[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 16, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7098-S7117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1186) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill
  Pending:

       Domenici amendment No. 628, of a technical nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in a couple minutes, we will be in a 
position where, after a few remarks, Senator Jeffords has one remaining 
issue.
  There is a package of amendments, which is already at the desk. This 
unanimous consent request has been checked with the minority and is 
satisfactory with them.


     Amendments Nos. 637, 638, 639, 661, 643, 630, and 633, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are a number of amendments that 
have been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be considered en bloc: Nos. 637, 638, 639, 661, 
643, 630, and 633. I further ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 637, 638, 639, 661, 643, 630, and 633), en bloc, 
were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 637

(Purpose: To provide funds for development of technologies for control 
          of zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species)

       On page 8, lines 7 and 8, strike ``facilities:'' and insert 
     ``facilities, and of which $1,500,000 shall be available for 
     development of technologies for control of zebra mussels and 
     other aquatic nuisance species in and around public 
     facilities:''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 638

       On page 8, line 12, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, may use not to exceed 
     $300,000 for expenses associated with the commemoration of 
     the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 639

 (Purpose: To make a technical correction providing construction funds 
 for the Site Operations Center at the Idaho National Engineering and 
                       Environmental Laboratory)

       Title III, Department of Energy, Defense Environmental 
     Restoration and Waste Management, on page 26, line 2 insert 
     the following before the period: ``Provided, That of the 
     amount provided for site completion, $1,306,000 shall be for 
     project 00-D-400, CFA Site Operations Center, Idaho National 
     Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 661

   (Purpose: To clarify usage of Drought Emergency Assistance funds)

       At the end of Title II, insert the following new section: 
     Sec.  . Funds under this title for Drought Emergency 
     Assistance shall only be made available for the leasing of 
     water for specified drought related purposes from willing 
     lessors, in compliance with existing state laws and 
     administered under state water priority allocation. Such 
     leases may be entered into with an option to purchase, 
     provided that such purchase is approved by the state in which 
     the purchase takes place and the purchase does not cause 
     economic harm within the state in which the purchase is made.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 643

       At the appropriate place add the following: ``Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Interior may provide 
     $2,865,000 from funds appropriated herein for environmental 
     restoration at Fort Kearny, Nebraska.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 630

(Purpose: To strike the rescission of appropriations for the Hackensack 
             Meadowlands flood control project, New Jersey)

       On page 37, strike lines 20 and 21.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 633

(Purpose: To strike the rescission of appropriations for the Lackawanna 
                 River project, Scranton, Pennsylvania)

       On page 37, strike lines 25 and 26.


 Amendments Nos. 629, 631, 634, 642, 645, and 646, As Amended, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that six 
second-degree amendments, which are at the desk, to amendments Nos. 
629, 631, 634, 642, 645, and 646 be considered agreed to; that the 
first-degree amendments be agreed to, as amended; and that the motions 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 629

   (Purpose: To make funds available for the University of Missouri 
                       research reactor project)

       On page 22, line 7, before the period at the end insert ``, 
     of which $100,000 shall be used for the University of 
     Missouri research reactor project''.
                                  ____



                 amendment no. 672 to amendment no. 629

(Purpose: A second degree amendment to the Bond amendment numbered 629)

       On line 2, strike ``, of which $8,100,000'' and insert: ``, 
     of which $3,000,000 shall be used for Boston College research 
     in high temperature superconductivity and of which 
     $5,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 631

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Minnish Waterfront Park project, 
                       Passaic River, New Jersey)

       On page 4, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following: 
     ``Minnish Waterfront Park project, Passaic River, New Jersey, 
     $4,000,000;''.
                                  ____



                 amendment no. 673 to amendment no. 631

    (Purpose: A second degree amendment to the Torricelli amendment 
                             numbered 631)

       On line 4, strike ``$4,000,000'' and insert: 
     ``$1,500,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 634

      (Purpose: To provide funding for water quality enhancement)

       On page 4, line 20, strike ``$4,400,000:'' and insert 
     ``$4,400,000; and Metro Beach, Michigan, $422,500 for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration.''
                                  ____



                 amendment no. 674 to amendment no. 634

 (Purpose: A second degree amendment to the Abraham amendment numbered 
                                  634)

       Strike: ``Metro Beach, Michigan, $422,500 for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration.''
       And insert: ``Lake St. Clair, Metro Beach, Michigan, 
     section 206 project, $100,000:''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 642

       On page 8, line 16, strike all that follows ``expended:'' 
     to the end of line 24.
                                  ____



                 amendment no. 675 to amendment no. 642

  (Purpose: A second degree amendment to the Boxer amendment numbered 
                                  642)

       Strike ``line 16, strike all that follows `expended:' to 
     the end of line 24.'', and insert the following: ``line 23, 
     strike all that follows `tions' through `Act' on line 24.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 645

  (Purpose: To make a technical correction with respect to a Corps of 
            Engineers project in the State of North Dakota)

       On page 5, lines 19 through 21, strike ``shall not provide 
     funding for construction of an emergency outlet from Devils 
     Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne River, unless'' and 
     insert ``may use funding previously appropriated to initiate 
     construction of an emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North 
     Dakota, to the Sheyenne River, except that the funds shall 
     not become available unless''.
                                  ____



                 amendment no 676 to amendment no. 645

 (Purpose: A second degree amendment to amendment numbered 645 offered 
                     by Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Conrad)

       On line 4 strike: ``may use funding previously 
     appropriated'', and insert: ``may use Construction, General 
     funding as directed in Public Law 105-62 and Public Law 105-
     245''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 646

(Purpose: To prohibit the inclusion of costs of breaching or removing a 
  dam that is part of the Federal Columbia River Power System within 
         rates charged by the Bonneville Power Administration)

       On page 33, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 3  . PROHIBITING THE INCLUSION OF COSTS OF BREACHING OR 
                   REMOVING A DAM THAT IS PART OF THE FEDERAL 
                   COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM WITHIN RATES 
                   CHARGED BY THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 7 of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning 
     and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839e) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

[[Page S7099]]

       ``(n) Prohibiting the Inclusion of Costs of Breaching or 
     Removing a Dam That is Part of the Federal Columbia River 
     Power System Within Rates Charged by the Bonneville Power 
     Administration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, rates established under this section shall not 
     include any costs to undertake the removal of breaching of 
     any dam that is part of the Federal Columbia River Power 
     System.''.
                                  ____



                 Amendment No. 677 to Amendment No. 646

(Purpose: A second degree amendment to the Gorton amendment number 646)

       Strike line 2 and all thereafter, and insert the following:

     SEC. 3  . LIMITING THE INCLUSION OF COSTS OF PROTECTION OF, 
                   MITIGATION OF DAMAGE TO, AND ENHANCEMENT OF 
                   FISH, WITHIN RATES CHARGED BY THE BONNEVILLE 
                   POWER ADMINISTRATION, TO THE RATE PERIOD IN 
                   WHICH THE COSTS ARE INCURRED.

       Section 7 of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning 
     and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839e) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       (n) Limiting the Inclusion of Costs of Protection of, 
     Mitigation of Damage to, and Enhancement of Fish, Within 
     Rates Charged by the Bonneville Power Administration, to the 
     Rate Period in Which the Costs Are Incurred.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, rates established by the 
     Administrator, in accordance with established fish funding 
     principles, under this section shall recover costs for 
     protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish, whether under 
     the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and 
     Conservation Act or any other act, not to exceed such amounts 
     the Administrator forecasts will be expended during the 
     period for which such rates are established.''.


            Amendments Nos. 678, 679, 680, and 681, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I finally ask unanimous consent that 
four additional first-degree amendments, which are at the desk, be 
considered agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, all of the above occurring en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 678, 679, 680, 681) were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 678

    (Purpose: To provide for continued funding of wildlife habitat 
mitigation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 
                       and State of South Dakota)

       On page 13, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX 
                   TRIBE, AND STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL 
                   WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall continue 
     to fund wildlife habitat mitigation work for the Cheyenne 
     River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of 
     South Dakota at levels previously funded through the Pick-
     Sloan operations and maintenance account.
       (b) Contracts.--With $3,000,000 made available under the 
     heading ``Construction, General'', the Secretary of the Army 
     shall fund activities authorized under title VI of division C 
     of Public Law 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681-660 through contracts 
     with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 
     and State of South Dakota.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 679

     (Purpose: To provide funds for the Lake Andes-Wagner/Marty II 
                         demonstration program)

       On page 15, line 1, after ``expended,'' insert ``of which 
     $150,000 shall be available for the Lake Andes-Wagner/Marty 
     II demonstration program authorized by the Lake Andes-Wagner/
     Marty II Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4677),''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 680

(Purpose: To appropriate funding for flood control project in Glendive, 
                                Montana)

       On page 2, between line 20 and 21 insert the following 
     after the colon: ``Yellowstone River at Glendive, Montana 
     Study, $150,000; and''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 681

       On page 3, line 14, strike ``$1,113,227,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,086,586,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The next amendment in order, as I understand, is the 
Jeffords amendment; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Nevada that 
it will take unanimous consent to set aside amendment No. 628.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have a technical amendment that stands in the way?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 628 is pending.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is that not the amendment that the Senator from New 
Mexico put in as a technical amendment early on?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go to that amendment 
and that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
628.
  The amendment (No. 628) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the time 
Senator Jeffords comes to the Chamber, I be recognized on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while we wait for Senator Jeffords, who 
has a very important matter to bring before the Senate, let me thank 
the many Senators who have cooperated in an effort to get this bill 
passed. We still have the issue that Senator Jeffords will raise before 
the Senate, but I suggest, in a bill that is about $600 million less 
than the President requested with reference to the nondefense part of 
this bill, we have done a pretty good job of covering most of the 
projects in this country that are needed, that the Corps of Engineers 
and the Bureau of Reclamation talk about and a number of projects in 
the sovereign States that our Senators, from both sides of the aisle, 
represent.
  We have done our best. We were not able to fund everything, nor were 
we able to fund at full dollar, and we had to reduce funding for the 
ongoing projects substantially in the flood line of money and projects 
that the Corps of Engineers has going for it.
  We understand that the allocations for this subcommittee, which is 
made up with a significant amount of defense money and a lesser amount 
of nondefense money, have been allocated in the House in a manner that 
is about $1.6 billion less than this bill. We do not know how that can 
ever be worked out in conference, so we are very hopeful that before 
the House is finished, they will do some of the things that have been 
done in the Senate to alleviate the pressure on committees such as the 
energy and water subcommittee and others.
  We have no assurance of that, but obviously everything is in place so 
that when this is passed today, if it is passed, we will be on a path 
to be ready for the House bill when they send it over and immediately 
go to conference. We will be ready to do that at the beck and call of 
the House to try to get this bill done at the earliest possible time.

  I will await the arrival of the distinguished Senator from Vermont, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the senior Senator from 
New Mexico, that I appreciate his hard work on this measure. This has 
been very difficult. As he has pointed out, we do not have the money we 
had last year. To meet all the demands on this very important 
subcommittee has been very difficult.
  We have harbors that need to be dredged. We have water projects that 
are ongoing which are important to prevent flooding and to allow people 
to develop commerce in various parts of the country. We have been 
unable to do all that was required to be done under this bill, but we 
have done our best.
  I extend my appreciation to those Members on this side with whom we 
have had to work on these amendments. It has been very difficult. There 
has been some give-and-take on both sides.
  Senator Domenici and I have worked together now on three different 
bills, and each year it seems that it gets more difficult.
  But for our relationship, this bill would even be more difficult.
  I also say what the Senator has said but perhaps in a different way. 
From this side of the aisle they must hear the message in the other 
body that we need at least this much money to do a bill. For the other 
body to come in and say that we are going to cut even more than is cut 
here means we are not going to get a bill. This has been cut to the 
bear bones. We cannot go any deeper.
  Senator Schumer from New York has done an outstanding job in 
advocating things he thinks the State of New York deserves in this 
legislation. We have been able to meet many of the things he has 
suggested and advocated--in fact, most everything. I had a longtime 
relationship with his predecessor, who was an extremely strong advocate 
for

[[Page S7100]]

