[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11116-S11119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senate will
now proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4060.
Mr. DOMENICI. Under the unanimous consent agreement, there are other
Senators who have time on this bill. I do not know if they are going to
use their time. I am informed I can yield----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold for one moment.
The report will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes on the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4060), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by all of the
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of September 25, 1998.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico and Senator Reid
control 10 minutes jointly.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to stay within 5 minutes. I
thank the Senate which will be adopting the conference report. It is a
good report.
We will put a statement in that identifies some of the very new
approaches to better governance. We do not have that completely in the
Department yet, but we have some new ideas that we are imposing on the
Department that will permit it to be run a little better than in the
past.
I want to change to another subject, and that is the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the $75 million that was, this year, put in the
President's budget for the nonpower aspects of the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Mr. President, I hope that nobody is trying to make political hay out
of the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives would not fund the
$75 million for the TVA in this year's appropriations bill, and as a
consequence we did not fund it. Let me tell you why the House would not
fund it, and make sure that the Record is replete with the background
information that the U.S. House had last year and this year regarding
the $75 million.
First of all, there is a gentleman, who I do not know, named Craven
Crowell--Chairman Craven Crowell. I think he was appointed to the board
by the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993.
In 1997, meeting with Members of Congress and the administration, the
Chairman argued that TVA's so-called ``nonpower programs,'' which
include flood control and navigation on the Tennessee River, as well as
management of some unique resources on the Land Between the Lakes
National Recreation Area, indicated that these nonpower programs should
be transferred to other Federal agencies, leaving the Tennessee Valley
Authority to focus solely on the production of electrical power.
Less than 1 month later, this very proposal to no longer fund that
kind of activity because it should be transferred to other Federal
agencies found its way into the 1998 budget request. The TVA Chairman
had made an interesting proposal just a couple of weeks prior, and
already it had been incorporated into the administration's budget.
There is no way that that would have happened if people in the
administration had not been aware of what Chairman Crowell was planning
to propose, and if they had not given him the green light to do that.
I would like to incorporate in the Record a news release dated
February 6, 1997, ``President's Budget Supports Ending TVA
Appropriations.'' I ask unanimous consent that the news release be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
President's Budget Supports Ending TVA Appropriations
TVA's request for $106 million in federal funding for 1998
and its proposal to eliminate all taxpayer funding of TVA's
appropriated programs by Fiscal Year 1999 received support
from the Clinton Administration today in the President's
budget submitted to Congress.
``We very much appreciate the administration's support of
this funding level for 1998 and the proposal to phase out all
federal funding of appropriated programs by Fiscal Year
1999,'' TVA Chairman Craven Crowell said at a news conference
in Knoxville.
The President's budget also directs TVA and the Army Corps
of Engineers to complete a joint study by September 1, 1997,
on the integration of TVA and Corps activities to improve the
operation of the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems.
``Future cooperation between TVA and the Corps could be the
linchpin that makes it possible to end all federal funding
for TVA's appropriated programs,'' Crowell said. ``We believe
more cooperation between TVA and the Corps would be a win-win
situation for both of us and would greatly reduce
expenditures of tax dollars.''
As noted in the President's budget, TVA will work with
Congress, state and local governments and other interested
parties in a major effort to find alternate ways to fund,
organize and manage the taxpayer-funded programs.
Crowel also said that a 17-member task force has been
formed to work out the details of the proposal. Kate Jackson,
executive vice president of the Resource Group, will chair
the task force, which includes representatives from all parts
of TVA.
In his 1998 budget, the President recommends the same level
of funding TVA received in 1997. The budget recommendation
includes $81.5 million for water and land stewardship; $7.9
million for Land Between The Lakes, an increase of nearly $2
million over this year's funding; $6.6 million for a
feasibility study on a proposed new navigation lock at
Chickamauga Dam; $6 million for the TVA Environmental
Research Center in Muscle Shoals; and $4 million for economic
development.
Funding requests for the Environmental Research Center and
economic development are down $9 million and $11 million,
respectively, reflecting TVA's previously announced plan to
phase out appropriated funds for those activities.
TVA uses federal funds to manage the Tennessee River
system, maintain 11,000 miles of shoreline and 420,000 acres
of public land, conduct environmental research and promote
economic development.
