[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6481-S6485]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now begin consideration of Calendar No. 401, which is Senate bill 2138, 
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, for 
debate only during the remainder of today's session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.

       A bill (S. 2138) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

[[Page S6482]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be managing the bill for the 
majority and the Subcommittee of Appropriations on Energy and Water 
Development. I understand that the minority will not consent to any 
amendments being laid down tonight. So we will just have opening 
statements, and then I gather we will take the matter up at the 
earliest opportunity in the morning and proceed until we finish.
  I might suggest, unless there are some amendments I am unaware of--
and that could be the case--that there is a real possibility that we 
could finish this bill tomorrow. We would very much like to do that. 
That would mean Thursday night we would finish. If that doesn't happen, 
then we may have a complication with reference to the manager and 
ranking member, which might carry the bill over for a considerable 
number of days.
  I want to give a few opening remarks about the bill. First, I thank 
my ranking member, Senator Reid. This is a very difficult bill and, in 
many respects, contains some very, very serious, substantive matters 
for America and some very important defense policies with reference to 
nuclear weapons, our stockpile, and the like. We have worked very 
handily together, and I am proud of the bill we have before us.
  This bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Appropriations 
last Thursday and was filed on Friday. It has been available to 
Senators since Monday.
  The committee recommendation provides a total of $20.9 billion in 
budget authority. Of that, $12 billion is defense and $8.9 billion is 
nondefense. Especially within the nondefense allocation, the committee 
has struggled to craft a recommendation that meets the Senate's 
expectations. The President's request for water projects was $1.8 
billion below the level required to continue ongoing construction 
projects at their optimal level. If we were to truly fix that problem 
to provide the level of funding of water projects Congress envisioned 
when it enacted the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, which the 
President signed, and last year's Energy and Water Development Act, 
which the President signed, the committee would have to shift $1.8 
billion from other programs within nondefense, which is only $8.9 
billion of the entire bill. We would have to move that to the Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
  Now, Mr. President, when the President of the United States decided 
to reduce water projects by $1.8 billion, let me suggest that these are 
flood protection projects in many, many States. These are dams and 
reservoirs that have been under construction. These consist of work on 
channeling our ports. And, yes, there is money that was obligated to 
build our ports so that they could continue to carry the vast commerce 
that comes in and out of the United States through these ports.
  Much of the port activity--draining and the like, dredges--is paid 
for by the Federal Government. And the President decided that he had 
priorities in water, and he wanted us to pay for those and give 
dramatic increases. But when it came to all those projects that are all 
over our country that other Members appropriated last year and that the 
President signed, those were knocked out.
  Mr. President, that is just not the way to do business. It is all 
right if the President wants to cut things, but to do it like that and 
then ask for his special projects to be increased as if they are the 
only ones that are deserving of any increase, and all the rest of our 
States and our ports of entry are supposed to be cut, just doesn't make 
sense.
  So, actually, we are going to have a little difficulty when we go to 
conference in that part of the bill which is called nondefense. That 
includes water projects, plus nondefense research projects within the 
Department of Energy--some very important research projects.
  That much of a reduction would be impossible to impose on the 
Department of Energy's science, energy, research, and environmental 
management programs. Fortunately, to reduce our need to cut these 
programs, Chairman Stevens provided the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee with $238 million in nondefense budget authority above a 
freeze.
  The committee recommendation is to use all of that increase and an 
additional $211 million taken from a freeze level within the Department 
of Energy to add to water projects. I just explained why he wants to do 
that. Even at that, Senators have been very understanding, because it 
means two things for all the Senators and their projects. We have been 
able to provide between 60 percent and 70 percent of the optimal 
funding level for water project construction, and our baseline for the 
Department of Energy was a freeze, and we had to go below that.
  As an example, the administration proposed a $90 million increase, 
$26 million over last year, for solar and renewable energy. We are 
working with two of our Senators who want to amend what we have done in 
this bill. Let me just explain what we have done.
  Regardless of any individual's view on solar and renewable energy, 
the subcommittee does not have resources to provide the kind of 
increase that the President had in mind. The recommendation for solar 
and energy is a $780,000 reduction from the current level--that is what 
we have in our bill--and that is because we have to cut below a freeze 
in this part of this bill.
  As usual, the subcommittee has received requests for thousands of 
individual projects. To the best of our ability, we have tried to 
include those in the water area where requests were generally well 
founded requests to provide adequate funding for ongoing projects. 
Unfortunately, because the reductions apply to DOE's nondefense 
program, there is very little flexibility to add projects within 
budgets that are already being cut.
  For a specific recommendation--but before I do that--I am not sure 
that I will deliver my entire summary--I want to yield the floor and 
ask if my ranking member desires to make some comments at this point.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as ranking member of this subcommittee, I 
recommend this bill to my colleagues.
  I first of all want to say that we hear so much in the press about 
the partisan nature of this Congress. And there is, I think, in the 
minds of most everyone too much partisanship. But I think the 
Appropriations Committee is a place to look to see bipartisanship, to 
see a model as to how we can get along to make progress. This bill is a 
bill that was done on a bipartisan basis. The ranking member, I, and 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, 
have worked very hard to come up with a bill that is the most just and 
fair bill we could come up with.
  This is a very important bill. It deals with many different aspects 
of our society. We realize the importance of this legislation. The 
chairman and the ranking member, as a result of that, have worked very 
closely together. We have a harmonious relationship between ourselves 
and our staffs.
  I repeat, the two Members operate this subcommittee. I extend my arm 
of friendship to my senior colleague, the chairman of this 
subcommittee, who has been very forthright. I have been included in all 
the meetings with Cabinet officials and others to come up with this 
bill.
  But I also say to the administration that we have a constitutional 
form of government. We have to protect the legislative aspect of this 
separation of powers document. The administration did not, in my 
opinion, treat us fairly with this bill. As a result of this, because 
we have broad and equal say in what goes on in this country as a 
legislative branch, we step forth and rearrange the priorities of this 
bill. We did it in a way that protects ongoing projects that are 
essential to various parts of this country.
  We feel that we have come up with something that is fair and that is 
reasonable. There are programs that have been itemized for projects and 
activities of the Department of Energy, the Corps of Engineers, Bureau 
of Reclamation, and other independent agencies.

