[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 103 (Thursday, September 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8163-S8187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50
or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few
contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we
intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we
will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language
together.
Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will
speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to
use a couple minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point
for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 3021 are located in
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint
Resolutions.'')
Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
Might I make a parliamentary inquiry?
We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for
termination of debate on the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority
leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a
very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We
have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to
accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish
debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator
Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But
we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's
amendment before we finish this bill.
We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's
concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and
I have agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after
that to debate Senator Durbin's amendment.
I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment
will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is
satisfactory to Senator Bond.
Can we do that right now?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. REID. I underline what the Senator from New Mexico has said. My
friend from Illinois has three amendments he has filed. It is my
understanding that he is going to offer one of those; and if there
would be an up-or-down vote on that, he would withdraw two of the
amendments--and not only an up-or-down vote but no second-degree
amendments.
So the Senator from Illinois would agree--if I could have the
attention of the Senator from New Mexico for just a minute. The Senator
from Illinois would agree to 30 minutes equally divided, with a vote,
with no second-degree amendments. That is my understanding, that we
would have a vote on that at some time before final passage later
tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20
minutes equally divided?
[[Page S8164]]
Mr. DURBIN. I will be prepared to withdraw two of the three
amendments. I will be prepared to limit my debate to no more than 10
minutes on my side, if we can agree also that it be an up-or-down vote
on the amendment, as offered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with
the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So
when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the
Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and
proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we
have seen?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would let me have a minute?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Durbin--I just got word--I hear
Senator Bond is en route and that he did not say that he would agree to
no amendments. I think he will when he gets to the floor, but I just
want to make clear I probably overspoke. I thought he had said that.
Can we just wait for him to arrive?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend, we will revisit it when he is on the
floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
The clerk has yet to report the amendment. The amendment at the desk
is not the same as the one filed. It will require unanimous consent to
substitute.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4101, As Modified
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on
file.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 4101, as modified.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit to $74,100,000 the total amount of funds that may be
expended for construction of the National Ignition Facility)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction of
National Ignition Facility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the total amount that may be expended for
purposes of construction of the National Ignition Facility,
including conceptual and construction design associated with
the Facility, may not exceed $74,100,000.
(b) Independent Review of National Ignition Facility.--(1)
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the
National Ignition Facility and the Inertial Confinement
Fusion Program. The review shall be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) The review under paragraph (1) shall address the
following:
(A) Whether or not the National Ignition Facility is
required in order to maintain the safety and reliability of
the current nuclear weapons stockpile.
(B) Whether or not alternatives to the National Ignition
Facility could achieve the objective of maintaining the
safety and reliability of the current nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(C) Any current technical problems with the National
Ignition Facility, including the effects of such problems on
the cost, schedule, or likely success of the National
Ignition Facility project.
(D) The likely cost of the construction of the National
Ignition facility, including any conceptual and construction
design and manufacture associated with construction of the
Facility.
(E) The potential effects of cost overruns in the
construction of the National Ignition Facility on the
stockpile stewardship program.
(F) The cost and advisability of scaling back the number of
proposed beamlines at the National Ignition Facility.
(3) Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted
under this subsection. The report shall include the results
of the review and such comments and recommendations regarding
the results of the review as the Administrator considers
appropriate.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so-
called NIF. I will use that acronym.
The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being
built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in
California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any
nuclear weapons.
As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled
program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that
detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and
unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour
more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other
scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for
nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point.
Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National
Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel
estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They
called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993.
Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs
and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in
August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected
to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They
have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up
all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts,
adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties
because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle
costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This
is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle.
I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again
until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility--
if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here
almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we
finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor,
you will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super
Collider, you would like this program.
Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed
it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was
outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2
billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the
arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on
Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent
all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste.
We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money
in, we have to complete it.
I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build
the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we
worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did
not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are
better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National
Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time.
We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated
to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder
reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most
recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing:
Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the
money.
As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch
[[Page S8165]]
River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider.
Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the
time and saving our taxpayers money.
We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to
hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told
GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget
because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one.
This is directly from the GAO report:
DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us
that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but
that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that
Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . .
They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now
they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good
stewardship we reward?
We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to
Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They
have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the
project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on
schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and
far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell
the Secretary of Energy.
So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized
building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very
small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one
time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure,
hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons
scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy
from the fusion than they put in with the lasers.
The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding
nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists
at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion
energy.
Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and
Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with
Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser
project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to
prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We
spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We
wasted a lot of money on that project, too.
Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true
that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons
explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal
we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability
of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program.
First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in
more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions--
1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each
type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the
components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or
other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating
an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can
be remanufactured to original specifications.
So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably
aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet
they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear
stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to
do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these
surveillance activities of our stockpile.
The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could
provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we
don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes
we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have
conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons
will work as intended.
In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests.
We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically
designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design,
but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of
widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for
stockpile stewardship.
Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked
what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied,
``None whatsoever.''
Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is
worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.''
Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF
``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship.
Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or
fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are
for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear
weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic
or applied sciences.
