[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6530-S6539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
Amendment No. 2713
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment No. 2713.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to Senator Inouye's amendment No.
2713.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2713) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct
that the Coats amendment is now the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask Senator Coats what is his
pleasure.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are awaiting word from New Jersey, one
of the States that is affected by this amendment, an exporting State.
We are assured that we will have an answer one way or the other. It
really rests in their hands. I think we have consensus to go forward,
but there seems to be a problem with that State. I see the Senators
from those States now. I think we will be able to give an answer very
shortly.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can say to my friend, the manager of
the bill--and I say this with some reluctance because I have such great
respect for the junior Senator from Indiana--I have received calls from
Connecticut, Montana, and there are others----
Mr. DOMENICI. Illinois.
Mr. REID. Illinois. I think the New Jersey problem is not the
problem. There are many problems related to this. This is not going to
go away. I wish I had better news, but we have a number of States that
are very concerned about this.
If I can get the attention of the Senator from Indiana, I do not
think the Senator from Indiana heard what I said. I say this with the
greatest respect for my friend from Indiana, we have not only received
calls from the New Jersey delegation, but have received calls from
Illinois, Montana, Connecticut. Some people may not have a concern with
this bill but have one of their own dealing with the transportation of
waste, trash. I just have told them to stay in their offices until we
see if we can get this worked out. I am really concerned about this
kind of bogging things down, for lack of a better description.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I had a discussion earlier with the Senator
from New Mexico. I had a discussion with the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. I told the Senator from New Mexico that it is
not my intention to bog down this bill. I understand the dilemma the
Senate is in due to the 4 weeks we spent on the tobacco bill without
resolution. We have appropriations bills that need to move.
I assured the Senator from New Mexico that it was not my intent to do
this. I was operating on the assumption that the agreement that we so
torturously reached in 1996, that received the unanimous support of
every Senator, including the Senators from New York and the Senators
from New Jersey, including the Senators from Illinois and exporting
States, after days and weeks and months of negotiations, that that
would still be operative.
Now it seems that everything has changed. I am not going to insist on
my rights to allow this amendment to tie up this appropriations bill. I
think there is important work in the Senate that needs to be done. I
will just say to my fellow Senators, this is an issue that is not going
to go away. I said it in 1990. I have said it every year since. It has
passed the Senate five times, sometimes by unanimous consent, sometimes
by 94 votes.
Importing States are at a tremendous disadvantage, and they have no
say in the ways in which they can manage their own environmental
destiny as it regards municipal solid waste. Exporting States can
continue to make promises about what they are going to do. The fact of
the matter is they apparently are not delivering on those promises. We
were assured time after
[[Page S6531]]
time that if they just bought a little more time, they would achieve
the capacity necessary to deal with their own waste, but they found it
convenient to ship it somewhere else so that somebody else can deal
with their problems.
It appears now that the evidence is in that they are not doing
anything to deal with their own waste, and that puts those of us who
are importing States at a great disadvantage. By the way, that is 31
States.
We agreed we are going to continue to work on this. We will continue
to work on this. We will attempt to achieve another consensus so that
we can move this legislation, but, in the meantime, I think it is
important that we go ahead with other work in the Senate that has been
planned.
With that in mind, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2716, as modified) was withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana, the
very distinguished Senator from Indiana. I thank him personally for
accommodating us today. I think he does make a point, and maybe he
should not give up, because it seems to me, with a little bit of
negotiation--this catches some people by surprise--but we have cleared
that very bill--well, it was an amendment when we cleared it. We had
taken it to the House and had trouble in the House with it. Clearly, we
haven't had problems in the Senate. The situation is such that somebody
can talk on it and not let us vote. The distinguished Senator from
Indiana agrees with the Senator from New Mexico--and I thank him for
that--that we ought to proceed and finish this bill. That is what he
has done. I very much appreciate it, and the Senate appreciates it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can also elaborate on what my friend,
the manager of the bill, has said, there is no Senator in this body who
has been more diligent on an issue than has the Senator from Indiana
been on this issue of transportation of waste. He has rendered a great
service not only to the people of the State of Indiana, but this
country. I join in his appreciation for the Senator from Indiana
allowing this bill to move forward.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have one amendment that is working
its way through the clearance process, but it has not been cleared yet.
Having said that, it is my understanding that there is no amendment
pending at this point, is that correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendments Nos. 2717 through 2725, en bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk nine amendments and
ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments numbered 2717 to 2725, en bloc.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment No. 2717
(Purpose: To set aside funding for the Omaha District of the Army Corps
of Engineers to pay certain claims)
On page 9, line 3, after ``expended,'' insert ``of which
$460,000 may be made available for the Omaha District to pay
pending takings claims for flooding of property adjacent to
the Missouri River caused by actions taken by the Army Corps
of Engineers, of which $2,540,000 shall be available for the
project on the Missouri River between Fort Peck Dam and
Gavins Point in South Dakota and Montana, under section 9(f)
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of
certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control,
and for other purposes'', approved December 22, 1944 (102
Stat. 4031)''.
amendment No. 2718
On page 8, line 7, add the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers is directed to use
$500,000 of funds appropriated herein to continue
construction of the Joseph G. Minish Passaic River waterfront
park and historic area, New Jersey project''.
amendment No. 2719
On page 8, line 9, before the period at the end insert ``:
Provided further, That of amounts made available by this Act
for project modifications for improvement of the environment
under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), $500,000 may be made available for
demonstration of sediment remediation technology under
section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 1268 note: 104 Stat. 4644)''.
amendment No. 2720
On page 27, line 21, delete ``.'' and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated herein
$30,000,000 is to be available for the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention program: Provided further, That of
the amount appropriated herein $30,000,000 shall be available
for the purpose of implementing the `nuclear cities'
initiative pursuant to the discussions of March 1998 between
the Vice President of the United States and the Prime
Minister of the Russian Federation and between the U.S.
