[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 101 (Tuesday, September 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8031-S8033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the hard work the 
chairman and his staff put into drafting this annual appropriations 
bill.
  They have done an excellent job in pulling this bill together and I 
appreciate the cooperative manner with which he and his staff have 
worked with my staff. I also appreciate the consideration he has 
provided to the requests of all Members.
  This subcommittee received over 1,000 requests from Members this year 
and majority and minority staff have combed through all of them.
  As always, we are not able to accommodate as many of them as we would 
like, and, frankly, not even as many as we need to.
  There are a great many things to like in this bill:
  Solid funding for the programs to keep our nation's nuclear arsenal 
safe and secure.
  Strong Army Corps and Bureau of Reclamation funding for work already 
underway.
  First time funding for the Delta Regional Commission.
  Also, for the first time in many years, the bill contains nearly full 
funding for the Solar and Renewable Energy programs.
  I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Domenici, for 
working with me to send some more resources to renewables.
  We received a bipartisan letter, signed by 56 of our colleagues, 
requesting full funding for the Solar and Renewable accounts in this 
bill. I am delighted to report that we have come very close to doing 
so.
  I believe that the Solar and Renewables programs are essential to our 
nation's long-term energy security and appreciate your consideration, 
Mr. Chairman.
  As we have discussed, I am committed to producing a final energy and 
water conference report that is balanced and takes into account the 
wide variety of activities that we are called upon to fund.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that we can do justice to the non-
defense side of our bill without additional resources.
  There are also several controversial items, including no funding for 
Cal-Fed, no funding for the removal of a uranium tailings pile on the 
shore of the Colorado River near Moab, and the inclusion of several 
policy riders that will all need to be resolved in conference, or 
possibly here on the floor.

[[Page S8032]]

  Additionally, it is my understanding that the administration has 
issued a veto threat over several issues, including:
  1. Language prohibiting the Secretary of Interior from allocating 
water from the Central Arizona Project; and
  2. A provision that prohibits the Army Corps of Engineers from 
updating the Missouri River Operators Manual; this provision also 
involves the Endangered Species Act.
  This second item will be the subject of a fairly extensive debate 
here on the floor between Senators Daschle and Baucus and Senator Bond 
and others.
  I take the veto threat seriously and encourage other Members to do 
the same.
  While I am not inclined to encourage Members to vote against this 
bill at this time, it is my hope and expectation that these matters can 
be worked out either here on the floor or in conference.
  In short, the vote count on this bill today or whenever we vote 
should not be considered indicative of the way I or other Members will 
vote if the President vetoes this bill.
  That said, given the unfortunate financial constraints that the 
subcommittee had to work with--which I will discuss in a moment--this 
is a good bill overall. I support it and encourage my colleagues to do 
the same.
  My overall message is simple today: This subcommittee simply does not 
have the resources it needs to do the job that Congress, the 
administration, and the American people expect of us.
  I am not pointing fingers or attempting to assign blame: I am simply 
stating a fact.
  This is a very important appropriations bill, one where we are asked 
to pay for a broad array of programs critical to our nation's future. 
We fund:
  The guardians of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
  Our nation's flood control and navigation systems, infrastructure 
that contributes to human safety and economic growth.
  Long-term research, development, and deployment of solar and 
renewable technologies, programs critical to our nation's long-term 
energy security and environmental future and;
  Science programs that are unlocking the human genome and other 
breakthroughs that help to keep the U.S. at the scientific forefront of 
the world.
  All of these are areas that are critical to our nation's independence 
and security, yet, year after year, this subcommittee is called upon to 
gut one or more of these programs to pay for other energy and water 
programs, or spending in other subcommittees.
  We cannot continue to do this. These activities are too important.
  While most of these comments focus on our shortfalls on the non-
defense side of our ledger, they hold true for the defense programs, as 
well.
  The subcommittee allocation for non-defense activities of the Bureau 
of Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy 
and others is over $600 million below the President's request.
  Such a huge funding shortfall has required the subcommittee to impose 
strict limits on the types of projects that can be funded this year.
  For example, as Chairman Domenici mentioned, there are no new 
construction new starts for BOR or the Army Corps in this bill.
  As you can imagine, it is difficult to tell my colleagues that a 
fully authorized water project, one that is completely ready to go, has 
no shot at a construction new start this year. Only on-going work--
usually at a dollar level well below the President's request--and a 
handful of new studies.
  This is no way to run a robust national program.
  But this year's numbers really only tell part of the story. All of us 
know, we have good financial years and bad financial years around here. 
However, short-falls year in and year out in the water accounts of the 
Army Corps have now resulted in a backlog of $45--$50 billion in fully 
authorized projects that are awaiting the first dollar in funding.
  This shortfall just takes into account the Corps' historic mission of 
navigation and flood control and does not take into account some of the 
new directions that Congress has pushed the Corps in recent years.
  It is wrong to give short shrift to important components of our 
nation's critical infrastructure. Flood control protects human lives 
and property; navigation projects ensure that our nation's economic 
engine continues to hum.
  I think it is important to take a few minutes to review our 
``critical water infrastructure'' and what it means in real terms to 
this country.
  Our Nation's water resources infrastructure, developed over the past 
two centuries, has improved the quality of our lives and provided a 
foundation for the economic growth and development of this country.
  Water supply systems, water treatment systems, flood protection 
projects, and water transportation systems all contribute to our 
national prosperity.
  Our current economic expansion can be directly traced, at least in 
part, to investment decisions made by our forebears in this body to 
develop the nation's water resources.
  They had the forethought to make these tough investment decisions and 
fortunately they are still paying dividends today.
  The water infrastructure provided by the Army Corps alone provides an 
annual rate of return of approximately 26 percent. The stream of 
benefits are realized as flood damages prevented, reduced 
transportation costs, electricity, recreation, and water supply 
services.
  Navigable channels provide an efficient and economic corridor for 
moving more than 2 billion tons of the Nation's domestic and foreign 
commerce. The value of this commerce is in excess of $660 billion.
  Total jobs generated are about $13 million and Federal taxes 
generated by this commerce is estimated at nearly $150 billion. For 
every dollar invested to improve navigation infrastructure, U.S. Gross 
Domestic Product rises more than $3 dollars.
  About 660 million of the 2.2 billion tons of cargo are moved on the 
nation's inland waterway system. That equates to 440,000 barges.
  To move this cargo by alternative means would require an additional 
17.6 million trucks on our nation's highway system or an additional 5.8 
million rail cars on the nation's rail system.
  That is a considerable amount of traffic to add to these overburdened 
systems.
  The Army Corps manages 383 major lakes and reservoirs for flood 
control and has 8500 miles of levees in place. The flood protection 
provided by these structures, on average, prevents $20 billion in 
damages per year. That is a saving of $6 for every dollar invested in 
flood control projects.
  Thousands of cities, towns and industries rely on the roughly 9.5 
million acre feet of water supply storage from 116 lakes and reservoirs 
in the U.S. built by the Army Corps.
  Army Corps owned and operated hydroelectric power plants produce 
enough electricity to supply almost 5 million homes with power. That is 
24 percent of the total U.S. hydropower capacity of 3 percent of total 
U.S. electric capacity. Additionally, these plants annually return over 
half a billion dollars to the Federal Treasury.
  Coastal projects protect almost 500 miles of our nation's critical 
eroding shoreline.
  Over 30 percent of the recreation and tourism occurring on Federal 
lands takes place on Army Corps water resource projects. These visitors 
spend $10 billion annually on these recreational pursuits resulting in 
over 600,000 full and part-time jobs.
  In addition to the direct benefits provided by this water 
infrastructure, substantial secondary or indirect economic benefits are 
realized.
  I am also very familiar with the great work that the Bureau of 
Reclamation does for the 17 Western states, including mine. Its 
facilities include: 348 reservoirs providing 245 million acre-feet of 
water storage for municipal, rural and industrial uses to over 31 
million people in the Western states. Irrigation water to 1 in every 5 
western farmers for about 10 million acres of irrigated land.
  Additionally, the Bureau is the second largest producer of 
hydroelectric power generating 40 billion kilowatt hours of energy each 
year from 58 powerplants. Its facilities also provide substantial flood 
control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits.
  The great urbanization of the west could not be accomplished without

