[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.

                          ____________________