[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10217-S10222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
turn to the conference a report on (H.R. 2203) making appropriations 
for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1998.
  The report will be stated.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the (Senate or House) to the 
     (H.R. 2203) having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by all of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 26, 1997.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, on July 16, the Senate passed its 
version of the Energy and Water Development Act for fiscal year 1998 by 
a vote of 99 to 0. Since that time, the House has passed its version, 
which in some cases was quite different than the Senate version, and 
conferees have resolved the differences between the two bills.
  At times, those negotiations were difficult. However, the final 
result is a well balanced bill I believe should be supported by all my 
colleagues--it certainly was well received by the House which passed it 
a few hours ago by a vote of 404 to 17.
  In summary, the bill provides $21,209,623,000, a reduction of 
$1,895,701,000 from the amount of the request and $57,421,000 below the 
level recommended by the Senate, for programs with the jurisdiction of 
the subcommittee. Details are provided in the report which was filed 
last Friday and has been available to Members since Saturday when it 
was printed in the Record.
  There are a few matters that need clarification.
  The conferees included language in the conference report commending 
the Department on the tremendous advances made in pulsed-power 
technology in the past year. Because of uncertainties, which I will 
discuss in a moment, in the level of funding needed for the pulsed 
power program in the coming fiscal year, a level was not specified. 
However, the conferees have indicated that the Department should 
support continued Z-physics and diagnostics in the coming year.
  A robust pulsed power program in the coming year might include 
$13,000,000 for continued Z-machine physics, $5,000,000 for 
backlighting, and an additional $7,000,000 for the conceptual design of 
the next generation pulsed power machine; X-1. However, there may be 
less expensive ways to achieve backlighting, and the schedule for a 
next generation machine would be better determined following additional 
experiments on the existing machine. For those reasons, it is 
impossible to specify a level of funding for the coming year. However, 
the Department should continue Z-physics experiments with those 
objectives in mind.
  The conferees agreed to a provision that would prohibit the 
Department of Energy from awarding, amending, or modifying any contract 
in a manner that deviates from the Federal acquisition regulation, 
unless the Secretary grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow 
for such deviation. In the statement of managers, the conferees direct 
the Department to be cognizant of and utilized provisions of the 
Federal acquisition regulation that permit exceptions to the Federal 
acquisition regulation and provisions intended to address the special 
circumstances entailed by management and operating contracts. I want to 
clarify that, if the Department utilizes those provisions of the 
Federal acquisition regulation that permit exceptions to the Federal 
acquisition regulation or that address the special circumstances of 
management and operating contracts, it will not be necessary for the 
Secretary to obtain a waiver for those cases; the use of such 
provisions will not be considered a deviation from the Federal 
acquisition regulation.

[[Page S10218]]

  Due to a production error, report language agreed to by conferees 
from the House and Senate was inadvertently excluded from the joint 
statement of the managers. The text of that language is as follows:

       With respect to funds appropriated in fiscal year 1993 and 
     made available to the Center for Energy and Environmental 
     Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 
     Louisiana, the conferee strongly recommend that the 
     Department disperse these funds only in accordance with the 
     original intent to place the facility on property owned by 
     the Research Park Corporation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana or 
     contiguous property thereto owned by Louisiana State 
     University, Baton Rouge.