the State of New York. Senator Schumer certainly stepped into those 
shoes and has been as strong an advocate as Senator Moynihan.
  The one thing we were unable to do for the State of New York dealt 
with the Community Assistance and Worker Transition Program, and that 
was at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Interestingly, yesterday, 
the one meeting I was able to have off the floor was with Assistant 
Secretary Dan Reicher. The reason I say ``interestingly'' is because 
this is the program he works with in the Department of Energy, the 
Worker Transition Program.
  In this bill, there is money for that program. We are ratcheting this 
down every year. In our bill, we have $30 million for that program. 
Senator Schumer thought there should be an earmark for Brookhaven 
National Laboratory. We thought that was inappropriate. It had not been 
done in the past; we could not do it on this bill.
  I have indicated to the Senator from New York that we will work in 
conference to see if there can be something done. But more important, 
the Senator from New York must know that Assistant Secretary Reicher 
said Brookhaven was a prime candidate for that.
  In short, I believe this can be done administratively and will not 
require legislation. So if, in fact, the people of Brookhaven are laid 
off permanently--and it has not been determined yet whether they are 
going to be laid off permanently--Secretary Reicher indicated there was 
a real strong possibility they would fit right into the Community 
Assistance and Worker Transition Program that has been able in the past 
to cover people at Savannah River in South Carolina, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory in Tennessee, the Pinellas Nuclear Facility in Florida, and 
the Nevada Test Site in Nevada.
  So Brookhaven National Laboratory has many of those same conditions 
and problems. We are going to work very hard to make sure we do what we 
can to protect those workers at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
  If the reactor at Brookhaven is decommissioned, and the workers have 
left because of a loss of confidence, or other reasons, the lab 
certainly will lose its efficiency in its mission. If the reactor is 
restarted, the decontamination team will need transition assistance.
  The simple expedient of providing some assistance now, I believe, 
will avoid the waste and needless suffering. In short, we are going to 
do what we can, both from a legislative standpoint, but more 
importantly from an administrative standpoint, to take care of those 
problems. So I appreciate, I say to the manager of this bill, the 
cooperation of the Senator from New York.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I state here for the Record my sincere 
appreciation and thanks to Senator Reid, the ranking minority member, 
and his staff--all of them. This is a complicated bill involving 
everything from the deepest military needs in terms of research, in 
terms of development, maintenance, safekeeping of all of our nuclear 
weapons at our nuclear laboratories around the country, the maintenance 
of all the other laboratories that DOE runs, to water, inland waterways 
and barges and seaports and flood prevention. Many Members have an 
active interest. We have had to work very hard to do what we think is a 
reasonably good job under the circumstances.
  I also say to the distinguished junior Senator from New York, with 
reference to Brookhaven, I am totally familiar with the situation at 
Brookhaven. I worked on it for 2 years in a row when they had some 
problems up there. We worked with the administration and the 
Department. Clearly, if they qualify for the Worker Transition Program, 
we ought to be able to handle it administratively. The Department ought 
to be able to do that.
  I say to Senator Reid, I will be there helping wherever I can. I am 
very grateful we did not have to have a vote on this issue, because I 
think we would have had to object to it. I think it is much better that 
it be handled administratively. If they are entitled to it, they will 
get it because the program is already there.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. We have been told the Senator from Vermont will be here in 
a matter of a couple minutes. While we are waiting for the Senator to 
come, I want to just build upon some of the things the senior Senator 
from New Mexico talked about.
  This bill, I am confident, is one of the most complicated bills in 
the entire 13 Appropriations subcommittees. It deals with the Corps of 
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy, atomic 
energy, defense activities, the Power Marketing Administrations, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority. I think I have covered most all of 
them.
  But this bill deals with a myriad of very difficult problems. We find 
each year the requests--which are valid requests--from Members trying 
to protect interests in their State get bigger because the problems 
become more complex. It has made it most difficult, because the numbers 
we are allowed to work with are going down all the time.
  Not only do we deal with problems in the continental United States, 
but, of course, our two newest States, Alaska and Hawaii. We also deal 
with problems in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. This is very difficult as it relates to the Corps of 
Engineers.
  The construction account for the Corps of Engineers deals with 
problems that are all over this part of the world. We even deal with 
problems that some say have gone on too long. The fact of the matter is 
that sometimes when we are not able to give the full amount of the 
money in a given year, then the projects take more money. We may start 
out with a program that costs $100, and if you spread that out over, 
instead of 1 year, 3 years, it winds up costing more than $100. Those 
are some of the problems we have faced in this bill.
  The Bureau of Reclamation was first authorized in 1902. The Bureau of 
Reclamation manages, develops, and protects water reclamation projects 
in arid and semiarid areas in 17 of the Western States. The first ever 
Bureau of Reclamation project in the history of the United States was 
in arid Nevada. It was called the Newlands project, named after a 
Congressman from Nevada named Francis Newlands, who later became a 
Senator. It was going to make the desert blossom like a rose; and it 
did. It diverted water from the Truckee River. It created some very 
difficult problems. In this bill we are working on it. Even though it 
was 96 years ago that the first act took place, we are still trying to 
correct some of the problems that were created. The Bureau of 
Reclamation provides in this bill over $600 million to handle water and 
related resources accounts. It is something that has been made more 
interesting as a result of something I talked about when the bill came 
up on Monday, and that is the CALFED project.

  This is a huge project. It is a program that the private sector has 
invested in, the State of California has invested in, and local 
government in California has invested in, along with the Federal 
Government. This project, the Bay Delta in California, CALFED project, 
deals with two-thirds of the water, the potable water, the water they 
drink in the State of California--a difficult project. It is something 
that is extremely important to a State that has 35 million people in 
it. Yet we have projects from the Bureau of Reclamation to some of our 
smallest States and populations, but we have to work with this 
multitude of problems with less money. And we keep going down, as I 
said.
  The Department of Energy, a large part of this bill: We deal there 
with energy programs, nondefense environmental management, uranium 
enrichment and decontamination, decommissioning funds; we deal with 
science programs, atomic energy, defense activities, which take up a 
large amount of money in this bill; and we have to do this to support 
the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. This program is 
becoming even more important with the emphasis that has been focused on 
our nuclear programs as a result of the China problem dealing with the 
supposed theft, the alleged

[[Page S7101]]

theft, the spying that has taken place in one of our laboratories, and 
maybe more than one of our laboratories.
  Power marketing administrations: We have had to work money there to 
see what we can do to maintain that very important program.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is part of our 
responsibilities.
  We have also had for many years the responsibility of a program 
established in 1965 called the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is 
a regional economic development agency. This program, which has been 
going on for some 44 years, receives over $70 million in this bill, 
which is important for a large part of the United States. The amount of 
money we have been asked to increase for this program has been very 
difficult to come by. There have been the increased construction costs 
of the Richie County Dam, and the cost has gone up because of delays 
due to a legal challenge over some problems in the Fourth Circuit. This 
caused our bill to be required to spend more money.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: This bill provides $465.4 million. 
There are some offsetting revenues that we reduced the amount we need 
to put in this bill.
  For each of these entities, everything we do is vitally important. 
Each dollar we do not put in is something less that they can do that 
certainly is required.
  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: This is a board which reviews 
what happens with this very important issue of nuclear waste. Just this 
morning, the full committee, authorizing committee, chaired by the 
junior Senator from Alaska, reported out a very important nuclear waste 
bill. Part of what happens with nuclear waste has to be reviewed by the 
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. We fund that program.
  One of the programs that has been ongoing for many, many years, back 
in the days of the Depression, is the Tennessee Valley Authority. Under 
this bill, they receive some $7 million.
  We have a lot to do in this bill. It seems it becomes more 
complicated each year because of the cut in moneys that we receive. We 
have worked very hard, as the Senator from New Mexico has indicated, 
trying to resolve most of these amendments. We have been able to do it 
with the cooperation of Senators on both sides of the aisle.


                           Amendment No. 648

    (Purpose: To increase funding for energy supply, research, and 
 development activities relating to renewable energy sources, with an 
                                offset)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No. 
648, offered by Senator Jeffords, violates section 302(f) of the Budget 
Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not pending. The Senator 
would have to call for the amendment.
  Mr. REID. I believe that was already done with a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as far as I know, my amendment has not 
been called up.
  Mr. REID. That is what the Chair just said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I ask that amendment No. 648 be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:.

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Allard, Mr. Roth, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 648.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the reading of the 
amendment.
  The amendment shall be read to completion until consent is granted to 
dispense with the reading.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 20. strike lines 21 through 24 and insert 
     ``$791,233,000, of which $821,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Geothermal Resources Development Fund and 
     $5,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the United 
     States Enrichment Corporation Fund, and of which $70,000,000 
     shall be derived from accounts for which this Act makes funds 
     available for unnecessary Department of Energy contractor 
     travel expenses (of which not less than $4,450,000 shall be 
     available for solar building technology research, not less 
     than $82,135,000 shall be available for photovoltaic energy 
     systems, not less than $17,600,000 shall be available for 
     concentrating solar systems, not less than $37,700,000 shall 
     be available for power systems in biomass/biofuels energy 
     systems, not less than $48,000,000 shall be available for 
     transportation in biomass/biofuels energy systems (of which 
     not less than $1,500,000 shall be available for the 
     Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research), not less than 
     $42,265,000 shall be available for wind energy systems, not 
     less than $4,000,000 shall be available for the renewable 
     energy production incentive program, not less than $7,600,000 
     shall be available for support of solar programs, not less 
     than $5,100,000 shall be available for the international 
     solar energy program, not less than $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, not 
     less than $27,850,000 shall be available for geothermal 
     technology development, not less than $27,700,000 shall be 
     available for hydrogen research, not less than $6,400,000 
     shall be available for hydropower research, not less than 
     $32,000,000 shall be available for high temperature 
     superconducting research and development, not less than 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for energy storage systems, and 
     not less than $18,500,000 shall be available for direction of 
     programs).''.

  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No. 
648 offered by Senator Jeffords violates section 302(f) of the Budget 
Act which prohibits consideration of legislation that exceeds the 
committee's allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in the long tradition of the Senate, I 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to amend the amendment by 
deleting the word ``unnecessary'' as it first appears in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, because we were in a quorum call, I wanted 
to point out to my colleagues that a group of us, just moments ago, 
held a press conference discussing the issue----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rules require unanimous consent for the 
Senator to proceed at this point because a point of order has been made 
against the pending amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, under the rules of the Senate, does the 
Senator object to having to identify himself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would ask, object to what?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator who objects to the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a matter of order in the Senate not to 
proceed when there is a pending point of order.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Objection to what?
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator from North Dakota state his 
request.
  Mr. DORGAN. I asked consent to be recognized. My understanding is we 
were in a quorum call. I asked consent to be recognized for the purpose 
of discussing a press conference we just held on the Patients' Bill of 
Rights. Because we were in a quorum call and not conducting other 
Senate business, I wanted to have a few minutes to discuss

[[Page S7102]]

that subject. So I ask unanimous consent to be able to do so.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, at this time, I would like to take the 
floor to discuss the amendment that I have just withdrawn. I do so with 
some reluctance, but denying a Senator the right to amend his own 
amendment is such a rare situation--if not unprecedented--that I think 
it is only fair and appropriate for those of us who have worked long 
and hard on this amendment and know they have sufficient votes to pass 
it, as modified, to have the opportunity to at least discuss and to let 
this body know what they are being prevented from doing by virtue of 
this rare use of the rules.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I want to state to the Senator that as one of the managers 
of this bill, I think the content of his amendment is very good. I 
think he has had a record of looking out for programs like solar and 
renewable energy. I have a personal commitment to work with the Senator 
from Vermont and the senior Senator from New Mexico as this matter goes 
to conference to see how well we can do in regard to the matters he has 
put before the Senate.
  In short, my statement is in the form of a reverse question. I want 
the Senator to understand that certainly there was nothing personal in 
regard to exercising my rights under the rule. In fact, it is one of 
the more difficult things I have done in my time here. The Senator from 
Vermont offered something that I think needs to be spoken about. He has 
done it before very eloquently, and we will do the best we can from the 
time that this bill leaves this body until it gets to conference, 
keeping this amendment in mind.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Without losing your right to the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the Senator from Vermont 
debating and discussing the issue, as he sees it. I would just like to 
ask, in the interest of moving things along--there are no other 
amendments. Everything is finished on the bill--I wonder how long the 
Senator from Vermont would like to discuss it. Is it possible that he 
might tell us?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I cannot give the Senator anything but a guesstimate 
because I have many supporters of this amendment who may or may not 
desire to speak. But I have no intention of trying to filibuster this 
bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't say that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I understand. I just wanted to make it clear. But what 
I do want to have everyone understand is that this modification of the 
amendment is by taking one word out in order to meet a requirement of 
the budget. The budget requirement may or may not be valid, but once 
you get it, there is not much you can do about it. The whole 
disagreement here is with respect to the one word ``unnecessary,'' 
which we want to delete, because by using that word we inadvertently 
created a budget point of order. Because as far as the Budget Committee 
is concerned, there is never any unnecessary use of the airplane, or 
travel by the Department of Energy, even though they spent some $250 
million traveling where and why and who I do not know, which was more 
than enough, with a reasonable cut in the use of their airplanes, to 
fund a very important amendment dealing with more emphasis on renewable 
resources.
  I would like to, certainly for a question, yield to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just propound a question. But 
before I do, let me state to the Senator from Vermont that I am a 
cosponsor of what he is trying to do. I think what he is trying to do 
is very important.
  I regret that we found this parliamentary situation that created a 
point of order. I don't quite know how one gets out of this at this 
point. I regret that the Senator felt that he had to withdraw the 
amendment, but I think what he and I and others are trying to do makes 
a lot of sense in terms of investment for this country and investment 
in the future with alternative energy resources. It is very important, 
especially because some of the programs show such great promise for our 
country's future.
  I regret that we are not able to proceed with his amendment. I think 
the offset is appropriate. I think the amendment would advance this 
country's energy interests. I know because of the press of time that 
folks want to move forward. I will not say more except to say that I 
appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Vermont on this. I hope 
this is not the end of it. I hope that perhaps by this process by 
committees in the Senate and in the House we can find a way to do what 
the Senator and I and so many others want to do.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator 
from Delaware without giving up my right to the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleague for the 
leadership that he has provided in this renewable energy program.
  I strongly believe that renewable energy technology represents our 
best hope for reducing air pollution, creating jobs, and decreasing our 
reliance on imported oil and finite supplies of fossil fuel. These 
programs promise to supply economically competitive and commercially 
viable exports. I believe that the nation should be looking toward 
clean, alternative forms of energy, not taking a step backward by 
cutting funding for these important programs.

  Indeed this is a sentiment shared by a majority of the American 
people. Public support for renewable energy programs is strong. For the 
fifth year in a row, a national poll has revealed that Americans 
believe renewable energy along with energy efficiency should be the 
highest energy research and development priority.
  My own State of Delaware has a long tradition in solar energy. In 
1972, the University of Delaware established one of the first 
photovoltaic laboratories in the nation, the Institute for Energy 
Conversion, which has been instrumental in developing photovoltaic 
technology. Delaware's major solar energy manufacturer, Astro Power, 
has become the largest U.S.-owned photovoltaic company and has doubled 
its work force since 1997.
  While the solar energy industry might have evolved in some form on 
its own, federal investment has accelerated the transition from the 
laboratory bench to commercial markets by leveraging private sector 
efforts. This collaboration has already accrued valuable economic 
benefits to the nation. Solar energy companies--like Astro Power--have 
already created thousands of jobs and helped to reduce our trade 
deficit through exports. My state has demonstrated that solar energy 
technology can be an economically competitive and commercially viable 
energy alternative.
  International markets for solar energy systems are virtually 
exploding, due to several key market trends. Most notably, solar energy 
is already one of the lowest cost options available to developing 
countries that cannot afford to build large, expensive centralized 
power generation facilities with elaborate distribution systems.
  The governments of Japan, Germany, and Australia are investing 
heavily in aggressive technology and market development in partnership 
with their own solar energy industries. Until recently, Japan and 
Germany held the lead in world market share for photovoltaics; the 
United States has only recently recaptured international market 
dominance.
  Cutting funding for these technologies would have a chilling effect 
on the U.S. industry's ability to compete on an international scale in 
these billion-dollar markets of today and tomorrow. The employment 
potential of renewables represents a minimum of

[[Page S7103]]

15,000 new jobs this decade with nearly 120,000 the next decade.
  It is imperative that this Senate support renewable energy 
technologies and be a partner to an energy future that addresses our 
economic needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. My state has 
done and will continue to do its part. I hope my colleagues in the 
Senate will look to the future and do their part in securing a safe and 
reliable energy future by supporting this amendment.
  Again, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleague for his 
leadership on this most important matter.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I certainly thank my good friend from 
Delaware who has been out front on this issue for many years. I 
appreciate his efforts in this area.
  The amendment that Senator Roth and I desire to offer today is about 
priorities. I think we all agree that increased domestic energy 
production should be a priority. We agree that a lower balance of 
payments should be a priority. We agree that helping farmers, ranchers 
and rural communities is a priority. We agree that standing up for U.S. 
companies selling U.S. manufacturing energy technologies in overseas 
markets is a priority. We cheer the increased job markets in every 
State in this Nation. We support the small companies across the Nation 
that are working to capture the booming global energy market, and we 
would make it a priority to promote clean air. The bill does not do 
that in its present form.
  The bill before us further whittles away our Nation's efforts to wean 
itself from foreign oil. It erodes our efforts to develop technology 
that increases domestic energy production. It ends commitments made to 
small energy companies that depend on Federal assistance to enter the 
giant global energy market. It reduces our efforts to make major 
advancements in energy development. It reduces our commitment to energy 
that is affordable, that is clean, and, most importantly, that is made 
in America.
  The administration requested a 16-percent increase in renewable 
funding--from $384 million to $446 million. More than half of the 
Senate--54 Senators--signed a letter in support of this $62 million 
increase. The committee did not request an increase in the renewable 
budget. It did not even hold at a renewable budget level. The committee 
cut the budget by $13 million. There is a $92 million shortfall between 
the committee mark and the amount requested by more than one-half of 
the Senate.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote for five things, if we are 
allowed to present it.
  It is a vote for national security.
  It is a vote for small businesses across the United States that 
produce clean, renewable energy.
  It is a vote for farmers and ranchers in rural communities across 
America.
  It is a vote to help American business grab onto a chunk of that 
rapidly growing export market for renewable products.
  And a vote for this amendment is a vote for cleaner air for our 
children.
  I am going to address each of these reasons why my colleagues should 
support this bill in turn.
  First of all, we have charts that allow you to understand better what 
we are discussing.
  This is a vote about national security. It is about making our 
Nation's future secure by securing our energy future.
  The U.S. trade deficit has scored as its No. 1 contributor imported 
foreign oil, which has reached record levels.
  Foreign oil imports constituted 55 percent of consumption early this 
year and is expected to reach more than 70 percent by the year 2020. At 
that time, most of the world's oil--over 64 percent--is expected to 
come from potentially unstable Persian Gulf nations. These imports 
account for over $60 billion, or 36 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. 
These are U.S. dollars being shipped overseas to the Middle East which 
could be put to better use at home.

