efficient weapons complex infrastructure. The future weapons
complex will rely on scientific understanding and expert
judgment, rather than on underground nuclear testing and the
development of new weapons, [We are not going to rely on that
anymore] to predict, identify, and correct problems affecting
the safety and reliability of the stockpile. Enhanced
environmental capabilities, and new tools in computation,
surveillance, and advanced manufacturing will become
necessary to certify weapon safety performance and
reliability without underground nuclear testing.
That is what this money is for:
Weapons will be maintained, modified, retired, and
dismantled as needed to meet arms control objectives or
remediate potential safety and reliability issues. As new
tools are developed and validated, they will be incorporated
into a smaller, more flexible and agile weapons complex
infrastructure for the future.
I think the Senator will agree that is a great goal for us to obtain:
The Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program is a
single, highly integrated technical program for maintaining
the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile in
an era without underground nuclear testing and without new
nuclear weapons development . . .
Skipping on, I say to my friend from Arkansas:
There are three primary goals of the Stockpile Stewardship
Management Program:
Reading from page 100 of our report:
(1) provide high confidence in the safety, security, and
reliability of the U.S. stockpile to ensure the continuing
effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent while
simultaneously supporting U.S. arms control and
nonproliferation policy;
(2) provide a small, affordable, and effective production
complex to provide component and weapon replacements when
needed, including limited lifetime components and tritium;
and (3) provide the ability to reconstitute U.S. nuclear
testing and weapon production capacities, consistent with
Presidential directives and the ``Nuclear Posture Review,''
should national security so demand in the future.
So I say to my friend from Arkansas, we are doing not only what is
required for national security but we are also following the directives
of the President of the United States. That is what is so sensitive
with the obligation that we have been given.
On this same page, skipping down to the bottom of another paragraph:
The President has also requested a new annual certification
process to certify that the stockpile is safe and reliable in
the absence of underground nuclear testing, and to produce a
statement about the future confidence in the safety and
reliability of the stockpile.
So that is what this is all about. There has to be a certification,
required by the President, that the stockpile is safe and reliable. It
is not easy. It takes money.
One of the programs that the Senator from Arkansas should be aware of
is that there is going to be a new National Ignition Facility built
that we talked about earlier today that will be the foundation for this
new science-based stockpile stewardship program.
It is expensive to do that. When underground nuclear testing stopped,
we had no idea that to build a facility like that would cost $1
billion. That is for brick and mortar. Work is beginning. The funding
of that is in this bill. It will be developed in the State of
California. We are appropriating about $187 million in this bill for
that program that we never anticipated would be constructed.
So what we are doing in this bill regarding our weapons systems, in
my opinion, I say to my friend from Arkansas, is a relatively small
amount compared to the Defense appropriations bill which we just
passed, but it is just as important, even though it involves a very,
very small amount of money compared to the Defense appropriations bill.
What we are doing here deals with weapons of mass destruction. It
doesn't deal with whether we are going to build an F-22, or a joint
strike fighter, or whether we are going to have an aircraft carrier. It
deals with weapons of mass destruction.
What this subcommittee has done within its best ability, and with the
best judgment we have, is we have come up with funding to provide the
President and this Nation with a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say to both the Senator from New
Mexico and to the Senator from Nevada, for whom I have the utmost
respect and friendship, that I do not disagree with very much of
anything either of them just got through saying. And they said it very
well. I would like to say to the Senator from Nevada that that was
indeed a courageous vote when he voted for the nuclear freeze,
particularly as the Senator from Nevada. It was a very courageous vote.
But, as he knows, correct votes around here are often very courageous.
Sometimes we lose Senators because they cast too many courageous votes.
It doesn't happen very often. Probably it ought to happen more often
than it does.
But, in any event, I compliment him on that. I have always been in
support of the nuclear freeze. I have been for 2\1/2\ years standing at
this desk back here talking about the insanity of the number of nuclear
weapons in both our stockpile and the Soviet Union's, now Russia's,
stockpile when both countries always had hundreds of times more weapons
than it would take to destroy the planet. So I have fought with some
small measure of success to bring some sanity to the whole thing.
I just close out by this question that, as I say, troubles me. And
the reason that I came over here to offer this amendment to this bill
which we are now debating, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, is
that it contains $4.302 billion for nuclear weapons, for weapons
activities, and the uses, which the Senators have described, to provide
for the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. Nobody would
question that for a moment. I mean we have enough problems about how we
are going to dispose of all of this stuff. That is one of hottest
debates we have had so far in the Senate: How we are going to get rid
of nuclear materials. But here we have a $4.302 billion bill. And this
is the thing that causes me some considerable concern: that it is $284
million above what the Senate authorizing committee just authorized
yesterday.
When I first came here, and up until recently, you could not
appropriate more money than the authorizing committee authorized. And
we are reaching the point where we don't need authorizing committees
anymore because we routinely exceed what they recommend.
So this bill is $284 million above the Senate authorized amount, $258
million more than the President recommended, $336 million more than the
House authorized, and $359 million more than the House Appropriations
Committee approved.
Here are three authorizations, plus the President's request. And the
President's request is supposed to reflect what DOD, the Defense
Department, wants. We don't separate the two. When we talk about the
President's request, we are speaking for the Defense Department. Here
we are appropriating $258 million more than the President and DOD asked
for.
So here we are $250 million-plus above everybody--the President, the
authorizing committee, the House authorizing committee, and the House
Appropriations Committee.
So I know the Senator can understand why that piqued my curiosity.
I would be delighted to yield the floor to the Senator, if he would
like to respond to that.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think maybe if the Senator from
Arkansas ever thought that bringing down an amendment or discussion
like this was futile, I believe this is the best explanation of what we
are doing in the Department of Energy with reference to nuclear
weapons. Maybe I have not been here for every discussion. But I think
he has pushed us to discuss things that should have been discussed
regularly, and more people should understand it. I can tell you that
everybody knows that I have a lot of this activity in my State. But I
am firmly convinced that we had better not come in on the short side of
dollar expenditures on this process which is going to end up --and this
ought to be dear to
[[Page S7470]]
the Senator from Arkansas because he is one of the leaders in trying to
stop the testing. But if we are going to keep these people who are in
charge of these laboratories able to certify that these weapons aren't
going to go awry, or become unsafe, or deteriorate, then we had better
not come on the short side of appropriating for their core staffers,
and for the equipment and science research that they need.
Frankly, I laud those experts within the Department of Defense,
Energy, and outsiders who came up with the substitute transition
approach to move from testing to this science-based stockpile
stewardship. But I can tell you from visiting the laboratories, talking
to the directors, and talking to the people in charge of the divisions
that are most contentious regarding having the right staff to do this
new job, I am convinced that they have one tough job.
Like I said to the Senator from Arkansas. I wish we could say we
don't have this arsenal to maintain. And the Senator knows we had more
than we needed. I think we have to say about our laboratories and their
responsibilities that they kept us in a state of readiness when nobody
dared to do anything. And I think we all agree with that. Thus, the
world has not had a nuclear device exploded intentionally to harm
people or things since the ones that happened in Japan. That is because
we had great laboratories with the greatest scientists we could put
together keeping us out there.
I think we must do the same on this transition in 5 to 10 years. I
worked very hard at this. I want to tell you that I don't believe that
we know yet whether this 4.32 is the right number.
And, in answer to the last inquiry, we are not finished. We have to
go through a House that has less. In answer to the question about the
defense authorization versus appropriations, they are not finished yet.
The House has different approaches. In fact, the Senator might have
asked why they appropriated less than was authorized in the previous
bill. That is because we are not through yet. There are disagreements.
But I thank the Senator for the dialog today. And I am very pleased
that I was able to contribute to it. I hope I was, and I thank the
Senator for his questions.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for both
managers of this bill, the chairman and ranking member.
Let me just say that the Senator brought this up. I deliberately did
not mention Sandia and Los Alamos and the fact that Nevada receives a
substantial part of this money because I don't really care where the
money is spent. This is an issue to me that transcends the parochial
interests of jobs. It is not that that isn't important to the Senator.
Of course it is. It is important to me when I am fighting for something
for my State. But, as I say, there is something here that transcends
that; that is, how much money we are spending on this.
I tell you that I share the Senator's concern for the same reasons
that the Senator stated. My only concern is whether or not we are
appropriating way too much money to accomplish what is, indeed, a very,
very legitimate end.
Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of the
additional funds provided to the Department of Energy for stockpile
stewardship and stockpile maintenance under this appropriation bill. I
do so both as someone who has followed nuclear weapons' issues for many
years and as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which has authorizing jurisdiction
over these funds.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, two
compelling points were made about these programs.
First, we are only beginning to learn how to certify the safety and
reliability of the stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. This
Spring was the first time that the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy jointly made this certification. This procedure is
now required by law to be completed each year. As time goes on and the
nuclear weapons stockpile continues to age, our ability to certify the
stockpile without testing will become more and more dependent on new
science and technology that will emerge from the stockpile stewardship
and stockpile management program. This conclusion was agreed to by all
concerned--by Assistant Secretary Vic Reis on behalf of the Department
of Energy and by General Habiger on behalf of the Strategic Command.
Second, there is considerable skepticism here in the Senate and in
the defense community that the science-based stockpile stewardship can
succeed over the long term. There are many who believe that the design
of nuclear weapons relies so much on art as opposed to science that we
will inevitably have to return to underground nuclear testing. I hope
that this is not true, and I believe that ending underground nuclear
testing is so important a policy objective that we must give science-
based stockpile stewardship every chance to succeed. While the
President shares this concern, it must also be recognized that his
budget request had to strike a balance on many different dimensions and
that even within the Department of Energy programmatic tradeoffs had to
be made. We received strong testimony in the Armed Services Committee
that the President's request was not adequate in a number of areas
receiving extra funds in this bill, and I think that there is a good
case to be made for keeping those funds in this bill.
For example, on the stockpile stewardship side, we had the following
testimony from the Director of the Sandia National Laboratories:
The costs of stockpile stewardship are not a linear
function of stockpile size. A threshold capability will be
needed to support the stockpile as long as it numbers in
thousands, especially with the sophistication and demand for
reliability that is associated with the systems on which
deterrence rests today. I believe that we are near that
threshold now, especially in light of the closures and
changes that have occurred in recent years.
I don't believe that we ought to be addressing the question of the
safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile by seeing how close we
can get to the threshold at which we can no longer certify the safety
and reliability of the stockpile.
Another Director of a nuclear weapons laboratory, Dr. Bruce Tartar of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, had this to say:
The greatest challenges [to stockpile stewardship] lie
ahead. The demands on the Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Program will grow as weapons in the enduring
stockpile continue to age. The U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile
is now older on average than it has ever been. And, the
reservoir of nuclear test and design experience at the
laboratories continues to diminish.
Further, on the stockpile management side, the DOE production plants
that make nonnuclear components for the enduring stockpile are in sorry
physical shape. Some 80 percent of the nonnuclear components in nuclear
weapons wear out and have to be replaced, during the lifetime of that
weapon. Thus, there is an important continuing role for the DOE
production plants in maintaining the enduring stockpile. The Armed
Services Committee received credible testimony that the President's
budget request was inadequate to do so. The budget request, for
example, would result in a budget shortfall for one plant alone, the
Kansas City plant, of nearly $56 million--$30 million for production
operations and $26 million for capital equipment and infrastructure
requirements. The president of the division of Allied Signal who is
responsible for the Kansas City plant had this to say before the Armed
Service Committee, in regard to the President's budget:
In my view, diminishing support for the production plants
would be extremely shortsighted and dangerous for the
complex. For plants to be effective members of the team, we
must have current and future capabilities to participate
fully . . . [Implementation of the programmatic environmental
impact statement for stockpile stewardship and management]
will require future funding to downsize the plants
physically, funding to recapitalize the plants so they are
able to function properly once they are fully downsized, and
adequate short-term funding to carry out production missions
for current requirements.
I believe that the additional funding in this bill is necessary and
appropriate, and I can assure the Senator
[[Page S7471]]
from Arkansas that as we go to conference on both this bill and the
Defense authorization bill, we will arrive at final totals for funds
authorized and appropriated that will result in the best possible, and
most cost-effective program for maintaining the safety and reliability
of the stockpile.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I just state that I think Senator Feingold is
ready to go with an amendment. Is that correct? Then we are working on
a list of amendments. We will have it momentarily on all of the other
amendments, most of which we think we have resolved.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 1004.
Amendment No. 868
Mr. FEINGOLD. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Brownback, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered
868.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 15, line 10, after ``appropriated'', insert the
following: ``Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior shall, not later than November 15, 1997, provide a
report to Congress on a revised project plan for the Animas-
LaPlata project that reduces the total cost of the program to
the Federal Government, limits the diversion of water from
the Animas River to an amount recommended by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and ensures the project will be
designed and implemented in the most cost-effective manner
for the federal government: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated in this or any prior act may be
expended for construction until a project has been authorized
at a date subsequent to the enactment of this appropriations
act''.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr.