  We fully expect that the Department of Energy and interested 
stakeholders will regard this language as though included in full in 
the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference.
  The conference report contains a provision requiring the Bureau of 
Reclamation [BOR] ``to undertake a study of the feasibility of using 
the Mount Taylor mine as a possible source of water supply for the City 
of Gallup.'' While the background material for this study clearly 
indicates that this study will include the impacts of such water use on 
other users, such as the Laguna and Acoma Indian Pueblos, I would like 
to clarify today that it has been my intention, as verified in the 
detailed project description, to include these Indian Pueblos as 
possible beneficiaries of available water supplies from the Mount 
Taylor mine or its environs.
  Like other water users in the Mount Taylor area where water is 
scarce, any new and potable water resource would be most welcome. The 
Laguana and Acoma Pueblos are east of Mount Taylor, Gallup is to the 
west, and the private mine that is the focus of the study is on the 
western slope of Mount Taylor. The Canoncito Band of Navajo Indians are 
also to the east of Mount Taylor, new Laguna Pueblo. The feasibility of 
providing Mount Taylor water to these Indian Tribes is included in the 
details of the planned BOR study.
  As stated in the project study description, ``Some potential exists 
for the Mt. Taylor pipeline project to be integrated into a regional 
water supply network along the Interstate 40 corridor.'' Depending on 
the findings of this study ``to verify the quantity, quality, and 
expected life of the water source,'' there are many potential 
beneficiaries. It is my intention, as stated in the project narratives, 
to do our best to include as many potential water users along this 
corridor as possible. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to clarify 
an important section of this bill for these potential water users from 
the Mt. Taylor source.
  Madam President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from 
Nevada for his help on this legislation. This is Senator Reid's first 
year as ranking member of the subcommittee and it has been a most 
productive year. I greatly appreciate his cooperation and look forward 
to many years of working together.
  Madam President, I am merely going to remind the Senate that when we 
are in conference with the House, sometimes we get our way, sometimes 
they get their way. As a matter of fact, most of the items that the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona is concerned about were House 
matters, as I listened to them and as my staff tells me about them.
  Frankly, everybody in this body that has been here for any period of 
time knows that when you go to conference with the House, they have to 
get some things that are theirs and we have to get some things that are 
ours, and we have to compromise on others. I want the Senate to know 
that, in terms of overall expenditures, this bill is $1.8 billion in 
budget authority under the request of the President. That means we have 
done things differently than the President. In some areas, we have gone 
up and in some areas we have gone way down from where he wanted us to 
be. When you add them altogether, water projects, which are more than 
the President wanted and, obviously, the House wanted far more water 
projects than we did--and there again it is a question of working with 
both bodies--add up the water, nondefense, energy, research and the 
defense part, and it is about $1.8 billion below what the President of 
the United States requested.
  Madam President, again, let me give a little recap on the bill and 
then yield to my friend Senator Reid. Madam President, on July 17, the 
Senate passed its version of the Energy and Water Development Act by 99 
to 0. Since that time, the House passed its own version of the bill, 
and last week, as implicit in my remarks, conferees for the two bodies 
met to work out differences, and there were many that dealt with many 
millions of dollars.
  The bill started off quite differently. The Senate bill had $810 
million over the House bill on defense matters. On the nondefense side, 
though, the allocations were very similar. The House had proposed 
spending approximately $300 million less on the Department of Energy 
nondefense programs and about $300 million more on water projects. It 
is obvious that those are extremely large differences. The full 
committee of appropriations decided that the allocation that the House 
received on the entire bill was too low. Some adjustments were made, 
both on the defense and nondefense side, which permitted us to get 
together and bridge some remaining gaps that were indeed very serious.
  This bill provides what we need for stockpile stewardship to maintain 
the trustworthiness of our nuclear weapons, to participate adequately 
in the builddown, which is extremely technical and highly scientific, 
without building any new weapons, and without any underground testing--
to make sure that our weapons are safe and reliable--which is a new 
concept called science-phased stockpile stewardship.
  That represents a little over $4 billion in this bill. And I imagine 
for a long period of time we will be spending something like that, or 
more, because apparently we are not going to do any underground 
testing. That means that scientists have to use new methods built 
around large computers, and testing in other ways; and scientific 
instruments that will measure the validity of our nuclear weapons 
without having them tested.
  In addition, there is some very excellent research that everybody 
thinks ought to take place. Much of it is not necessarily in direct 
energy research but has to do with basic physics wherein some of the 
best physics research in the world takes place under the auspices of 
this bill.
  We are busy trying to do our very best to maintain the stewardship of 
the weapons; to see what the reality of the future lies therein; to 
take care of the basic research for this, which is one of the three or 
four major areas for research in science-based physics, and the like, 
found in this bill; and, at the same time to satisfy many requests for 
Members about water projects.
  It has been a very exceptional year of many floods with many of the 
levies being torn down, and much work having to be done, especially in 
the southern part of America regarding flood damage. Much of that is in 
this bill--and an orderly manner of authorizing the Corps of Engineers 
to get on with some of it. They will be rather busy. They have received 
authority to start a number of new projects.
  But I am hopeful that in the final analysis the President will sign 
this bill, and that the U.S. Senate will overwhelmingly support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that, under the unanimous-consent 
agreement, I have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Senate will shortly vote to adopt 
the conference agreement on the fiscal year 1998 energy/water 
appropriations bill. And unfortunately, this bill is laden with pork-
barrel spending, much of which was considered by neither the House nor 
the Senate as part of the normal appropriations process.
  I count seven projects for which funds are earmarked in the bill 
language that were not included in the bill that passed either the 
Senate or the House. Let me list these seven projects for the benefit 
of my colleagues who are not members of the Appropriations Committee.
  First, there are three projects earmarked in the legislative language 
agreed to by the conferees for reimbursements to non-Federal sponsors 
of work in Texas:

[[Page S10219]]

  There is $150,000 for the White Oak Bayou watershed in Texas. The 
House added a line item for this unrequested project in its report; the 
Senate never considered it. Yet it is now included in the conferees' 
legislative language.
  There is $500,000 for the Hunting Bayou element and another $2 
million for the Brays Bayou portion of the flood control project in 
Buffalo Bayou, TX. In its report, the House cut the $1.8 million 
requested for this project, while the Senate included the line item in 
its report at the requested amount of $1.8 million. Neither body 
included an earmark in legislative language, but the conferees approved 
an earmark of $2.5 million which is almost $700,000 more than the 
amount requested.
  Another legislative earmark approved by the conferees is $4 million 
for the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge Sardis Lake, MS, so that the 
city of Sardis may proceed with development of the lake. The conferees 
directed the corps to conduct or pay for environmental assessments and 
impact studies required under the Sardis lake recreation and tourism 
master plan, phase II. This provision was in neither bill.
  The conferees included bill language to earmark $6 million for the 
Corps of Engineers to extend navigation channels on the Allegheny River 
to provide passenger boat access to the Kittanning, PA, Riverfront 
Park. This project was mentioned in the House report, but was not 
included in either bill.
  Another earmark that migrated from the House report to the conference 
bill language is $2.5 million of corps' operations funds to intercept 
and dispose of solid waste upstream of Lake Cumberland, KY.
  Another earmark that moved from Senate report language to the 
conference bill language is $6.9 million from Tennessee Valley 
Authority funds for operation, maintenance, surveillance, and 
improvement of Land Between the Lakes.
  These seven provisions, earmarking over $32 million for these 
specific projects, were added to the bill language in conference. I 
don't know why the conferees chose to add emphasis to these provisions 
by including them as earmarks in the bill language, instead of 
including them, as is the normal process, in the report language if 
they were approved by the conferees. Only the conferees could explain 
that decision.
  However, Madam President, in at least one instance, it is clear that 
the conferees chose to add a wholly new provision to this bill. And 
they did this behind closed doors, without benefit of public or full 
congressional review.
  Madam President, the Congress has a process for considering 
legislation. That process relies on full and open consideration of the 
President's budget and policy requests, as well as fair and open 
consideration of Members' requests for added funding or new policies. 
That process, when followed, makes it possible for all Members of the 
Congress, not just those who serve on the Appropriations Committees, to 
have an opportunity to review the legislation on which we must vote.
  This bill, at least in part, bypassed that normal process. 
Unfortunately, the decision of the conferees to bypass the normal 
authorization and appropriations process is one of the reasons the 
American people do not trust the Congress to do what the people desire.
  Madam President, I do not mean to give the impression that this bill 
does not provide necessary and appropriate funding for important 
projects that will benefit our Nation. Funding is included for flood 
control and water projects, nuclear energy and weapons activities, 
environmental restoration of contaminated properties, and other 
important projects that are necessary and valid. The majority of the 
funding recommendations in this bill are ones that I fully support.
  But I am saddened by the blatant examples of pork-barrel spending in 
this bill. And because this bill is not amendable in its present form, 
there is, unfortunately, nothing that I or any other Member of this 
body can do to eliminate these spending items.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectional 
provision in this conference agreement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

      Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 2203, Conference Agreement


                             bill language

       Earmarks funds for 15 specific projects, including 
     feasibility studies, from general investigations account of 
     Army Corps of Engineers, including 2 projects not in either 
     bill [$500,000 to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor of the 
     Hunting Bayou element of the flood control project in Buffalo 
     Bayou, Texas; and $150,000 to reimburse the non-Federal 
     sponsor of the flood control project in the White Oak Bayou 
     watershed in Texas]
       Earmarks funds for 40 specific projects from Army Corps of 
     Engineers construction account, including 1 project not in 
     either bill [$2 million to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor 
     of the flood control project in the Brays Bayou portion of 
     the Buffalo Bayou, Texas]
       Earmarks funds from Army Corps of Engineers flood control 
     funding for 3 specific projects, including 1 project not in 
     either bill [up to $4 million to dredge Sardis Lake, 
     Mississippi, so that the City of Sardis may proceed with 
     development of the lake, including direction to pay for 
     environmental assessments and impact studies required under 
     the Sardis Lake Recreation and Tourism Master Plan, Phase II]
       Earmarks funds for 9 projects from Army Corps of Engineers 
     operation and maintenance account, including 2 projects not 
     in either bill [$6 million for navigation channels on the 
     Allegheny River to provide passenger boat access to the 
     Kittanning, Pennsylvania, Riverfront Park; and $2.5 million 
     to intercept and dispose of solid waste upstream of Lake 
     Cumberland, Kentucky]
       Section 101--Earmarks $5 million for the Army Corps of 
     Engineers to provide planning, design, and construction 
     assistance to non-Federal interests in carrying out water 
     related environmental infrastructure and environmental 
     resources development projects in Alaska [Senate had provided 
     $10 million in nationwide authority; conferees cut funding 
     half but limited application of section to Alaska]
       Appropriates additional $10 million above the budget 
     request for Appalachian Regional Commission (for a total of 
     $170 million)
       Earmarks $6.9 million, not in either bill, from Tennessee 
     Valley Authority funds for operation, maintenance, 
     surveillance, and improvement of Land Between the Lakes
       Section 507--Increases the appropriations ceiling for 
     construction of the Chandler Pumping Plant in Arizona from $4 
     million to $13 million.
       Section 508--Revises a 1977 recreation cost-sharing 
     agreement between the State of West Virginia and the U.S. to: 
     allow West Virginia to receive credit toward its required 
     contribution for the cost of recreation facilities at 
     Stonewall Jackson Lake in West Virginia, which are 
     constructed by a joint venture of the State of West Virginia 
     and a private entity; remove the requirement that these 
     facilities be owned by the Government when completed; and 
     prohibit any reduction in Government funding for the project.


                            Report Language

       [NOTE: States that language in either House or Senate 
     report that is not specifically addressed in the conference 
     report remains the intent of the conferees. Following list 
     identifies only those earmarks specifically included in the 
     conferees' statement of managers.]
     Army Corps of Engineers
       Extensive report language clarifies detailed instructions 
     of conferees for expenditure of Army Corps of Engineers 
     projects added in the tables on pages 40-68 of the report. 
     For example:
       $200,000 earmarked ``to accelerate work on the feasibility 
     study for the development of a comprehensive basin management 
     plan for navigation, including recreational navigation, 
     environmental restoration, and water quality for the Dog 
     River, Alabama, watershed''
       $200,000 earmarked ``to modify the Lower West Branch 
     Susquehanna River Basin Environmental Restoration, 
     Pennsylvania, reconnaissance study to address the wide range 
     of complex water resources problems in the large study area 
     which includes Clinton, Northumberland, Lycoming, Sullivan, 
     Tioga, and Union Counties, Pennsylvania''
       ``$2,000,000 for the development of strategies for the 
     control of zebra mussels''
       Includes directive and support language which falls short 
     of earmarking funds, such as:
       ``[T]he conferees expect the Corps of Engineers to give 
     priority to projects that protect the environmental, 
     historic, and cultural resources of Smith Island, Maryland 
     and Virginia.''
       ``The attention of the Corps of Engineers is directed to 
     the following projects in need of maintenance of review: 
     Alabama-Coosa River navigation system; Brunswick Harbor, 
     Georgia; and Little and Murrells Inlet in South Carolina.''
       ``Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Army . . . is urged to make a 
     final decision with respect to permits . . . for the 
     replacement of the existing 350-foot wood dock with a 400-
     foot concrete extension of the existing Terminal 5 dock 
     (including associated