  The defense leaders of our Nation agree that increasing dependence on 
foreign oil has serious implications for our national and energy 
security. They agree that investing in renewable energy is an 
invaluable insurance policy to enhance our national and energy 
security.
  Lee Butler agrees. He is the former commander of the Strategic Air 
Command and strategic air planner for Operation Desert Storm. Robert 
McFarlane agrees. Robert McFarlane was National Security Adviser under 
former President Ronald Reagan. Thomas Moorer agrees. Thomas Moorer is 
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. James Woolsey agrees. 
James Woolsey is a former Director of the CIA. In a recent letter to 
Members of Congress, these national security leaders support the 
administration's budget request for renewable energy.
  Reading from my first chart, the national security leader said:

       Current conflicts in the Middle East and the Balkans and 
     our stressed defense capability only reinforce our earlier 
     concerns that our increasing dependence on imported oil has 
     serious implications for national and energy security. Wars 
     and terrorism strongly highlight the benefits of obtaining 
     domestic, dispersed renewable energy systems and efficiency. 
     . . .
       Now is clearly the time to increase our coverage under this 
     valuable insurance policy for our security--the availability 
     of renewable resources and improvements in energy efficiency. 
     Such a commitment will not only enhance national and energy 
     security, but also bring with it global leadership, 
     environmental and economic benefits, new industry and high 
     quality jobs.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  I ask unanimous consent David Hunter of my staff be granted privilege 
of the floor during the pendency of the energy and water 
appropriations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, no crisis can stop the sun from shining, 
the wind from blowing, or the Earth from producing geothermal heat.
  Let's review some alternatives we have and how they can be utilized. 
Geysers Geothermal Power Plant in California is an example of the sort 
of energy savings we can gain through ``made in America'' geothermal 
energy.
  American soil holds a natural resource available throughout much of 
this country: Geysers produce the energy equivalent of over 250 million 
barrels of oil and currently provide electricity for over 1 million 
people. Geysers Geothermal Power Plant in California is an example.
  The next chart shows renewable generation by each State, indicating 
how much renewable energy is produced in every State in the United 
States. I think all Senators ought to take that into consideration. We 
are hurting small businesses located in every State in the United 
States. Every Senator in the United States is a stakeholder in this 
debate. These States have a substantial energy generation capacity. 
Much is not utilized, and much more is available. It is very extensive, 
according to the chart.
  The next chart shows the top 20 States for wind energy. There is a 
lot of wind around this place especially, but also around the rest of 
the country. This chart shows the top 20 States for wind energy 
potential. Although most of the wind potential generated today has 
occurred in California, many States have much greater wind potential. 
The top 20 States for wind energy potential are: North Dakota, Texas, 
Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Minnesota, 
Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Michigan, New York, Illinois, 
California, Wisconsin, Maine, and Missouri. The American Midwest is the 
Saudi Arabia of wind energy. North Dakota alone can produce 36 percent 
of all U.S. electric power needs. New Mexico could produce 10 percent 
of U.S. electric power needs. The oil wells in Saudi Arabia will 
eventually run dry. The wind in North Dakota will supply indefinitely a 
steady source of power.
  Next is a map of localities with geothermal energy. Like the sun 
shining on American soil and the wind blowing over it, geothermal 
energy is a great American resource. It is good for the environment, 
good for the country, and good for business. This chart shows bountiful 
geothermal energy supplies, especially on the west coast.
  I have a series of pictures of renewable energy projects across the 
country. They demonstrate that a vote for renewable energy is a vote 
for ranchers, farmers, and small communities all across America.
  This chart shows the North State Power Wind Farm in Minnesota. The

[[Page S7104]]

wind facility has pumped over $125 million into the local economy and 
provides an extra source of income for local farmers in Lake Benton, 
MN.
  Farmers make money through royalty payments for the wind turbines on 
their lands. They continue to farm their lands and make additional 
money for the wind that blows above it. This shows municipal utility 
wind turbines in Traverse City, MI. Note the corn growing. This wind 
turbine provides clean, renewable, locally produced wind energy for the 
people of Traverse City, MI.
  The next chart shows Culberson Wind Plant in Texas. This wind 
facility is the largest energy producer in Culberson County. It 
provides $400,000 annually in tax revenues to Culberson County 
hospitals and schools. That is 10 percent of the county's property tax 
base. It also provides $100,000 to the Texas public school fund.
  It is not just wind energy that is helpful in small communities. 
Photovoltaic helps ranchers and farmers. This is a cattle rancher with 
a photovoltaic-powered well in Idaho. This Idaho rancher powers his 
home and pumps well water for his cattle under a photovoltaic program 
offered by Idaho Power Company.
  This chart shows Kotzebue Electric Association Village Power Project 
in Kotzebue, AK. The projects will reduce emissions from diesel plants 
and reduce fuel transport and costs to the villagers.
  Next is Ontario Hydro Village Power Project. There is a large market 
for export of U.S. wind turbines to northern communities in Alaska, 
Canada, and Russia. This turbine was built in Vermont and exported to 
Ontario, Canada. In the last 10 years, photovoltaic sales have more 
than quadrupled. In developing countries, demand has increased because 
it is attractive to isolated communities that are distant from the 
power plant and because they have small electric requirements.
  Although America is still a leader in developing renewable energy 
technologies, this lead may slip if we lower our renewable research and 
development funding. Europe and Japan continue to subsidize their 
renewable industry, putting U.S.-based companies at a severe 
disadvantage.
  For example, Japan, Germany, and Denmark use tied aid, offer 
financing, and provide export promotion for their domestic industries, 
and our industries have to compete with that. It is very difficult to 
do. But because of its success and the fact that we have advantages, 
they have been able to survive, with great difficulty, without having 
that assistance from loans. This is not the time to lose our lead or to 
cut funding out of this important industry.
  There is one final reason why my colleagues should overwhelmingly 
support this amendment. A vote on this amendment is also a vote for the 
environment.
  Consider this chart showing children playing in front of a windmill 
in Iowa's Spirit Lake district. The wind turbine generates power for 
the school. It is emission free, completely natural. Few us of us want 
to have our children play under smokestacks or near oil fields or 
uranium enrichment plants. Few of us want our children to fight wars in 
the Middle East over oil. But we are all happy to have our children 
playing in the wind and the sun.
  Next is a geothermal powerplant in Dixie Valley, NV. This plant, 
which produces electricity for 100,000 people, produces no emissions 
and 1 to 5 percent as much SOX and CO2 as a coal-
fired plant of the same size.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  It is a beautiful place, isn't it? It is very close to the Fallon 
Naval Air Training Center, which is the premier fighter training center 
for the Navy pilots. That is where they train to land on carriers. Some 
of their training can be watched from this powerplant.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We should have more of them. I wish the Senator would 
support my amendment, and we could really help the State.
  Mr. REID. I also say to my friend, a number of the programs he has 
talked about are at places I have been, for example, the wind energy 
plant in California. These are places I have been. I watched these 
windmills. It is very exciting.
  I finalize my question to the Senator. The Senator is aware that last 
year's bill we reported out of this subcommittee was less than what we 
reported out this year. Is the Senator aware of that? The bill we 
reported out of this subcommittee last year was less than what we 
reported out this year. I can assure the Senator that is accurate. It 
was only with the supplemental that this number came up larger than the 
number that we gave this year. The number, including the supplemental, 
was $12 million more than what we recommended this year, but about $50 
million less than what the subcommittee approved last year.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I point out that it was because of my amendment, which 
was adopted last year. I appreciate the Senator being aware of that. I 
wish we would take the same approach this year and adopt this 
amendment, and then we will make sure we have a much better prospect 
for the future.
  Mr. REID. As I said to the Senator when he first began, he has done 
excellent work here, and we appreciate it very much.
  I will ask the Senator another question. We have had a number of 
Senators come to the floor. There are one or two Senators who want to 
speak on this. Would the Senator have any objection to having a final 
vote on this, and when it is over people can talk on this issue for as 
long as they desire?

  Mr. JEFFORDS. A vote on my amendment? I have no problem with that.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry; I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Have a final vote on my amendment, yes, I would like 
that.
  Mr. REID. Of course, the only thing in order is final passage, so the 
answer to my question is no.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If you are saying without my amendment being voted on? 
You are saying we will vote your amendment and then we can go to final 
vote? That would be fine with me.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am fully aware of the genuine interest the Senator 
has in this and his enthusiasm and his hard work. But I wonder if he 
might permit me to speak for 2 minutes and yield right back to him.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just want to share with my fellow Senators the 
reality of what has happened to solar energy in this bill. First of 
all, in the Senate bill, for everything in this bill that is 
nondefense, there is a reduction of 7 percent. That means that for all 
of the things we do in water, in the Corps of Engineers, and all the 
other things, there is a 7 percent reduction. If we were to adopt this 
amendment, we would be taking this piece of the budget and increasing 
it 7 percent, thus giving it a 14 percent preferential treatment over 
the rest of the nondefense items in this bill.
  All we are doing in this bill is reducing from $365.9 million, 
reducing it by $12 million, which is less than a 3 percent reduction, 
which means this is already favored by way of prioritizing by about 5 
percent better than the other nondefense accounts here. So we can talk 
all afternoon and into the night about how great renewables are; we can 
all agree; but that is not the issue. The issue is, should we add $70 
million when we have had to reduce everything else that is nondefense 
by the huge amounts I have just described? I do not think we need to.
  Most of the things the Senator is discussing we will continue to do, 
and some that are in the pipeline ready to get done will get done 
because we are going to fund this at $353.9 million. That is not 
peanuts. Most of the solar things we want to do as a nation will get 
done.
  As long as everybody knows, we are not trying to be arbitrary. We 
thought we were very fair in the treatment of renewables in this bill. 
It was not enough. We had to add $70 million more with an amendment 
that was out of order because it added to the amount we had to spend in 
our allocation, which means it breaks the budget.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield for the purposes of debate, control of the 
floor, to my great friend from Colorado.