  I repeat that I support the approximately $21 billion in 
appropriations to this Senate. I recommend this to the Senate as a 
whole.
  I can't overemphasize the fiscal tension between these programs that 
we worked to make a balance. The Department of Energy, the Corps of 
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation recognize some of it.
  On the defense side of this bill, there is a very close, important 
relationship

[[Page S6483]]

that we have with the security of this country. Some of these programs 
are relatively nondiscretionary, since we must provide for the 
stockpile stewardship management program, defense environmental 
management, and the naval reactor program.
  I repeat, the chairman and I have worked very hard to find a balance 
in this bill and recognize this bill is far from perfect, but it is the 
best that two human beings could do to balance the separate interests--
the hundreds and hundreds of requests that we get from the 98 other 
Senators. So we have not accommodated everyone's priorities--not every 
State's priorities or the projects--but we have done the very best that 
we could.
  Mr. President, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation:
  It is no secret that the budget request sent to us by the President 
would have increased some solar and renewable activities while 
devastating the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation 
projects. But everyone should understand that we did an excellent job, 
in my opinion, with solar and renewable. We are willing to bring at the 
right time solar-renewable up to last year's limit. That will be very 
difficult to do. But we will do that. But we have taken pretty good 
care of other programs. We have done a good job of increasing the 
hydrogen aspect. That is very important. We have done a good job with 
wind energy.
  So I don't really apologize to anyone for the work that we have done 
in this bill. I don't apologize for what we have done with the tools we 
have with solar-renewable activities.
  Mr. President, we hear a lot about water projects as if there is 
something wrong with a water project because the term ``project'' is 
connected to it. But let's talk about some. I am going to pick at 
random some of the water projects in this bill and indicate to this 
body and to anyone within the sound of my voice why these projects are 
important.
  Take a place in North Dakota. Mr. President, North Dakota doesn't 
have a lot of people. I don't know if it is the State with the smallest 
number of people in it in this Union or not. But, if not, it is one of 
the smallest. North Dakota doesn't come to us with a large 
congressional delegation, but we felt, in fairness to the people of 
that small State, that we should do something about an act of nature 
that devastated a place called Devil's Lake. That certainly is a name 
that is appropriate because that lake is unending in spreading out over 
that part of the country. We have put money into this for flood control 
projects in North Dakota. We have, for example, $8 million for 
construction of another outlet on Devil's Lake. This is important 
because that lake just continues to grow. Never in recorded history has 
this lake been the size that it is, wiping out highways, people's 
farms, people's homes. That is one of the projects in this bill.