[[Page S10220]]

     dredging and filling) in the West Waterway of the Duwamish 
     River in Seattle, Washington. The Secretary shall not reject 
     that application on the basis of any claim of Indian treaty 
     rights, but shall leave any question with respect to such 
     rights to be determined in the course of judicial review of 
     his action. . . .''
     Bureau of Reclamation
       Extensive report language clarifies detailed instructions 
     of conferees for expenditure of Bureau of Reclamation funds 
     added in the tables on pages 74-79 of the report. For 
     example:
       $1 million to complete the in-situ copper mining project, 
     and $300,000 for Bureau oversight and technology transfer 
     associated with the project
       $1.5 million for completion of design and initiation of 
     construction of the fish screen at the Contra Costa Canal 
     intake at Rock Slough in California; $5 million for a fish 
     screen project in Reclamation District 108; $2.625 million 
     for a fish screen project at Reclamation District 1004; and 
     $2.5 million for fish screen projects in Princeton-Glenn-
     Codora and Provident Irrigation Districts
       $300,000 for Bureau of Reclamation to work with local 
     interests to identify the most effective voluntary water 
     conservation practices applicable to the Walker River Basin 
     in Nevada, and to quantify the contribution that voluntary 
     conservation can make to solving the water resources problems 
     in Walker Lake and the basin as a whole
       $1.45 million under fish and wildlife management and 
     development for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake 
     Central Arizona Project fish and wildlife activities
     Department of Energy
       Extensive report language clarifies detailed instructions 
     of conferees for expenditure of Department of Energy funds. 
     For example:
       $1.5 million of the funding for photovoltaic energy systems 
     is ``directed to university research to increase university 
     participation in this program and to fun the acquisition of 
     photovoltaic test equipment at the participating 
     institutions''
       Directed allocation of biomass/biofuels funding, including: 
     $150,000 for gridley rice straw project, ``27 million for 
     ethanol production, including $4 million for the biomass 
     ethanol plant in Jennings, Louisiana; and $2.5 million for 
     the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research
       $1 million for a research and development partnership to 
     manufacture electric transmission lines using aluminum matrix 
     composite materials
       Direction to ``include appropriate laboratories, industry 
     groups, and universities'' in the $7 million university 
     reactor fuel assistance and support program; the conferees 
     state, ``None of the funds are to be provided to industry and 
     no less than $5 million is to be made available to 
     universities participating in this program.''
       Direction to ``assess the cost of decommissioning the 
     Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor site in Arkansas'' 
     and provide a report to Congress
       Earmark of $3 million for a ``rigorous, peer-reviewed 
     research program that will apply the molecular level 
     knowledge gained from the Department's human genome and 
     structural biology research to ascertain the effects on 
     levels ranging from cells to whole organisms that arise from 
     low-dose-rate exposures to energy and defense-related insults 
     (such as radiation and chemicals)'', and directs the 
     Department to ``develop a multi-year program plan, including 
     budgets, for the subsequent ten years''
       $4 million to upgrade a nuclear radiation center to 
     accommodate boron neutron capture therapy at University of 
     California-Davis
       $7.5 million for design, planning, and construction of an 
     expansion of the Medical University of South Carolina's 
     cancer research center, to provide areas for utilization of 
     positron emission tomography, using metabolic bio-markers, a 
     ribozyme-based gene therapy
       $2 million for Englewood Hospital in New Jersey for breast 
     cancer treatment using condensed diagnostic process
       $10 million for the Northeast Regional Cancer Institute for 
     innovative research supporting the Department's exploration 
     of microbial genetics
       $2.5 million for design, planning and construction of a 
     science and engineering center at Highlands University in Las 
     Vegas, New Mexico
       $30 million add-on for infrastructure and equipment needs 
     at the national laboratories and Nevada test site
       $10 million for the American Textile Partnership (AMTEX)
       $10 million for the Swan Lake-Lake TyeeIntertie project of 
     the Alaska Power Administration
       Includes directive and support language which falls short 
     of earmarking funds, such as:
       Conferees ``support the peer-reviewed nuclear medicine 
     research program in biological imaging at the University of 
     California Los Angeles and strongly encourage the Department 
     to fully fund that research in fiscal year 1998''
       Conferees ``recognize the capability and availability of 
     resources at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas to store data 
     and scientific studies related to Yucca Mountain and 
     encourage the Department to maximize utilization of this 
     resource''
     Tennessee Valley Authority:
       Directs TVA to relocate power lines in the area of the lake 
     development proposed by Union County, Mississippi, and assist 
     in preparation of environmental impact statements, where 
     necessary