Secretary of Energy and the Minister of Atomic Energy of the
Russian Federation.''
amendment no. 2721
On page 8, line 9, insert the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army may
make available $100,000 for the Belle Isle Shoreline Erosion
Protection, Michigan project; $100,000 for the Riverfront
Towers to Renaissance Center Shoreline Protection, Michigan
project; and $200,000 for the Great Lakes Basin, Sea Lamprey
Control, Section 206, Michigan, project''.
amendment no. 2722
(Purpose: To provide funding for the isotope ratio capabilities at the
University of Nevada Las Vegas)
On page 22, line 19, insert the following before the
period:
``: Provided further, That $500,000 of the unobligated
balances may be applied to the identification of trace
element isotopes in environmental samples at the University
of Nevada-Las Vegas''.
amendment no. 2723
On page 3, line 8, insert the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army may
make available $500,000 for the Atlanta Watershed, Atlanta,
Georgia project''.
amendment no. 2724
(Purpose: To set aside funding for support of the National Contaminated
Sediment Task Force)
On page 10, line 7, before the period insert ``, of which
$250,000 may be made available to support the National
Contaminated Sediment Task Force established by section 502
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.
1271 note; Public Law 102-580)''.
amendment no. 2725
On page 22, line 14, strike: ``2,669,560,000'' and replace
it with ``2,676,560,000''.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the amendments are as follows: Senator
Daschle, flood damage claims; Senators Levin and Glenn, a section 1135
project; Senators Biden and Domenici, an IPP and nuclear cities
amendment; Senator Levin, Michigan continuing authorities projects;
Senator Reid, trace element isotopes; Senator Cleland, Atlanta
watershed project; Senator Levin, contaminated sediment task force; and
Senators Domenici-Reid on science.
Are these cleared on your side, I ask the Senator?
Mr. REID. No objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. No objection on your side?
Mr. REID. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 2717 through 2725), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from New
Mexico and Nevada for including an idea that I proposed in the
managers' amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill. I am
confident that together we will lessen the risk that former Soviet
scientists will help any rogue state to build nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons.
This amendment does two things. First, it earmarks an additional $15
[[Page S6532]]
million for the Department of Energy's Initiative for Proliferation
Prevention, or IPP, program which was unfairly cut from the President's
budget request. And second, it earmarks start-up funds for the
``nuclear cities'' initiative that was endorsed by both Vice President
Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention, or IPP, is a program that
creates employment opportunities for former Soviet arms specialists by
helping them develop their ideas for commercially viable goods and
services. As an idea reaches fruition, IPP brings the arms specialists
into joint ventures with outside investors, who gradually take over the
funding. For example, thanks to IPP, a U.S. firm is working with
Ukrainian scientists to develop and market a device for decontaminating
liquids. This device will enable the Ukrainian dairy industry to
produce fresh milk despite the lingering effects of the Chernobyl
reactor meltdown.
IPP had a slow start. It is hard to come up with really viable
commercial ventures, to find investors, and to make sure they can
invest safely.
The executive branch thought that IPP had unspent funds from past
years. So they cut its budget by 50 percent--down from $30 million to
$15 million.
But IPP has begun to take off. As of this April, 15 projects had
achieved completely commercial funding and 77 had found major private
cofunding. As a result, IPP does not have unobligated funds lying
around.
Now is not the time to cut the IPP program. Rather, we should
encourage IPP and the many weapons specialists in the former Soviet
Union who are searching for new careers in the civilian economy, by
maintaining IPP's funding stream.
The ``nuclear cities'' initiative is an effort to improve employment
opportunities for Russian personnel from their nuclear weapons labs and
manufacturing facilities. This initiative, too, will focus on finding
commercially viable projects and bringing in outside investors. The
challenge is to find projects that can work at these somewhat isolated
cities, which are more or less the Russian equivalent of Los Alamos.
When we fun the ``nuclear cities'' initiative, we get two benefits.
First, Russia's Minister of Atomic Energy has announced that they will
downsize their nuclear weapons establishment. And second, by providing
civilian job opportunities for the personnel who are let go, we will
help protect against Russian weapons specialists going off to work for
programs in states like Iran, Iraq or Libya.
The ``nuclear cities'' initiative was developed by a group of U.S.
and Russian specialists, and was endorsed at the last meeting of the
Gore-Chernomyrdin commission. Later this spring, Energy Secretary Pena
and Russian Atomic Energy Minister Adamov also endorsed it.
According to the group that developed this new initiative, it can
usefully spend up to $30 million in fiscal year 1999. I don't know how
much the executive branch will want to devote to ``nuclear cities,''
but my amendment gives them the opportunity to fund a realistic
program.
By earmarking funds both for the ''nuclear cities'' initiative and
for the IPP program, moreover, we make sure that the price of the new
initiative will not be the death an existing program. If there is clear
overlap between the IPP program and the ``nuclear cities'' initiative,
such overlap should be eliminated. But I have the distinct impression
that there are excellent IPP projects that will have nothing to do with
Russia's ``nuclear cities,'' and such projects should not be
sacrificed.
Once again, I thank and congratulate the senior Senator from New
Mexico and the senior Senator from Nevada. They have given us a fine
example of bipartisan cooperation and effectiveness.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year
1999 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. This is a bill
that addresses many of our Nation's most critical water infrastructure
requirements, as well as important energy research functions, and
management of our nuclear waste and environmental remediation programs.
This bill is also a component of our national security portfolio, due
to the atomic weapons production programs of the Department of Energy
that are funded in this bill.
In approving the recommendations of the subcommittee, the committee
has reported a bill that does an excellent job of balancing the many
competing demands which fall within the jurisdiction of the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee. I wish to commend the subcommittee
chairman, Senator Domenici, for all his hard work in crafting the bill
brought before the Senate, together with his very able counterpart,
Senator Reid. While both of these Senators come from the arid west,
where the water management issues are very different from the
challenges facing other regions of the country, they have been very
responsible in trying to maintain critical investments in flood control
and navigation and irrigation, while also ensuring that our energy
research and nuclear waste management and weapons production
responsibilities are met.
Their task was made particularly difficult this year by the
disgraceful budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 put forward by the
administration for the Army Corps of Engineers. Despite strong support
for an aggressive Corps construction program from both sides of the
aisle and all regions of the country, the administration proposed a
significant reduction in spending for Corps construction--some $689
million, or 47 percent, below last year's funding level.
This budget gap created a huge hole that needed to be filled, and I
commend our committee chairman, Senator Stevens, for his sensitivity to
the challenges presented to the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee by the President's request. Senator Stevens knows all too
well the value and need for critical infrastructure investments that
will help communities enhance their economic opportunity. I was pleased
to join with the chairman in recommending a 302(b) allocation to the
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which was substantially above
the President's request and above a freeze for the non-defense
discretionary portion. Nonetheless, the requests for funding far
exceeded the subcommittee's allocation.