Brownback] and the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. This
amendment is the product of negotiations of a number of Senators and
provides that none of the funds appropriated in this bill for the
Animas-La Plata project can be expended for construction until the
Secretary of Interior submits a report on a new scaled-down project
design and the new project is actually authorized by Congress at a date
subsequent to the date of the enactment of this bill.
Mr. President, what this amendment means is that we will stop and
evaluate what should be done before we spend more Federal dollars on
this project. As colleagues may recall from my statement last year on
this matter, the currently authorized Animas-La Plata project is a
taxpayer-funded water development project planned for southwest
Colorado and northwest New Mexico. The project is designed to supply
191,230 feet of water. The Animas-La Plata project consists of two
major reservoirs, 7 pumping plants and 20 miles of canals and pipes and
will pump water over 1,000 feet uphill, consuming enough power to run a
city of 60,000 people to supply municipal, industrial and irrigation
interests.
Last Tuesday, Mr. President, prior to the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee markup of the legislation that is before
this body, those who support the construction of the Animas-La Plata
project announced that they have developed what they believe to be a
cheaper and scaled-down alternative. The announcement of an alternative
sends a clear signal to this body. After 30 years and $71 million in
appropriations to date, the project costs of Animas-La Plata are too
great and there are too many lingering substantive questions to proceed
with the original design.
As I indicated during the discussion over the fiscal year 1997 energy
and water appropriations legislation, I do support the search for an
alternative to Animas-La Plata. In fact, legislation that I introduced
on March 13, 1997, cosponsored also by the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
Brownback] and also by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] and sponsored in the other body by my colleague
from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the Congressman from New York [Mr.
DeFazio], deauthorizes the current Animas-La Plata reclamation project
and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the Southern Ute
and Ute Mountain Ute tribes to find an alternative to satisfy their
water rights needs.
However, the taxpayers should not continue to be asked to sock money
away in Bureau of Reclamation construction accounts as a placeholder
for an option that has not yet fully been analyzed and authorized.
This new alternative by the proponents has not had a full cost
evaluation by the Department of Interior and, of greater concern to me,
requires statutory changes to be implemented that I think should be
reviewed by the authorizing committee in question.
It is the jurisdiction of this body's Energy Committee to determine
the benefits of a reclamation project, and it is the responsibility of
the Interior Department to make certain that the Federal Government's
legal responsibilities to the Ute tribes under any sort of an agreement
are met.
This revised project, which would be evaluated by the Department of
Interior under our amendment, at a minimum may require major changes to
several relevant laws and agreements. The 1986 Ute Settlement Agreement
may have to be renegotiated to reflect changes in water allocations
among parties to the agreement, particularly the reduced quantity of
water, changes in contract and repayment requirements and obligations
and changes in cost-sharing requirements. The 1988 Colorado Ute Indian
Water Rights Settlement Act may also need changes to conform to a new
agreement and new requirements.
Finally, the Water Supply Act of 1958 would need to be changed to
modify or waive current requirements that the beneficiaries of
municipal and industrial water repay the Federal Government for
construction costs with interest and pay for the Bureau of Reclamation
operations and maintenance costs that are attributable to the amount of
water they receive.
Let me make it clear, Mr. President, because we will be reauthorizing
this project at some date in the future, the language in this amendment
allows the Secretary to explore and recommend any appropriate
alternative, including nonstructural alternatives, in developing a
revised plan for submission to Congress.
These issues will all be assessed under the amendment we are offering
before any funds can be expended in the construction of a new project.
I think this is a responsible way to proceed, and I am pleased that so
many Members of the Senate have worked together toward this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold
amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, and associate myself with the
Senator's comments.
I would like to note first that the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Campbell], has done an outstanding job in representing his State in the
work he has done on this particular project, and I realize I come late
to this project and this proposal that he has worked on for a number of
years. But as a new Senator looking at it, I have some questions about
this particular project and this particular proposal, and that is why I
join in this amendment. I know it has gone on for some period of time,
and this has been a fight that has existed for some long period of
time. But I think there are some questions that need to be answered. I
think we have now started to take some of the tentative steps toward
resolving those issues.
No. 1, this ought to be scrutinized by the authorizing committee
rather than going through the appropriations process. That seems to be
the legitimate way to go for us. It should first and foremost proceed
through the authorizing committee, and this will give us a chance to
better develop an alternative plan.
There are significant environmental questions regarding the issue of
this particular project. Those have been in
[[Page S7472]]
existence for some period of time, and they are the product of a lot of
these studies that have been going on, and yet they still remain. There
is a great deal of division about the impact on the environment, the
impact on endangered species. That is why it seems to me, again, it is
wise to go back to the authorizing committee, to have an authorization
process to take place with this particular bill.
That is what this amendment does. It directs the Department of
Interior to take certain steps toward what will lead to a legally
binding agreement that will secure the tribes' water rights and will
enable us to make certain that our tax dollars are spent wisely and we
keep any environmental impacts small. So I agree with the Senator from
Wisconsin that while these are very difficult things to do because
there is a lot at stake in what various people want for their
particular States, for their particular areas, in looking at these
projects they may well at the end of the day prove to be very wise
projects. This one, I think, has proceeded in the wrong fashion. It
needs to go back to the authorizing committee. I think the amendment we
have put forward here has some strong bipartisan support. It is a
sensible project. It does not kill the project. It simply says let us
go back and take it through the right and appropriate steps. I think
that is prudent in answering the difficult questions that exist.
So I rise in support of this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of this amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair. I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. President, in the years I have been in the Senate, what has
always interested me is the history of these desks. If you open these
desks, as many of my colleagues have and most people who are students
of history of the Senate know, inside the drawer literally every
Senator who has served in the Senate has signed his name and noted the
State from which he came. I often wonder, when I read the names of
those Senators in the drawers and the little accompanying booklet that
goes with it, how they voted on issues that affected the American
Indian.
In this particular desk, we will probably not know without extensive
research how Senator Townsend or Senator Kean or Senator Goldsborough
or Senator Brown or Senator Case or Senator Duff, to mention just a few
who have used this desk, voted on American Indian issues. But during
the days when ``Manifest Destiny'' was the national watchword, I wonder
if they voted with the pack to take away the last remaining land and
water possessions and freedom of the American Indian, or did at least a
few show courage and stand up for fairness by protecting a people who
could no longer defend themselves. I wonder, did they subscribe to
Abraham Lincoln's creed that ``all men are created equal,'' or was the
jingo of Andrew Jackson's day, ``The only good Indian is a dead
Indian,'' their guiding principle?
Today, I stand at the desk of my friend and colleague, Senator Pete
Domenici, from New Mexico, who is managing this bill on the majority
side. Senator Domenici is known nationwide in Indian country for his
fairness and leadership in making sure that the lives of the American
Indians are just a little better. And to my left, Senator Reid of
Nevada, who is managing for the minority side, has the same reputation.
I am very gratified that they are here in the Chamber with us today. I
am hopeful that the attitude exemplified by these two outstanding
senators, the new enlightened attitude, marks a change for the entire
senate from that attitude of those forgotten Senators whom I mentioned
earlier and upon which they made their decision concerning the first
Americans.
We do not intentionally kill Indians with bullets or disease anymore.
But it seems clear that some of our brothers still want to kill their
livelihood, kill their opportunity, kill their future, kill their
culture, and kill their natural resources that we promised them in
every one of the 472 treaties that we then broke as an arm of the U.S.
Government. And, by the way, Mr. President, American Indians broke none
of them.
I guess what amazes me the most about those who advocate taking away
what little American Indians have left are often Senators who neither
have the institutional memory of the 1968 authorizing act of the
Animas-La Plata or the 1988 bill that I carried 10 years ago which
implemented a compromise agreement that was signed into law and has
been supported by every President since 1988. These Senators are often
ones who have never even seen an Indian reservation.
To them, I would say go out and spend some time in an Indian
community that has a 75-percent unemployment rate, as one reservation
in Senator Reid's State, in Owyhee, NV, does have. Speak to families
whose children have dropped out of school and then committed suicide as
an escape from a hopeless, dark future.
One out of every two teenage girls and one out of every three teenage
boys try suicide in their teenage years in some reservations. This is
not a Third World country I am speaking about. It is a daily experience
for many American Indians in this, the greatest country on the face of
the Earth.
Go out and speak to the social workers inundated with problems of a
depressed culture and little resources to help. Listen to the
frustrated tribal council members who try to cope with fetal alcohol
syndrome, a rate so bad that on some reservations one out of every four
Indian babies born suffers from some degree of fetal alcohol syndrome,
some to such a degree that they have to be institutionalized for life
at the taxpayer's expense.
All of those problems, Mr. President, were inherited as side effects
of what was called ``westward expansion,'' and the ensuing lack of
opportunity continues to this day. I would tell my colleagues to go out
there and experience hunger and sickness that is a daily experience for
all too many American Indians. And then come back here to this floor
and tell their colleagues how we do not owe Indians anything. But do
not tell us that you are doing it in their best interest or in the
interest of saving taxpayers' money.
Mr. President, all they have to do is look at the amount we spend now
in Federal programs, about $1.5 billion through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs last year and about $2 billion through the Indian Health
Service. Almost all of it is to help a people who have become dependent
on Federal programs through no cause of their own.
We will soon debate in this Chamber, Mr. President, the expansion of
NATO and the billions of dollars that expansion will cost the American
taxpayer, and as sure as I am standing here, some on this floor will
support that expenditure of all those billions and still vote to take
away the last best chance for economic independence for the Southern
Utes and the Ute Mountain Utes right here in my State of Colorado.
When we speak of spending taxpayers' money, where is it written that
all those billions that go to foreign countries are justified when we
cannot find a pittance to help American Indians?
The Animas-La Plata is an agreement that must be honored. Not only
did the tribes agree to the project but the States of Colorado and New
Mexico did, too, a number of water conservancy districts did, and nine
Federal agencies all agreed to the compromise of 1988. We are now being
asked to compromise a compromise of the original 1968 authorization.
Congress approved the settlement agreement in the Colorado Ute Indian
Water Settlement Act of 1988 and President Reagan signed it into Public
Law, and it has been supported by every President since.
The only thing we are asking in this appropriations bill is what the
President has in his budget. Too many people are dependent on this
project, both Indian and non-Indian, to simply disregard it. Anyone
from the American West can tell you, and particularly the American
Indian, water is life. Water is the lifeblood of our future. This
settlement fulfills the rights of tribes for water on the reservation.
It settles disputes and removes causes for future litigation. It
secures the tribes' opportunity to generate revenue from the use of
reserve rights obtained under the agreement and authorizes them to sell
or exchange or lease some of their water.
Construction of the Animas-La Plata water project is essential to
that settlement. If the project is not completed
[[Page S7473]]
by the year 2000--and it is highly likely it may not be now, since the
agreement was 1988 and the agreement stipulated they would start
construction by 1990 and we are already behind by 7 years--the tribes
have the option to go back to court to pursue their original claims in
both the Animas and La Plata Rivers. Their victory in court would be
certain and would trigger years of costly litigation among the United
States, the State of Colorado, and water right holders throughout the
region, wreaking havoc on the economies and water administration in
Colorado.
I might also point out that when we get into that expensive
litigation at taxpayers' expense, it is going to be one Federal agency
suing the other Federal agency, because the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
responsible for protecting the Indian people, as you know. They will be
suing the Bureau of Reclamation for noncompliance. Guess who pays for
the expensive attorneys on both sides of the equation?
The Supreme Court has held, in Winters versus the United States, that
the United States, if the United States enters into a treaty with an
Indian tribe creating a reservation, it impliedly reserves sufficient
water to irrigate the reservation lands. Based on that doctrine, which
mandates that Indian tribes get water, not money, the United States in
1976 filed reserved water right claims on behalf of both tribes. These
reserved water rights would have preempted the vested water rights of
non-Indian water users in the San Juan River Basin, drying up family
farms and ranches that have existed in that area for years and years.
You can imagine how the non-Indian people feel about tribes going
back to court and exerting their rights. They have these priority
rights because they were there first, and they rarely lose in courts.
The Indian tribes do not want to go back to court. Their neighbors do
not want them to go back in court. They, instead, chose to settle, and
that is what the 1988 agreement was about. It is just lucky, I think,
for the majority of the people in our area that the Ute Indians
continue to give in the same generous spirit that they once gave their
land and lives to build this great Nation.
In looking at the Feingold amendment, it is simply divided into two
parts. The first part is a diversion and the second part is a killer.