  Mr. McCAIN. Of course, this conference agreement contains other 
objectionable provisions in the bill, as well as the usual earmarks in 
the report language.
  Madam President, I plan to write to the President recommending that 
he veto the line items in this bill that are unnecessary and wasteful, 
particularly those that were added without benefit of public or 
congressional review.
  Madam President, I want to tell the distinguished managers of the 
bill again of my deep disappointment that they would add seven projects 
in conference that totals $32 million and which were in neither bill, 
along with the usual unnecessary and wasteful projects. I think it is 
an abrogation of my ability as a U.S. Senator to vote for these 
projects, and I deeply resent it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, my good friend from Arizona, the neighbor 
to the State of Nevada, pointed out seven projects which he objected 
to. These are all in the House budget.
  But I would say to the Senate, and anyone who is in the sound of my 
voice, that these are seven projects out of hundreds and hundreds of 
projects. He complains that this bill is a $21 billion bill. And we 
should waste no Government money--not a single penny. But I have to say 
that in picking seven relatively small projects out of a $21 billion 
bill I think the Senator from New Mexico and I in managing this bill 
did a pretty good job. This bill provides many different things.
  I would also say before leaving that subject that the Senator from 
Arizona, my good friend, also talks about things being done without 
authorization. The House is very, very tough on making sure that things 
are authorized. Congressman McDade, chairman of the subcommittee on the 
House side, has been very strict on that. However, I want to make sure 
that everyone understands that this bill provides a number of dollars 
for many different projects.
  Let's take, for example--I will not take any of the things in Nevada 
for obvious reasons. But let's take the sister State of California: $6 
million to dredge and deepen Long Beach Harbor. This deepening will 
significantly improve sea trade up and down the west coast, and in the 
Asia-Pacific basin. It will even reduce the transportation costs of oil 
that is being brought down from Alaska. That is one example for $6 
million.
  The bill also provides $10 million to restore the sensitive 
Everglades ecosystem which has been damaged for decades by agricultural 
production.
  Those are only two examples. There are numerous flood control 
projects throughout the country that will prevent significant personal 
and economic loss.
  This is of particular importance in light of El Nino which may bring 
unusually heavy rains, as it already has to the western part of the 
United States.
  These floods projects are important. It is a relatively small part of 
the bill. But they are important projects.

[[Page S10221]]

  Madam President, the Corps of Engineers is one of the last great 
bastions of infrastructure development in this country. You can just 
take the bill itself and look at some of the flood control projects. 
You can look at them in Arkansas at a place called American River 
Watershed; in Colorado, at a place called Alamosa; you can look at 
Florida and many different places, including the Everglades that we 
have already talked about; Hawaii, at a place called Wailupe Stream; in 
Illinois, Reno Lake; Indiana, the Fort Wayne metropolitan area; you can 
talk about Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana. All through this country there 
are flood control projects that are going to save lives and property. 
That is one of the main parts of this bill.
  I am somewhat concerned that someone would indicate that this bill is 
fluffed. It is far from that, Madam President.
  I would like at this time to make sure that the Record is spread with 
the fact that this is a bill that has reached the Senate floor as a 
result of bipartisanship. The chairman of the subcommittee, the senior 
Senator from New Mexico, and I worked hand in glove this past 10 months 
to arrive at the point where we are now asking the Senate to approve 
this conference report.