Nearly every state had ongoing water projects that the Corps
expressed a capability of being able to execute at a program level far
in excess of the President's request. So to try and maintain ongoing
projects, as well as to protect investments, funding was added to many
of these projects. The costs associated with the administration's
short-sighted proposal were considerable. Not only would there have
been increased costs due to the additional time it would have taken to
complete projects, but there would also have been considerable contract
termination costs associated with ending or reducing work that had been
initiated recently.
So I commend the subcommittee members for their fine work. Their
responsiveness to local concerns will mean a great deal to the
communities in my state that were on the short end of the
administration's budget. In places like Marmet, the Greenbrier Basin,
and the Tug Fork Valley, where people have been waiting years for
assistance from the Federal government to improve upon flood control
and enhance navigation channels that feed our economy, this bill will
be of great assistance. I have seen the mud, muck, and misery that
accompany flooding when the waters rise in the creeks and streams and
rivers that flow through the mountains of West Virginia. Some criticize
these types of projects. I contend that they are critical to improving
the lives and enhancing the safety of our constituents.
Mr. President, as is true with most appropriations bills, not every
Senator has 100 percent of his or her priorities addressed fully. That
is the very essence of compromise and balance, which are at the center
of what it takes to produce an acceptable, and signable, appropriations
bill. The President, in gutting the Corps' construction program,
proposed significant increases to programs favored by the
administration. But every Senator should be clear that, to pay for
those increases, the President proposed reductions in funding requested
for flood protection and other water infrastructure development. I
commend Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for trying to maintain
stability across the multitude of programs funded in this bill.
[[Page S6533]]
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the very fine work done on this
appropriations bill by the majority and minority staff of the Energy
and Water Development Subcommittee--Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, Greg
Daines, Liz Blevins, Lashawnda Leftwich, and Sue Masica. There are many
details associated with all of the water projects and energy research
items in this bill, and this team does an excellent job of serving not
only Senators Domenici and Reid, but also all other Senators.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments
concerning S. 2138, the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation Bill.
The West Columbus Floodwall Project is an extremely important
infrastructure project currently under development by the City of
Columbus and the Army Corps of Engineers. Once completed this project
will protect over 2,800 acres of urban development, and approximately
6,200 homes and businesses. Construction of this $118 million project
was initiated in 1993 and was on schedule and budget for completion in
2002.
The fiscal year 1999 civil works budget request for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers provided only $1.8 million for continued
construction of this important project. The Committee increased the
fiscal year 1999 funding to a total $7.5 million. Although I am
grateful for the Committee's action, I am concerned because this
project requires $16 million to keep it on track and moving forward.
Mr. President, this project is unlike a lot of other flood projects
in that it does not provide vitally needed flood protection for West
Columbus until it is fully completed. Funding for this project at less
than $16 million could delay it for up to one year and this area will
continue to be exposed to an increased potential for flood damages of
up to $455 million. In addition, the homeowners and businesses in this
area will face continued zoning restrictions, and development of 2800
acres will be delayed.
The city of Columbus has been damaged in the past by severe flooding
of the Scioto River, which runs through the heart of its downtown. In
1913, 1937 and 1959, the city was devastated by flood disasters
resulting in millions of dollars in damage to commercial and
residential property, destruction of homes and businesses, and the loss
of many lives. In 1990 and 1992, the city again experienced serious
flood scares. If the West Columbus project were in place during
previous recent flood events, damages would have been prevented.
Mr. President, during the December 1990 rainfall and flood event,
inundation and localized flood damages occurred in the Phase 1B/
McKinley Avenue area. The Scioto River rose to a flood level
approaching a 20-year frequency. If the project features had been in
place at that time, the interior runoff would have drained to the
stormwater pump station ST-8 and would have been pumped out of the
interior. Instead, an existing storm sewer flap gate was held shut by
the high Scioto River flood stage, preventing the interior runoff from
draining to the river. Adjacent businesses were flooded until the
Scioto River receded to a level that permitted the flap gate to open
and allow interior runoff to drain to the river.
During the July 1992 storm, rainfall in excess of 4 inches fell over
the interior area along with a moderate rise in the Scioto River. An
existing storm sewer flap gate was held shut and interior runoff could
not drain to the river. If the proposed Dodge Park stormwater pump
station had been available, it could have pumped excess runoff to the
river, thus preventing flood damages that occurred along Rich Street.
Mr. President, I understand that sufficient funding was not available
for the many critically needed flood protection projects contained in
this bill. For this reason I will not offer an amendment, however, I
thought it was important to express my concerns and address the
potential impacts of not funding this project at the required level of
$16 million. I am pleased that the House was able to fully fund this
project in their bill and it is my hope that during Conference, the
Senate will recede to the House's position and provide $16 million for
the West Columbus Floodwall Project.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern about the
portion of this bill dealing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and particularly the Committee report. While I appreciate that Senators
Domenici and Reid have made very significant changes to an earlier
version of the report, I remain troubled.
Let me say first that I am a supporter of nuclear energy. I believe
it can be part of the solution to solving the world's energy,
environment and global warming problems. But in order for there to be a
future for this industry, it is critical for the public to maintain
confidence in the industry--a confidence that must be supported by a
strong, competent and effective Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I do not believe that the current NRC over-regulates, inspects too
much, enforces too much or has adopted an overly restrictive body of
regulations. I base this conclusion on the extensive oversight I
conducted as chairman during the 103rd Congress of the Clean Air and
Nuclear Regulation subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works
Committee; the oversight work I have conducted during the last three
years as a member of the Environment Committee, particularly growing
out of my concern about the shutdown of Connecticut's nuclear power
plants; and two extensive reports prepared for me by the General
Accounting Office.
In fact, I believe that as a result of new safety initiatives
undertaken by NRC Chairman Jackson, such as: limiting inappropriate use
of enforcement discretion; requiring utilities to verify whether they
are operating in accordance with their design basis; undertaking a
review of NRC oversight of changes made by utilities without prior NRC
approval; improving the inspection process;, increased attention to use
of quantitative performance indicators; and reforms of the senior
management oversight process, the NRC has finally moved toward
regaining some of the public confidence which is so important. Also
critical to restoring this confidence has been Chairman Jackson's
openness and responsiveness to the public, including whistleblowers.
Many of these initiatives came in response to a very unfortunate
situation in Connecticut, where the nuclear power plants were shut down
and put on the NRC Watch List of most troubled plants.