  In the Mississippi delta region, Davis Pond, LA, this is a pond that 
diverts fresh water from the Mississippi to the coastal bays and 
marshes, but also mitigates any negative environmental impacts of 
freshwater diversion. It is a large project, $16 million, essential to 
that very important part of that country.
  Mr. President, I have traveled in California to look at the 
California bay-delta. I didn't do a very good job of looking at it 
because El Nino got in the way. The rains were torrential, and I wasn't 
able to see very much.
  The State of California has 33 million people. This project, which we 
were very generous in funding last year, and this will be the second 
year, is said by most people to be the most important environmental 
project in this country ongoing today. This bill has $65 million it 
added to some $85 million we put in last year. I think that was the 
number. But it is so important to that massive State to try to get 
things under control out there. We have environmental interests. We 
have agricultural interests. We have big cities. We have little cities, 
many different problems that we have there, and these people are all 
sitting down and talking about it. This is our recognition that 
progress is being made.
  There is something in here that I am sure some of the press will 
focus on--what could this be--aquatic plant control. This is a strange-
sounding name. Why should there be any money put in this? I wish we 
could appropriate ten times more money than the $4 million we put in 
this because it is badly needed. This $4 million is so important 
because we have aquatic plants which can and do hinder navigation. They 
undermine flood-control efforts. They threaten agriculture and public 
health.
  Now, you have, for example, in Lake Champlain, VT, a problem with 
something called the water chestnut and Eurasian Milfoil. State and 
local governments are desperate for help because these plants are 
invasive. They are interfering with the lives of the people of Vermont 
and that part of the country.
  We have in the western part of the United States a tree that was 
imported to stop the erosion of banks and rivers and streams. These 
things, called salt cedar trees or tamarisks, are literally ruining 
streams, agricultural ponds, rivers. We in Nevada, for example, have 
very few rivers, and they are not powerful rivers. The only real 
powerful river we have is the Colorado, but on some of these smaller 
streams this plant is devastating, ruining agriculture. So I wish we 
could put a lot more money into this to help places like Lake Champlain 
and others throughout the United States.
  Dredging of ports and harbors along the Atlantic and Pacific 
coastlines, as well as the harbors in the Gulf of Mexico, no small task 
for the Corps of Engineers. On an annual basis, U.S. ports and harbors 
handle an estimated $600 billion in international cargo, generating 
over $150 million in tax revenue. So that is part of the responsibility 
in our bill, to make sure the ports in the Atlantic and Pacific and 
Gulf of Mexico can handle their small navigation projects, totaling 
less than $10 million, but they are large navigation projects.
  As an example, the New York and New Jersey channels need to be 
deepened, dredging and other corps operations to permit commercial 
navigation traffic through the complex river-harbor system they have. 
These projects are funded in this bill at over $50 million. They are 
important to the literal survival of the commerce of New Jersey and New 
York.