Mr. President, let's not add to the dismal record of our treatment of
the American Indians. Let's do the right thing and defeat the Feingold
amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I move to table the Feingold amendment.
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.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the motion to table takes no debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is a nondebatable motion.
It takes unanimous consent to proceed.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
tabling motion at this time in order to address this issue. I believe
the other Senator from Colorado wishes to address the issue as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no objection.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent I and the Senator from Colorado
be allowed to address this amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin
prior to the tabling motion.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico without losing my
right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time might you need, Senator? As much as you
want, but let's agree to it.
Mr. McCAIN. I will need 7 minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. I can keep my remarks brief and then submit my full
comments for the Record. If I can have a couple of minutes, that will
be sufficient.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent we proceed in the following
manner: The tabling motion be set aside so Senator McCain can speak for
up to 10 minutes, Senator Allard for 10 minutes, and the Senator from
New Mexico up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Let me first of all start out by expressing my admiration
and respect for the Senator from Colorado, Senator Campbell. If there
is any voice that is needed on behalf of native Americans in this body,
it is that of Senator Campbell. Senator Campbell has the understanding,
the compassion, and, frankly, the credibility that no one else in this
body has concerning native American issues, along with others.
His advocacy for native Americans is something that has earned, not
only the respect of his colleagues here, but the respect and
appreciation of millions of Americans both Indian and non-Indian alike.
I believe this amendment satisfies the concerns of native Americans
on this issue and at the same time reduces the costs rather
dramatically. I believe it is a workable compromise that, hopefully,
will prevent us from revisiting this issue year after year. I remind my
colleagues, the original proposal by the Senator from Wisconsin,
Senator Feingold, was to do away with all funding for this project.
This is a significant step backward from that position and one that I
hope we can support.
This amendment retains the $6 million currently in the bill for
continuing negotiations and environmental assessments required for the
Animas-La Plata project. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to
report to Congress on a reduced, scaled-down plan for the project which
would have reduced costs for the Federal Government. Finally, the
amendment prohibits the use of any funds for construction of the
project until authorization is provided for a new project.
This is necessary because there are many legitimate concerns for the
plan for the Animas-La Plata project. It's very expensive: $750
million. It includes some issues that raise serious environmental
concerns which need to be addressed. Yet, we need to resolve this
legitimate water rights claim for the Ute Tribes in Colorado and New
Mexico. They need to be resolved, I have no doubt. I point out, without
those water rights being resolved, then we will be, as the Senator from
Colorado so graphically described, abrogating our responsibilities by
solemn treaty to the Ute Tribes. This amendment will preserve the
funding necessary to go forward with environmental assessments and
negotiations necessary to conclude a revised, scaled-down project plan.
Without such an agreement and without a much more fiscally responsible
plan, the United States could be liable for hundreds of millions of
dollars to settle these water rights claims.
I want to point out that the Indians are part of this proposal that
is embodied in this amendment. The parties principally concerned,
including the Indians, with resolving this plan announced on July 8,
1997, a new plan that would save the taxpayers over $400 million and
reduce the environmental impact of the project while maintaining our
treaty commitments with the Ute Tribes. I want to point out that the
Ute Tribes' opinion on this issue is that we would maintain our treaty
commitments to those tribes.
This plan would save a great deal of money. The previous plan would
have cost almost $750 million while the new plan is estimated to cost
about $290 million--a savings of $460 million. The new plan reduces the
Federal share of the project's cost, $257 million, and requires $33
million in State and local cost sharing. The plan will resolve
legitimate water rights claims without costly litigation. It complies
with the spirit of the 1988 Colorado Indian Water Rights Settlement Act
and will honor a 130-year-old treaty commitment to the Ute Tribes. The
two Ute Tribes have accepted this plan as a final settlement of their
water rights claims. The new, scaled-down plan significantly reduces
the environmental impact of Animas-La Plata. Water flow diverted from
the Animas River will be limited to 14.5 percent of the river's average
annual flow, which is slightly more than half the diversion under the
original plan. The new plan includes a proposal to protect endangered
fish in the Animas
[[Page S7474]]
River system, which has been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. A dam on the Animas River will not be necessary because the
new plan does not include diversion of water for irrigation facilities.
The new plan redirects the project to provide maximum benefit to the
Ute Tribes.
The plan ensures that tribes will receive two-thirds of the water
diverted from the Animas River. The previous plans guaranteed large
amounts of water to local agricultural interests rather than Indians.
The new plan is fully supported by the tribal, State and local
governments most directly affected by the Animas-La Plata project.
Mr. President, I am pleased when diverse groups, including tribes,
State governments and local communities, get together to solve common
problems. I think the revised plan recently announced by the interested
parties should be seriously considered by everyone concerned.
In the meantime, I believe we should proceed with the environmental
assessments and necessary discussions to ensure the most fiscally
responsible plan will be developed to meet the U.S. treaty obligations
and finalize a cost-effective plan for this project.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will ensure
that we move forward in a timely fashion with a cost-effective, fair,
and supportable Animas-La Plata project.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield for a question by the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. My question, first of all, is have you visited with
leaders of the two tribes today, Senator?
Mr. McCAIN. In response to the question, I have not visited with the
leaders of the two tribes today. I have been briefed on the proposal
that has the signatures of the tribal membership's leaders is on it.
That was briefed to a number of people, including members of my staff.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate that. Then I would like to make the record
clear, Mr. President, that I have met with the tribal representatives
today, and they are absolutely opposed to this amendment. They have
``an alternative proposal,'' but if it should be looked at, it should
be done fully through the authorizing committee as a bill, open to
public hearings, and not put into an appropriations bill where no one
has the time to read it. I haven't even read the proposal myself, and I
live there.
So there will be no mistake, the tribes today, as of today, said they
oppose this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment
is based on a proposal brought forward, not only by the tribes, but
also the local authorities who are affected by the project. I certainly
do not dispute the word of the Senator from Colorado. If he has that
information, I hope he will supply the letter for the Record. I am sure
he will be able to do that.
I think this proposal was brought forward in recognition that the
entire Animas-La Plata project, because of the incredibly high-cost
associated with it, was in significant danger. The project almost was
defunded last year, in a very close vote here in the Senate. It was my
belief, and remains my belief, that the Feingold amendment is a
compromise that seeks to continue the funding and at the same time
scale down the project and take into consideration the environmental
concerns and also comply with our treaty commitments to the Ute Tribes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope I am clear in my respect for the
Senator from Colorado. But I also hope I am clear that never at any
time have I ever supported a measure that would be in violation of the
solemn treaty commitments that we have made. It is my understanding
that this amendment is in full compliance with the treaty commitments
that have been made concerning the water rights of the Ute Tribes.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the Senator would yield for a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 1 minute 20
seconds left. He can yield to whomever he wishes.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, with that, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record a letter signed by Chairman Judy Knight
Frank, the chair of the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe and Chairman
Clement Frost, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, July 15, 1997, which opposes
this amendment.
If the Senator did not get a copy of this, I apologize for that. But
I will be happy to share this with him and have that in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
July 15, 1997.
Members of the U.S. Senate,
The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Members: Construction of Phase I of the Animas-La
Plata project is a requirement for the completion of the
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, and we
continue to seek fulfillment of that Act. Controversy has
delayed construction of the project, even those facilities
approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1991 and
directed by Congress in its FY 1996 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill to be built without delay.
We have tried, in every venue including a process
established last year by the State of Colorado and the
Department of the Interior, to address those controversies in
a responsible way, but in a way which fulfills the intent of
the Settlement--providing us with the water promised our
people in 1868 to meet our present and future needs.
We support Senator Campbell and Senator Domenici's
continuing efforts to ensure that the federal government
lives up to its obligations and trust responsibilities
identified in the 1988 Act. Of utmost importance to us is the
prompt construction of facilities which will protect that
water for the Tribes, and those facilities have been
authorized, analyzed and approved in many jurisdictions,
including the United States Congress. Funding for the
continued effort to build these facilities, making a stride
toward fulfillment of the Settlement Act of 1988, is
absolutely necessary.
Judy Knight Frank,
Chair, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe.
Clement Frost,
Chair, Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget
Committee, Senator Domenici, for his fine work. I would like to
recognize the tremendous work that my colleague and fellow Senator from
Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, has done on behalf of native
Americans.
I rise in opposition to the Feingold amendment. I rise today to offer
my support for the Animas-La Plata project.
This issue has been very contentious for a very long time. While the
proponents of the amendment are well-intentioned, they are also very
poorly informed. I can think back, maybe 3 or 4, maybe 6 months ago,
when there was some activism within America, saying we ought to
apologize to native Americans. If we are really concerned about what
happens to native Americans, we ought to first look at keeping our
word, keeping those treaties which we have signed.
The 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act recognized
the legitimate water rights claims established by treaty, way back to
1868, and again promised the Ute Indian Tribes a permanent, reliable
water source to meet their present and future needs. These are rightful
water rights that have been affirmed by the Supreme Court and ratified
by Congress. The Animas-La Plata project, the foundation for this
settlement, would divert a portion of the annual runoff from the Animas
River into an off-stream reservoir, rather than damming the river and
flooding the river valley. This project fulfills an obligation that we
have to the Indian tribes that we should not forsake. This is a treaty
obligation. That is what those who favor elimination would like
everyone to overlook.
The Rocky Mountain News, a major paper in the Rocky Mountain region,
in an editorial published last week, made this point very well when
they wrote of the opponents to this project:
They will do anything, it seems, to achieve their goal of
seeing the United States break another agreement with Indian
tribes.
As the Ute Tribe stated recently, we only ask that Congress, which
promised the two tribes adequate water supply when they placed us on a
reservation over a century ago and agreed to a full-size Animas-La
Plata in 1988, be fair with us now and support a reduced facility and
settlement.
[[Page S7475]]
What opponents of this project don't understand is that in the West,
unless we have a facility to store water, we cannot really settle the
water claims of the Indians. What happens if we don't fund this
project? The tribes will sue, and instead of living up to our
agreements, we will see litigation, and I don't think that is where we
want to be going.
But the issue here is bigger than just another project. The issue
here deals with not breaking another treaty with another tribe.
I yield time to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I forgot to have printed in the Record
earlier in my comments two editorials from our State's two major
newspapers: one from the Rocky Mountain News dated Thursday, July 10,
the headline saying: ``The Utes' Generous Offer.'' It is an editorial
dealing with how fair and understanding and conciliatory the Utes have
been in the whole question of building this project. The other
editorial I would like to have printed in the Record is from the Denver
Post, which is our State's largest newspaper, and the headline is very
simply: ``Double-crossing the Utes.''
Let me read one paragraph from that very strong editorial:
The real question now is simply: How many times do Animas-
La Plata opponents think they can double-cross the Utes?
When the Utes asked for a $714 million project, opponents
said a $264 million project would do. When the Utes offered
to accept a $257 million project, the opponents then dangled
the vague hope of a $167 million handout. If Animas-La Plata
opponents now succeed in killing even the Utes' own scaled-
down plan, would they really have any incentive to keep even
that promise?
The answer is no.
I ask unanimous consent to have these two editorials printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
Double-Crossing the Utes
On Oct. 11, 1995, foes of the Animas-La Plata water
project, led by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, released
with great fanfare an engineering study claiming that a
smaller version of the project would fufill most of its goals
at a cost of just $264 million--barely a third of the $714
million cost of the full project.
Leaders of the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes
reacted warily, suspecting that the supposed alternative was
a diversionary tactic intended to stall A-LP until it could
be killed entirely.
Guess what? The Utes were right.
The proof came last week when A-LP supporters unveiled
their own version of a downsized project--with a federal
price tag of just $257 million, $7 million less than
environmentalists supposedly were willing to accept in 1995.
Just as the Utes had feared, the project's foes reacted with
a furious attack on a plan very close to what the opponents
themselves proposed in 1995.
While tribal elections have consistently shown that the
great majority of Utes support A-LP, a small dissident group
led by Sage Remington opposes the project. Remington was on
hand last week to tout yet another supposed ``compromise'':
asking Congress to give the Utes $167 million to buy land and
water rights if and when they become available.
Ute Mountain Ute Chairman Judy Knight Frank and Southern
Ute Chairman Ray Frost have firmly rejected such a cash
handout. The Utes don't need money to buy more water rights.
To convert the theoretical rights they already own to
reality, the tribes need a reservoir to store the water so
they can use it when they need it.
The real question now is simply: How many times do A-LP
opponents think they can double-cross the Utes?
When the Utes asked for a $714 million project, opponents
said a $264 million project would do. When the Utes offered
to accept a $257 million project, the opponents dangled the
vague hope of a $167 million handout. If A-LP opponents now
succeed in killing even the Utes' own scaled-down plan, would
they really have any incentive to keep even that promise?