[[Page S7105]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding to me. I am 
not going to take a lot of time.
  I want to recognize the leadership and fine work he has done in 
fighting to get this to the floor of the Senate. I am obviously 
disappointed, as he is, in the fact we are not going to have a vote on 
this. But I do have some charts and, like my colleague, will talk about 
the importance of renewable energy, particularly in the context of wind 
energy, geothermal, and solar energy.
  The Senator's State, like the State of Colorado, has done a 
considerable amount in this area. It is important to the State of 
Colorado. In fact, we have a research laboratory in Colorado just to 
address things we are talking about on the floor.
  I just wanted to recognize in a public way the Senator's contribution 
and effort in trying to move forward with renewable energy. It has been 
a pleasure to be associated with my colleague on this amendment.
  I thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, for once again 
standing firm in his commitment to renewable energy. I concur with the 
Senator from Vermont and would like to share my thoughts on the 
importance of funding the Department of Energy's renewables budget.
  While the record clearly shows that I am a dedicated fiscal 
conservative, I also see the importance of spending a little now, to 
save a lot more later. By investing in the research and development of 
these energy sources today, we are saving taxpayers billions of dollars 
tomorrow in costs associated with much more than energy. Mr. President, 
it is not an exaggeration to say that our future as a nation and a 
community depends in part on the decisions we make today when it comes 
to energy matters. In this modern day of technological boom, energy 
literally runs the world in which we live. From the cars we drive to 
the homes we live in, without affordable, accessible sources of energy, 
we open ourselves up to dangers that we simply cannot allow to happen.
  In their paper titled The New Petroleum from the January/February 
1999 issue of the publication Foreign Affairs, my colleague from 
Indiana, Senator Lugar, and former CIA Director James Woolsey argue the 
importance of increasing our use of alternative energy sources, in this 
case, biofuels. They appropriately note that, ``New demand for oil will 
be filled largely by the Middle East, meaning a transfer of more than 
$1 trillion over the next 15 years to the unstable states of the 
Persian Gulf alone--on top of the $90 billion they received in 1996.'' 
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Select 
Committee on Intelligence, I hear first-hand about foreign nations that 
are working to use energy sources to neutralize. I would hope that the 
rest of my colleagues share my concerns about sending $1 trillion over 
the next 15 years to rogue nations in the Middle East who are 
developing weapons of mass destruction as we speak, with an intent to 
harm American interests. We must be firm in our decision to develop 
accessible, affordable and dependable sources of energy here at home--
our security may depend on it.
  The environmental benefits of renewable energy are also well noted 
and do not need too much repeating. Not only are renewable sources of 
energy beneficial to our national security, but they reduce, and in 
fact help to eliminate harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Wind, solar, 
geothermal, biomass, photovoltaic and other renewable energies have few 
if any harmful by-products. It is simply good policy to do all we can 
to effectively harness and utilize the natural, clean, re-usable 
sources of energy that are abundantly all around us.
  I would like to illustrate a few Colorado-specific points if I may.
  The Solar Energy Research Facility at the Department of Energy's 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado houses 
over 200 scientists and engineers. This building was designed to use 
energy efficient and renewable energy technologies--like the 
photovoltaic panels seen here--and reduce costs by 30% from the federal 
standard. Much of the Department's funding that was cut by the 
Committee goes to this vital facility in my state.
  NREL is on the cutting edge in bringing renewable energy technologies 
out of the laboratory and into the mainstream of American business and 
society. Recognizing that America has rivals in many Asian and European 
nations in investing in the development of these technologies, NREL 
deserves credit for many wonderful accomplishments.
  Wind power use in Colorado is becoming increasingly popular. If 
you've ever spent any time along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 
you know that the wind can whip down from the mountains quite fast. 
That wind can be easily harnessed for energy. Public Service Company of 
Colorado operates several wind powering facilities, one of which is in 
Northern Colorado on the Wyoming border in Ponnequin. Expansions of 
many wind facilities in Colorado are taking place as we speak. In many 
Northern Colorado communities, demand for wind energy has risen so 
dramatically that the Platte River Power Authority of Ft. Collins is 
planning to more than triple the installed capacity of its wind farm 
just across the border in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. Residents in this area 
can look forward to making a positive contribution to the environment.
  The current levelized cost of wind energy is between 4 and 6 cents 
per kilowatt-hour, with a goal approaching 2.5 cents by 2010. According 
to NREL, the cost of this technology has already decreased by more than 
80% since the early 1980's due to continued cost-shared R&D 
partnerships between industry and DOE.
  The developable, windy land in just 5 western states could produce 
electricity equivalent to the annual demand of the contiguous 48 
states. Total worldwide wind energy generating capacity now exceeding 
the 10,000 megawatt point with expectations of 100,000 megawatts by 
2020. Thanks to continued research and development, the industry has 
grown from being California-based to having wind sites in 18 states.
  Photovoltaic water pumping systems are being used on hundreds of 
ranches and farms across the U.S. to bring power to remote locations--
like in some parts of Colorado--that would otherwise cost tens of 
thousands of dollars in extending existing power lines. In locations 
where solar resources are not bountiful, other renewable technologies, 
like wind energy, can be used in a similar fashion.
  This is an application of renewable energy that interests me greatly. 
For those farmers who live in remote areas, renwable energy systems 
also offer distinct advantages in agricultural applications where power 
lines are subject to failure due to flooding, icing or other seasonal 
changes. These energy technologies also make sense where electrical 
needs are relatively small or are seasonal.
  In conclusion, I want to reiterate my belief that investing in 
research and development of renewable energies is a win-win solution in 
every sense. Jobs are created, taxpayer money is saved, our national 
security is enhanced and the environment is protected. The future of 
our security and prosperity depends on the commitments we make today.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, renewable energy is a win-win. Renewable 
technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass are domestic 
and clean. Many renewable applications are especially suited to remote 
rural locations where construction of electric transmission facilities 
are prohibitively expensive. The federal government has had a very 
successful program installing 122 photovoltaic systems in place of 
diesel generators at remote locations of the National Park Service, 
Forest Service and BLM. (Chart) These systems produce electric power 
without any noise or emissions. Photovoltaics are also well-suited for 
use on remote areas of Indian Reservations.
  Collaboration between the National Labs and U.S. industry has made 
huge strides in photovoltaic efficiency and cost-competitiveness. The 
cost of photovoltaic systems have declined 10 fold since 1980. Ongoing 
work in system reliability and long-term performance is crucial to 
continued development of U.S. leadership in this area. The Department 
of Energy's proposed budget is barely 40% of what Japan and half of 
what Germany spend on photovoltaic research.

[[Page S7106]]

  Another important technology is concentrating solar power, where the 
sun's energy is first converted to heat then used to generate 
electricity in a conventional generator. The federal research program, 
centered at Sandia, has been a true success. Further work in advanced 
trough technology and dish based systems, which can be dispatched into 
the electricity grid, promise to dramatically lower costs. Based on 
World Bank estimates of capacity installation for these technologies, 
up to $12 billion in sales of U.S.-manufactured products and up to 
13,000 new jobs could be created by U.S. industry by 2010.
  Since the 1980's the cost of wind power has declined 80% (from 25 
cents to 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.) With the necessary support, the 
cost of wind will be down to 3 cents per kilowatt hour or lower within 
five years. This amendment will fund U.S.-based turbine certification, 
international consensus standards, wind mapping to assist in targeting 
key areas, and support to industry on solving near term problems. The 
export opportunities for U.S. industry are large, but the U.S. must 
compete against the highly subsidized European manufacturers.
  The opportunities for economic development of geothermal power in the 
U.S. west are vast. The Department of Energy has an initiative underway 
to cut the cost of drilling for geothermal resources by 25% within the 
next two years. Geothermal, especially using non-drinking water sources 
and treated wastewater, can become an important energy source for arid 
states. This research with commercial development could result in 
development of 30,000 jobs in the U.S. and open up significant 
international marketing opportunities for U.S. manufacturers.
  The research programs funded by this amendment are making important 
contributions to the ongoing restructuring of the electric utility 
industry. For example, many experts believe the future of electric 
power generation will be in the form of small, so-called 
``distributed'' generation technologies. Smaller power plants offer 
advantages in terms of improved efficiency and reliability as well as 
reduced environmental impacts. Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and 
other generating technologies such as fuel cells and micro-turbines are 
all likely approaches to distributed generation. The Energy Committee 
will hold an oversight hearing on distributed generation next week. 
Finally, research in this bill is also helping assure the continued 
security and reliability of the nation's high-tension transmission 
grid. Sandia Labs in New Mexico is a key partner in DOE's transmission 
research program.
  I think it is critical to maintain our momentum in renewable energy 
research. The proposed budget cuts in the bill are unfortunate and 
unnecessary. I am pleased to support the amendment and I thank Senator 
Jeffords for his efforts.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have the pleasure of joining Senator 
Jeffords to rise in support of the renewable energy programs within the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill. First, let me thank Senators 
Domenici and Reid for their hard work to put together a balanced 
appropriations bill under very difficult budget constraints. I know 
both of these Senators support the renewable energy programs at 
Department of Energy and would have liked to come closer to the 
President's requested funding level. However, as with all the 
appropriations bills, this year has forced all of us to make difficult 
choices.
  I am supporting the Jeffords amendment because I firmly believe that 
developing new solar and renewable energy sources is absolutely 
critical to reducing our reliance on imported fossil fuels and 
addressing climate change. Anyone who had the pleasure of spending some 
of this spring in the Northeast will tell you that although we all 
appreciated the glorious 85 degree days, it was unusual. After about a 
week, Vermonters really began to wonder about the strange weather. This 
is only a harbinger of things to come if we do not aggressively address 
the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
  The solar and renewable energy programs will help our nation find 
alternative energy sources and help our states and industry start using 
them. We need to invest more funding to develop renewable energy 
technology and to bring this technology into the mainstream. Coming 
from Vermont, I have already seen how this technology can be used. 
During the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, Vermonters adopted a 
saying: ``As Vermont goes, so goes the nation.'' I hope that our state 
can provide similar leadership to set the nation on a path in the new 
millennium to promote the development and use of renewable energy.
  From the Green Mountain Power wind farm in Searsburg to the McNeil 
biomass gasifier in Burlington, Vermont is developing and using 
renewable energy sources. These large projects are being looked at as 
models for how public-private partnerships can spur growth in our 
renewable energy sectors. Vermont is also leading the nation in 
developed small, community-based renewable energy projects. Many 
Vermont communities have shifted away from fossil energy sources to 
biomass, building small wood-fired systems. Biomass is now being used 
in Vermont schools, low-income housing projects, state office buildings 
and mills.
  Vermont is also taking this technology overseas. I am proud to say 
that several Vermont renewable energy businesses have created niche 
markets for their technology all around the world. Just a few weeks 
ago, Prime Minister Tony Blair turned on the lights at a school that 
had just installed a small wind turbine built by a Vermont company. 
Another Vermont company has developed solar panels that are being used 
by individual homes in many developing countries where there is no 
central energy source.
  When Vermont and the nation consider what the next millennium will 
look like the most important question to be asked is what do we want to 
pass on to the next generation?
  I want my grandson to be able to hike through the Green Mountains and 
see the same majestic forests and mountain peaks as I did. I want him 
to be able to fish in Lake Champlain without having to worry about what 
heavy metals are in it. If my grandchildren are going to enjoy these 
experiences, our nation has to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and 
increase our use of renewable energy. The Jeffords amendment will 
ensure that the successes of the solar and renewable energy programs at 
Department of Energy are replicated to help our nation meet this goal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me first ask unanimous consent to 
add 13 additional original cosponsors to my amendment. These are: Mr. 
Allard, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grassley, Ms. 
Collins, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Roth, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
Bingaman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bryan, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
Schumer, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Wellstone.
  I yield, reserving my right to the floor, to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the names will be added as 
cosponsors.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the unanimous consent 
request applies to the amendment that has been withdrawn; is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Vermont desire to 
withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. REID. It has already been withdrawn. The unanimous consent 
request to add cosponsors applies to the amendment that has been 
withdrawn.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It applies to the amendment I had pending on the list. 
I guess that is the best way to describe it.
  Mr. REID. The amendment has been withdrawn; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, the amendment has been 
withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection to the cosponsors being added to the 
amendment that has been withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the cosponsors will be 
added, and, without objection, the Senator may yield the floor to the 
Senator from Minnesota, as he reserves his right to the floor.

[[Page S7107]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, rather than having to put it in the 
form of a question, I appreciate the way my colleague made the UC 
request.
  I come to the floor in complete support of what Senator Jeffords is 
trying to do. One can look at it in a couple of different ways. One can 
look at it in terms of the numbers in the here and now, but, frankly, 
as I look at this picture over a period of time, I do not think we have 
done near what we should by way of investment in renewable energy. That 
is what my colleague from Vermont is saying.
  I come from a cold weather State at the other end of the pipeline, 
and when we import barrels of oil and Mcfs of natural gas, we export 
dollars and yet we are rich in resources--wind, solar, safe energy.
  My colleague is right on the mark. I thank him for his leadership. We 
should be making much more of an investment in this area. It is on 
sound ground from the point of view of the environment. It leads us 
down the path of smaller business economic development, technologies 
that are more compatible with communities, more homegrown economies, 
more capital investment locally. I thank my colleague for his work and 
tell him what he has been trying to do is important. He is right on the 
mark, and I add my support to his effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will continue with my presentation of 
the merits of this amendment. I have no intention of holding up this 
body any longer than necessary; necessary meaning this preemptive 
strike is designed to make us accomplish our goals.
  The next chart is the Westinghouse power connection's biomass 
gasification facility in Hawaii. This demonstrates the potential to 
convert agricultural waste--sugarcane in this case --into electricity.
  I have another chart to demonstrate the power of all of these 
generating plants. This one is at BC International Corporation, biomass 
ethanol plant in Jennings, LA. This plant will be retrofitted to 
produce ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and rice waste.
  That completes my charts. I hope my colleagues have been impressed 
with what we could have done if we were not prohibited.
  Let me conclude by reminding everyone we are proposing to add $70 
million through our amendment to the Department of Energy's solar, 
wind, and renewable budget. Federal support for renewable energy 
research and development has been a major success story in the United 
States. Costs have declined, reliability has improved, and a growing 
domestic industry has been born. More work still needs to be done in 
applied research and development to bring down the cost of the 
production even further.
  This is a tremendous opportunity for this Nation which will help us 
reduce our trade deficits. The need for renewable R&D is not a partisan 
issue:

       We must encourage environmentally responsible development 
     of all U.S. energy resources, including renewable energy. 
     Renewable energy does reduce demand upon our other finite 
     natural resources. It enhances our energy security, and 
     clearly, it protects the environment.

  This was President Bush, September 1991.


                           Motion To Recommit

  Mr. President, I move to recommit the bill to the Appropriations 
Committee, and further, that the committee report the bill forthwith, 
with the following amendment. Mr. President, I send the amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] moves to recommit 
     the bill S. 1186 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report back forthwith, with an amendment 
     numbered 682.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 20, strike lines 21 through 24 and insert 
     ``$791,233,000, of which $821,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Geothermal Resources Development Fund and 
     $5,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the United 
     States Enrichment Corporation Fund, and of which $75,000,000 
     shall be derived from accounts for which this Act makes funds 
     available for Department of Energy contractor travel expenses 
     (of which not less than $4,450,000 shall be available for 
     solar building technology research, not less than $82,135,000 
     shall be available for photovoltaic energy systems, not less 
     than $17,600,000 shall be available for concentrating solar 
     systems, not less than $37,700,000 shall be available for 
     power systems in biomass/biofuels energy systems, not less 
     than $48,000,000 shall be available for transportation in 
     biomased biofuels energy systems (of which not less than 
     $1,500,000 shall be available for the Consortium for Plant 
     Biotechnology Research), not less than $42,265,000 shall be 
     available for wind energy systems, not less than $4,000,000 
     shall be available for the renewable energy production 
     incentive program, not less than $7,600,000 shall be 
     available for support of solar programs, not less than 
     $5,100,000 shall be available for the international solar 
     energy program, not less than $5,000,000 shall be available 
     for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, not less than 
     $27,850,000 shall be available for geothermal technology 
     development, not less than $27,700,000 shall be available for 
     hydrogen research, not less than $6,400,000 shall be 
     available for hydropower research, not less than $32,000,000 
     shall be available for high temperature superconducting 
     research and development, not less than $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for energy storage systems, and not less than 
     $18,500,000 shall be available for direction of programs).''.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada objects.
  Mr. REID. I object and call for the regular----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has objected. Under 
the unanimous consent agreement, the only amendments in order are those 
that have been filed.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not believe that the order includes 
a motion to recommit with an amendment. I ask for clarification in that 
respect.
  Mr. REID. I submit to the Chair that it includes all amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is advised that the 
instructions that all amendments must be filed applies even to 
amendments that would be included within a motion with instructions to 
recommit.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal is debatable. Is there debate on 
the appeal?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I hope Members understand that this 
amendment would be perfectly appropriate to make this bill a more 
useful document. I understand the strong desires of some not to have 
this amendment apply, but it is an amendment which has over 50 
cosponsors. It is only appropriate that this body have the right to 
exercise their will on a vote which will let them modify this bill in a 
manner which they think will make it more appropriate.