The federally appropriated funds are separate from TVA's
power budget which is financed from power sales. Revenues
from power sales totaled almost $5.7 billion in 1996. TVA
provides power to 160 distributors who serve nearly 8 million
customers in seven southeastern state.
The 1998 fiscal year begins Oct. 1, 1997, and ends Sept.
30, 1998.
Mr. DOMENICI. This is a TVA release that suggests that Chairman
Crowell and others have decided that they do not need the $75 million
and that other Federal agencies are going to take over. And the U.S.
House had this release, had the proposal to eliminate Federal funding
of TVA's appropriated programs in January of 1997.
[[Page S11117]]
Mr. President, what has happened is that after doing this, and
leaving the distinct impression with the U.S. House Subcommittee on
Appropriations that they were not going to need the money anymore, and
surely were not going to need it for the 1999 appropriations bill, they
have changed their mind. That is, both the Chairman down there in the
Tennessee Valley Authority area and the White House. They now want the
money, after going through all of this that I have just discussed with
the Senate.
Let me tell you, what they did by proposing this was to get all of
those in the surrounding areas who do not necessarily agree with the
TVA to join in saying they do not need the money. And there are private
power companies who clearly do not think TVA needs this nonpower money.
But both the administration and the Chairman, Chairman Crowell, had
indicated they do not need the money.
Mr. President, in spite of that, because the administration changed
its mind, and the Senators from Tennessee and from Kentucky and others
came to me and said, ``Well, we know we said we don't need the funding
anymore, but will you fund it another time for us?'' I did. The Senate
approved.
Mr. President, what has happened is the U.S. House said no, and,
frankly, there is no way to change their mind because what they throw
back at us is, we were just told in 1997 that that was the last year we
needed that subsidy, that $75 million.
Frankly, if there is any blame to go around, it does not lie with the
Senators, who did everything humanly possible. They got the Senate to
fund it, they encouraged me to hold it, they even met with Members of
the House to tell them to put it back in, but what they got was what we
might have expected.
You just told us last year you don't need it anymore. The chairman
down there issued this plan saying we don't need it. The President's
budget said we don't need it.
Now, if there is any reason that we didn't get it, it is because of
that, not because of partisan politics. There are no Democrats on the
committee who went to conference with me who are in favor of that. No
one in the House is in favor of it, because you tell the House, and
apparently this is how it works over there; it is not too bad. It
sounds like the way you would behave. Tell the House this is the last
year we are funding TVA $75 million, and they aren't too sure you want
to fund it anyway. You do it and then you come around and change your
mind after you have had this exhaustive plan and this commission
appointed so that you won't have to have this money. You come along and
say, as I said, we need it in another year, and they are saying the
House will not vote for it another year, we can stay here until Hades
gets a little cool, but we will not approve it because you told us you
don't need it, and now we have too much support against it and it will
not be funded.
I am very hopeful for those who wanted to point fingers either at
this Senator because he is Republican or some of the other Senators
from the Tennessee Valley area. It is not their fault. Frankly, I don't
think it is the committee's fault. It is just one of those things
where, the way the House argued the case, you can't make them change
their mind. And what they said was pretty logical. They had some good
points. I know the occupant of the Chair served in the House. When you
tell the House committee you are not going to fund it one single year
beyond this one and come back and say, after all those plans and us
getting money out of you, we need another year, it is not easy.
Nonetheless, I want to say I am trying, because the Tennessee Valley
Authority has some very expensive interests on some outstanding long-
term obligations, bonds and indebtedness, that they know they have to
refinance, and in the process of refinancing, there would be a change
in the interest rates. Obviously, it would be better and they would
save money. We are trying to put together an amendment that would be
taken care of as part of overall appropriations which would give them
some interest rebate. So to the extent that this would help offset what
they now think will be a big void because of the $75 million, we will
try that.
It actually has strong support from a number of Senators, including
the Tennessee Senators, that we try to do this. I say to the people
there, I am going to try to do this with their help and with the help
of Chairman Stevens and others here in the U.S. Senate who I think will
understand this issue and have understood it and will try to help us.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this last week the Conference on the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations concluded and has provided
$21,332,135 for the programs, projects and activities of the Department
of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other
independent agencies. I would like to say that I generally support the
Conference Report which Chairman Domenici recommend to the Senate
today.