Chairman Frost had an answer to that question last week,
based on the Indian people's long and sorry history of being
cheated out of their land and water.
``They'd probably give us $24. That's what they paid for
Manhattan.''
____
[From the Rocky Mountain News, July 10, 1997]
The Utes' Generous Offer
Critics are lining up already to denounce the latest,
scaled-back version of the Animas-La Plata water project in
southwestern Colorado, announced this week in the nation's
capital. They will do anything, it seems, to achieve their
goal of seeing the United States break another agreement with
Indian tribes.
Such stubbornness was to be expected. Still, this week's
initiative by the two tribes--the Ute Mountain Utes and the
Southern Utes--should at least put their antagonists
temporarily on the defensive. After all, for years those
critics have complained that a majority of the water from
Animas-La Plata would go to non-Indian users. With this new
proposal, that is no longer true. In fact, the tribes would
get two-thirds of the water.
For years the critics have also worried about the effect of
the project on endangered species. Now the tribes wish to
take only the amount from the Animas river--57,000 acre-
feet--that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said could
be withdrawn without harming two endangered fish species.
Why does none of this sway the coalition that opposes
Animas-La Plata? Because they believe the project is an
example of ``corporate welfare'' and an old-style federal
water scheme that fails any reasonable economic test. Whether
Animas-La Plata costs $680 million in federal revenue (the
previous version) or $257 million (under the latest scheme)
doesn't really matter. They're against it, and that's that.
We might oppose Animas-La Plata as well, save for the fact
that the two tribes are involved. Like it or not, they happen
to possess agreements from federal and state officials--
including a previous U.S. president--promising them that
Animas-La Plata would be built to fulfill their historic
water rights.
Pledges of that nature might not mean much to a single-
minded coalition battling corporate welfare, but it should
mean something fairly profound to most of the rest of us.
After all, double-crossing Indian tribes is a habit that
government was supposed to have outgrown. And just because
the tribes might be able to obtain enough water through
another means is irrelevant. They have not chosen another
means. They have chosen the Animas La-Plata project and the
government of the United States has promised them they could
have it.
Now those tribes have scaled their ambitions back--again--
and would like to see others meet them halfway.
They shouldn't hold their breath.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Idaho, Senator
Craig.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Idaho.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that
Kristine Svinicki on my staff be allowed the privilege of the floor for
the remainder of the consideration of S. 1004, the energy and water
development appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in 1988, I helped my colleague from
Colorado, Senator Campbell, develop and pass the Colorado Ute Water
Settlement Act. It was fair and responsible at that time to deal with a
dispute that could only be dealt with in the nature that we solved it
with this legislation.
From that point to now, there has been discussion and dispute and a
substantial scaling down of this project. In the high deserts of the
West, water is everything. If my colleague from Wisconsin lived in the
deserts of the West, he would be scrambling to secure water for his
people. He doesn't live there. He doesn't understand the importance of
this very, very critical water issue.
This is a balanced compromise with all parties sharing. These
Indians, these native Americans without water can find it very, very
difficult to eke out an existence, whereas, with water, they have an
opportunity with agriculture to prosper and develop their lands. That
is what this issue is all about.
Let us keep our word and our promise. Let us develop an understanding
that when we, from the West, come to our colleagues asking for the
development of water in the high deserts, that we work cooperatively
with them to do so, as we worked with our colleagues from the upper
Midwest to secure flood control and those kinds of things where they
have an abundance of water and we have little to no water.
This is the important issue. I hope the amendment will be rejected by
the Senate, recognizing the promises and the commitments made and the
kind of cooperative relationship we have with all of our colleagues,
where one has an abundance of water; in this instance, we have little
to no water. Therefore, to secure, to maintain, to ensure an
environment, to actually increase the abundance of wildlife, one must
catch and store the water when it is available, and that is what this
is all about. Not only for resource use, for environmental reasons, but
most assuredly to enhance the ability of native Americans in this
instance to improve their
[[Page S7476]]
lot and to gain what is responsibly and rightfully theirs.
So I hope that my colleagues will reject this amendment and get on
with the commitment we made in 1988 for this very important water
project.
Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reiterate that it is more than just
apologizing to the native Americans in this instance, it is keeping our
word, it is keeping our agreement, a treaty with the native Americans.
Again, I think we ought to stand by the side of my Senator from
Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, in fighting this amendment,
and support him in his efforts in trying to provide a better life for
his people and the native Americans in southwestern Colorado.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I use my 10 minutes or allocate
it to somebody, I would like to propose a unanimous-consent request
that has been cleared on the other side. Let me read it and read the
amendments that are listed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only
remaining first-degree amendments in order to S. 1004 and they be
subject to relevant second-degree amendments:
Feingold-Brownback amendment No. 868;
Torricelli-Lautenberg amendment on Green Brook;
Kempthorne amendment on fish friendly turbines;
Bumpers amendment on 10-mile bayou;
Levin amendment on Great Lakes basin;
Biden amendment on Dewey-Rehoboth Beach;
Biden amendment on St. George's Bridge;
Daschle-Johnson amendment on Crow Creek rural;
Murkowski amendment on DOE external regulation;
Dorgan-Conrad amendment on Devils Lake;
Burns amendment on hydrogen R&D;
Shelby amendment on Lake Tholocco Dam;
Bond relevant amendment;
Managers' amendment;
Moseley-Braun amendment on McCook Reservoir; and the
Dorgan relevant amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that
following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, S. 1004 be
read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the
bill; further, when the Senate receives the House companion measure,
the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration. I further ask
unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and
the text of the Senate bill, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof,
and the bill be read a third time and passed. I further ask that the
Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senate for accommodating me. Might I say,
of the nine or so amendments, I believe six will be resolved at least
by mutual agreement between sides, so we will not have much left.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say, I do not believe the Senator
from Wisconsin has any time. Tabling the amendment would be up. Is the
Senator desirous of speaking?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
speak for 1 minute on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator has 1 minute to speak on his amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to clarify that the comments of
the Senator from Idaho made great focus on the fact I am not from the
West. The fact is, Senator John McCain is a cosponsor of this
amendment, supports and believes it is reasonable and has a great
familiarity with the concerns of the West.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I also want to make one thing clear. In contrast to the
Senator from Colorado, this amendment provides for the authorizing
committee to act on a revised project plan. It does not put into effect
the alternative plan. It does not prejudge what the project will look
like. It allows full public hearings before Congress acts. It does not
strike any funds, it simply says the funds in the bill cannot be
expended for construction of a new project until it is authorized. I
just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I have 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me tell the Senator from Wisconsin, it
is not my intent to impugn his integrity. I am simply saying when you
live in a State with an abundance of water, your feelings about water
are different. My colleague's State of Arizona is abundant with water
today as a desert because this Congress saw fit to pour hundreds of
millions of dollars into water development in his State, and his State
is the great beneficiary of those programs today.
Whether you agree or disagree, the reality is, Arizonans know how to
allocate water resources most effectively. But the Ute Indians have not
had that opportunity, and I am simply saying that when you are in a
high desert, you recognize that if human life is to exist, it exists
only in the presence of water.
I think my colleague understands that, but having been born and
raised in the high deserts of the West, I think there is an
understanding and appreciation that is sometimes difficult to convey,
and that was my intent.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for all Senators, I don't know what
their evening schedule is, but I have not been told to create any
window. We are going to vote in about 10 minutes on the motion to table
the Animas-La Plata amendment offered by Senator Feingold.
Mr. President, if I thought this amendment offered by Senator
Feingold and the distinguished occupant of the chair would, in fact,
keep alive the Animas-La Plata project in a manner that had a
reasonable chance of succeeding, I would be over here asking my friend
from Arizona to go find our Indian leaders and let's go out in the hall
and agree to it.
I am not talking about anybody's intent, but I am telling the Senate
that if this amendment becomes law, I do not believe the project has a
chance of going anywhere.
The Secretary of the Interior is given broad latitude by this
amendment to make decisions about the project which I don't believe the
U.S. Congress should give him for a project as controversial and
subject to pressure as this one. I make no reference to him personally
or his abilities as Secretary, but I just don't believe that we can
tell the Indian people that allowing Secretary Babbitt to decide what
will be a cost-effective way of completing the project--that is one
item in the amendment--will ever work.
The amendment states that the Secretary shall come up with a project
that limits the diversion of Animas-La Plata as recommended by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; let me say that number is about 57,000 acre-
feet annually. That is what the number ought to be; not a new number
proposed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, because they have already agreed to
57,000 acre-feet. I don't want Fish and Wildlife in 2 or 3 years taking
yet another look and then changing what they think ought to be
diverted.
This project is controversial because it costs money and it is giving
water to Indian people who have been denied their legitimate water
rights. I believe Ute tribes have a very good case to make that the
U.S. Government has denied them promised water rights,
[[Page S7477]]
and this project is a solution to getting the Utes wet water and
avoiding costly litigation.
I do not believe we ought to allow this amendment which permits the
Secretary of the Interior or anyone other than Congress to decide the
fate of the project. That is my feeling, I say to Senator Campbell, and
I believe what we have done--so the Senate will understand, the Senate
Appropriations Committee put in this bill precisely the amount of money
that the President of the United States asked for. No more, no less.
With this appropriation, development of this project, I believe
rightly so, will be able to proceed in an orderly manner. This
amendment allows the Secretary of the Interior to define this project.
Nobody else has mentioned the Secretary of the Interior's role in this
amendment, but I think if you read it carefully, it gives him all kinds
of authority to decide the fate of this project. The Secretary already
has delegated much of that authority to the Governor and Lieutenant
Governor of Colorado to have meetings with the interested parties to
see if they can resolve the issue. I just do not believe this amendment
furthers the goal of getting the Indians their water.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I point out, it was the Fish and Wildlife Department
that has thrown so many roadblocks in front of the Animas-La Plata
already under the guise of the Endangered Species Act, as you know.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I do not want to go back over all
the problems that we have had with eight or nine departments of the
Government fighting against each other with regard to this project, but
the Senator is correct.
But I do want to say, for anybody who is listening, the Senator from
Colorado--who occupies my seat; he just said that a while ago while I
am here in this one--has said it right.
We ought to solve this problem and give to these two Indian tribes
what they deserve; promised water. They have been most patient, most
willing to compromise in a realistic way.
I add just parenthetically that my little State has been waiting
forever for about 20,000 acre feet of water that they are entitled to
under the project. That is a lot for that part of New Mexico.
I do not want to sit by and watch those rights be subject to anyone
other than the U.S. Congress' determination on how we ought to proceed
in getting this project completed. I believe in due course we can
satisfy our obligations to the Utes and other water users because a lot
of new ground has been turned; new agreements are being worked out
between many water users in that four-corners region.
The opponents to the project have attended these meetings in the
negotiation process; I hope a number of you who are proposing this
amendment do not necessarily agree with all of those who oppose this
project. Some opponents find reason to oppose it once a month, maybe.
Maybe in some cases they have found three or four reasons a month, and
they rest a while and then they found six or eight more reasons to
oppose this project in 6 months' time. There are those who will oppose
any project, no matter how worthy.
In any event, I yield back the remainder of my time.
I understand the yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to
table. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and
the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Bryan
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--42
Biden
Boxer
Brownback
Bumpers
Byrd
Collins
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Burns
Chafee
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 868) was agreed to.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the
energy and water appropriations bill and specifically for funding for
the McCall, ID, wastewater treatment facility. I would like to thank
Senator Domenici for including funding for this important project in
the bill and Senator Craig for his support and leadership on this issue
in the committee.
Cascade Reservoir is a federally owned facility located downstream of
the city of McCall on the north fork of the Payette River, and is the
second most used recreation site in the State of Idaho. The community
is currently operating with a wastewater treatment plant that ranges
from inadequate to dangerous. Water flowing into the Cascade Reservoir
in Valley County, ID, has reached a dangerous level of phosphorus and
algae. This level is much higher than what is considered healthy for
both human recreation and sustaining wildlife. The plant must be
upgraded, but the community needs Federal money to do it.
The most recent data indicates that high phosphorus contributions
from the surrounding watershed have caused and will continue to cause
significant deterioration of water quality in the reservoir. The
situation is so bad in Cascade Reservoir that at one point, in 1994,
fish were dying at a rate that was too fast for fish and game
inspectors to count. The fish died because of the high water
temperatures and low oxygen levels in the water caused by dramatic
algae growth. In 1993, a severe outbreak of toxic blue-green algae
caused the death of 23 cattle after they drank water from the
reservoir. A public health advisory was issued advising the public to
avoid contact with the reservoir.
The city of McCall is using an innovative approach to solving the
dual problem of poor wastewater management and lack of irrigation water
in the area. Wastewater from the facility will be used to provide much
needed irrigation water to local farmers. The treated wastewater will
provide phosphorus and nitrogen which are ordinary elements of
fertilizer. This will reduce the need for farms to use chemical
fertilizers, while at the same time cleaning up the reservoir.