  I urge all Members, especially the 50 cosponsors, to join with me on 
appealing the ruling of the Chair to allow this amendment to be placed 
upon the bill. It is only appropriate considering that the only problem 
we had was the one word ``unnecessary'' which made it subject to a 
point of order because the CBO ruled that the word ``unnecessary'' 
would prevent the funding and, therefore, would not be appropriate.
  I believe very strongly we ought to have an opportunity for the 
majority of this Senate to express their will on this bill. Therefore, 
I am appealing the ruling of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I reiterate what the chairman 
of the subcommittee has said, the manager of this bill. It is not as if 
we have not done everything we can to make sure that solar renewables 
are taken care of. There has been a 3-percent cut in solar and 
renewables. Others had a 9-percent cut. We have treated this, in 
effect, more fairly than anything else.
  I also say to my friends, when this bill left this body last year, it 
had less money in it than the bill has this year. It was only because 
of what took place in the so-called summit after the committees 
completed all their work, the negotiation with the President, that the 
bill was plused up to $365 million. This is not chicken feed. This is 
$354 million for solar renewables.
  Also, we in Nevada understand solar energy. At the Nevada Test Site, 
which we hear so much about in this Chamber, there could be enough 
energy produced by Sun at the Nevada Test Site to take care of all the 
energy needs of this country. The fact is, it is very difficult to get 
from here to there.

  We are spending huge amounts of money--not enough; and I recognize 
that. Everybody wants to come and

[[Page S7108]]

spend more money. I would like to spend more money. My friend from 
Vermont voted for the budget. I did not vote for the budget. I wish we 
had more money here. I think the budget we are being asked to work 
under is ridiculous. We cannot do what needs to be done for this 
country. My friend from Vermont voted for the budget. I did not.
  So I say that we have to understand that if this goes back to the 
committee, we are going to have significant difficulties getting to the 
point where we are today. If we are going to move these bills along, it 
would seem to me the majority should help us move them along. This is 
one of the easier bills, some say. Based on this, I am not too sure.
  I am a supporter of alternate energy sources. We have a solar energy 
program in the State of Nevada that we are very proud of. It is one of 
the best in the country. I have been to the one at Barstow. It produces 
200 megawatts of electricity. It is by far the largest plant in the 
world. It is 100 times larger than the second largest plant, which is a 
small plant. Technology is allowing us to move forward but not very 
rapidly.
  In this bill for solar building technology research there is $2 
million; for photovoltaic energy systems there is $64 million; for 
biomass/biofuels transportation there is $38 million. For wind energy 
systems there is $34 million in this bill.
  In the bill there is money for solar program support, the renewable 
energy production incentive, international solar programs, national 
renewable energy laboratory construction, and geothermal funding.
  The State of Nevada has more geothermal potential than any State in 
this Union. It would be very beneficial for us to have more money. It 
would help the State of Nevada. We cut solar renewables 3 percent. We 
cut other nondefense programs almost 10 percent. We have been more fair 
to this entity than any of the others.
  So I move to table the appeal and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. REID. I withhold.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I did not hear the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator requested to speak for 2 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  Fellow Senators, I suggest to you, the Chair has ruled that what the 
Senator seeks to do is out of order. We did establish right after we 
started this bill that amendments had to be filed at the desk so 
everybody could look at them. As you look at that sequence of things, a 
motion to send this back to committee with instructions was out of 
order; so those who want the Senator to win could not have won anyway. 
Now he wants to just send it back to committee. The Chair has once 
again ruled that is out of order.

  How far do we have to go? As a matter of fact, we have already taken 
care of renewables better than almost any other nondomestic piece of 
this budget. We have reduced, by 24 percent, items such as cleanup, 
nondefense cleanup, in this country because we do not have enough money 
this year. We are $600 million short. We have only reduced this 
function by 2.8 percent. We reduce the Corps of Engineers by 8 percent, 
the Bureau of Reclamation by 3 percent. The total nondefense has been 
reduced by 7 percent.
  We have prioritized well. As a matter of fact, if this amendment 
passes, we will be giving renewables a 14-percent priority over the 
rest of the nondefense programs of this country which, on average, have 
been cut 7 percent, because this would ask to increase it by 7. I 
believe it should be tabled. I hope we will do that expeditiously. I 
thank Senator Reid for his attentiveness and his stick-to-itiveness on 
this. I believe we have treated renewables fairly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's motion to table has been 
withheld to this point.
  Mr. REID. I move to table the appeal and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The decision of the Chair stands.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support S. 1186, 
the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I cannot support this 
bill because its funding for renewable energy falls far short of what 
we need in this country as we head into the 21st Century. The funding 
level provided in this bill, $353.9 million, doesn't come close to 
meeting the Administration's budget request. S. 1186 has $92 million 
less for renewables than the Administration requested. This represents 
a cut from last year's final appropriated level of about $12 million.
  This is a very difficult vote for me because S. 1186 includes funding 
for some very important projects and programs. There are two projects 
that I believe are particularly important, the Marshall Flood Control 
Project and the Stillwater Levee. The Marshall Flood Control Project 
has been under consideration since the early 1970s and was authorized 
under the 1986 and 1988 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The FY 
1999 Energy and Water Appropriations bill included $1.5 million for 
this project, and the Army Corps was able to reprogram an additional 
$700,000. FY 2000 funding will make it possible for a significant 
portion of the Stage Two work to be completed during this year's 
construction season.
  The Stillwater Levee is another worthy project funded in this bill. 
Although the levee survived last year's high waters, it is in urgent 
need of repairs. The levee will protect downtown Stillwater, which 
includes over 60 sites on the National Register of Historic Sites.
  It is especially unfortunate that we failed to take advantage of the 
opportunity we had to improve this bill. Senator Jeffords proposed an 
amendment that would have increased funding for solar and geothermal 
energy by $70 million, and we did not even get an up-or-down vote on 
his amendment. I think it was an important amendment, and I was proud 
to be an original cosponsor. I very much appreciate the

[[Page S7109]]

leadership of my friend from Vermont on this issue.
  As we near the millenium, I believe we need a far stronger commitment 
to a renewable energy future, not the $12 million cut for renewable 
energy in this bill. For too long, we have allowed our economy to 
remain hostage to oil, much of it imported. We should all recognize 
that our addiction to fossil fuels is not sustainable. We fight wars in 
part over oil, which we then use to pollute our skies, while providing 
tax breaks to large oil companies. Petroleum has helped us to achieve a 
very high standard of living in the western world, and oil will 
continue to be a major part of our economy. Indeed, oil is the central 
nervous system of the western world's economy. But we have been in need 
of surgery for years now.
  In the past, we have risen to the challenge when faced with a visible 
crisis and rising prices. Can we do it again without long gas lines and 
with stable prices? I say we can. Indeed, while many see only a future 
of constraints, I see a future with opportunities.
  After all, what will it take to stop overloading Mother Nature? 
Higher efficiency and more reliance on cleaner fuels. And what will 
that lead to? Manufacturing enterprises with the lowest operating costs 
in the world. Households that generate electricity from rooftop solar 
arrays. Farmers who harvest an additional ``crop''--the winds that blow 
over their fields. City streets inhabited by quiet and pollution-free 
electric vehicles.
  That is a future the American people surely can rally behind. Now is 
the time to rally all Americans behind that vision of the future. But 
unfortunately, this bill fails to do that. In fact, I believe it is a 
step in the wrong direction, and for that reason I am voting against 
it.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, included in the manager's package is an 
amendment designed to insert the United States Congress into the 
Bonneville Power Administration's rate setting process. I believe it is 
unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Thus, I do not support 
it and will work to see it stricken in conference.
  The BPA next month hopes to initiate the rate case to establish the 
cost of BPA power and set parameters for funding salmon recovery on the 
Columbia and Snake Rivers. As currently formulated, the rates 
established will fund projected fish and wildlife costs through 
customer rates. The process is working and this amendment could 
potentially jeopardize it.
  I, along with other Democratic members of the Northwest delegation, 
recently sent a letter to Vice President Gore to reiterate our support 
for the so-called ``fish funding principles'' agreed to by the 
Administration and BPA. We sent this letter in response to a staff memo 
initiated by the National Marine FIsheries Service and the 
Environmental Protection Agency, recommending BPA charge its customers 
higher rates so it could establish a ``slush fund'' to pay the enormous 
cost of removing or breeching the four lower Snake River dams. As my 
colleagues know, there has been no decision that these dams should be 
removed and therefore there is no need to begin saving for such a 
controversial plan. Our letter firmly opposed collecting money from 
ratepayers for costs that may or may not be incurred in the future. 
Specifically, we opposed ``prepayment of speculative future costs, 
particularly if those costs are contingent upon congressional action.''
  There is no movement afoot by the Administration or BPA to establish 
such a slush fund. So, there is not a problem to solve regarding slush 
funds for dam removal.
  However, we do have a problem to solve: saving our wild salmon. We 
are committed as a region and as a nation to doing so. These skirmishes 
over staff memos and rumors simply divide us and divert our attention 
from the real problems we must solve; the real creative solutions we 
must fund; the real consensus we must forge. I fear an unintended 
consequence of this amendment may be to reduce our region's ability to 
solve this problem on its own.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment is not helpful. That said, I know I 
do not have the votes to prevent its inclusion in this bill and thus 
have worked with Senator Gorton to modify it to make it more 
acceptable. The amendment now will apply only to this fiscal year, 
instead of continuing in perpetuity. In addition, the BPA 
Administration now must set rates with the ``fish funding principles'' 
agreed to by the Administration and BPA in mind.
  Let me conclude by reiterating that we have a process working to set 
rates for BPA customers, which I firmly believe will achieve the vital 
goal of helping us save fish, and will allow full public and 
stakeholder involvement. This amendment is unnecessary and 
diversionary. I look forward to working with Senator Gorton and the 
Administration to get this language dropped from the bill in conference 
committee.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, no large group of citizens should be 
required to pay in advance for a project that they oppose, that will 
have an adverse impact on their lives and livelihoods, and that will 
almost certainly never be authorized. But that is exactly what has 
recently been proposed by certain officials of the Clinton 
Administration.
  A discussion paper was recently published by these officials 
suggesting that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) add 
significantly to its power charges to its customers in its impending 
rate case. The purpose of these added charges is to provide a slush 
fund for the removal of four Federal dams from the Snake River, if that 
removal is ever authorized or ordered. It is only fair to add that the 
Clinton Administration has stated that the paper does not now reflect 
Administration policy, but it has nevertheless raised fears that the 
Administration might some day try to order such a removal without 
asking Congress either for the authority or the money to do so.
  This amendment will prevent such an end run. It does not prevent BPA 
from including fish recovery costs in its rate structure for the next 
five years, even in greater amounts than the $435 million per year 
current limit. It will, however, prevent an additional surcharge for 
possible dam removal. That project, if it should be proposed, should 
require Congressional authorization, and a debate over funding sources, 
only as and when this or any later Administration makes such a 
recommendation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President I would like to engage the Chairman in a 
colloquy. First, let me thank the Senator from New Mexico for his 
diligence in balancing funding for the wide variety of programs within 
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill under very difficult budget 
constraints. Under these constraints, you were able to fund the biomass 
programs at $72 million. However, one very important program to the 
Northeast has not been funded. The Northeast Regional Biomass Program 
has helped my State make significant steps to develop and market the 
use of wood as an energy source. It is now being used in Vermont 
schools, low-income housing projects, State office buildings and mills. 
Without support from the Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Vermont 
will not be able to build on these successes. Although funding is not 
included in the Senate bill for this program, the Department of Energy 
should be given the flexibility to continue support for some of these 
projects.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As you mentioned, this appropriations bill was 
allocated $439 million less than the Fiscal Year 1999 enacted level. 
Although there are many programs I would have liked to continue, this 
funding level cannot accommodate all of them. However, I recognize the 
good projects being undertaken by the regional biomass programs and 
would encourage the Department of Energy its support for those programs 
within the overall biomass budget.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chairman and look forward to working with him 
and the Department of Energy to support state efforts to expand the use 
of small biomass projects that promote the use of wood energy as a 
renewable resource.
  Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a colloquy. As 
more and more states deregulate their own energy industries, 
environmentally preferable electric power is one of the markets 
developing first. One sector that has garnered specific questions about 
its impact on the environment is hydropower. Consumers need a credible 
means to determine which hydropower facilities are environmentally 
preferable. Mr. Chairman, you have partially addressed this situation 
already

[[Page S7110]]

by including funding within the Department of Energy's hydropower 
account to develop ``fish friendly'' turbines. I believe facilities 
that use this and other new technology should receive recognition for 
their efforts. Hydropower facilities that are operated to avoid and 
reduce their environmental impact should also receive recognition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator and encourage the Department 
of Energy to support a voluntary certification program that will 
distinguish low impact hydropower from other hydropower. Such a 
certification program would also help develop new markets for ``green 
power.''
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chairman and look forward to working with him 
and the Department of Energy to support this type of certification 
program.


         hemispheric center for environmental technology (HCET)

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to engage the distinguished Senator 
from new Mexico and the distinguished Senator from Nevada, managers of 
the pending bill, in a colloquy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to respond to the distinguished 
Senator from Florida, Senator Mack.
  Mr. REID. I echo the sentiments of my colleague, Senator Domenici, 
and will be happy to respond to the distinguished Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator.
  Florida International University in my State of Florida has done a 
truly remarkable job of working with the Department of Energy in 
carrying out critically important environmental research and 
development of deactivation and decommissioning environmental 
technologies. More specifically, FIU's Hemispheric Center for 
Environmental Technology (HCET) has a proud history of partnering with 
DOE through its Environmental Management program to form a true `center 
of excellence' in these areas and the President's fiscal year 2000 
budget request for the EM program assumes full funding for continuation 
of this impressive partnership.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the senator yield?
  Mr. MACK. I yield to my colleague from Florida.
  Senator GRAHAM. I echo the comments of the Senator from Florida about 
the FIU Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology and reinforce 
the importance of the FIU Center in assisting the Department of Energy 
in deactivation and decommissioning of some of the most strategically 
important DOE sites in the Nation, including Fernald, Chicago, 
Albuquerque, Richland, and Oak Ridge facilities. I am proud of the role 
that HCET plays in these efforts.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague from Florida. It is my understanding 
that the President's budget contains sufficient funding ($5,000,000) to 
fully fund the current working agreement between Florida International 
University and the Department of Energy. Is that the Chairman's 
understanding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman. I specifically request that, as the 
distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico and the chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee continues to shepherd this 
legislation through the Senate and conference with the House, he would 
make every possible effort to provide the full budget request for the 
DOE's Environmental Management program and protect the full funding 
contained therein for the DOE-Florida International University 
partnership.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I strongly endorse the recommendation of my colleague 
from Florida and hope that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Reid, will approve the full budget 
request in the final bill that is sent to the White House for approval. 
This is a program that is important to us and to our State.
  Mr. REID. I thank both Senators from Florida, and you have my 
commitment that I will do whatever I can to include sufficient funding 
for the Environmental Management program at DOE to allow for the full 
$5,000,000 for the Florida International University-DOE initiative.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I offer my commitment as well that I will work with 
Senator Reid and the other members of the Subcommittee to do whatever I 
can to include sufficient funding for the Environmental Management 
program at DOE to allow for the full $5,000,000 for the Florida 
International University-DOE initiative.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the distinguished Senators from New Mexico and 
Nevada for their commitment and leadership on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I, too, thank the distinguished Senators from New Mexico 
and Nevada for their support in this most important matter.