I appreciate that the Appropriations Committee believes that there
should be an in-depth review of the NRC. As a member of the Senate
Environment Committee with authorization oversight responsibilities, I
have been urging the Committee to conduct hearings on the NRC since the
start of the Congress. In particular, I have urged the Committee to
hold a hearing to examine the issues raised in two General Accounting
Office reports : one prepared for Senator Biden and me, Nuclear
Regulation: Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC
Action, and one prepared for Congressman Dingell and me on
whistleblower protections.
The GAO raised serious concerns about instances in the past in which
the NRC has neither taken aggressive enforcement action nor held
nuclear plant licensees accountable for correcting their problems on a
timely basis. The GAO criticized the NRC for problems in the inspection
process, such as not including timetables for the completion of
corrective action and for not evaluating the competency of the
licensees' plant managers as part of the on-going inspection process.
In addition, the GAO found that the senior management meeting, designed
to focus attention on those plants with declining safety performance,
was not serving its goal of being an early warning tool.
To her credit, Chairman Jackson has responded to many of these GAO
recommendations positively and swiftly. Nevertheless, oversight
hearings are needed to evaluate the NRC's responses.
Finally, although I appreciate that the Committee increased the NRC's
funding levels from the subcommittee's approach and eliminated any
directions to cut nuclear reactor safety, I am still concerned that the
bill includes $17.3 million less in funding than the NRC's budget
request. I think a more prudent approach would be to have a detailed
discussion of the NRC's proposed initiatives in the authorizing
[[Page S6534]]
Environment Committee to avoid any negative impact on the NRC's ability
to maintain a strong, healthy regulatory program for nuclear power
plants or to limit any new initiatives that the NRC believes are
important. In the 103rd Congress, I was pleased that we were able to
report an authorizing bill for the NRC, but unfortunately it did not
become law. We need to move forward again with such a bill.
tooele city wastewater treatment and reuse project
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico, the Chairman of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, a question related to a project in my State. Am I correct
in stating that the bill before the Senate today contains $3 million in
funding for the Tooele City Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Project?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from New
Mexico's support for this project. I have recently become aware of a
problem with this project related to the Bureau of Reclamation's
interpretation of the project's authorization which I hope we can
clarify. As the Senator knows, I am a strong advocate for the concept
of water recycling and reuse. In arid States such as ours we simply
have to make every gallon of available water stretch as far as we can.
It is for that reason that I sponsored the legislation that eventually
became Public Law 104-266. The passage of that legislation expanded the
Bureau of Reclamation's water recycling program and authorized the
Tooele City project. Under this program the Bureau is authorized to
contribute up to twenty-five percent of the cost of planning, designing
and constructing water recycling and reuse projects.
The Tooele Wastewater Treatment and Reuse project is designed to
reclaim 2.25 million gallons of effluent daily and utilized the
reclaimed water for a variety of non-potable uses permitted by Utah
State law. Unlike some other States, Utah permits the utilization of
water treated to secondary--as opposed to advanced secondary or
tertiary--standards for certain non-potable uses. In formulating the
Tooele project, the City has always anticipated the utilization of
secondary effluent in conformance with State law. Now the Bureau of
Reclamation has informed the City that it will not provide funds
appropriated by Congress for that portion of the Tooele project that
provides secondary treatment. I have searched the authorizations for
the Title XVI program and the Tooele project high and low and can not
find a statutory basis for the Bureau's position. Had Congress wished
to limit the use of title XVI funds in this manner, it certainly could
have done so. It did not.
Mr. President, I remain hopeful that we can resolve this matter
before this bill goes to Conference. However, in the event that we are
not successful, I would like to ask the Chairman to entertain the
possibility of Conference Report language, if necessary, to clarify
this matter.
Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator from Utah's concerns. I would
be happy to work with him to resolve this issue.
Rodeo Lake
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise for a brief colloquy with the
manager of the bill. I would like to thank the chairman for his
generous work to fund the Rodeo Lake project near Othello, Washington.
This project will help alleviate a serious flooding problem in Central
Washington state. There has been some confusion, however, regarding the
Corps of Engineers' involvement in the project. I understand that,
because of the water at Rodeo Lake directly affects projects maintained
by the Bureau of Reclamation, the committee intends for the Corps to
coordinate its efforts with the Bureau of Reclamation. Is my
description of the committee's intentions correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chairman for the clarification and for the
hard work on this bill.
devils lake, north dakota
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, page 44 of the committee report
accompanying S. 2138, the fiscal 1999 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation bill, includes a section on funding provided in the bill
for construction of a flood control outlet at Devils Lake, North
Dakota. At the end of the short section, the committee report states
that, ``[i]t is expected that such circumstances would also be such
that granting of a waiver under the emergency provision of the National
Environmental Policy Act would be appropriate and that the provision of
the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty would be met.''
I am trying to understand how this report language corresponds with
language in the bill for Devils Lake. As reported by the committee,
pages 6 and 7 of the bill lay out a detailed set of rigorous criteria
that must be met before any funds can be obligated by the Secretary for
actual construction of the outlet. Two of those criteria, full
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty seem to be preempted by the committee in
this report. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, if the committee report
language in any way supercedes the bill language? Moreover, is the
committee attempting to provide a waiver or some form of relief under
NEPA or the Boundary Waters Treaty?
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his continued
interest and involvement in the Devils Lake matter. The answer to both
of the Senator's questions is ``no.'' The bill language that you cited,
which was originally negotiated by the two of us, Senator Bond and our
colleagues from North Dakota last year, would be fully applicable. The
committee report does not waive NEPA, the Boundary Waters Treaty or any
of the other conditions found in the bill language. In summary, the
Executive Branch would need to fulfill the economic and technical
justifications, the reporting and budgeting requirements, as well as
the NEPA and Boundary Waters Treaty terms, before any of the
appropriated funds can be expended for outlet construction. The report
language signals our expectation that the Executive Branch would make
full use of the emergency provision currently available under NEPA and
that all steps would be taken to expeditiously fulfill the requirements
of the Boundary Waters Treaty in the event that rising lake levels
warrant accelerated construction of the outlet.