This program is a prime example of how different levels of government
can cooperate to benefit both the community and the environment. The
cost of the project will be shared by the Idaho State Legislature, the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the city of McCall, and the
local irrigation district.
Cascade Reservoir is a major recreation facility for the largest
population base in the State of Idaho. Without this Federal assistance,
quality of human life and survival of wildlife will be significantly
impacted. In short, the $2.5 million for the McCall Wastewater
Treatment Facility is crucial to Idaho.
I am pleased that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
recognized the urgency of this project and included an appropriation
that will allow McCall to once again enjoy a clean and safe wastewater
system.
WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to note that the passage of the
energy
[[Page S7478]]
and water appropriations bill brings us one step closer to the
completion of the West Valley demonstration project in western New
York. In 1982 we authorized the West Valley demonstration project, in
which we would learn to take liquid nuclear waste and mix it with
glass. The process is called vitrification, and yields ten foot high
glass logs that can be stored safely. After 14 years of preparation,
research, and testing, vitrification began last July. On May 28 the
100th glass log was produced.
The success of the vitrification process developed at West Valley and
at Savannah River in Georgia led the Department of Energy to select it
as the preferred method of disposal for such wastes. This is an
accomplishment that the many hundreds of people in western New York who
worked on the project can be most proud of.
They have another 110 logs to go at West Valley, but the method
works. Through fiscal year 1997 we have spent $1.2 billion on the
project. The final amount in the bill for next year has not been
determined, but it will it will bring the total over $1.3 billion. This
has been money well spent, and will continue to be. We have learned to
dispose of one type of hazardous waste, and can dispose of others with
the vitrification process.
Jeffords/Bryan Amendment to S. 1004
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
amendment offered by Senators Jeffords and Bryan to bring solar and
renewable energy funding levels closer to the administration request
than was provided in the Appropriations Committee's bill. And, to
clarify the importance of continuing Department of Energy support for
solar thermal energy dish/engine systems.
The committee report proposes to disallow the continued deployment of
additional dish/engine systems. Such a prohibition would stifle some
very promising environmental technology and most probably break a cost-
sharing agreement between the Department and Stirling Thermal Motors of
Ann Arbor, MI. And, the language unfairly singles out solar dish/engine
systems for elimination, even though competing and funded technologies
are more mature and nearer to commercialization.
I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment so that precommercial
research and development can continue on important solar technologies,
including solar thermal dish/engine systems. These systems, including
thermal motors, have great potential for providing cleaner and more
efficient electrical power for all sectors of the economy, potentially
including transportation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act
for the current year imposed a 9-percent reduction of the Department of
Energy's Departmental Administration Account. That account funds the
office of the Secretary, Human Resources, and general counsel among
other things.
However, in imposing that reduction, the Department did not impose
any reductions in the Office of General Counsel. As a matter of fact,
while other offices lost 40 or more people, the Office of General
Counsel lost only 1 position.
In drafting its recommendation for departmental administration, the
committee directed that the Office of General Counsel assume a
reduction to bring its staffing levels back into balance with the rest
of those in departmental administration.
The committee's recommendation did not take into consideration the
fact that the Department has proposed to shift 19 lawyers, previously
funded out of the Interior appropriations bill, into the account funded
by this bill.
I have committed to the Secretary of Energy that, in the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report, I will work to include
language that clarifies our intent. I do believe that the Office of
General Counsel should not be insulated from the reductions Congress
wisely imposed last year. However, it was not our intent to impose
overly harsh reductions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Subcommittee in
this regard. I will work with him and our House colleagues in
conference to ensure that any reduction in the Office of General
Counsel is fair.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleague.
Renewable Energy
Mr. JEFFORDS. I Mr. President, thank the chairman for his excellent
work on the fiscal year 1998 energy and water appropriations measure.
Senator Domenici clearly understands the importance of renewable energy
to the future of this Nation. I wish to commend him for his dedication
to the development of solar, wind, biomass, and other technologies that
are vital to our Nation's energy interests. I know many of my
colleagues join me in thanking him for his leadership in this area. I
would merely like to clarify a couple of the provisions regarding
renewable energy in the energy and water appropriations bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to thank the Senator for his kind comments.
Mr. JEFFORDS. The report language on wind energy research,
development and deployment restricts support for small wind, when in
fact the Department of Energy has several ongoing research activities
in this area. Is it the intention of the Senate that these and other
cost-shared programs currently conducted in collaboration with DOE, the
national laboratories, and U.S. industry should not be continued?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the answer is no. The energy and water
development bill does not intend to impede research, development, and
demonstration activities for small wind programs.
Mr. JEFFORDS. In addition, is it the Senator's understanding that the
Solar Thermal Power Program would receive an additional $4.8 million
from available funds? And if so, of this amount, $3.8 million will be
available for solar dish engine technologies and the remaining $1
million will go to the solar industrial programs. This would bring the
total solar thermal account to $19.1 million.
Further, is it also the Senator's understanding that the solar
international account will receive an additional $2 million, bringing
the total for this program to $4 million. Is it also the Senator's
understanding that the program allocation will be used in support of
the Committee on Renewable Energy Commerce and Trade?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chairman.
consortium for plant biotechnology research
Mr. DASCHLE. As a long-time supporter of domestically produced
renewable fuels, I am very interested in encouraging the Department of
Energy to do whatever it can to promote the development of new and more
efficient processes for converting plant material into practical
transportation fuels. It is my understanding that DOE consistently
funds the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research--known as CPBR--
although at levels below which it can use. The work of this consortium
of university researchers has lead to significant progress in more
efficiently utilizing plants and plant waste for the production of
renewable fuels and of bringing these research innovations to the
market. It is my hope that DOE will be willing to fund CPBR at between
$2 and $3 million in fiscal year 1998. Do you agree that DOE should
give special consideration to funding CPBR at that level?
Mr. REID. Yes. I recognize how important the development of a strong
domestic renewable fuels industry is to the Senator. Moreover, I agree
that the work of CPBR has been very useful in developing new and more
efficient ways to convert plant material to renewable fuels and commend
DOE for its past support of CPBR. I would urge DOE, as part of its
annual process to determine its priorities and funding awards, to
seriously consider supporting CPBR at the levels you cite.
Mr. DOMENICI. I also recognize the valuable research performed by the
CPBR and urge DOE to give it every consideration as it makes its fiscal
year 1998 funding decisions.
RENEWABLE ENERGY DEMONSTRATION
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to highlight
a provision in the energy and water appropriations bill which could
begin to address some of the energy generation problems facing very
rural areas. The bill provides modest funding for the deployment of
solar, wind, fuel cell, and biomass technologies in remote areas of the
United States.
Producing and distributing power in rural areas is a challenge in and
of itself. Distribution lines are often more
[[Page S7479]]
expensive and difficult to establish, and communities are often forced
to rely on cheaper, but more polluting fuel sources. This demonstration
will provide the resources to look at the effectiveness of less
noxious, renewable energy technologies.
One application of this kind of demonstration which has come to my
attention is a proposal in Vermont to replace polluting diesel engines
with modern fuel cell technology for snow production. One of the last
places you might think of air quality problems is in the mountains of
Vermont. But in fact, four of the six largest sources of NOx
emissions in the State are ski resorts which often use inefficient and
dirty burning diesel engines to produce snow. Because of the remoteness
of snow production facilities, other, cleaner commercial energy
alternatives are not an option. This funding would allow States like
Vermont to experiment with energy production technologies that can work
efficiently while greatly reducing NOx and particulate
matter emissions.
I would like to thank the Senator from New Mexico for funding this
valuable initiative and ask for his comments on this possible
application of fuel cell technology to the problem I have described in
Vermont.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and
agree that this is exactly the kind of problem the subcommittee had in
mind when proposing this demonstration. Remote areas of the United
States do face unique energy production and distribution problems as
the Senator from Vermont has aptly described. It is the committee's
intention that the demonstration be directed to addressing these types
of issues in rural areas.
Mecklenburg County Streambank stabilization and restoration project
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to commend Senator Domenici on
an excellent bill. We all realize that he and his staff have been
overwhelmed by requests for this bill, in particular by U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers project requests. I think I speak for all of us when I say
that he has done an excellent job balancing out the requests. No one
received all he or she requested, but I believe we have all been
treated fairly.
In this vein, I want to comment on a very worthy project from
Charlotte, NC, which was not able to be included in the bill, the
Mecklenburg County streambank stabilization and restoration project.
I am informed that the House has allotted $1 million for this very
worthy project. When we go to conference, I look forward to working
with Senator Domenici to ensure that the House appropriation for this
matter remains in the final bill. The project is a good one, and seeks
innovative methods of addressing problems of degradation of streams,
pollution of surface waters, and flood protection. It also enjoys
widespread support in the Charlotte area.
Mr. DOMENICI. I commend my colleague for bringing this worthy project
to my attention, and also look forward to working with him on it during
conference.
PROVISION FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to address a provision of S. 1004,
the appropriations bill for energy and water development for fiscal
year 1998. I refer specifically to the President's request for a new
initiative within the Department of Energy, called nuclear energy
security. The bill before us contains no funding for this new
initiative. I wish to address my colleagues on the reasons for the
subcommittee's treatment of this initiative and the direction in which
I believe the Department should focus its nuclear energy research and
development program.
The committee report to accompany S. 1004 states that although the
committee supports the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity,
the Department's proposed program to address technical issues will have
insufficient impact to justify the expense and therefore, no funding
was provided. I am concerned that the Department of Energy will take
the wrong message from this action.
It is my view, as a member of the Appropriations Committee and as a
member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, that this
country needs a viable nuclear energy program--both for our energy
security and for our national security. Recently, the President
commissioned his Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Energy Research and Development Panel to study and report back on
whether the United States should have a nuclear energy program and if
so, what its goals should be both domestically and internationally. A
lot of good work on this issue has been done, or is underway within the
Department of Energy and the national laboratory complex. Specifically,
Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico has contributed
substantially.
While I won't delineate the findings at length at this time, let me
just indicate to my colleagues, that the greatest minds that we have
nationally to weigh in on this question have done so, and they believe
that the failure to have a strong nuclear energy research and
development program will diminish our national security, our economic
competitiveness, and the public well-being. The bottom line is that as
our primacy in nuclear R&D declines, we will lose our ability to
participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the
civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations.
For these reasons, it is my hope that the Department will continue to
construct, and will propose as appropriate, a nuclear energy program
that fulfills these goals.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the
statements made by my colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho. Through
the investments already made at its national laboratory sites, such as
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne
National Laboratory, the Department of Energy has a research capability
of both personnel and facilities, which can ensure that the nuclear
energy program of this country does not fall behind that of other
nations. But we will only be assured of keeping a viable nuclear option
in this country if DOE proposes and implements nuclear energy research
programs to safeguard our position as a nuclear leader worldwide.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to add another voice to
this discussion, and another point that has not yet been addressed. In
May of this year, I wrote a letter to Mr. Daniel Reifsnyder of the U.S.
Department of State, transmitting my comments on the Draft Second U.S.
Climate Action Report. In this letter, dated May 15, 1997, I reminded
Mr. Reifsnyder that nuclear energy is responsible for 89 percent of all
the carbon dioxide emissions avoided by U.S. electric utilities between
1973 and 1995 and that over 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon emissions
have been avoided in the United States alone through the use of nuclear
energy. Nuclear energy has made and can continue to make tremendous
contributions in avoiding carbon emissions. Although the contributions
of nuclear energy appear to have gotten little acknowledgment in the
U.S. Climate Action Report, if we look at what is happening
internationally, we see that other countries have not failed to take
notice of the nuclear option. Specifically, France and Japan continue
their reliance on nuclear energy for substantial percentages of their
energy needs, and China has ambitious plans for developing its civilian
nuclear program. The failure of this country to take a long term view
and invest in nuclear research and development has the potential to
damage not only our own civilian program, but our ability to observe
and influence the programs of other nations.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the comments
made by my colleagues regarding our need for a strong nuclear energy
program. I agree that nuclear energy research and development enhance
both our economic competitiveness on the civilian side and our national
security by allowing us to participate as a full partner in the uses of
nuclear energy worldwide.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I add my voice to those of my
colleagues in calling for both a strong nuclear energy program at the
Department of Energy and in calling for national attention to the need
for nuclear energy to provide energy security to this Nation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me thank all of my colleagues who
have expressed their views on this important issue and let me add a
final thought. As the Congress continues its consideration of de-
regulation or restructuring
[[Page S7480]]
of the electric power industry, and the legislation already introduced
in both bodies on that subject, I ask my colleagues to consider the
contribution of nuclear energy, both as a safe and reliable source of
power--part of our energy security--and its contribution in lowering
emissions of greenhouse gases. If this country's nuclear plants are
rendered uneconomic by the advent of competition in the electric
industry, as some claim, we need to ask ourselves what will replace
these plants. As cost estimates for decommissioning balloon out of
control, we should be asking what technology investments DOE could be
making to bring these estimates back in line with reality. A strong
nuclear energy program is part of the answer.
sefor
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the senior
Senator from Arkansas in a colloquy.