Just as a balanced bill cannot accommodate all the priorities and
projects of Members of Congress, neither could this conference report.
Nevertheless, it is because of the scope of this bill, providing vital
services of the Department of Energy and the many water projects around
the nation that the Senate needs to support the Conference Report.
For instance, the Department of Energy's breadth of responsibilities
range from activities in nonproliferation to fissile materials
disposition and from the projects in solar and renewable resources to
the clean up of defense facilities such as Savannah River, Oak Ridge
and Hanford.
Specifically, in the Defense part of the bill, we were told that the
Stockpile Stewardship Management, the program that provides safety and
reliability of the nuclear stockpile, needed $4.5 billion, yet even as
we are providing it $4.4 billion we are increasing our oversight of
construction projects to prevent waste and mismanagement. Without the
Stockpile Stewardship program we would not have the ability to be able
to verify to the President that the nuclear stockpile is safe and
reliable and we would be living under continued testing of nuclear
weapons.
In the Nondefense work at the Department of Energy, the Office of
Science (formerly known as Energy Research) has facilitated many
projects in science that will have practical impacts on the future of
our society including the treatment of cancer, the isolation of
diseased genes, and the tracing of contaminants in soils. I would note
the vast research effort being made in the Fusion Energy Sciences. The
Department has tried to cover its bases by funding different types of
fusion energy research, but it eventually will have to make choices to
focus on the most feasible technologies and the Conferees have provided
this research almost $230 million.
We, as a subcommittee and Conference, were placed in an impossible
dilemma regarding the funding of water projects and, in particular, the
construction projects of the Corps of Engineers. The Conferees
recognize the value of the civil works program in protecting lives and
property throughout the United States and in preserving commercial
trade in our ports and harbors; but we simply were not given the funds
to reflect the importance of the Corps projects. Consequently, while
the Conferees provided $1.429 billion in Corps Construction, there were
many construction projects that could not receive the funding that they
needed. This is unfortunate since the Corps has many projects around
the United States that will now be hindered by uncertain schedules and
planning that may become useless. On the other hand, projects such as
the Chicago Shoreline, the Kill Van Kull Channel in New York and New
Jersey, Charleston Harbor and Virginia Beach, among many others, were
able to receive enough to address their emergency circumstances. The
dredging of the ports and harbors along both the Atlantic and Pacific
coastlines as well as the harbors in the Gulf of Mexico is no small
task and responsibility for the Corps. On an annual basis, the U.S.
ports and harbors handle an estimated $600 billion in international
cargo generating over $150 billion in tax revenue. There are small
navigation projects totaling $6 million; but there are larger projects
that require an even greater commitment. It is unfortunate that,
because of the funding dilemmas that we faced, water projects that are
vital to communities and industries around the nation will now be
stalled and mired in uncertainty. The administration should take note
of the many
[[Page S11118]]
criticisms of the budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and
recognize the essential role it has throughout the nation.
Another major agency under the jurisdiction of this appropriation is
the Bureau of Reclamation, whose historical responsibility to manage
the precious waters in the West extends back to the Newland Project in
Nevada. I will not subscribe to any notion that the Bureau is obsolete
or unneeded and will oppose any effort to minimize the Bureau's role in
water preservation. It's responsibility of reclaiming water and reusing
it in communities is as needed now as ever. In the first half of the
century, dams were built in managing the water systems, now we must be
focusing on other reuse methods like desalination systems.
Throughout the arid West the Bureau has assisted in the use and
management of water and has even facilitated the cooperation of
community interests such as the CALFED Bay Delta Project in California
which received $75 million to continue its management of the Delta
system which means that agriculture, environmental, and industry are
cooperating in unprecedented ways. There are reclamation and water
supply projects from Arizona to Idaho and from Washington to New
Mexico. The communities benefit from new sources of water such as the
community in Montana that will no longer have to haul their water for
miles in pickup trucks so that their homes can have water. This was the
goal of the Bureau of Reclamation when it was founded: to provide the
homes and communities throughout the West with water and it remains the
goal today.
Mr. President, this conference report does not satisfy everybody, nor
does it do justice to the many water projects that need our support,
but it is the best the conference could arrive at with the funding
allocations that we were given. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to
support this Conference Report. And I thank the staff of the Energy and
Water Subcommittee for their hard work and diligence throughout the
process: Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, Gregory Daines, Lashwanda
Leftwich, Elizabeth Blevins and Bob Perret on my personal staff.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, H.R. 5060, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1999, complies with the Budget Act's
section 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays.