  So I want to extend my appreciation to the Senator from New Mexico, 
and also extend my appreciation to my clerk, Greg Daines, and Liz 
Blevins on the minority side for the work that they have done day after 
day, week after week, month after month, arriving at this point.
  I also say publicly that Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, and Lashawnda 
Leftwich on the majority side, have set an example of how congressional 
staffs should work together to arrive at a goal that is good for this 
country.
  Madam President, this bill has, as the Senator from New Mexico 
pointed out, many different items dealing with the sciences. For 
example, one of the things that I am extremely happy about is that we 
have provided money for desalinization. Personally I don't think it is 
nearly enough because I think in the years to come desalinization is 
going to be the watchword for not only water in this country but all 
over the world. We need to do much more than what we have done.
  Senator Paul Simon, the Senator, just retired, from Illinois, is 
writing a book on water. I had the good fortune to read the book before 
it went to the publisher. It is a wonderful book. He points out how 
important desalinization is. And I acknowledge that and agree with him. 
There is desalinization in this bill that I think is very important.
  We have done things with hydrogen fuel development. We have done 
things with the other renewable programs--solar; and programs that are 
going to take the place someday of fossil fuel. It is not enough 
certainly in this bill, but I am proud of the fact that it is in this 
legislation.
  I would like to also point out another California project called the 
California Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration project.
  I say this because this is one of the first times in the history of 
this country that parties with dissimilar and often opposing interests 
have sat down and are working together for an equitable resolution to a 
significant problem in the State of California dealing with water.
  I think this very big project--for which there is a lot of money in 
this bill to get this started--is going to set the pattern all over the 
country. Now parties with dissimilar interests have to sit down and 
work toward a common goal as they have done.
  I am very proud of this bill. I think we have done a good job. We 
have done a good job in making sure that we have not only done the 
projects that the Senator from New Mexico and I have talked about but 
also, Madam President, we have done a good job in making sure that our 
nuclear deterrent is safe and reliable.
  When I was in the House of Representatives, I supported a nuclear 
freeze. I support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And I do it with 
so much more anticipation now because of what we have in this bill 
because we have enough money to provide for stockpile stewardship so 
that the people who we are going to call upon to certify that our 
stockpile is safe and reliable can do it.
  So, in short, this is a good bill. And I hope that it passes the 
Senate as it did on the initial go-around unanimously.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, St. Louis, MO, is the location of this 
country's first nuclear weapons site. Unfortunately, the wastes are in 
the midst of the St. Louis metropolitan area and are for the most part 
uncontrolled. The radioactive waste at these sites was generated from 
the production of nuclear weapons as part of the Federal Government's 
Manhattan Project and Atomic Energy Commission between 1942 and 1957. 
Much to my dismay, St. Louis has the distinction of having the largest 
volume of radioactive waste in the country with over 900,000 cubic 
yards.
  For 15 years we have worked with the Department of Energy to clean up 
this site. Finally, in just the past 2 weeks, after much frustration 
and delay, we have come to the point were DOE has begun preliminary 
cleanup efforts. Given this recent progress, the news of the FUSRAP 
program's transfer out of DOE has, quite understandably, caused a great 
deal of distress in the community. While I am by no means questioning 
the Corps' ability to handle the FUSRAP project, I am concerned that 
potential delays caused by the transfer will undo much of the recent 
progress.
  With site recommendations already made, feasibility studies 
concluded, and contracts let, it is important that the Corps honor the 
preliminary groundwork laid by DOE in order to avoid any further 
delays. Will the Corps be willing to respect these studies, site plans, 
and contracts?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The committee fully intends that the feasibility 
studies and the site recommendations prepared by DOE will be accepted 
and carried out by the Corps of Engineers as appropriate. Furthermore, 
the Energy and Water Development Conference for fiscal year 1998 
contains language requiring the Corps to honor all existing contracts.
  Mr. BOND. The local community has been very involved in designing a 
plan to clean up the site. They are concerned that the administration 
of the cleanup will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha or 
Kansas City, reducing their input and influence on the cleanup process. 
When the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, will 
the St. Louis cleanup be managed out of the St. Louis Corps office?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is the understanding and intent of the committee 
that the cleanup and restoration of contaminated sites falling within 
the purview of FUSRAP shall be managed and executed by the nearest 
Civil Works District of the Corps of Engineers with appropriate 
assistance from an approved design center for hazardous, toxic, and 
radioactive waste. Local communities throughout the country have been 
very involved in designing cleanup plans at FUSRAP sites and this 
strategy effectively maintains community input on the process.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for his assistance and assurances.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I intend to support final passage of 
H.R. 2203, the fiscal year 1998 energy and water development 
appropriations conference report, because it includes funding for a 
number of projects important to Tennessee, including the National 
Spallation Neutron Source in Oak Ridge.
  However, I want to express my deep concern about the section of the 
conference report dealing with the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]. 
The conference report includes $70 million for TVA's nonpower programs 
in fiscal year 1998, which is $36 million less than TVA received to 
perform these functions last year. However, the House version of the 
bill had zeroed out funding for TVA, so I am grateful that the 
conferees provided most of the Senate-passed level of $86 million for 
next year.
  Unfortunately, the conferees also stipulated that this will be the 
last year that they will provide funding for TVA to carry out its 
nonpower activities. They warned that, beginning next year, these 
nonpower responsibilities will either have to be transferred to some 
other Federal agency or paid for with revenues from TVA's self-
financing power program.

