[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]]



                          ____________________