The conference report provides $20.9 billion in budget authority and
$13.0 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 conference report is below
its allocation by $11 million in budget authority and $1 million in
outlays. The conference report also is below its nondefense
discretionary allocation by $20 million in budget authority and $46
million in outlays.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of this conference report be printed in the
Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 4060, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 1999, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
(Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget authority........................................ 12,019 8,889 ..... ......... 20,908
Outlays................................................. 11,819 8,853 ..... ......... 20,672
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority........................................ 12,030 8,909 ..... ......... 20,939
Outlays................................................. 11,820 8,899 ..... ......... 20,719
1998 level:
Budget authority........................................ 11,680 8,999 ..... ......... 20,679
Outlays................................................. 11,675 9,008 ..... ......... 20,683
President's request:
Budget authority........................................ 12,298 9,003 ..... ......... 21,301
Outlays................................................. 11,875 9,150 ..... ......... 21,025
House-passed bill:
Budget authority........................................ 11,934 8,719 ..... ......... 20,653
Outlays................................................. 11,171 8,742 ..... ......... 20,513
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority........................................ 12,030 8,912 ..... ......... 20,942
Outlays................................................. 11,818 8,896 ..... ......... 20,714
Conference Report Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority.................................... -11 -20 ..... ......... -31
Outlays............................................. -1 -46 ..... ......... -47
1998 level:
Budget authority.................................... 339 -110 ..... ......... 229
Outlays............................................. 144 -155 ..... ......... -11
President's request
Budget authority.................................... -279 -114 ..... ......... -393
Outlays............................................. -56 -297 ..... ......... -353
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.................................... 85 170 ..... ......... 255
Outlays............................................. 48 111 ..... ......... 159
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority.................................... -11 -23 ..... ......... -34
Outlays............................................. 1 -43 ..... ......... -42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, fellow Senators. I rise today with my
colleague, Senator Mack, to discuss the status of the Kissimmee River
Restoration project in the state of Florida. This project is a land
acquisition and canal backfilling project. it was authorized by
Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. The state of
Florida has spent approximately $95 million in land acquisition and
restoration evaluation. The state of Florida has met all of the
necessary schedule requirements defined in the Project Cooperation
Agreement with the Corps to keep this project on schedule.
To date, the state's expenditures far exceed the federal
contribution--a situation that occurred by design. The state of Florida
has front-loaded the land acquisition costs and the federal government
is supposed to back-load construction costs.
Mr. MACK. The first backfilling contract is scheduled to be awarded
on March 30, 1999. For this contract to be awarded, the Corps has
indicated that between $22 and $23 million must be appropriated for
this project. Today we are reviewing an Energy and Water appropriations
bill that includes only $8 million for the Kissimmee River project.
Mr. GRAHAM. I have been involved in the Kissimmee River project since
my days as Governor of the state of Florida. This project is the first
step in a long series of individual projects that seek to restore the
Florida Everglades to a state as close to their natural state as
possible. The results of this backfill contract will be visible to the
naked eye. This first contract would backfill 9 miles of the Kissimmee
Canal; restoring approximately 16 square miles of restored river/
floodplain ecosystem and 17 miles of river channel. Not only will this
have important ecological benefits, but it will also make an important
contribution to increasing water storage capacity and improving water
quality north of Lake Okechobee.
Mr. MACK. The Kissimmee River restoration project is at a critical
phase. With the current funding levels in the 1999 Energy and Water
appropriations bill, this project will not move forward. We both
understand the difficult nature of funding decisions in these times of
tight budgets, but we also recognize the responsibility of the federal
government to meet its costshare requirements with the state of Florida
and fund the construction phase of this project.
Mr. GRAHAM. Today, I ask the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate
Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, Senators Domenici and Reid,
of your intentions for the future of the Kissimmee project.
Senator Mack and I remain committed to forward progress on the
Kissimmee River restoration. We would like to work with the committee
to identify potential reprogramming opportunities within the Army Corps
budget that might allow forward progress on this project which is so
critical to Everglades restoration.
We would also like to work with the committee during the fiscal year
2000 appropriations process to ensure that the Kissimmee River
restoration is funded at appropriate levels.
Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the importance of this project to the state
of Florida, and I look forward to working with the Senators from
Florida to identify any potential funding alternatives or reprogramming
options for the Kissimmee River project. We will work together in the
next year to include appropriate funding levels for the Kissimmee River
restoration project in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.
Mr. REID. I would like to echo the comments of Senator Domenici by
stating my support for the Kissimmee River restoration project. I, too,
look
[[Page S11119]]
forward to working with both Senators Graham and Mack in the next week
to identify any funding or reprogramming opportunities for the
Kissimmee River project.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the
Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, in a brief colloquy. It has come to my
attention that, due to some confusion regarding the funding of an on-
going Section 1135 ecosystem restoration project of a similar name, the
conference report to accompany the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill eliminated funding for the Duwamish and Green River
Basin study. Would the chairman agree that neither the Committee nor
the conferees are opposed to the ongoing Duwamish and Green River Basin
study?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is correct.
There has been some confusion regarding this study and the funding for
the Green-Duwamish ecosystem restoration project under the Section 1135
program.
Mr. GORTON. Would the Chairman also agree that the Corps of Engineers
should seek a reprogramming of funds to keep this important project on
schedule and, if sought, would the chairman be inclined to approve such
a request?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I agree that, if appropriate, the Corps
of Engineers should seek to reprogram funds to keep this study moving
forward. I am not aware of any opposition to the project and do not
anticipate a problem with a reprogramming request.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico, the Chairman of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, for the outstanding work he has done on this bill. This
is an extremely tough bill covering a diverse range of issues from our
nation's nuclear defenses, to scientific research to water projects
impacting each and every state. He has done a superb job in balancing
these needs. I wish to especially thank him for recognizing the special
needs for Positron Emission Tomography work at the Medical University
of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I appreciate
his interest in this bill and in medical research. The Subcommittee
appreciated the Senator bringing the Medical University of South
Carolina's needs to the Committee's attention last year and he has
again made a convincing case for them this year.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Cancer rates in South Carolina are some of the highest
in the nation, with more than 17,000 new cases diagnosed and more than
8,100 deaths each year. The funding in this bill is critical to our
efforts to combat cancer in South Carolina as well as the nation and I
thank the Senator.
In closing, there may be some slight confusion regarding the funds
for the Medical University of South Carolina. I want to make sure
everyone understands these funds are to build upon last year's efforts
and are to be used to design and construct an expansion of the Medical
University of South Carolina's cancer research center to provide space
for Positron Emission Tomography treatment. Is that your understanding?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. I thank him
for clarifying this matter.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have read and agree with the
subcommittee's views on improving the efficiency of Nuclear Regulation
Commission regulation. There is significant evidence that different,
but equally protective, approaches to regulation could result in more
efficient regulatory practices.
As I am sure the Senator from New Mexico is aware, there are some
areas within the Commission's purview that will be challenged to keep
up with the growing workload even in the face of significant
improvements in efficiency. An example is the Spent Fuel Project Office
(SFPO) which is responsible for approving domestic use new dual purpose
canister systems for the safe storage and transportation of spent
nuclear fuel; ensuring the safety of existing technologies that have
been deployed throughout the nuclear energy industry as needs for out-
of-pool storage have emerged; reviewing and approving cask technologies
necessary to support high priority non-proliferation activities of the
United States, including the DOE Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel
Receipt Program; reviewing and approving the transportation
technologies for nuclear materials other than spent fuel; and reviewing
and approving or providing support to a host of other spent fuel
storage and transportation initiatives sponsored by either the federal
government or private interests.
Does the Chairman agree with me that this plays an important role and
does he believe that the agency recognizes the importance of the
office's work?
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's observations. The licensing
of technologies to handle the storage and transportation of various
types of spent fuel is one of the few areas within the Commission's
budget in which the demand for regulatory activity is clearly
increasing.
In addition, I hope the agency will examine further management
initiatives, such as those currently under review, that might be
necessary in the short term to address existing budget constraints and
to ensure that the resources that are available are being utilized to
maximize the likelihood of succession review of application for new
technologies.
I agree with the Senator from Georgia that the Commission should
continue to monitor the workload of the SFPO to ensure that adequate
resources are available to meet demand for application reviews.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, all time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________