                 international radioecology laboratory

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of the 
chairman, other members of the Appropriations Committee, and the 
Senate--the International Radioecology Laboratory, commonly referred to 
as IRL, in Slavutych, Ukraine--which was dedicated last month by the 
U.S. Department of Energy. The IRL was established in July, 1998 by an 
agreement between the governments of the United States and the Ukraine 
to facilitate the critical research being conducted near the Chernobyl 
nuclear site on the long-term health and environmental effects of the 
world's worst nuclear accident. Construction of the IRL will be 
completed by fall, 1999. The IRL is managed by the Savannah River 
Ecology Laboratory, also known as SREL, of the University of Georgia 
and funded through cooperative agreements by the Department of Energy.
  Led by Dr. Ron Chesser of SREL, highly integrated research scientists 
from the University of Georgia, Texas Tech, Texas A & M, the Illinois 
State Museum, Purdue University, Colorado State University, Ukraine and 
Russia have been involved in cooperative research in the Chernobyl 
region since 1992. These efforts have significant importance regarding 
the long-term risks in the Chernobyl area itself, but also for 
predicting the environmental consequences of future radioactive 
releases.
  The new IRL will serve as the primary facility from which 
radioecology research activities are directed and will be the central 
point for collaboration among scientists worldwide concerned with the 
effects of environmental radiation.
  The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory has proposed a new 5-year 
research initiative at the IRL to be administered through the Office of 
International Nuclear Safety Cooperation Program at the Department of 
Energy. This ambitious research project would carry out the goals of 
the United States-Ukraine 1998 agreement to: (1) understand the effects 
of the pollution from the Chernobyl disaster on forms of life; (2) 
provide data needed to make wise decisions concerning environmental and 
human health risks and the effectiveness of clean-up activities; and 
(3) develop strategic plans for the potential of future radiation 
releases. I am disappointed that this new initiative was not 
specifically funded in the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
approved by the Committee and I would urge the Chairman to do all he 
can to find the necessary funds for this important project when the FY 
2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill goes to conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the concern of the Senior Senator from 
Georgia. I share his point of view regarding the importance of this new 
joint United States-Ukraine facility and the vital research being 
conducted on the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. While you know 
how tight our budget is, I assure you that when this bill goes to 
conference we will make every effort to locate additional funds within 
DOE to allocate for programs like this and will attempt to find 
additional funding for DOE programs.


               name change for termination costs program

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from New Mexico, the bill manager, regarding the need to 
change the name of one of the programs in the Department of Energy's 
appropriations. Within the Energy Supply account, there is an account 
called ``Nuclear Energy.'' Within the nuclear energy account, there is 
a program called ``Termination Costs.''
  For some time, the name ``Termination Costs'' has caused considerable 
confusion. In fact, in the past the Department of Energy has submitted 
its budget request for this program using a different name. They called 
it the ``Facilities'' program and the Senate last year even 
appropriated funding using

[[Page S7111]]

the name ``Facilities'' but the name change was dropped in conference.
  The name ``Termination Costs'' is not an accurate depiction of the 
activities occurring under this program. I will quote from the 
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2000 budget request. The following 
items are listed as the program mission for the Termination Costs 
Program. (1) Ensuring the cost-effective, environmentally-compliant 
operation of Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology sites and 
facilities; (2) Maintaining the physical and technical infrastructure 
necessary to support research and technology development by U.S. and 
overseas researchers; (3) Demonstrating the acceptability of 
electrometallurgical technology for preparing DOE spent nuclear fuel 
for ultimate disposal; and (4) Placing unneeded facilities in 
industrially safe and environmentally compliant conditions for low-
cost, long-term surveillance.
  With the possible exception of the last item, No. 4, these important 
mission priorities do not fit the heading of ``termination.''
  Again, quoting from the Department of Energy's budget submittal, the 
stated program goal for the Termination Costs Program is, ``To 
contribute to the nation's nuclear science and technology 
infrastructure through the development of innovative technologies for 
spent fuel storage and disposal and the effective management of active 
and surplus nuclear research facilities.'' I think this is an enduring 
mission for DOE and therefore the moniker ``Termination Costs'' is 
misleading.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will my colleague from Idaho yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, listening to the statements of the 
Senator from Idaho, I share his conviction that the name ``Termination 
Costs'' appears to be inadequate to describe the activities carried out 
under this program. This is consistent with the position the Senate 
took last year. I commit to work with my colleague to see that the name 
is changed to ``Facilities'' as requested by both my colleague and by 
DOE in the past.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from New Mexico for his assistance in 
this matter.


                        doe clean-up at fernald

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Fernald site in Cincinnati, OH, has 
done a truly remarkable job of working with the Department of Energy in 
carrying out critically important environmental clean-up and 
restoration missions. More specifically, the clean-up at Fernald has 
garnered broad-based stakeholder support and is moving along ahead of 
schedule. More important, the Fernald site has pioneered the 
accelerated 10 year clean-up plan, which will save taxpayers several 
billion dollars. All of this has been accomplished while managing the 
site at or below the Department's appropriated budget for the project. 
I see the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee 
on the floor and wanted to be sure he is aware of the efforts underway 
at Fernald.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments. I am 
aware and certainly do appreciate the efficiency and budget-wise 
efforts of the clean-up achievements at the Fernald site.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee. Does the 
Chairman agree that to further the proceedings, the Department of 
Energy should support the accelerated clean-up plan in place?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from Ohio. The subcommittee 
recognizes the support of the Cincinnati community and regulators. The 
Department of Energy should take all steps necessary to keep the 
accelerated cleanup at Fernald on schedule, and the Subcommittee will 
continue to work with the senior Senator from Ohio to monitor this 
effort.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend and distinguished colleague from New 
Mexico for his leadership on this important issue to the citizens of 
Cincinnati.


               bureau of reclamation dam safety research

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, Utah has at least 30 dams that currently 
do not meet current safety standards. Most of these dams were built 
more than 30 years ago by either the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil 
Conservation Service or the state for a variety of purposes such as 
flood control, irrigation or municipal purposes or for wildlife 
enhancement. As these dams have aged, safety concerns have increased. 
We now find ourselves facing tremendous and expensive safety issues.
  Earlier this year, I requested additional funding for research 
related to monitoring and manipulating subsurface flows which affect 
Bureau dams. It is my hope that this research could be utilized to help 
address dam safety across the West. Unfortunately, given the committee 
allocation, it was not possible to provide increased funding this year.
  I know that the Bureau is seeking to conduct more extensive research 
to determine the possibility of manipulating subsurface flows and the 
effects on dam safety. Utah State University's Water Research Lab has 
been identified as a leader in this effort. I also requested funding to 
be directed toward the Dam Breach Modeling program which would research 
additional modeling of dam failure scenarios. This research would 
include water tracking technologies to monitor internal movement of 
water through dams, and allow the Bureau to explore applying this 
technology to specific Western dams.
  The technology would provide the Dam Safety program with additional 
tools to gather information on internal conditions and analyze dam 
integrity and make predictions on possible impacts from floods, 
earthquakes and similar events. It is anticipated that after a testing 
period, assistance could be made available to federal and state dam 
safety officials in assessment programs.
  Utah, New Mexico, Idaho and almost all western states have 
potentially serious dam safety problems. New technologies could provide 
information to identify high risk areas and define the critical flows 
and leaks that threaten a structure.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I certainly understand the pressures 
on the chairman because of the budget limitations and personally know 
that he has done everything he can to meet the enormous and competing 
demands. I hope that should additional funds become available down the 
road, the Committee would consider these requests at some funding 
level.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I concur with the Senator on the importance of 
developing and testing dam safety technologies. However, since funding 
levels for the Bureau are $95 million below the budget request, there 
are numerous projects of merit which must go unfunded this year. I wish 
this were not the case, but I would be happy to work with the Senator 
should additional resources become available and conference conditions 
allow the Committee to consider this matter.


                     MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECTS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to clarify points regarding the Army 
Corps of Engineers maintenance dredging projects in the State of New 
Hampshire.
  Maintenance dredging of Little Harbor, in Portsmouth, remains a top 
priority for the State of New Hampshire and is important to regional 
and recreational commercial boating users who continue to operate with 
navigational safety hazards. Environmental mitigation matters 
associated with the federal project have been addressed by an 
interagency task force. Proposed dredging, dredged material disposal, 
and mitigation arrangements are currently being addressed by the Army 
Corps of Engineers in an Environmental Assessment.
  Piscataqua River shoaling remains a top priority for the State of New 
Hampshire. Shoaling has occurred in the major shipping lane at 
Portsmouth Harbor. Last year 6 million tons of cargo, mostly petroleum 
products, passed through the Piscataqua River. It is imperative for 
navigational and environmental safety that the shipping lane be cleared 
at the earliest possible opportunity. The Army Corps of Engineers is 
currently developing an Environmental Impact Study.
  Sagamore Creek is also a priority for the State of New Hampshire. 
Maintenance dredging of Sagamore Creek is important to the New 
Hampshire Commercial Fishing Industry as it functions as a transit 
channel and is the back channel to Little Harbor. Appropriated funds 
would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct required 
hydrographic and material testing to

[[Page S7112]]

initiative project. Sagamore Creek is being abandoned by the New 
Hampshire Commercial Fishing Fleet due to lack of clearance and 
navigational safety concerns.
  I respectfully ask the distinguished chairman to consider the 
importance of these projects as this bill develops and to help the 
Corps in addressing these pressing priorities which are so important in 
my state.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire bringing 
these important projects to my attention. I understand, from recent 
communications with the Army Corps of Engineers, that work may being on 
these projects as soon as possible, consistent with necessary approvals 
and funding. I look forward to working together to identify ways in 
conference by which we might be able to advance these projects.


                     Brookhaven National Laboratory

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, with the threat of a permanent shutdown 
of the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the 
employees who operate the reactor have asked to be reinstated under The 
Department of Energy Worker and Community Transition Program. This 
office provides funding for separation benefits, outplacement 
assistance, and training. Brookhaven and Argonne National Labs in Idaho 
were removed from the program in 1997, making their employees 
ineligible for those benefits.
  I thank Senator Reid for committing to pursue adding this provision 
during the conference committee negotiations on Energy and Water 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000. This program is crucial to ensure 
future employment of the workforce at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
  Mr. REID. I am pleased to help the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.


                   georgia energy and water projects

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as the chairman knows, several projects 
from the great state of Georgia found funding in the Committee's 
appropriations report now before us. I applaud the attention and 
support provided by the Subcommittee to fund these important 
activities. In particular, I speak of the funding for Brunswick and 
Savannah Harbor maintenance and the Army Corps of Engineers' 
investigations of Brunswick Harbor and the Savannah Harbor Expansion. 
The Brunswick and Savannah Harbor expansion projects found earlier 
authorization in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (WRDA) 
which recently passed the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The subcommittee understands the importance of harbor 
maintenance and deepening to Savannah and Brunswick. I also appreciate 
the work of the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In addition, the subcommittee's continued funding of 
other worthy projects in Georgia, the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, 
is appreciated. I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee 
on other Georgia priorities.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The subcommittee agrees that these projects after 
undergoing the intense scrutiny of the Congressional process for a 
number of years continue to prove their worth. I look forward to 
continuing to work on behalf of these and other priorities for Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to engage in 
this colloquy and for your support of these very worthwhile projects.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the official 
Budget Committee scoring of the pending bill--S. 1168, the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations bill for FY 2000.
  The scoring of the bill reflects an amendment I offered at the 
beginning of this debate to correct an inadvertent error in the bill as 
reported to the Senate. With this correction of a clerical error, the 
bill provides $21.3 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $13.3 
billion in new outlays to support the programs of the Department of 
Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and related federal agencies. The bill provides the bulk 
of funding for the Department of Energy, including Atomic Energy 
Defense Activities and civilian energy research and development (R&D) 
other than fossil energy R&D and energy conservation programs.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the pending bill totals $21.3 billion 
in BA and $20.9 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The bill is $2 million 
in BA below the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and at the 302(b) 
allocation for outlays.
  The Senate bill is $0.1 billion in BA and $0.5 billion in outlays 
above the 1999 level. The bill is $0.3 billion in both BA and outlays 
below the President's budget request for FY 2000.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the FY 2000 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill be printed in the Record.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  S. 1168, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 2000, SPENDING COMPARISON--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   General
                                  purposes   Crime   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE-REPORTED BILL: \1\
  Budget authority..............   21,278   .......  .........   21,278
  Outlays.......................   20,868   .......  .........   20,868
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..............   21,280   .......  .........   21,280
  Outlays.......................   20,868   .......  .........   20,868
1999 Level:
  Budget authority..............   21,177   .......  .........   21,177
  Outlays.......................   20,366   .......  .........   20,366
President's request:
  Budget authority..............   21,557   .......  .........   21,557
  Outlays.......................   21,172   .......  .........   21,172
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..............  ........  .......  .........  ........
  Outlays.......................  ........  .......  .........  ........
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..............       (2)  .......  .........       (2)
  Outlays.......................  ........  .......  .........  ........
1999 Level:
  Budget authority..............      101   .......  .........      101
  Outlays.......................      502   .......  .........      502
President's request:
  Budget authority..............     (279)  .......  .........     (279)
  Outlays.......................     (304)  .......  .........     (304)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..............   21,278   .......  .........   21,278
  Outlays.......................   20,868   .......  .........   20,868
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects floor amendment on SEPA reducing BA by $11 million and
  outlays by $9 million.
 
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.