[[Page S10222]]

  Mr. President, I want to be sure everyone understands what we are 
talking about when we discuss TVA's nonpower programs. We are talking 
about flood control and navigation on the Tennessee River, our Nation's 
fifth-largest river system. We are talking about the operation and 
maintenance of 14 navigational locks and 54 dams--to which the TVA 
power system contributes its proportionate share of funding. And we are 
talking about the management of 480,000 acres of recreational lakes, 
nearly 11,000 miles of shoreline, and 435,000 acres of public land--
including such unique national resources as the Land Between the Lakes 
National Recreation Area in Tennessee and Kentucky.
  During the debate on this legislation, some have claimed that the 
residents of the seven-State TVA region are receiving an unfair Federal 
subsidy that no one else in the country receives. Madam President, that 
is simply not true. In every other region of the country, these types 
of natural resource and infrastructure management activities are 
performed by some Federal agency, whether it is the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, or 
the Bureau of Reclamation. In the southeast region, they have 
traditionally been carried out by the TVA. But if the TVA does not 
perform them next year, someone else will have to. There is no question 
that these are Federal responsibilities.
  Perhaps the most disturbing suggestion that has been made in recent 
weeks is that the TVA power program should pick up the cost of these 
Federal land and water stewardship responsibilities. That is nothing 
less than an unfair tax on TVA ratepayers. As I said before, these are 
Federal responsibilities that are paid for by the Federal Government in 
every other region of the country. Nowhere else are utility ratepayers 
expected to assume the costs of these types of Federal responsibilities 
by paying more for their electricity.
  So while I appreciate the fact that the conferees agreed to provide 
funding for TVA to meet its Federal obligations this year, I am very 
concerned about what they have proposed for the future. And I want to 
be clear about one thing: it is not acceptable for Congress to walk 
away from its Federal responsibilities in one region of the country 
while continuing to provide for them everywhere else. Over the course 
of the coming year, I plan to work very hard with my colleagues to come 
up with a solution that is fair and equitable for the people of the 
Tennessee Valley.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we yield back any time we have 
remaining on the bill.
  Mr. REID. I yield back any time the minority has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Leahy
       
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam 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. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________