[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.
____________________