[[Page S8033]]

their management of scarce water resources.
  Unfortunately, in recent years national investment has not kept pace 
with our level of economic and social expansion.
  Public infrastructure investments including those for water resources 
infrastructure in 1960 amounted to 3.9 percent of the Gross Domestic 
Product.
  Today the figure is more like 2.6 percent of the GDP.
  That may not sound like much of a change, but let's look at the Army 
Corps during that period.
  In the mid 1960s, the country was investing $4.5 billion annually in 
new water infrastructure, today it is less than $1.5 billion (measured 
in 1996 dollars).
  Our water resources needs are no less today than they were 40 years 
ago. Yet we are investing one third as much.
  One major impact of that reduction is the increasingly drawn out 
construction schedules forced by underfunding these projects.
  These artificially lengthened schedules cause the loss of some $5 
billion in annual benefits and increase the cost of these projects by 
some $500 million.
  Failure to invest in maintenance, major rehabilitation, research and 
development, and new infrastructure has resulted in the gradual 
reduction in the value of our capital water resources stocks, and in 
turn the benefits we receive.
  The value of the Army Corps' capital stock peaked in 1981 with a 
replacement value of $150 billion. Today its estimated value has 
decreased to $124 billion measured in 1995 dollars.
  The Army Corps' estimates that their backlog for critical maintenance 
work is $400 million and is projected to grow by $100 million per year 
at current funding levels.
  Our Nation's water infrastructure continues to perform as designed, 
but evidence of the need for reconstruction or modernization is 
becoming evident.
  Some facilities have reached their capacity and some have reached the 
end of their design lives. New or shifting populations and growth have 
created unmet demands.
  Finally, society's values are increasingly emphasizing sustainability 
and ecological considerations in water infrastructure management and 
development.
  As you can see, I am one who firmly believes that investments in our 
nation's infrastructure more than pay for themselves through improved 
productivity and efficiency. To ignore these needs in the short term is 
going to cause us problems over the long haul.
  Before I close today, I want to say some words of praise for the 
federal employees and contractors that populate the Departments, 
Agencies, and other organizations that are funded under this bill.
  In the last year there has been a considerable amount of press and 
congressional attention surrounding issues such as security lapses at 
our National Labs and criticism of processes and procedures at the Army 
Corps.
  From time to time we summons the political leadership of these 
organizations to the Hill to criticize, chide, or impress upon them the 
wisdom of our thinking. Often, it can be a pretty warm seat that we put 
them on.
  None of that is to suggest that the Members of this body are anything 
other than respectful and proud of the hard work and accomplishments of 
our federal workforce, including contractors, lab employees, and others 
that make these important organizations run.
  We expect a lot of you and, with very few exceptions, you live up to 
all of the expectations and demands that we impose on you. You serve 
your nation with distinction and we appreciate it.
  I thank the Chairman, and the subcommittee staff for all of their 
hard work in getting us to this point. His team of Clay Sell, David 
Gwaltney, and LaShawnda Smith have been great to work with. On the 
minority staff, I want to say a word of thanks to Roger Cockrell, who 
is on detail from the Army Corps of Engineers office in Vicksburg, 
Mississippi, and Liz Blevins of the subcommittee staff.

                          ____________________