Mr. BUMPERS. I would be pleased to join the subcommittee chairman in
a colloquy.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in last year's Energy and Water
Development Act, a provision was included that directed the Department
of Energy to determine if it has any legal obligation regarding the
Southwest experimental fast oxide reactor [SEFOR] or any similar
nuclear facilities that have been transferred from Federal to non-
Federal ownership. The Department has completed a draft memorandum that
indicates that the Department has no legal obligation regarding SEFOR.
However, the senior Senator from Arkansas' interest in SEFOR
continues. Early today, an amendment to S. 1004 was accepted on behalf
of the senior Senator from Arkansas that would provide for an
assessment of the cost of decommissioning the Southwest experimental
fast oxide reactor.
It is important to note that the acceptance of this amendment does
not indicate that the Senate disagrees with the initial findings of the
Department of Energy that the Department has no legal obligations with
regard to the SEFOR. The interest of the Senate is simply to understand
what the decommissioning costs of a reactor such as the SEFOR might be.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I don't think it
would be appropriate for the Senate to take a position on the issue of
liability. That is for the courts to decide.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, after consultation with the Democratic
leader, we can announce that this was the last vote for today. We are
working on a unanimous-consent agreement that we think we will have no
problem having agreement to. Basically, we would have the vote on final
passage of the energy and water appropriations bill tomorrow after the
first vote on the foreign ops bill. We don't know an exact time, but we
presume some time after 11 o'clock or early afternoon. We are trying to
accommodate Senators' schedules.
Momentarily, we will ask for that unanimous consent. That is the gist
of the request we will make.
Mr. REID. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I propound this unanimous-consent
request, I want to confirm again that we have discussed this with the
minority leadership. Mr. President, I want to commend the good work and
leadership we have seen today again by the chairman of the energy and
Water Subcommittee of Appropriations. Senator Domenici has done an
excellent job, with the able help of the Senator from Nevada. The fact
that they have gotten this bill basically ready for final passage and
that we will have the vote tomorrow morning is a real credit to the
good work they have done.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote on final passage of the Energy
and water appropriations bill occur immediately following the first
vote tomorrow on or in relation to the foreign operations
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Therefore, there will be no more votes this evening. It is
my understanding that the managers will be able to wrap up the Energy
and water appropriations amendments this evening, and the Senate will
begin the foreign operations appropriations bill at 11 a.m. on
Wednesday.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I, too, want to commend the subcommittee
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. I also want to call to
the attention of the Senate the fact that this hearkens me back to the
days when we had real bipartisan cooperation on the Appropriations
Committee.
I want to thank all members of the committee for that cooperation,
for showing what can be done when we work together and try to resolve
issues and accommodate the needs of the various Senators and our
individual States. These two Senators have done an excellent and
admirable job today on a very difficult bill. I am confident that we
will see that in final passage tomorrow.
Tomorrow, we will proceed to the foreign assistance bill. I hope we
see a similar approach on that bill so that we can go forward and have
the legislative bill before the Senate on Thursday.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman
of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for his work in bringing this bill
to the Senate.
While I commend the chairman for his efforts, I have concerns about
the trends in the funding levels that are being proposed for the
Mississippi River and tributaries projects, particularly those in the
Yazoo Basin of Mississippi.
The President's budget proposed a 20-percent reduction from last
year's level for Mississippi River and tributaries construction
projects. The budget also proposed cutting projects in the Yazoo Basin
by over 50 percent. As the committee has indicated in its report that
accompanies this bill, this reduction, along with others in operations
and maintenance and investigations, is unacceptable.
Mr. President, Congress addresses flooding and other natural
disasters as they occur around the country. The victims who have
suffered damages derive benefits from supplemental disaster assistance
legislation, as we saw just recently. This year, it was the Dakotas and
other States. A few years ago, it was in the Midwest when the Missouri
River flooded, and nearly every year, there is some degree of flooding
in the Yazoo Basin in the State of Mississippi. The lower funding
levels that are being proposed for projects to control flooding in the
Yazoo Basin result in more delays, higher construction costs, and more
damages occur year in and year out from floods in this region of the
country. It will also result in increased spending on disaster
assistance instead of funding long-term solutions to the flooding that
occurs in this area. These delays will only increase the likelihood and
the severity of flooding in the future and damages that result from
those floods.
Incremental funding for these and many other Federal construction
projects is a reality of the current budget environment. But
incremental funding results in cost increases over the life of a
project that has been authorized and that has been partially funded in
the past. It will cost $54 million as a result of even a ten-year
funding cycle on the three main projects just in the Yazoo Basin
alone--the Upper Yazoo project, the Upper Steele Bayou project, and the
Big Sunflower River Maintenance project. That amounts to a 20 percent
cost increase.
Mr. President, I will continue to work with the committee and the
subcommittee to identify the levels of funding necessary to maintain
project
[[Page S7481]]
schedules that are more realistic and more cost-effective in the
future. I hope that we can reach agreement and convince the
administration that it needs to recognize the inevitable consequences
of these budget cuts that are, year-in and year-out, submitted to the
Congress on these projects.
My friend from New Mexico has done an excellent job, a masterful job
in dealing with all of these pressures and cross-currents of interests
that flow to this committee and are involved in the development of this
legislation. And so I am proud of the work product that he has
produced, and we support it. I am voting for it. We hope that by
working together we can continue to identify ways to assure adequate
funding levels for these projects that have been authorized for a long,
long time.
Read the book ``Rising Tide,'' which talks about the beginning of the
effort to get the Federal Government's resources involved in the
Mississippi River and tributaries project. It is on the best-seller
list now and I invite everyone to read that book. There are projects
which I have identified in this project definition that are still not
completed, and that flood was in 1927. We continue to, incrementally,
piecemeal, see these projects increasing in real costs because of the
failure to address them in a more aggressive way.
That is the point of my statement. People are beginning to wonder--
are these projects ever going to be finished? They have a right to
raise the question. If they are not finished, the flooding that occurs
every year is going to continue to be an annual disaster for the folks
in this region.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished senior
Senator from Mississippi, during the day, in your absence when you were
busy attending that very difficult hearing that you are part of, I
commented on the fact that one of the growing difficulties in this bill
is the water project section, because every year more projects that are
good and that are necessary--and many that we haven't completed--are
showing up and we are not getting an allocation of resources sufficient
to do them. What we have been doing is putting little pieces of money
in. That is what you just called--that means, for instance, this year
there are two major flood projects that we cannot start, that have been
years in the design, that are ready to go. We just don't have the money
to do it.
I was predicting today that in 3 or 4 years, if we don't find more
resources for the water projects--because many people don't think they
are very important, and we don't get much support from the White House
on them, frankly. They are trying to change the formula right in the
middle of the stream on who pays for what. If we don't get more
resources, the situation you predict will become reality. I am going to
do my best, but there isn't enough money to complete the projects we
have been committed to with the kind of allocation we get. I thank the
Senator for his kind comments.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the chairman will yield. In response to
the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from New Mexico, these
water projects are important because they save lives. Some of them are
important--we tend to think that when they are written in the
newspaper, they are projects that just look good at home and these are
things people talk about as being pork. The fact of the matter is that
we have projects in Nevada that have saved people's lives as a result
of having them in the project. They have saved immense dollars in
property that would have washed away. Even in an arid State like Nevada
we have floods. They are not sustained floods like you have in other
parts of the country, they are flash floods; but they can be very
damaging to property and to people.
So I commend the Senator from Mississippi in focusing attention on
these very important projects. The Senator from New Mexico and I have
had to deal with these for the last 7 or 8 months. It is very difficult
to decide which ones should get money and how much they should get.
Every one of them--I should not say every one--the vast majority of
them are extremely important, and it is too bad we can't fund them all
because it would be good for the country.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott
Burnison, a detailee in my office and in the Budget Committee, be
granted floor privileges during the remainder of this bill and for the
conference report on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is the third time in 2 days that I have
come to the floor of the Senate to address the flawed practice of
earmarking funding for local projects in appropriations bills.
I recognize the hard work that the managers of the bill have put into
expeditiously moving this measure through the Senate. I thank them for
their tireless efforts and appreciate that their jobs have not been
easy.
But I must repeat a criticism I have made many times during
consideration of appropriations bills and will continue to make as long
as the practice of earmarking continues: This bill inappropriately and
inequitably singles out projects for funding based on criteria other
than national priority and necessity.
I recognize that the custom has long been to earmark all of the Army
Corps of Engineers projects in the energy and water appropriations
bills. I continue to find this practice, frankly, unnecessary if the
projects are truly worthy of support and are of sufficient priority on
a nationwide comparison. I hope we can work together to find a better
system of ensuring full and fair consideration of all proposed
projects.
I believe that the States and the Army Corps of Engineers should
develop a priority list based on national need. The projects on the
priority list would then be funded in a lump sum appropriation. By
employing such a priority list, we could end the practice of earmarking
projects for funding based on political clout and focus our limited
resources, instead, on those areas with the greatest need nationwide.
It is clear, however, that for many projects, earmarking is the only
way to ensure the money is spent. Earmarking is particularly useful in
ensuring that funds are spent for lower priority, unrequested projects
for which Members of this body have sought appropriations.
This year, the energy and water appropriations bills and report
contain more than $300 million in earmarks for projects not included in
the budget request.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of these unrequested earmarks be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Unrequested Earmarks Contained in the 1998 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill and Committee Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earmark Bill or Report Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norco Bluffs, California--$200,000....... Bill, page 2.
Laulaulei, Hawaii--$200,000.............. Bill, page 2.
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Bill, page 2.
Jersey--$400,000.
Douglas Harbor, Alaska--$100,000......... Report, page 10.
Kenai River, Alaska--$100,000............ Report, page 10.
Matanuska River, Alaska--$100,000........ Report, page 10.
Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska--$40,000 Report, page 10, 23.
over budget request (obr).
Port Lions Harbor, Alaska--$100,000...... Report, page 10.
Seward Harbor, Alaska--$75,000 obr....... Report, page 10.
Ship Creek, Alaska--$100,000............. Report, page 10.
Wrangell Harbor, Alaska--$130,000 obr.... Report, page 10.
Valdez Harbor, Alaska--$100,000.......... Report, page 10, 23.
White River to Newport, Arkansas-- Report, page 11, 23.
$500,000.
Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration, Report, page 11, 23.
California--$510,000 obr.
Hamilton Airfield Wetland Restoration, Report, page 11.
California--$100,000.
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, Report, page 12, 23.
Comprehensive Basin Study, California--
$500,000.
San Diego Harbor, California--$100,000 Report, page 12.
obr.
Lido Key Beach, Florida--$100,000........ Report, page 13.
Nassau County, Florida--$150,000 obr..... Report, page 13, 24.
Savannah River Basin Comprehensive, Report, page 14, 24.
Georgia and South Carolina--$300,000.
Des Moines and Racoon Rivers, Iowa-- Report, page 14.
$100,000.
Licking River Watershed, Kentucky-- Report, page 15, 25.
$500,000.
Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana-- Report, page 15, 25.
$800,000.
Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas-- Report, page 16, 25.
$300,000 obr.
Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Report, page 17.
Mexico--$200,000.
Flushing Bay and Creek, New York-- Report, page 17.
$100,000.
Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York,--$300,000 Report, page 17.
Grand Forks/East Grand Forks, North Report, page 18, 25.
Dakota and Minnesota--$2,000,000 obr.
Grand Neosho River Basin, Oklahoma-- Report, page 18.
$500,000.
Tilamook Bay and Estuary, Oregon-- Report, page 18, 26.
$100,000.
Conemaugh River Basin, Pennsylvania-- Report, page 18.
$90,000.
Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania--$300,000..... Report, page 18, 26.
Providence, Rhode Island (Fox Pt. Report, page 19.
Hurricane Barrier)--$350,000.
Pawley's Island, South Carolina--$100,000 Report, page 19.
Packery Channel, Corpus Christi Bay, Report, page 19, 26.
Texas--$100,000.
Rincon Canal, Corpus Christi Ship Report, page 20, 27.
Channel, Texas--$100,000.
Sumerset and Seasborg Dams, Deerfield Report, page 20, 27.
River, Vermont--$100,000.
Rapahannock River, Virginia (Embrey Dam Report, page 20.
Removal)--$100,000.