  There are things in this bill on which we have to go forward, and it 
is not fair, in my opinion, that the administration cut back on these 
ongoing projects. We just could not stop the projects.
  So these kinds of projects have been priorities of Members and funded 
through nondefense dollars. This bill is as important as the defense 
authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill which will come 
up for the security of this Nation. No question about that in my mind. 
While the allocations provided the subcommittee for the Army Corps of 
Engineers was higher than the President's request, it was still over 
$200 million less than last year's level.
  Now, I want to say one other thing that I think is important, and 
again I express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee. 
The subcommittee mark has a section in the bill that reports and 
addresses the concerns about the management and regulatory oversight at 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As I stated in the markup before the 
full committee, Senators Chafee and Baucus, who are the authorizing 
full committee leaders of Environment and Public Works, do a good job, 
and we have requested and they have accepted the responsibility of 
taking a look at some of the things going on at the NRC.
  Again, I express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee 
for cooperating on this issue. We have a responsibility as the 
appropriators to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars that we 
appropriate are used fairly. I have a very, very strong feeling that it 
is topheavy at the NRC. I have talked to people there who believe it is 
topheavy, too much management. We need to make sure there is an 
examination of this commission so that there are more people to do the 
work at the lower levels, and we do a good job of limiting management.
  I thank the junior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, for working 
with us and whose efforts on behalf of the employees living in Maryland 
were of great value as we reexamined the funding levels and language. 
There are people who work there who need to make sure they are still 
there able to do the work and we relieve a little of the dead weight, 
frankly, at the higher

[[Page S6484]]

levels. This is something we need to revisit next year if this isn't 
resolved during this coming year.
  Mr. President, we have the responsibility for the Nation's nuclear 
stockpile. I am not going to spend a lot of time on that tonight other 
than to say the Senate has to realize that this is an awesome 
responsibility we have, the chairman and the ranking member, to make 
sure there is adequate money to take care of our nuclear stockpile. We 
have to make sure the nuclear stockpile we have is safe and reliable. 
We no longer do underground testing, but we still have as large a 
responsibility as we ever had to make sure our stockpile is safe and 
reliable. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is something that this 
country adheres to, but we go one step further than most countries; we 
make sure the stockpile we have, I repeat, is safe and is reliable. 
That is what we are trying to do with this bill, and $4.5 billion a 
year is barely enough to do it. We can't have that cut down at all, or 
we will have some significant problems in this country. We can't put 
the nuclear genie back in the bottle. It is open. It is there, as 
indicated in the actions that have been taken by the countries of India 
and Pakistan. We have a responsibility, however, to make sure that we 
safeguard our nuclear stockpile.

  So I think we have done that in this bill. We have good teamwork 
between the laboratories and the Nevada Test Site. We have tried to 
make a good balance there. I think we are looking at, also, some great 
science that is being conducted in those national laboratories, which 
are a jewel this country has. These laboratories do the finest raw 
science of any place in the world, and their job is only going to 
become more difficult now that we have stopped underground nuclear 
testing.
  It is going to become more difficult because they have to do it in 
ways that only great scientific minds can do it. They are doing great 
things right now with subcritical testing. That is, they will start a 
device and before it gets critical they stop it and, through 
computerization and the other means they have at their disposal, they 
give us information as to what would have happened had that nuclear 
reaction gone critical. There are other things they are doing because 
of the need for further evaluation of these tests. Computerization is 
going to increase from present models as much as 1,000 times. So there 
is great science taking place as generated in this bill.
  Again, I say this bill provides for some very important things for 
this country, in the defense field and the domestic field. I repeat, it 
is not a perfect bill, but we did the best we could with the tools we 
were given, and I recommend to the Members that we approve this just as 
quickly as possible. This will be the first appropriation bill in the 
cycle and we should get it to the President as quickly as possible. It 
is the first and, I think, if not the most important, one of the two or 
three most important appropriations bills that we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to proceed for a few minutes and 
then ask we move off of this bill and go into morning business.
  Mr. President, within the Department of Energy's nondefense accounts 
we have placed a priority on science. Our recommendation is only $44.9 
million below the request, most of which is taken from prior year 
balances that can be used to offset fiscal year 1999 expenses.
  We are recommending proceeding with the construction of the 
Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. When it is 
completed, it will be one of America's most significant research tools, 
and it will add to the versatility and diversity of that great 
laboratory.
  We have also provided funds for the administration's requests for new 
nuclear energy programs and have provided a slight increase for the 
magnetic fusion energy account, just enough to bring it up to current 
levels. We provided three additional nuclear research programs that we 
believe are absolutely urgent.
  The bill includes a total of $11.9 billion for the atomic energy 
defense activities. That is $269 million below the budget request.
  This bill contains $1.048 billion for defense facilities cloture 
projects. The largest increase is $32 million for Rocky Flats, that 
project which was significantly underfunded in the budget. Accelerated 
cleanup at Rocky Flats will save an estimated $1 billion, which would 
then be available for other cleanup work. So it is important that the 
schedule at Rocky Flats be maintained as much as possible.