  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment 
specifically focused on encouraging small business partnership 
interactions with the Department of Energy's national laboratories and 
other facilities associated with Defense Activities.
  Congress has frequently encouraged the national laboratories and 
facilities of the Department of Energy to craft partnerships that are 
supportive of their mission interests. Congress has emphasized that all 
program funding at these institutions can be used for mission-
supportive partnerships.
  Through industrial interactions, the best practices from industry, 
from improved technologies to improved operations, can be infused into 
Department missions. These interactions also provide opportunities for 
U.S. industry to benefit from technologies developed in support of the 
Department's mission areas, with a corresponding impact on the 
competitive position of our nation.
  In past years, Congress has identified large amounts of funding, over 
$200 million per year, to encourage formation of these partnerships. 
There is less need for these funds for industrial interactions today, 
since the labs and facilities should have learned how to optimally use 
these partnerships. However, the reduction in funding for industrial 
interactions does not imply that Congress is less supportive of them, 
it only indicates the expectations that the Department's programs 
should be able to continue to use these partnerships without line item 
funding.
  One specific class of industrial interactions, however, requires 
continued attention and specific funding from Congress. This involves 
interactions with small businesses. Small businesses are a primary 
engine of U.S. economy. They frequently represent the greatest degree 
of innovation in their approaches. Their focus on innovation makes them 
a particularly important partner for the labs and facilities, yet their 
small size and less developed business operations make interactions 
with the large Departmental facilities difficult.
  In addition, each of the labs and facilities needs a supportive small 
business community surrounding them, one

[[Page S7113]]

that can provide needed technical services as well as provide an 
economic climate that assists in recruitment and retention of the 
specialized personnel required at these facilities.
  For these reasons, we need a focused small business initiative to 
encourage interactions with this vital community. These partnership 
interactions can take many forms, from very formal cooperative research 
and development agreements to less formal technology assistance. They 
should be justified either on a mission relevance or regional economic 
development basis.
  Four these reasons, Mr. President, this amendment creates a Small 
Business Initiative within Defense Activities for $10 million. With 
this Initiative, this vital class of interactions will be encouraged.
  Mr. President, I also wish to speak about an amendment to add $10 
million for a specific area of civilian research and development. This 
area involves assessment of accelerator transmutation of waste 
technology that may be able to significantly reduce the radioactivity 
and radio-toxicity of certain isotopes found in spent nuclear fuel.
  Accelerator transmutation of waste or ATW may enable the nation to 
consider alternative strategies for spent nuclear fuel at some future 
point in time. Our present plan involves no options, it involves only 
the disposition of spent fuel in a permanent underground geologic 
repository. Yet that spent fuel still has most of its energy potential.
  Depending on future generation's needs for energy, the availability 
of cost effective technologies for generation of electricity, and 
whatever limitations on power plant emissions may be in place, the 
nation may want to re-examine the advisability of continuing the 
current path for spent fuel. Transmutation technologies could enable 
energy recovery, along with significant reduction in the toxicity of 
the resulting final waste. However, while transmutation is technically 
feasible, much research and development will be required to determine 
its economic implications.
  There is intense international interest in transmutation--from 
France, Japan, and Russia as examples. This is an excellent subject for 
international collaboration, and may lead to additional cooperation in 
the entire area of spent fuel management. The U.S. needs to have a 
sufficiently strong program to participate in such an international 
program, and ideally to exert a degree of leadership on the directions 
of international spent fuel programs.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, this amendment adds $10 million to 
the civilian research and development funding line within the nuclear 
energy programs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill we are considering today, the 
energy and water appropriations bill, is fundamental to our nation's 
energy and defense related activities, and takes care of vitally 
important water resources infrastructure needs. Unfortunately, this 
bill diverts from its intended purpose by including a multitude of 
additional, unrequested earmarks to the tune of $531 million.
  This amount is substantially less than the earmarks included in the 
FY'99 appropriations bill and I commend my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for their hard work in putting this bill 
together. In fact, this year's recommendation is about 60 percent lower 
than the earmarks included in last year's appropriation bill. My 
optimism was raised upon reading the committee report which states that 
the Committee is ``reducing the number of projects with lower priority 
benefits.'' Unfortunately, while the Committee attempts to be more 
fiscally responsible, there is a continuing focus on parochial, special 
interest concerns.
  Funding is provided in this bill for projects where it is very 
difficult to ascertain their overall importance to the security and 
infrastructure of our nation.
  Let me highlight a few examples:
  $3,000,000 is provided for an ethanol pilot plant at Southern 
Illinois University;
  $300,000 is provided to the Vermont Agriculture Methane project;
  $400,000 is included for aquatic weed control at Lake Champlain in 
Vermont, and,
  $100,000 in additional funding for mosquito control activities in 
North Dakota.
  How are these activities connected to the vital energy and water 
resource needs of our nation? Why are these projects higher in priority 
than other flood control, water conservation or renewable energy 
projects? These are the type of funding improprieties that make a 
mockery of our budget process.
  Various projects are provided with additional funding at levels 
higher than requested by the Administration. The stated reasons include 
the desire to finish some projects in a reasonable timeframe. 
Unfortunately, other projects are put on hold or on a slower track. The 
inconsistency between the Administration's request, which is 
responsible for carrying out these projects, and the views of the 
Appropriators on just how much funding should be dedicated to a 
project, is troubling. As a result, various other projects that may be 
equally deserving or higher in priority do not receive an appropriate 
amount of funding, or none at all. Many of my objections are based on 
these types of inconsistencies and nebulous spending practices.
  Another $92 million above the budget request is earmarked in 
additional funding for regional power authorities. I fail to understand 
why we continue to spend millions of federal dollars at a time when 
power authorities are increasingly operating independent of federal 
assistance. Even the Bonneville Power Administration, one of these 
power entities, is self-financed and operates without substantial 
federal assistance.
  We must stop this practice of wasteful spending. It is unconscionable 
to repeatedly ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for these biased 
actions. We must work harder to focus our limited resources on those 
areas of greatest need nationwide, not political clout.
  I remind my colleagues that I object to these earmarks on the basis 
of their circumvention of our established process, which is to properly 
consider, authorize and fund projects based on merit and need. Indeed, 
I commend my colleagues for not including any projects which are 
unauthorized. However, there are still too many cases of erroneous 
earmarks for projects that we have no way of knowing whether, at best, 
all or part of this $531 million should have been spent on different 
projects with greater need or, at worst, should not have been spent at 
all.
  I will support passage of this bill, but let me state for the Record 
that this is not the honorable way to carry out our fiscal 
responsibilities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of 
objectionable provisions in S. 1186 and its accompanying Senate report 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Objectionable Provisions in S. 1186 Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water 
                          Appropriations Bill


                             bill language

     Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers
       General investigations
       Earmark of $226,000 for the Great Egg Harbor Inlet to 
     Townsend's Inlet, New Jersey
       General construction
       Earmark of $2,200,000 to Norco Bluffs, California
       Earmark of $3,000,000 to Indianapolis Central Waterfront, 
     Indiana
       Earmark of $1,000,000 to Ohio River Flood Protection, 
     Indiana
       Earmark of $800,000 to Jackson County, Mississippi
       Earmark of $17,000,000 to Virginia Beach, Virginia 
     (Hurricane Protection)
       An additional $4,400,000 to Upper Mingo County (including 
     Mingo County tributaries),
       Lower Mingo County (Kermit), Wayne County, and McDowell 
     County, elements of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy 
     River and Upper Cumberland River project in West Virginia
       Earmark of $2,000,000 to be used by the Secretary of the 
     Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to 
     construct bluff stabilization measures at authorized 
     locations for Natchez Bluff, Mississippi
       Earmark of $200,000 to be used by the Secretary of the 
     Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to initiate a 
     Detailed Project Report for the Dickenson County, Virginia 
     elements of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River West Virginia, Virginia and 
     Kentucky, project
       An additional $35,630,000 above the budget request to flood 
     control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, 
     Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
     Tennessee

[[Page S7114]]

     POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
       $39,594,000 restored to the Southeastern Power 
     Administration above the budget request.
       An additional $60,000 above budget request for operation 
     and maintenance at Southwestern Power Administration.
     INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
       An additional $5,000,000 above the budget request is 
     provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission
       An amount of $25,000,000 above the budget request is 
     provided for the Denali Commission
       General provisions
       Language which stipulates all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.


                            report language

     Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers
       General Investigations
       Earmark of $100,000 to the Barrow Coastal Storm Damage 
     Reduction, AK.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Chandalrr River Watershed, AK.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Gastineau Channel, Juneau, AK.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Skagway Harbor, AK.
       Earmark of $150,000 to Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, AZ.
       Earmark of $250,000 to North Little Rock, Dark Hollow, AR.
       Earmark of $250,000 to Llagas Creek, CA.
       An additional $450,000 to Tule River, CA.
       An additional $450,000 to Yuba River Basin, CA.
       Earmark of $250,000 to Bethany Beach, South Bethany, DE.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, 
     FL.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Mile Point, Jacksonville, FL.
       An additional $170,000 to Metro Atlanta Watershed, GA.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Kawaihae Deep Draft Harbor, HI.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Kootenai River at Bonners Ferry, ID.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Little Wood River, ID.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Mississinewa River, Marion, IN.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Calcasieu River Basin, LA.
       Earmark of $500,000 to Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.
       Earmark of $100,000 to St. Bernard Parish, LA.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Detroit River Environmental 
     Dredging, MI.
       Earmark of $400,000 to Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
       An additional $400,000 to Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, 
     NV.
       An additional $75,000 to Truckee Meadows, NV.
       Earmark of $200,000 to North Las Cruces, NM.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Lower Roanoke River, NC and VA.
       Earmark of $300,000 to Corpus Christi Ship Channel, 
     Laquinta Channel, TX.
       Earmark of $200,000 to Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 
     Modification, TX.
       Earmark of $100,000 to John H. Kerr, VA and NC.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Lower Rappahannock River Basin, VA.
       Earmark of $500,000 to Lower Mud River, WV.
       Earmark of $400,000 to Island Creek, Logan, WV.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Wheeling Waterfront, WV.
       Language which directs the Corps of Engineers' to work with 
     the city of Laurel, MT to provide appropriate assistance to 
     ensure reliability in the city's Yellowstone River water 
     source.
       Construction
       An additional $1,200,000 to Cook Inlet, AK.
       An additional $900,000 to St. Paul Harbor, AK.
       An additional $13,000,000 to Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, 
     AR.
       An additional $8,000,000 to Los Angeles County Drainage 
     Area, CA.
       Earmark of $500,000 to Fort Pierce Beach, FL.
       Earmark of $500,000 to Lake Worth Sand Transfer Plant, FL.
       An additional $2,000,000 to Chicago Shoreline, IL.
       An additional $10,000,000 to Olmstead Locks and Dam, Ohio 
     River, IL and KY.
       An additional $2,000,000 to Kentucky Lock and Dam, 
     Tennessee River, KY.
       An additional $2,000,000 to Inner Harbor Navigation Canal 
     Lock, LA.
       An additional $5,000,000 to Lake Pontchartrain and 
     Vicinity, LA.
       An additional $1,000,000 to West Bank Vicinity of New 
     Orleans, LA.
       An additional $2,500,000 to Poplar Island, MD.
       Earmark of $250,000 to Clinton River, MI Spillway.
       Earmark of $100,000 to Lake Michigan Center.
       Earmark of $1,100,000 to St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN.
       An additional $5,000,000 to Blue River Channel, Kansas 
     City, MO.
       An additional $1,000,000 to Missouri National Recreational 
     River, NE and SD.
       An additional $8,900,000 to Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, 
     NV.
       Earmark of $250,000 to Passaic River, Minish Waterfront 
     Park, NJ.
       Earmark of $750,000 to New York Harbor Collection and 
     Removal of Drift, NY & NJ.
       An additional $4,000,000 to West Columbus, OH.
       An additional $90,000 to the Lower Columbia River Basin 
     Bank Protection, OR and WA.
       An additional $10,000,000 to Locks and Dams 2, 3 and 4, 
     Monongahela River, PA.
       An additional $1,000,000 to Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
     Lower Brule Sioux, SD.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 to James River Restoration, SD.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 to Black Fox, Murfree Springs, and 
     Oakland Wetlands, TN.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 to Tennessee River, Hamilton County, 
     TN.
       Earmark of $800,000 to Greenbrier River Basin, WV.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 to Lafarge Lake, Kickapoo River, WI.
       Earmark of $400,000 for aquatic weed control at Lake 
     Champlain in Vermont.
       An additional $960,000 for various earmarks under Section 
     107, Small Navigation Projects.
       An additional $5,675,000 for various earmarks under Section 
     205, Small flood control projects.
       An additional $1,760,000 for various earmarks under Section 
     206, Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
       An additional $1,500,000 for various earmarks under Section 
     1135, Projects Modifications for improvement of the 
     environment.
       An additional $12,500,000 for the Mississippi River Levees, 
     Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
     Missouri and Tennessee.
       An additional $500,000 to St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and 
     Missouri.
       An additional $2,000,000 for the Louisiana State 
     Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.
       An additional $500,000 for Backwater Pump, Mississippi.
       An additional $585,000 for the Big Sunflower River, 
     Mississippi.
       An additional $5,000,000 for Demonstration Erosion Control, 
     Mississippi.
       An additional $2,000,000 for the St. Johns Bayou and New 
     Madrid Floodway, Missouri.
       An additional $2,764,000 for the Mississippi River Levees, 
     Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
     Missouri, and Tennessee.
       An additional $1,500,000 for the St. Francis River Basin, 
     Arkansas and Missouri.
       An additional $2,250,000 for the Atchafalaya Basin, 
     Louisiana.
       An additional $1,000,000 for Arkabutla Lake, Missouri.
       An additional $1,000,000 for End Lake, Missouri.
       An additional $1,000,000 for Grenada Lake, Mississippi.
       An additional $1,000,000 for Sardis Lake, Mississippi.
       An additional $31,000 for Tributaries, Mississippi.