Mr. CHAFEE. I appreciate my colleague's clarification. I chaired a
hearing on Devils Lake before the Committee on Environment and Public
Works late last year and am committed to addressing the terrible
flooding problems experienced there. However, I am convinced that the
people of North Dakota, Minnesota, Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers will
all be served more effectively if we go about this project in the right
way. To do that, we need the appropriate reviews, studies and
justifications by the Army Corps of Engineers, State Department and
others. In that context, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
include in the Congressional Record a January 28, 1998, Army Corps
memorandum, signed by the then-Acting Assistant Secretary John H.
Zirschky, that details the agency's policy on NEPA compliance and the
proposed outlet at Devils Lake. I ask unanimous consent that the
memorandum be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant
Secretary, Civil Works,
Washington, DC, January 28, 1998.
memorandum for the director of civil works
Subject: National Environmental Policy Act Compliance, Devils
Lake Outlet, North Dakota
The Corps has been working hard to solve the flooding
problems at Devils Lake. The St. Paul District has been
raising the levees at the city of Devils Lake and the design
of an emergency outlet is well underway. I commend your
staff, Mississippi Valley Division and the St. Paul District
for their accomplishments to date.
A statutory requirement for constructing an outlet from
Devils Lake is compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). On December 10, 1997, the Corps briefed my
staff and a representative of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on the proposal for compliance with NEPA. On
December 19, 1997, my staff briefed senior
[[Page S6535]]
staff of the OMB and the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) on the proposal.
The purpose of the December 19, 1997 meeting was to discuss
the St. Paul District's ``expedited'' schedule for NEPA
compliance. That schedule calls for constructing the outlet
before the NEPA process is completed. This is an exception
that would require a waiver from the normal NEPA process.
While the flooding problem at Devils Lake is an emergency,
and while adoption of a NEPA compliance process completed
following construction may be necessary at some point in
time, the decision to carry out a NEPA process as outlined in
the District's ``expedited'' schedule is considered
premature. Supporting a waiver at this time is difficult
since we have not yet decided to construct the outlet nor
have we completed its design. The controversial nature of the
outlet project, and the extent of other ongoing activities by
the Corps and others to mitigate for the flooding were also
factors in this decision.
It is critical that the Corps continues to keep this
project as a high priority. We should proceed with the
planning, NEPA compliance, and design of the outlet as
quickly as possible. The studies and report being prepared to
comply with the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act should also be expeditiously completed. To
ensure that the report complies with the congressional
directives, it should be subjected to technical and policy
reviews before submitted to this office. We should also
continue to budget for the outlet.
It is also very important that the NEPA process complies
fully with the July 1, 1997, memorandum from the CEQ on
transboundary impacts of the outlet project. Likewise, the
NEPA process should be undertaken so that it will give us a
sound basis for consultation with the International Joint
Commission, and with Canada under the ``Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909.''
At this time, we should not plan to use a NEPA process that
assumes that we construct the outlet before the NEPA process
is completed. Our objective is to comply fully with the NEPA
by completing the Environmental Impact Statement and Record
of Decision using a normal NEPA process. In this regard, on
January 12 our staffs developed guidance that allowed the St.
Paul District to initiate the NEPA scoping process on January
14, 1998. The District should revise the schedule they
proposed for the ``normal'' NEPA process, and identify
opportunities to complete this work by December 1999. While I
understand that the coordination phase of the NEPA process
may be time dependent, I believe that ways to shorten the
data collection and evaluation phases can be found to shorten
the current forty month schedule. Regarding data collection
and evaluations, these activities should be programmed in a
way that will provide us with increasingly greater levels of
detail, so that we can decide, if necessary, to start the
outlet at anytime using an emergency NEPA process. Unless an
emergency waiver is obtained sooner, we should be in a
position to start construction by Spring 2000.
The enclosed paper was prepared to help explain the
``Action Plan.'' This plan will allow the Corps to meet its
legal obligations, make more informed decisions by maximizing
the use of new information on both lake level predictions and
environmental impacts, and stay positioned to start
construction on the outlet when necessary. I ask that HQUSACE
provide the leadership necessary to achieve these objectives.
John H. Zirschky,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Enclosure.
Devils Lake Emergency Outlet, North Dakota National Environmental
Policy Act Compliance Action Plan
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance is an
integral part of the decision making process for the Devils
Lake outlet. To be able to construct the outlet as soon as
possible--yet comply fully with NEPA--the Corps will use the
following principles:
Principles
Reducing flooding at Devils Lake is a high priority for the
Administration.
Engineering and design work on the outlet will proceed on
schedule, allowing the start of construction, if necessary,
by May 1999.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise stated, completion and submission dates
presented in this paper are those developed by the St. Paul
District of the Corps of Engineers. New dates are noted by
``*'' after the date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A decision to start construction on the outlet will be
based on the best available information and be legally
defensible.
A decision to start construction will comply with the
Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, and other laws and treaties; and
National Environmental Policy Act compliance will proceed
on a fast track.
Action Plan
From an engineering standpoint, the Corps St. Paul District
believes it can be in a position to start construction of the
outlet by may 1999. To meet this date, the design of the
outlet should be completed by August 1998 and pipe should be
ordered in October 1998. By August 1998, the Project
Cooperation Agreement should be ready to be executed with the
State of North Dakota. The State could then be ready to
acquire lands needed for the project. The report necessary to
comply with the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act is scheduled to be prepared, reviewed and
approved in time to be submitted to Congress by August 1998.
Plans and specifications are to be completed by march 1999.
The Corps would continue to budget for funds for design and
construction of the outlet.
Regarding the NEPA compliance, several options were
considered, including starting construction before the NEPA
process is completed. Starting construction before the NEPA
process is completed requires a Council of Environmental
Quality waiver from the normal NEPA compliance process under
the emergency provision of NEPA. Such waivers are unusual and
require substantial justification. Without such justification
the legal risk would be great given the diverse interest and
positions on the outlet. In view of the stipulations in the
Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act that must be met before construction can be started and
that the design of the outlet is not yet complete, we believe
that it is premature to make the waiver decision at this time
and that we should proceed with the NEPA process. However, in
view of the lake level trends of the past few years at Devils
Lake, the NEPA review would be expedited, and NEPA compliance
activities would be organized in a tiered fashion that will
maximize its utility at any given time regarding a decision
to start construction on the outlet through the emergency
NEPA waiver. This approach should not result in an
unacceptable slow down of outlet construction, if necessary,
since the engineering and design work will be completed on
schedule.