London Locks and Dam, West Virginia-- Report, page 21.
$328,000.
West Virginia Statewide Flood Protect Report, page 21.
Plan--$400,000.
Lock and Dam #24, Mississippi River, Bill, page 3.
Illinois and Missouri--$1,000,000 obr. Report, page 31.
Arkansas River, Tucker Creek, Arkansas-- Bill, page 3.
$300,000.
Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Bill, page 3.
Arkansas--$3,500,000.
[[Page S7482]]
Panama City Beaches, Florida--$5,000,000. Bill, page 3.
Levisa and Tug Forks and Upper Cumberland Bill, pages 4-6.
River, West Virginia--$47,740,000 obr. Report, pages 37, 44.
Lake Ponchartrain, Storm Water Discharge, Bill, page 4.
Louisiana--$3,000,000.
Natchez Bluff, Mississippi--$4,000,000... Bill, page 4.
Jackson County, Mississippi (Water Bill, page 4.
Supply)--$3,000,000.
Pearl River, Mississippi (Walkiah Bluff)-- Bill, page 4.
$2,000,000.
Wallisville Lake, Texas--$10,000,000..... Bill, page 5.
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Hurricane Bill, page 5.
Protection)--$15,000,000.
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Reimbursement)-- Bill, page 5.
$925,000.
Cook Inlet, Alaska--$3,945,000........... Report, page 29.
Chignik Harbor, Alaska--$4,500,000....... Report, page 29.
Dillingham, Alaska (Shoreline Erosion)-- Report, page 29, 39.
$1,200,000.
St. Paul Harbor, Alaska--$6,638,000...... Report, page 29.
Los Angeles County Drainage Area, Report, page 9.
California--$9,000,000 obr.
Los Angeles Harbor, California-- Report, page 29, 39.
$10,000,000 obr.
Lower Sacramento Area, Levee Report, page 29.
Reconstruction, California--$2,000,000
obr.
Marysville/Yuba City, Levee Report, page 30, 39.
Reconstruction, California--$2,000,000
obr.
Merced County Streams, California-- Report, page 30.
$5,785,000 obr.
Mid-Valley Area, Levee Reconstruction, Report, page 30, 39.
California--$2,500,000 obr.
Canaveral Harbor, Florida--$1,000,000 obr Report, page 30, 40.
Fort Pierce Beach, Florida--$2,300,000... Report, page 30, 40.
O'Hare Reservoir, Illinois--$2,100,000... Report, page 31, 40.
Wabash River, New Harmony, Indiana-- Report, page 31.
$500,000.
Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana Report, page 32.
(Hurricane Protection)--$10,000,000 obr.
Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Report, page 32, 41.
Shreveport, Louisiana--$7,000,000 obr.
Chesapeake Bay, Environmental Restoration Report, page 33.
and Project, Maryland, Virginia--
$1,000,000.
Cumberland, Maryland--$375,000........... Report, page 33.
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts--$2,000,000. Report, page 33.
St. Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota-- Report, page 33.
$1,000,000.
Marshall, Minnesota--$1,000,000 obr...... Report, page 33.
North Fork, Flathead River, Montana-- Report, page 33.
$50,000.
Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey-- Report, page 34.
$2,723,000 obr.
Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico-- Report, page 34, 42.
$400,000 obr.
Las Cruces, New Mexico--$2,700,000 obr... Report, page 34.
Long Beach Island, New York--$2,000,000.. Report, page 34.
Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Report, page 35, 42.
Dakota--$3,000,000.
Grays Landing Lock and Dam, Monongahela Report, page 35.
River, Pennsylvania--$2,650,000 obr.
Locks and Dams, 2, 3 and 4, Monongahela Report, page 35.
River, Pennsylvania--$10,000,000 obr.
Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas--$3,410,000 Report, page 36.
obr.
Little Dell Lake, Utah--$1,000,000....... Report, page 36.
Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia-- Report, page 37.
$100,000.
Lafarge Lake, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin-- Report, page 37.
$713,000.
Morganza, Louisiana to the Gulf of Report, page 47.
Mexico--$2,000,000 obr.
Southeast Arkansas, Arkansas--$500,000... Report, page 47, 50.
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Report, page 47.
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee--
$1,000,000 obr.
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana--$3,000,000 Report, page 47.
obr.
Backwater Less Rocky Bayou, Mississippi-- Report, page 47.
$500,000 obr.
Demonstration Erosion Control, Report, page 47, 50.
Mississippi (Yazoo Basin)--$5,000,000
obr.
Upper Yazoo Projects, Mississippi-- Report, page 48.
$2,000,000 obr.
Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Report, page 48.
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri and Tennessee--$5,000,000 obr.
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana Report, page 48.
(Maintenance)--$2,000,000 obr.
Beverly Shores, Indiana--$1,700,000...... Bill, page 8.
Black Warrior and Tombigee Rivers, Report, page 51.
Alabama--$2,000,000 obr.
Mobile Harbor, Alabama--$3,000,000 obr... Report, page 51.
Perdido Pass Channel, Alabama--$300,000.. Report, page 51.
Tennessee--Tombigee Waterway, Alabama and Report, page 51.
Mississippi--$2,655,000 obr.
Chena River Lakes, Alaska--$800,000 obr.. Report, page 51, 68.
Dequeen Lake, Arkansas--$1,329,000 obr... Report, page 52.
Oakland Harbor, California--$1,204,000 Report, page 52.
obr.
Charlotte Harbor, Florida--$2,750,000.... Report, page 53.
Apalachicola Chattahoochee and Flint Report, page 54.
Rivers, Georgia and Alabama--$2,300,000
obr.
Savannah Harbor, Georgia--$5,000,000 obr. Report, page 54.
Kaskakia River Navigation, Illinois-- Report, page 54, 68.
$490,000 obr.
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana-- Report, page 56, 68.
$200,000 obr.
Cohasset Harbor, Massachusetts-- Report, page 57.
$1,500,000.
Cedar River Harbor, Michigan--$2,377,000. Report, page 57, 68.
Clarence Cannon Dam and Mark Twain Lake, Report, page 58, 68.
Missouri--$850,000 obr.
Clearwater Lake, Missouri--$350,000 obr.. Report, page 58, 68.
Missouri National Recreational River, Report, page 59.
Nebraska--$100,000.
Cheesequake Creek, New Jersey--$1,500,000 Report, page 59, 68.
Tuckerton Creek, New Jersey--$650,000.... Report, page 59, 68.
Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, Report, page 59, 68.
New Mexico--$1,000,000.
South Dakota and Nebraska BTID--$750,000. Report, page 60.
Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, North Report, page 60, 69.
Dakota--$50,000 obr.
Missouri River Between Ft. Peck, Montana Report, page 61, 69.
and Gavins Ft. Dam--$750,000.
Chetco River, Oregon--$216,000 obr....... Report, page 62.
Rogue River, Oregon--$607,000 obr........ Report, page 62, 69.
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina-- Report, page 63, 69.
$900,000 obr.
Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Report, page 63.
Carolina--$190,000 obr.
Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina-- Report, page 63.
$500,000 obr.
Town Creek, South Carolina--$360,000..... Report, page 63.
James River, Jamestown and Pipestem Report, page 64.
Reserv., South Dakota--$100,000.
Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, South Dakota and Report, page 64, 69.
North Dakota--$300,000 obr.
Connecticut River Basin, Vermont (Master Report, page 65, 69.
Plan)--$200,000.
Rudee Inlet, Virginia--$535,000.......... Report, page 65.
Willapa River and Harbor, Washington-- Report, page 66, 69.
$3,000,000 obr.
Bluestone Lake, West Virginia--$575,000 Report, page 66, 70.
obr.
Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico Bill, page 14.
(Pena Blanca)--$500,000 obr. Report, page 81.
West Salt River Valley Water Management Report, page 74, 81.
Study, Arizona--$400,000 obr.
Central Valley Project, American River Report, page 74.
Division and Miscellaneous Projects,
California--$5,000,000 obr.
Port Hueneme Brackish Water Reclamation Report, page 75.
Demo, California--$2,000,000.
Equus Beds Groundwater Recharge, Kansas-- Report, page 76.
$500,000.
Ft. Peck Reservation MR&I Water System, Report, page 76.
Montana--$240,000.
Ft. Peck Rural County Water System, Report, page 76.
Montana--$300,000.
Newlands Project, Nevada--$500,000 obr... Report, page 76, 81.
Las Vegas Shallow Aquifer Desalinization Report, page 76.
Demo, Nevada--$3,750,000.
Walker River Basin, Nevada--$300,000..... Report, page 77.
Albuquerque Wastewater Recycling, New Report, page 77.
Mexico--$5,000,000.
Upper Rio Grande Conveyance Canal/ Report, page 77, 81.
Pipeline, New Mexico--$400,000.
San Juan Gallup-Navajo Pipeline, New Report, page 77, 81.
Mexico--$450,000.
Santa Fe Water Reclamation/Reuse, New Report, page 77, 81.
Mexico--$500,000.
Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota-- Report, page 77, 82.
$7,500,000 obr.
Mid Dakota Rural Water Project, South Report, page 78.
Dakota--$3,000,000 obr.
Mini Wiconi Project, South Dakota-- Report, page 78.
$7,000,000 obr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have no way of knowing whether all or
part of this $300 million should have been spent on different projects
with greater national need and higher national priority. Earmarking
funds for special interest projects is the most obvious form of pork
barrel spending, and it is a waste of taxpayer dollars at a time when
our national debt exceeds $5.3 trillion. I believe that we should stop
earmarking projects just because they serve the interests of Members of
Congress.
I am also concerned that certain projects in the bill are funded ``at
full Federal expense,'' while others are not.
No explanation is given. So I can only be left to wonder why.
For example, at page 6 of the bill, the Secretary of the Army is
directed to ``design and implement at full Federal expense'' a project
for the Tug Fork and Levisa basins in West Virginia and Kentucky. I
might add that this funding ``at full Federal expense'' is for a
project that receives a total of $55.7 million in earmarked
appropriations, which is $47.7 million over the budget request.
What makes this project worthy of such a large add-on of $47.7
million? Why should this project be funded solely by the Federal
Government, or rather all the Federal taxpayers, while other projects
require cost-sharing by the States and local governments and
communities that stand to benefit from their construction? None of
these answers are apparent to this Senator.
Finally, Mr. President, I am again, as I am on an annual basis, very
disappointed to see that the Appalachian Regional Commission will be
funded again this year. This commission was established as a temporary
commission in 1965--1965, 32 years ago. This program singles out one
region for special economic development grants when the rest of the
Nation has to rely on their share of community development block grants
and loans.
Certainly the Appalachian Regional has no monopoly on poor, depressed
communities in need of assistance. I know that in my own State, despite
the high standard of living enjoyed in many areas, some communities are
extremely poor and have long been without running water or sanitation.
We need to reconsider the utility of the Appalachian Regional
Commission in light of pressing needs in other areas of the country.
Mr. President, our current system of earmarking to fund unrequested,
lower priority, and unnecessary projects is fundamentally flawed. I
hope that someday we will develop a better system, one which allows the
projects with the greatest national need to be funded first.
Mr. President, I noted recently a poll, as I have seen many of them,
on the approval rate of Congress, which is about 40 percent. That is
one of the highest numbers that I have seen recently.
Mr. President, there are a lot of reasons the Congress of the United
States is held in low esteem, and it would take a long time to go
through them. I did notice in that same poll that the approval rating
of the President of the United States is 64 percent. I would argue, Mr.
President, that one of the reasons we are held in low esteem by the
American people--because they believe that we do not wisely and
efficiently and on a basis of need and priority spend their tax
dollars. And every time we pass an appropriations bill that has this
kind of unnecessary and wasteful spending in it, which is no one's
priority that I know of, nor go through any scrutiny or any process
that would give them that priority, the esteem with which the American
people hold us continues to be less. And I know that this practice has
been going on for many years, and unfortunately and tragically paying
on for many years in the future.
But I will continue to come to the floor, and where it is the most
outrageous and egregious I will propose amendments to strike.
Otherwise, I will point out those areas where I think that the spending
practices of the appropriations process is not in the best interests of
the entire Nation as a whole.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say with the greatest respect to my
friend, who I consider one of the fine Members of this body, that we
have worked very hard to make sure that there aren't some nameless,
faceless bureaucrats making all of the decisions for this $21 billion
of discretionary spending in this bill. The separation of powers gives
us
[[Page S7483]]
not only that right but that obligation. We have an obligation to
maintain the power of the purse strings. That is what the legislative
branch of Government was devised to do when the Framers of this
Constitution established the Constitution.
Projects that are in this bill serve people, communities, and States.
I say that I think it is really unfair to this body, to the taxpayers
of this country, and to the people of the State of Arizona to say that
those things that we have earmarked here are wasteful, pork-barrel
projects.