         Corps of Engineers--Operation and maintenance, general

       An additional $2,000,000 for Mobile Harbor, Alabama.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for Lowell Creek Tunnel (Seward), 
     Arkansas.
       An additional $1,500,000 for Mississippi River between 
     Missouri River and Minneapolis, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, 
     Missouri.
       An additional $525,000 for John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, 
     Kansas.
       An additional $2,000,000 for Red River Waterway, 
     Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana.
       Earmark of $250,000 for Missouri National River.
       An additional $35,000 for Little River Harbor, New 
     Hampshire.
       Earmark of $20,000 for Portsmouth Harbor, Piscataqua River, 
     New Hampshire.
       An additional $1,500,000 for Delaware River, Philadelphia 
     to the Sea, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
       Earmark of $800,000 for Upper Rio Grande Water Operations 
     Model.
       An additional $100,000 for Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea, 
     North Dakota.
       An additional $500,000 for Oologah Lake, Oklahoma.
       An additional $2,300,000 for Columbia and Lower Willamette 
     River Below Vancouver, Washington and Portland.
       An additional $50,000 for Port Orford, Oregon.
       Earmark $400,000 for Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Barge 
     Lanes, Texas.
       An additional $1,140,000 for Burlington Harbor Breakwater, 
     Vermont.
       An additional $3,000,000 for Grays Harbor and Chehalis 
     River, Washington.
       Language which directs the Army Corps of Engineers to 
     address maintenance at Humboldt; Harbor, CA; additional 
     maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway in South 
     Carolina; from Georgetown to Little River, and from Port 
     Royal to Little River; dredging at the entrance; channel at 
     Murrells Inlet, SC; additional dredging for the Lower Winyah 
     Bay and Gorge in Georgetown Harbor, SC.
     Bureau of Reclamation--Water and related resources
       Earmark of $5,000,000 for Headgate Rock Hydroelectric 
     Project.
       An additional $1,500,000 for Central Valley Project: 
     Sacramento River Division.
       Earmark of $250,000 for Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

[[Page S7115]]

       Earmark of $4,000,000 for Fort Peck Rural Water System, 
     Montana.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash.
       Earmark of $1,500,000 for Newlands Water Right Fund.
       Earmark of $800,000 for Truckee River Operation Agreement.
       Earmark of $400,000 for Walker River Basin Project.
       An additional $2,000,000 for Middle Rio Grande Project.
       Earmark of $300,000 for Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project.
       Earmark of $750,000 for Santa Fe Water Reclamation and 
     Reuse.
       Earmark of $250,000 for Ute Reservoir Pipeline Project.
       An additional $2,000,000 for Garrison Diversion Unit, P-
     SMBP.
       Earmark of $400,000 for Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend 
     Feed Canal, Oregon.
       An additional $2,000,000 for Mid-Dakota Rural Water 
     Project.
       Earmark of $600,000 for Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project.
     Department of Energy
       Earmark of $1,000,000 is for the continuation of biomass 
     research at the Energy and Environmental Research Center.
       Earmark of $5,000,000 for the McNeil biomass plant in 
     Burlington, Vermont.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the Vermont Agriculture Methane 
     project.
       Earmark of $2,000,000 for the continued research in 
     environmental and renewable resource technologies by the 
     Michigan Biotechnology Institute.
       Earmark of $500,000 for the University of Louisville to 
     research the commercial viability of refinery construction 
     for the production of P-series fuels.
       No less than $3,000,000 for the ethanol pilot plant at 
     Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.
       Earmark of $250,000 for the investigation of simultaneous 
     production of carbon dioxide and hydrogen at the natural gas 
     reforming facility in Nevada.
       Earmark of $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port Authority in 
     Billings, Montana.
       Earmark of $250,000 for the gasification of Iowa 
     switchgrass and its use in fuel cells.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 to complete the 4 megawatt Sitka, 
     Alaska project.
       Earmark of $1,700,000 for the Power Creek hydroelectric 
     project.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project.
       Earmark of $300,000 for the Old Harbor hydroelectric 
     project.
       Earmark of $1,000,000 for a demonstration associated with 
     the planned upgrade of the Nevada Test Site power substations 
     of distributed power generation technologies.
       Earmark of $3,000,000 for the University of Nevada at Reno 
     Earthquake Engineering Facility.
       An additional $35,000,000 to initiate a new strategy (which 
     includes $5,000,000 for activities at Lawrence Livermore 
     National Laboratory, $10,000,000 for Los Alamos National 
     Laboratory, and $20,000,000 for work at Sandia National 
     Laboratory).
       An addition $15,0000,000 for the Nevada Test Site.
       An addition $15,000,000 for future requirements at the 
     Kansas City Plant compatible with the Advanced Development 
     and Production Technologies [ADAPT] program and Enhanced 
     Surveillance program.
       An additional $10,000,000 for core stockpile management 
     weapon activities to support work load requirements at the 
     Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas.
       An additional $10,000,000 to address funding shortfalls in 
     meeting environmental restoration Tri-Party Agreement 
     compliance deadlines, and to accelerate interim safe storage 
     of reactors along the Columbia River.
       An additional $10,000,000 for spent fuel activities related 
     to the Idaho Settlement Agreement with the Department of 
     Energy.
       An additional $30,000,000 for tank cleanup activities at 
     the Hanford Site, WA.
       An additional $20,000,000 to Rocky Flats site, CO.
       Total amounts of earmarks: $531,124,000.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to explain my amendment to S. 1186, 
a bill making appropriations for certain Department of Energy programs. 
Among these programs is the radioactive waste management program which 
is responsible for developing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca 
Mountain, in Nevada.
  This repository will, if successfully completed, one day hold the 
spent nuclear fuel from all of this country's commercial nuclear power 
plants, in addition to defense high-level radioactive waste left-over 
from the development of nuclear weapons.
  It has been 12 years since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
Amendments of 1987, and I believe the Department of Energy's Yucca 
Mountain program is in serious trouble. In 1983, the Department of 
Energy signed contracts with every one of this country's nuclear power 
generators saying that the government would start taking their spent 
fuel for disposal in January of 1998.
  Because of the Government's failure to meet that deadline, a number 
of utility companies, in conjunction with many State governments, are 
suing the Federal Government for failure to fulfill its contractual 
commitments. Many of these utilities are being forced, because of the 
Government's failure, to construct additional storage capacity at their 
sites. Many of these companies are seeking monetary damages from the 
Government.
  Inheriting this situation from his predecessors at the Department of 
Energy, Secretary Richardson laid a proposal before the nuclear 
utilities last year. Secretary Richardson told the utilities that if 
they would agree to drop all future claims against the government, the 
Department of Energy would be willing to pay the utilities for their on 
site storage costs and that DOE would ``take title''--meaning DOE would 
take over ownership and all liability--for the spent nuclear fuel and 
store it at the nuclear power plants for an indefinite period of time.
  It is safe to say--since this administration opposes my interim 
storage legislation--that we can expect spent nuclear fuel under their 
scenario to be stored at reactors until at least the year 2015, because 
that is when the repository is expected to open--at the earliest.
  The amendment I offer today speaks to the heart of this issue. To be 
blunt, I think it is irresponsible to create some 80 new federal 
interim storage sites for spent fuel scattered around this country. And 
I think the Administration compounds their neglect of this crisis by 
depleting the funds collected for development of the permanent 
solution--the Nuclear Waste Fund, created by law in 1982--by dispersing 
these funds back out to the same utilities who paid them in the first 
place, only now they are being used as a ``band-aid'' to pay to store 
fuel at reactors.
  Very simply put, my amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from 
using funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purpose of 
settling lawsuits or paying judgments arising out of the failure of the 
federal government to accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial 
utilities.
  Money in the Nuclear Waste Fund has been collected to pay for a 
permanent solution to our nuclear waste problem. Mr. President, I don't 
think we should be squandering these funds on band-aid schemes. My 
amendment prohibits this from happening.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will my colleague from Idaho yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Senator from 
Idaho. However, it is not clear to me that the Department of Energy 
currently has the authority to use appropriated funds from the Nuclear 
Waste Fund for the purpose--on site storage at nuclear power plants--
that is of concern to the Senator from Idaho. As I interpret current 
law, there exists no statutory provision allowing the Department of 
Energy to fund on-site storage. If that were the case, would my 
colleague from Idaho still feel the need to offer his amendment?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, with my colleague's comment regarding the 
lack of current Department of Energy authority to use the Nuclear Waste 
Fund in the way I am concerned, I will reconsider offering my amendment 
at this time. I thank the Chair and my colleague from New Mexico.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to make a few remarks with 
regard to the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. 
First, let me state that I am pleased that this bill takes strides to 
significantly reduce, in the name of fiscal soundness, appropriations 
for two programs about which I have been concerned for quite some 
time--the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 
and the Animas La-Plata project by the Bureau of Reclamation. I intend 
to support this appropriations bill this year.
  For the past few Congresses, I have argued that the non-power 
programs of the TVA should be seriously scrutinized and reduced 
appropriately. I have introduced legislation which would put TVA on a 
glidepath toward eliminating federal funding for the non-power 
programs. The former Senator from Alabama (Mr. Heflin) and I personally 
met with TVA to discuss this legislation and the appropriate length of 
time for a federal fund phase-out. In the last two appropriations 
cycles, I have written to the appropriations committee

[[Page S7116]]

asking them to reduce TVA non-power appropriations, and in the FY99 
appropriations bill the funds for TVA were reduced significantly to a 
third of the more than $150 million that TVA received when I began 
raising this issue in the 104th Congress. My voice in the Senate on 
this issue is echoed by a number of members of the House Appropriations 
Committee who zeroed out funds for TVA non-power programs in the House-
version of the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation.
  I am pleased that this resounding call for scrutiny of these programs 
is leading to real results. In FY99 the TVA received $50 million 
dollars, with $7 million of that total specifically for the Land 
Between the Lakes (LBL) Recreation Area. This appropriations 
legislation virtually eliminates appropriations for TVA non-power 
programs, retaining only $7 million in flat funding for LBL. The TVA 
non-power activities for which we have previously provided funds 
include providing recreational programs, making economic development 
grants to communities, and promoting public use of TVA land and water 
resources. I understand the Committee's concerns that the management of 
the LBL is a federal responsibility. I believe that the Committee has 
acted appropriately in this matter. In fulfilling this function, which 
is federal, the Committee has provided resources specifically for LBL 
but not for the other non-power programs. In the future, Congress needs 
to evaluate whether other federal land management agencies, such as the 
Interior Department, might be able to manage this area, but this is the 
right step at this time.
  I believe it is appropriate for the Senate to significantly reduce 
funds for TVA's appropriated programs because there are lingering 
concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities that should 
be paid for by non-federal interests. In its 1993 report, CBO focused 
on two programs: the TVA Stewardship Program and the Environmental 
Research Center, which no longer receives federal funds. Stewardship 
activities historically received the largest share of TVA's 
appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and maintenance 
activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA before the 
House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when TVA repairs 
a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with appropriated 
dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected from 
electricity ratepayers. This practice of charging a portion of dam 
repair costs to the taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant 
subsidy. If TVA were a private utility, and it made modifications to a 
dam or performed routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of 
the costs associated with that activity. I think that removing 
appropriations for this program largely ends concerns about taxpayer 
subsidization of the dam repair and maintenance program.
  I am also pleased that this legislation contains a $1 million 
reduction from the Budget Request for the Animas La-Plata project. In 
this bill, the project receives a total of $2 million for FY 2000. As 
my colleagues know, I have long been active in raising Senate awareness 
about the financial costs of moving forward with development and 
construction of the full-scale version of the Animas-La Plata project. 
I do not want the federal government to proceed with construction of 
the full-scale project while the Department of the Interior continues 
its discussion about alternatives to that project.
  As my colleagues will recall from the debate on an amendment I 
offered to the FY 98 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation on 
this matter, the currently authorized Animas-La Plata project is a $754 
million dollar water development project planned for southwest Colorado 
and northwest New Mexico, with federal taxpayers slated to pay more 
than 65% of the costs. I am glad that we are not proceeding on this 
project full steam ahead, and I am pleased to see that the 
Appropriators recognize that on-going alternatives discussions can 
proceed without a large infusion of new resources.
  Despite these gains in reducing funds for some questionable programs, 
the bill contains some shifts in program funding about which I am 
concerned. Particularly troubling is the reduction in the President's 
proposed increase in the renewable energy budget. The bill provides 
$261 million more for the DOE defense activities than requested by the 
Administration, but reduces the request for solar and renewable energy 
programs by $92.1 million. I believe that it is important for the 
federal government to make appropriate investment in solar and 
renewable technology, particularly in light of our efforts to 
restructure the electricity system and meet our overall energy 
efficiency goals. I would hope that we could find a way to shift 
resources within this legislation to make it possible to fulfill the 
Administration's request.
  Overall, Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill can meet our 
requirements under the budget caps by reducing unnecessary spending. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as in recent years, the energy and water 
Appropriation bill has been faced with dilemmas about funding the 
diverse activities within its jurisdiction. For example, last year, the 
budget request for the Corps of Engineers was significantly decreased 
and in this subcommittee we had the challenge of keeping the Corps of 
Engineers viable and focused. Clearly this year's appropriation bill 
was just as dramatic--since for the first time in over twenty years the 
Corps of Engineers funding is reduced below the enacted bill's level. 
Despite the problems, there are many positives to this particular 
appropriation which the Chairman and I pointed out in opening 
statements.
  Additionally, we have worked hard to find ways to accommodate our 
colleagues with their amendments. I believe that the responsibility of 
a Senator is not simply to listen to the bureaucrats who plan ways to 
spend the appropriations, but to request those amendments the Senator 
sees as necessary for his or her constituents. While Members may not be 
satisfied with every aspect or the resolution of every request, the 
chairman and I have made a conscientious effort to work with those 
amendments.
  I recommend this bill to my colleagues for the vital functions across 
the nation that are funded through these appropriations. I recognize 
the difficult work done by the subcommittee staff and their efforts in 
preparing this bill and responding to the members of the Senate. So I 
commend the diligence of Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, Gregory Daines, 
Lashawnda Leftwich, Elizabeth Blevins, Sue Fry, a detail from the Corps 
of Engineers, and Bob Perret, a congressional fellow, in my office.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are ready to go to final passage. We 
need 2 minutes, and then we will call for third reading. Senator 
Hutchison wanted 2 minutes. I ask that she be granted 2 minutes, and 
then we will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico 
for allowing me 2 minutes. I was introducing a judicial candidate and 
was not able to come earlier.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the committee, 
for the great help he has given to many of us who particularly have 
strong water needs in our States.
  I particularly want to mention the Port of Houston. The Port of 
Houston is the second largest port in the Nation, and it is the largest 
in foreign tonnage. It is the largest container port. We have the 
largest petrochemical complex in the entire world.
  It is very important that our port be competitive. This bill will 
fully fund the dredging of that port, which is the last port in America 
that has not gone under 40 feet. This will take us to 45.
  It is a very important bill.
  I think both Senator Domenici and Senator Leahy have done a great job 
on this bill, but particularly I appreciate the support for this great 
Port of Houston and the efforts that were made to continue this 
dredging project that will help us in trade and help us remain 
competitive in the world market.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page S7117]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator form Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Jeffords
     Wellstone
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________