The St. Paul District initiated the formal NEPA process on
October 21, 1997, and an initial scoping meeting was held on
January 14, 1998. unless a waiver from NEPA is needed sooner,
the goal is to complete the NEPA process by December 1999*.
As noted above, NEPA data collections, evaluations, impact
assessments, and coordination activities should be programed
to be concurrent, at minimum allowed times, and at
increasingly greater degrees of detail, so that we can save
time and make more informed and supportable decisions
regarding carrying out the outlet under an emergency NEPA
process, if necessary. As an example, the question of the
need to start construction under an emergency NEPA process
can be revisited after the 1998 runoff predictions are
released and the Corps has completed the report required by
the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act.
In summary, this action plan allows the Corps to meet its
legal obligations, make more informed decisions by maximizing
the use of new information on both lake level predictions and
environmental impacts, and stay positioned to start
construction on the outlet when necessary.
OASA (CW) POC:
Michael L. Davis,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and
Legislation).
James J. Smyth,
Assistant for Water Resources Development.
Assateague Island
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
Chairman of the Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning funding for the
restoration of Assateague Island National Seashore.
I am deeply concerned that the Committee was not able to provide
funding for so-called ``new start'' construction projects of the Army
Corps of Engineers. I understand that the House Committee has also
adopted a no new starts policy. The Corps of Engineers was scheduled to
initiate an authorized and approved mitigation project for the North
End of Assateague Island National Seashore in Fiscal 1999 and without
funding, it appears that this project will have to be postponsed. This
is a particular problem because the northern end of Assateague was hit
very hard by two northeastern storms which slammed the mid-Atlantic
coast this past February causing severe erosion and overwash
conditions. In its current condition, the seashore is extremely
vulnerable to breaching should another storm hit the coast. The
integrity of the National Seashore and the area's coastal bays are at
risk.
Fortunately, the Corps will be able to make emergency repairs to the
storm-damaged section under the authority of Public Law 84-99,
providing some additional protection to the island over its current
condition. But it would be far better if the approved restoration
project could be initiated and completed as soon as possible.
I recognize the difficult constraints that the Committee faced in
crafting this bill but, given the critical nature of this project, I
ask if the Chairman would be willing to work with me and Senator
Mikulski in the Conference Committee to address Assateague's needs
should additional funding become available.
[[Page S6536]]
Mr. DOMENICI. The Committee understands the importance of this
project and will work in Conference to see what develops.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chairman for his consideration of this
project. Assateague is one of the most important restoration projects
in Maryland. The environmental, economic and ecological value of the
Assateague Seashore is extraordinary. It is not just a Maryland
priority, it is a national priority.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chairman for these assurances.
transfer of the st. georges bridge
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am wondering if the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee will engage in a colloquy with me regarding the St.
Georges Bridge in my State of Delaware.
Mr. REID. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend. Mr. President, recently in the newly
passed highway bill, TEA-21, the Secretary of the Army was directed to
transfer the right, title and interest of the St. Georges Bridge in
Delaware, to the State of Delaware. The transfer is necessary to
facilitate a retransfer of the bridge to a private entity for the
purposes of demonstrating the effectiveness of large-scale composites
technology. If the transfer is completed within 180 days the Secretary
is directed to provide $10,000,000 to the State for rehabilitating the
bridge.
I rise to ask the Senator from Nevada, in his capacity as Ranking
member of the Subcommittee, to seek his commitment in working with me
and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that this transfer and the
$10 million payment occurs as authorized.
Mr. REID. Yes, I am aware of the transfer of the bridge and the
provision in TEA-21. You have my pledge that I will do all I can to see
that the Army Corps of Engineers will carry this out as soon as
possible.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
grand prairie region, arkansas
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the senior Senator
from New Mexico in a colloquy.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to join the senior Senator from
Arkansas in a colloquy.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, many of us in Arkansas have been working
for several years to reverse a critical ground water resource problem
that is developing in our region and will ultimately affect the entire
country.
Throughout this century, aquifers in the lower Mississippi River
Valley have been falling due to high demand and relatively low
recharge. The United States Geological Survey has found that current
trends by the year 2015 will reduce the saturated thickness of the
aquifers to the point that soils will begin to compact, recharge will
not be possible, and the aquifer will effectively be dead, along with
nearly half of the U.S. rice industry. Because of the magnitude of this
problem, state and local efforts to correct it will never succeed
without assistance from the federal government. In that event, a
regional economic collapse will occur, a major environmental resource
will forever be lost, and our legacy to future generations will carry a
lasting shadow of irresponsibility.
The President's Budget Request provided $11.5 million for the Grand
Prairie Region. I understand the difficulty the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee faced in trying to fund many worthwhile
projects. Unfortunately, the Grand Prairie Project was not funded in
this bill. It is also my understanding that the House Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill provides the full Budget Request of $11.5 million
for the Grand Prairie project.
I ask the Chairman, Senator Domenici, for his support in accepting
the House level when this legislation is considered in conference.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his comments. The
Senator is correct. The Subcommittee had great difficulty in providing
funds for several needed and worthwhile projects. I understand the
importance and national significance of the Grand Prairie Project and
pledge my support in conference for Grand Prairie if there are
sufficient resources.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chairman for his efforts.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a
colloquy. Last year, the Senator and I discussed the energy generation
problems facing rural areas of the United States. The Chairman wisely
included funding in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill to address this problem. In rural areas, energy
distribution systems are often more difficult and expensive to
establish. As a result, communities are often forced to rely on more
polluting fuel sources because they have lower up front capital costs.
The Jeffords amendment the Chairman accepted this morning increases
funding for the Remote Power Initiative to $5 million. Is that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, the Senator is correct. In Fiscal Year 1998 and
1999 we included funding for the Remote Power Initiative to support
deployment of solar, wind, fuel cell, biomass, and other energy
technologies in remote areas to address their energy challenges. Last
year, you highlighted the energy demands and environmental constraints
of ski area operations as one example of this problem facing remote
areas. As you noted, ski areas in Vermont were one of the leading
sources of NOx emissions due to use of inefficient and
polluting diesel engines for operations. This is the kind of problem
the subcommittee had in mind when proposing the Remote Power
Initiative.
Mr. LEAHY. I want to thank the Chairman for including funds for the
Remote Power Initiative again this year. This Initiative offers the
Department of Energy an opportunity to build partnerships with the ski
industry to deploy efficient and environmentally-friendly renewable
energy technologies to reduce energy use and emissions. Partnerships
could also involve environmental technology vendors and service
providers who may be interested in cost sharing.