For example, we have investigations going on with the Corps of
Engineers in the State of Arizona that deal with significant projects.
We have colonias along the United States-Mexican border, Arizona, and
Texas. There we are spending $100,000. Corps of Engineers: Gila River,
North Scottsdale, AZ, $400,000; Gila River, Santa Cruz River Basin, AZ,
$400,000; Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, AZ, $325,000; Rio Salado Watershed
Ecosystem, AZ, $550,000; Tres Rios, AZ, $400,000; Tucson Drainage Area,
AZ, $825,000.
We have for operations and maintenance, Corps of Engineers: Alamo
Lake, AZ, $1.55 million for inspection of completed works, Arizona,
$107,000; Painted Rock Dam, AZ, $2.293 million; scheduling reservoir
operations, Arizona, $22,000; Whitlow Ranch Dam, AZ, $199,000.
Mr. President, I think it is important that we made those decisions
rather than some bureaucrat who the people of Arizona will never see,
who would remain in an office back here someplace in Washington next to
some computer rather than a human being. We made that decision along
with many hundreds of thousands of hours of work by our staff.
I will not go into a lot more detail other than to say that
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation is done very similarly. We
have made decisions in this bill that were important to the people of
the State of Arizona.
Yuma Area project is provided $1.67 million in this bill; West Salt
River Valley, water management study, $475,000; Verde River Basin
management study, Bureau of Reclamation, $475,000.
I could go on for several more minutes reading off the things that
this committee did in relation to the State of Arizona which were
important decisions that we made. I think it is important that we make
them. Again, I repeat, better that we make these decisions than some
nameless, faceless bureaucrat who wouldn't even know where the State of
Arizona is. The States of New Mexico and Nevada border on the State of
Arizona. We feel an obligation to distribute this money in a way that
we feel is fair.
So I have great respect for my friend from the State of Arizona, but
on this issue I think he is wrong.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't seek to engage in argument with
the distinguished Senator from Arizona. But I will say for the Record
that I don't believe this bill and what is in it in any way contributes
to what the people's image of Congress is. I think it is a very good
bill. I think there is less earmarking than usual. And in fact most of
it, if you look at it carefully, is probably something this body would
approve of overwhelmingly.
Having said that, I compliment the Senator on his diligence, Senator
McCain, and for his continued hard work in this area. All of us are
learning and being pushed by him to do a better job each time we
appropriate the money that the taxpayers send up here for us to use.
Mr. President, we very soon will have a tender of seven amendments en
bloc. That will wind up the amendments for this bill, and the only
thing remaining then will be the final vote tomorrow as per the
unanimous consent request which will follow after the first vote that
occurs on the foreign operations bill. We will have a couple of minutes
then, Senator Reid and I, to make a few comments about those who have
helped us and worked hardest with reference to this bill. Rather than
to do that tonight, we will do that for a few minutes each tomorrow
just prior to the vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
external regulation
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the Senator from New Mexico regarding a section of the report
accompanying the energy and water appropriations bill entitled
``External Regulation.'' This section addresses DOE's ongoing
evaluation of the question of whether DOE's nuclear facilities should
be subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I would
like to clarify that this section of the report is intended to allow
DOE to gather quantitative and qualitative information on external
regulation to serve as guidance to the authorizing committees as they
address this issue in the future.
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from Alaska's reading of the
language.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to further clarify that this language is
not intended to endorse or accelerate the pace of external regulation,
which should be the subject of hearings and legislative action on the
part of the authorizing committees, and that the Senator will work with
me to ensure that the statement of managers reflects this
understanding.
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator and agree to work with him on
this as we move forward.
budget impact of s. 1004
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, S. 1004, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1998, is within its allocation of
budget authority and outlays.
The reported bill provides $20.8 billion in budget authority and
$13.5 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 $20.9 billion in outlays.
For defense discretionary programs, the Senate-reported bill meets
its allocation in budget authority and is $2 million below in outlays.
The bill also is below its nondefense discretionary allocation by $46
million in budget authority and $1 million in outlays.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this
point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1004, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 1998--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority........................................... 11,803 8,993 ...... ......... 20,796
Outlays.................................................... 11,995 8,885 ...... ......... 20,880
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority........................................... 11,803 9,039 ...... ......... 20,842
Outlays.................................................... 11,997 8,886 ...... ......... 20,883
President's request:
Budget authority........................................... 13,615 9,018 ...... ......... 22,633
Outlays.................................................... 11,813 8,856 ...... ......... 20,669
House-passed bill:
Budget authority........................................... ........ .......... ...... ......... ........
Outlays.................................................... ........ .......... ...... ......... ........
================================================================================================================
Senate-Reported Bill Compared to--
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority........................................... ........ (46) ...... ......... (46)
Outlays.................................................... (2) (1) ...... ......... (3)
President's request:
Budget authority........................................... (1,812) (25) ...... ......... (1,837)
Outlays.................................................... 182 29 ...... ......... 211
House-passed bill:
Budget authority........................................... 11,803 8,993 ...... ......... 20,796
Outlays.................................................... 11,995 8,885 ...... ......... 20,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. DOMENICI: Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished
chairman of the Committee, Senator Stevens, in working to provide a
sufficient budget allocation to this subcommittee to support the
national defense activities, the basic science research activities, and
the national infrastructure programs funded in this bill.
Amendments Numbered 869 through 875 En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk seven
amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc.
I will state the amendments for the Record publicly, and then send
the amendments to the desk.
[[Page S7484]]
Senator Torricelli and Senator Lautenberg regarding Green Brook;
Senator Kempthorne regarding fish friendly turbines; Senator Bumpers
regarding Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou; Senators Daschle and Johnson
regarding the Crow Creek rural water system; Senator Levin regarding
the Great Lakes Basin; Senator Moseley-Braun regarding the McCook
Reservoir; Senators Dorgan and Conrad regarding Devils Lake.
I send the amendments en bloc to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments numbered 869 through 875 en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 869
(Purpose: To permanently prohibit the use of funds to carry out any
plan for the Oak Way detention structure or the Sky Top detention
structure in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, as part of the project for
flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey)
On page 12, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. . GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, NEW
JERSEY.
No funds made available under this Act or any other Act for
any fiscal year may be used by the Secretary of the Army to
carry out any plan for, or otherwise construct, the Oak Way
detention structure or the Sky Top detention structure in
Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, as part of the project for
flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin,
New Jersey, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100
Stat. 4119).
____
amendment no. 870
(Purpose: To provide monies for the continuation of the cost-shared,
fish-friendly turbine program)
On page 18, line 22, insert the following before the
period: ``: Provided, That $1,500,000 of the funds
appropriated herein may be used to continue the cost-shared,
fish-friendly turbine program''.
____
Amendment No. 871
On page 9, line 12, insert the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That, using funds appropriated in this
act, the Secretary of the Army may construct the Ten and
Fifteen Mile Bayou channel enlargement as an integral part of
the work accomplished on the St. Francis Basis, Arkansas and
Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1950''.
____
Amendment No. 872
On page 15, line 10, insert the following before the
period: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Interior may use $185,000 of the funding appropriated herein
for a feasibility study of alternatives for the Crow Creek
Rural Water Supply System to meet the drinking water needs on
the Crow Creek Sioux Indian Reservation''.
____
amendment no. 873
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available under this Act by
the Secretary of the Army to consider any application for a permit
that, if granted, would result in the diversion of ground water from
the Great Lakes Basin)
On page 12, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 1 . GREAT LAKES BASIN.
No funds made available under this Act may be used by the
Secretary of the Army to consider any application for a
permit that, if granted, would result in the diversion of
ground water from the Great Lakes Basin.
____
amendment no. 874
On page 7, line 2, insert the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works shall consider the recommendations of
the Special Reevaluation Report for the McCook Reservoir as
developed by the Corps of Engineers Chicago District''.
____
amendment no. 875
(Purpose: To appropriate emergency funding for initiation of
construction of an emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to
the Sheyenne River)
On page 7, line 2, before the period, insert the following:
``: Provided further, The Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, may use up to $5,000,000 of
the funding appropriated herein to initiate construction of
an emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the
Sheyenne River, and that this amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(D)(i)); except that
funds shall not become available unless the Secretary of the
Army determines that an emergency (as defined in section 102
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) exists with respect to the
emergency need for the outlet and reports to Congress that
the construction is technically sound, economically
justified, and environmentally acceptable and in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.): Provided further, That the economic
justification for the emergency outlet shall be prepared in
accordance with the principles and guidelines for economic
evaluation as required by regulations and procedures of the
Army Corps of Engineers for all flood control projects, and
that the economic justification be fully described, including
the analysis of the benefits and costs, in the project plan
documents: Provided further, That the plans for the emergency
outlet shall be reviewed and, to be effective, shall contain
assurances provided by the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the International Joint Commission, that
the project will not violate the requirements or intent of
the Treaty Between the United States and Great Britain
Relating to Boundary Waters Between the United States and
Canada, signed at Washington January 11, 1909 (36 Stat. 2448;
TS 548) (commonly known as the `Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909'): Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army
shall submit the final plans and other documents for the
emergency outlet to Congress: Provided further, That no funds
made available under this Act or any other Act for any fiscal
year may be used by the Secretary of the Army to carry out
the portion of the feasibility study of the Devils Lake
Basin, North Dakota, authorized under the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-377),
that addresses the needs of the area for stabilized lake
levels through inlet controls, or to otherwise study any
facility or carry out any activity that would permit the
transfer of water from the Missouri River Basin into Devils
Lake''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 869 through 875) en bloc were agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendments en bloc were agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come back to the floor because, although
I left the floor, I made the mistake of doing so.
The Senator from Nevada read a list of projects for which money is
being appropriated for the State of Arizona. What the Senator from
Nevada failed to note was that funding is exactly--and I look at it on
page 11 of the bill--exactly that requested by the administration
having gone through a merit-based system which then had the
administration request funding on projects that had already been
authorized.
That is a far different--a far, far different procedure, Mr.
President, than that of the long list of earmarks that I submitted for
the Record which have nothing to do with anything except or--let me put
it this way in the most charitable fashion, Mr. President--that has no
methodology nor any merit-based system that I know of that will call
for the funding of these projects.
I also point out just for the Record that Arizona, with the agreement
of the rest of the delegation, gave up $4 million that the
administration was going to spend on the Central Arizona project, gave
up an additional $4 million. So perhaps the Senator from Nevada did not
understand what my point is. My point is that we certainly fund
projects that are requested, that make a case for them, for which there
is a merit-based system--not by computers but by judging them with
other projects. I do not think the Senator from Nevada understood my
point. I have no complaint about projects which the administration
requests and they are funded. My complaint is about earmarking for
projects including the Appalachian Regional Commission and other
projects which I submitted a list of. They are two different things.
If the Senator from Nevada would agree that we will go through the
same system that we went through in order to arrive at the funding for
those projects he pointed out, there would be no Member as happy as
this one--none in this body.
So I hope the Senator from Nevada would commit to the same process we
[[Page S7485]]
went through that achieved that funding for these projects he read off
for the State of Arizona.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I am sorry the Senator from Arizona had to come back.
Certainly as indicated on the Record, I only had positive things to say
about the Senator from Arizona.
I do say--and he and I have a disagreement on how bills like this
should come to be--I believe that we as a legislative branch of
Government have an obligation to make independent decisions separate
and apart from the administration. I do not feel I have any obligation
to follow what the bureaucrats say we should appropriate.
The Senator from Arizona and I came to the Congress together. I have
the greatest admiration for him, not only for what he has done in his
professional life as a Member of Congress but, of course, what he did
before he came here.
So it has nothing to do with how I feel about the Senator from
Arizona. It has to do with the basic difference in what I feel is an
obligation a Member of Congress has. It is a legitimate difference. It
has nothing to do on a personal basis, and I will continue to work as
hard as I can with the Senator on campaign finance reform and also to
fund projects for the State of Arizona as a member of this
subcommittee, as long as I am ranking member, in a fair and impartial
way, getting direction from the bureaucrats but not following
necessarily what they have to say.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. May I say I appreciate the words of the Senator from
Nebraska--Nevada. I appreciate any from Nebraska, too. But I appreciate
the words of the Senator from Nevada. He and I have been friends now
since 1982 when we came to the House together. We have worked together
on a variety of issues, including native American and many others. Our
difference, as he states, is a philosophical one. I don't believe there
is an orderly process that judges these projects on merit, and that is
just a difference that we have had for many, many years.
I admire his adherence to what he believes is best not only for
Nevada but for the country. I respect that, and I know that my words in
criticism of this procedure have nothing to do with the enormous
respect and affection that I have for him and the chairman of the
subcommittee and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator
Domenici.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
____________________