  In other defense activities, one of my highest personal goals is to 
destroy excess weapons plutonium in the United States and Russia. I 
believe it is the key to permanent nuclear arms control.
  The administration is on a path to begin to fabricate into mixed-
oxide fuels, 3 tons of U.S. weapons plutonium per year and is 
tentatively working to aid Russia to fabricate 1.3 tons per year into 
mixed-oxide fuel. I think both countries should destroy in the order of 
10 tons per year. But more than that, we have to ensure that Russia 
destroys at least as much weapons plutonium as we do because they have 
many times as much as we do. Anything else amounts to unequal 
disarmament.
  So my recommendation is to provide for a full amount of the request, 
but make a portion of it contingent upon bilateral accords which 
require at least equal conversion of weapons grade plutonium in the 
United States and the Soviet Union.
  Mr. President, just one last closing remark, and perhaps we will have 
to talk about this more tomorrow. But I note, many Senators' offices 
have had lobbyists come to see them about what is in this bill and what 
is now called Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship. Science-Based 
Stockpile Stewardship is an American plan to use the highest of 
science, technology and computers to measure the efficacy and 
effectiveness of our nuclear weapons; that is, to determine if they 
will do what they are supposed to do, if they are safe, trustworthy and 
sound.
  If someone wants to come to the floor and suggest the $4.46 billion 
which goes to this Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship should be 
reduced because it is a lot of money, let me just suggest when the 
United States of America decided that we would no longer do underground 
testing, which is one of the methods to determine the validity of our 
nuclear weapons and of that stockpile--since we do not build any new 
ones, we are only talking about old ones--if you want to return to 
underground testing, you probably can get by with less money for 
Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship, because it takes the place, in a 
sense, of underground tests as part of the verification of the value of 
the nuclear weapons, in terms of trustworthiness, accountability, and 
the like.
  So, for those who do not want to give the scientists and the 
laboratory directors the tools so they can certify our supply of 
nuclear weapons every year to the President of the United States as 
required by law--first to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and then to 
the President--if you don't want to give them the money to do that, 
then let's have an amendment on the floor and see if we are going to 
return to underground testing. I do not believe anyone wants to do 
that, at least not enough Senators. So we have to proceed doing it 
through science, through new ways to x-ray, in a sense, what is in 
these weapons through computerization, which is going to be improved 
dramatically for America and the world as part of this process so we 
can use the vast models and research capacity of computers to do this 
job.
  The day may come when we do not have any nuclear weapons. But for 
now, Russia still has a lot of nuclear weapons. Within the last month 
and a half, we have heard about two more nuclear powers. I believe that 
we have to maintain ours in a solid, ready, trustworthy state, and 
reduce them as much as possible, consistent with the risks to the 
United States. That is the kinds of things in this bill--very, very 
important.
  I must say, all of that money comes out of the Defense Department. 
So, when you look at the defense moneys for America, you must 
understand that about $14 billion of it goes to this committee for the 
nuclear activities and the laboratories that produce and do the nuclear 
research for us, and for the maintenance of the stockpile. It is very 
important everybody understand that.

[[Page S6485]]

 That money cannot be spent anywhere else. It is subject to the walls 
that we have put up around defense spending so you cannot spend it for 
nondefense work, you cannot spend it for water projects, and I am very, 
very thankful you cannot. If those walls come down, you will see the 
pressure for domestic spending eat away at defense needs, including the 
defense needs as depicted in this bill.

                          ____________________