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from Vermont and believe there
is a real need to address remote power problems in cold weather areas.
I support using some of the funds in the Remote Power Initiative for
the purposes you described.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chairman and look forward to working with him
and the Department of Energy to bring together ski operators and the
renewable energy technology industry to discuss technology and policy
issues, and determine appropriate actions and next steps.
biomass ethanol research
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of the
chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from New Mexico, and the
ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Nevada; is it the
understanding of the chairman and ranking member that there are enough
funds available in the Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies/
Biofuels Energy Systems account to continue the feasibility study and
project development of a biomass ethanol plant in Plumas County,
California?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. Funding is available under this bill
for the Department of Energy under the Biofuels Energy Systems account
that could be used to study the feasibility of the Plumas County
project.
Mr. REID. That is my view as well. I would urge the DOE to consider
supporting this project in fiscal year 1999.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senators.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is my understanding that western
states and the western electric power industry have been engaged in
intensive efforts to create a competitive and reliable western
electricity market covering all or parts of 14 states, two Canadian
provinces and northern Mexico. I believe this is exactly the type of
local cooperative action Congress hoped for in the enactment of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. I ask the Chairman, does the budget contain
funds to help western states work with the electric power industry to
promote competitive and reliable electricity markets in the Western
Interconnection?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. Is it the Committee's intent that the Department of
Energy is to give priority in the expenditure of such funds to
assisting western states which are collectively working with the
industry on a gridwide basis to promote competitive and reliable
regional electricity markets?
[[Page S6537]]
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman.
western area power administration
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I understand that the Western Area Power
Administration and The Bureau of Reclamation are considering raising
rates for the power necessary to operate irrigation systems in the
Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloane Missouri Basin Project. The purpose
of these agencies is not to raise revenue. Rather, these agencies are
designed to provide reliable and affordable power for multi-purpose
economic development.
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree Senator Burns, affordable power rates for
irrigation districts are vital to all those living in the western
United States.
Mr. BURNS. This is especially true considering the recent drought and
low wheat prices that we have been experiencing throughout the region.
The farmers in this region simply cannot afford the burden that this
rate increase will place on them.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that the situation now facing many of
these farmers and ranchers is dire. You make a very compelling argument
against raising rates and production costs for an industry that is
already facing disaster.
Mr. BURNS. I thank Senator Domenici for his recognition of this
problem. I will fully commit myself to working with him to resolve this
situation as soon as possible.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a
colloquy. Senator Domenici, I would like to thank you and Senator Reid
for your willingness to boost funding for the Department of Energy's
important solar and renewable programs. I am especially pleased to see
an increase in funding for the biomass energy systems account. In
Vermont, work is continuing at the McNeil Generation Plant in
Burlington to demonstrate the effectiveness of biomass gasification.
This is an important renewable technology which will help our country
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Earlier this year the Department of Energy agreed to a modification
of the contract for the McNeil project which resulted in a $6 million
increase in the Department's contribution to the South Burlington
facility. These funds will be matched dollar for dollar by the partners
who are participating with DoE in this important renewable program.
Because the contract modification was not reached until after the
President had submitted his Fiscal Year 1999 budget proposal, that
increase was not reflected in the funding request for the biomass
energy systems account. It is my understanding that the increase in
funding for biomass energy systems includes the $6 million needed for
the Department to meet its obligations under the contract for the
McNeil facility.
Mr. DOMENICI. I concur with the Senator from Vermont as to the
importance of the Vermont gasifier. I concur that it would be desirable
to provide funds for that project. In conference, as we reach agreement
with the House on the allocation of funds for Biomass, I will work to
provide that funding.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the energy and
water development appropriations bill and to take a few moments to
engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee on one of
the many important programs being funded in the bill. That would be the
technology transfer and education programs funded under Atomic Energy
Defense Activities. These programs are an important investment in the
future of the country, by leveraging the facilities, expertise, and R&D
results funded by the Department's defense missions to the benefit of
broader national science, technology, and education objectives. We have
seen some important spin-offs over the years from DOE defense-related
research, and this funding will ensure that we continue to see both
spin-off and the flow of technology, ideas, and trained personnel into
the labs, to the benefit of the Department's important statutory
missions.
One example of a technology partnership area of importance, and which
I hope the Department will fully fund in fiscal year 1999, is the
Advanced Computational Technology Initiative, or ACTI. The ACTI program
makes available to smaller oil and gas producers the computational and
simulation resources of the national laboratories. One component of the
ACTI program over the years, the Advanced Reservoir Management program,
has funded advances in complex computational database management and
electronic information systems that have been of benefit both to the
oil and gas industry and DOE's defense programs.
I know that my colleague from New Mexico, the chairman of the
subcommittee, is a strong supporter of our oil and gas industry. I
would urge him to maintain funding of the ACTI program at the level of
the President's request as this bill moves forward to conference.
Mr. DOMENICI. I completely agree with my colleague. We are united in
our support for the oil and gas industry in New Mexico. The bill that I
have brought forward today provides full funding for the ACTI program
at the President's requested level. The program is one of a series of
technological partnerships between the DOE national laboratories and
industry which are producing real value to the U.S. economy. I plan to
maintain this strong support for ACTI and other technology partnerships
at DOE as this bill moves forward to enactment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for engaging in
this dialogue to clear up confusion surrounding section 3(b) of S.
1279, the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services
Demonstration Act Amendments of 1998.
Mr. INHOFE. What exactly does section 3(b) of S. 1279 purport to do?
Mr. CAMPBELL. It attempts to clarify inconsistencies in implementing
Public Law 102-477. Over the past four years, tribes have attempted to
integrate both programs into their 477 plans. They have received at
best, inconsistent responses from the BIA. On several occasions the
Bureau approved the integration, and other times integration was
rejected. The Bureau confirmed this confusion at a May 13, 1997 Indian
Affairs Committee hearing when it submitted conflicting testimony
regarding its approval of including the JOM program into tribal plans.
Section 3(b) makes clear that ``at the option of a tribe'' funds under
both the General Assistance and Johnson O'Malley programs may be
integrated into tribal 477 plans.
Mr. INHOFE. Is it true that your bill will not affect in any manner
the current regulations and requirements established by the Department
of the Interior with regard to the Johnson O'Malley program?
Mr. CAMPBELL. That's correct. In fact, I have here a letter from the
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, which states that while they
support section 3(b)'s integration of Johnson O'Malley, ``the program
must continue to be conducted in accordance with its authorizing
statute.'' Another letter dated March 28, 1998 states that the JOM
parent committee will continue to have the authority to approve and
disapprove tribal plans to integrate funds within the 477 program. I
ask unanimous consent that each of these letters be placed in the
record.
Mr. INHOFE. The Johnson O'Malley program is a supplemental education
program designed to benefit Indian children aged 3 through grade 12
attending public schools. I'm concerned that permitting tribes the
option to use these funds within employment and training plans will
permit tribes to instead use these funds for post-high school adult
employment training programs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I agree with your concern, and that is why I amended
the original language of the bill to expressly require tribal
governments wishing to integrate these funds into their 477 programs to
include adequate assurances that such funds will be used only for those
intended beneficiaries, children aged 3 through grade 12. I would,
however, like to make clear that with the onset of welfare reform upon
us, tribal governments must be afforded adequate flexibility to
administer the limited federal resources available. This bill attempts
to provide that added flexibility.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank Senator Campbell for clearing up these concerns.
I'm encouraged by the assurances that the Johnson O'Malley Program will
not be adversely affected by this measure.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, S. 2138, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1999, complies with the Budget Act's
section
[[Page S6538]]
302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays.
The reported bill provides $20.9 billion in budget authority and
$13.1 billion in new outlays to fund the civil programs of the Army
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, certain independent
agencies, and most of the activities of the Department of Energy. When
outlays from prior year budget authority and other actions are taken
into account, this bill provides a total of $20.7 billion in outlays.
For defense discretionary programs, the bill is at its allocation for
budget authority and below its allocation for outlays by $2 million.
The Senate- reported bill also is below its nondefense discretionary
allocation by $38 million in budget authority and $1 million under its
allocation for outlays.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2138, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 1999--SPENDING COMPARISONS, SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal Year 1999, dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............ 12,030 8,909 .............. .............. 20,939
Outlays..................... 11,818 8,899 .............. .............. 20,717
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ 12,030 8,947 .............. .............. 20,977
Outlays..................... 11,820 8,900 .............. .............. 20,720
President's request:
Budget authority............ 12,298 9,003 .............. .............. 21,301
Outlays..................... 11,875 9,150 .............. .............. 21,025
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Outlays..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............ .............. -38 .............. .............. -38
Outlays..................... -2 -1 .............. .............. -3
President's request:
Budget authority............ -268 -94 .............. .............. -362
Outlays..................... -57 -251 .............. .............. -308
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............ 12,030 8,909 .............. .............. 20,939
Outlays..................... 11,818 8,899 .............. .............. 20,717
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of
S. 2138, the FY99 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. In
particular, I thank my colleagues for approving $6 million for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' funding for the harbor dredge in Portland,
Maine.
I have supported the timely advancement of the harbor dredging
because of public safety and environmental concerns and the project is
the top priority for the state. Portland Harbor badly needs dredging,
and it is to the great credit of the Portland Harbor Dredge Committee,
made up of officials from the state, local, not-for-profit agencies and
the private sector that the dredging project is now ready to begin, at
least a year ahead of what the US Army Corps of Engineers expected.
Corps officials had already made it clear that the project needed to
begin this next winter in order to minimize environmental impacts, but
could not be started until environmental determinations were made. The
Dredge Committee, working together since 1994, was successful in
obtaining the necessary permits, including allowing the bulk of the
dredged material from Portland Harbor to be deposited at sea.
As I pointed out in the Budget Committee back in March when I first
brought up the harbor dredging during Budget Reconciliation, the Corps
project simply could not wait another year for funding to be included
in the federal budget. It is to the credit of the state, the
surrounding communities and the agencies working for the dredging that
the project is ready to begin, and the window for the dredging to occur
so as to mitigate the environmental risks, according to the Corps, is
from October, 1998 to April, 1999. This should now be possible if the
Senate funding level is protected in conference with the House.
I would also like to thank Senator Domenici and his Appropriations
Subcommittee for federal funding for the Ft. Fairfield levee in rural
Northern Maine, and also for including language in the appropriations
bill that will allow construction of a levee to protect the town
against further flooding. This Corps small flood control project is
considered essential to the economic survival of Fort Fairfield. The
town has experienced severe flooding over the last several years, and
as recently as two months ago, was once again on emergency alert
because of river flooding, and some senior citizens had to be evacuated
from the their homes.
Back in April 1994 alone, flood waters exceeded the 100-year flood
plain and caused an estimated $7 million in property damages to
businesses and residences. The town is prepared to embark on a
redevelopment project once a levee has been built to prevent future
floods. Once again, we thank the appropriations committee for realizing
the importance of the levee to me and to this small rural town in
Northern Maine.
Mr. REID. The Department of Energy is negotiating a contract
involving the Nevada Test Site and the Western Area Power
Administration to purchase 5 to 10 megawatts of solar energy on behalf
of the Nevada Test Site. A single bidder; the Corporation for Solar
Technologies and Renewable Resources, has been selected through a
competitive process and the Department is in the process of determining
on what terms it should enter into such a contract.
Mr. DOMENICI. I concur with the Senator from Nevada's understanding
of the current circumstances regarding the status of that contract. I
understand the Department of Energy has engaged in a rigorous review to
determine at what price and for what period of time it should enter
into such a contract.
Mr. REID. This would be an unusual contract. However, it also offers
some tremendous potential. If implemented correctly, this effort could
demonstrate the viability of large scale commercial development of
solar energy.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have reviewed the current situation and have been in
contact with senior officials in the Department of Energy who have
provided me with assurances that, while unusual, this contract has been
subject to rigorous review and, on balance, is worthwhile because of
the value that could be derived from demonstrating the use of solar
energy on this scale. For this reason, and subject to the continued
review of the Department, I am willing to recommend that the Department
proceed with its negotiations on this contract.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his support of this
innovative effort and would also like to note the diligent efforts of
my colleague from Nevada, Senator Bryan who has dedicated a great deal
of attention to this initiative. I concur with the value he sees in
this opportunity as well as the value that may accrue to the Nevada
Test Site in its efforts to identify new missions and responsibilities.
Solar and renewable energy demonstration is one of those areas for
which the Nevada Test Site has unique national capabilities and I look
forward to further work in this regard.
[[Page S6539]]
____________________