What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a
few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We
certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as
we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and
a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction
contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we
have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear
stockpile is safe and is workable.
So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as
the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal
funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found
that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other
basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder
reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the
same thing.
The administration has requested an additional $135 million for
construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other
stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that
is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on
NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135
million from other activities.
The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal
year 2002, $180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in
future years. Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science
programs and physics programs in order to get the money to build this
project at Lawrence Livermore.
Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a
statement earlier this year:
The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the
NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed
to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the
production plants, by several years. This causes us to
question what is a reasonable additional investment in the
National Ignition Facility.
Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the
National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence
Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of
achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted
in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point
of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent.
Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well,
there you have it.
If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation
threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main
purpose of NIF:
To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of
interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear
weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of
secondary design.
So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we
don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when
we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so.
Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the
$74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they
could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the
National Nuclear Security
[[Page S8166]]
Administration shall provide for an independent review of the NIF and
the Inertia Confinement Review Program. This review shall be conducted
by the National Academy of Sciences.
I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is
required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the
stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same
objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost
of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly,
the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam
lines at the NIF.
Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have
now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent
study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and
this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really
what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman
of the committee for accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from New Mexico speaks, I
want to tell my friend from Iowa how appreciative I am of him bringing
this to the floor. With his statement tonight, he has made it so the
National Ignition Facility will be given a much closer look. It needs
to be looked at much more closely. I already have a statement in the
Record, and I don't need to repeat how I feel about this whole project.
I want to acknowledge to my friend what a great service he has rendered
to the country by his statement tonight.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we
really started questioning this because of some of the information the
Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence
Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed.
I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a
few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I
can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both
sides.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at
8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided
prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to
the vote.
Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin
amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he
has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that
time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate;
that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has
used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side.
I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to
the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the
cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get
cleared;
And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the
disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third
reading, the Senate proceed to passage of H.R. 4733, following the
passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire
subcommittee.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to make sure it is clear that the Senator from Illinois will have an
up-or-down vote on his amendment and that there will be no motion to
table.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have
the clarification.
Mr. REID. Also, even though this isn't part of the unanimous consent
request, because we have so much, I wonder if we could have some
general idea about how long the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
Mr. KYL. Five minutes.
Mr. REID. Could we make that part of the unanimous consent agreement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New
Mexico said about my amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given
it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for
asking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some
time to me.
I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that
the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I
believe not to be correct.
I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here.
The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was
going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact
were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a
reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They
suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator
from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other
discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In
fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in
their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued
that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this
wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the
ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the
Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in
lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing
forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban
treaty said.
Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National
Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the
question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body.
But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence
Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of
Defense and Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and
every one of them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a
critical component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it,
eventually the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in
terms of data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably
not be able to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which,
of course, would require advertising--something I know the Senator from
Iowa would not want.
The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur
that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based
upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the
scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers.
But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you
want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event,
they are worthless or meaningless.
That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is
a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it
can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their
computers.
The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little
bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He
says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at
midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is
such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car.
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it
has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the
laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost.
It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a
mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that
criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going
to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical
because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still
critical. You
[[Page S8167]]
can't just say because it is going to cost more than we thought that we
are just going to give up on the whole project. At least you can't
advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know my colleague from
Iowa is.
I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be
accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the
final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It
would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to
assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any
misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may
not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we
thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it.
It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability,
and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in
this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear
stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it
takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to
be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more
than we originally anticipated.
I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this,
and his willingness to yield me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is
the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple
of minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think
what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more
robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it
is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty
involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a
disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from
Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The
question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the
cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door
to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of
how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust
debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we
have had in the past.
Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously,
politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is
going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this
year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have
the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The
amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't
think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the
study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a
broad variety of different disciplines to have input.
I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a
more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want
to continue with the National Ignition Facility.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document
entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the
point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors
believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is
necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program
The NNSA is currently in the process of developing its
long-term plan for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
This plan will address all elements needed to maintain the
safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile now and into the future, including science,
infrastructure, and people.
NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in
three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of
aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code
development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional
scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP
over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP
providing unique experimental capabilities that complement
other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and
advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant
science of materials that cannot be reached in other
facilities.
We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability
within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP,
its long-term role must be integrated within the overall
requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed
or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further
development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in
order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program an
additional $95 million is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF
Project.
Madelyn R. Creedon, NNSA.
C. Bruce Tarter, LLNL.
John C. Browne, LANL.
C. Paul Robinson, SNL.
Date: September 6, 2000.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Harkin for
modifying his amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The original amendment would have eliminated construction money for the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is an essential component to our
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Any elimination of funding for the
program would negate the nearly $1 billion Congress has spent on this
project thus far, and would cripple our nation's arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. Still, the amendment agreed to does limit the
amount of funding for Fiscal Year 2001 which will make it increasingly
difficult to meet the goals of the project.
The United States has made a strong commitment against underground
nuclear testing. In order to meet this goal and maintain the nuclear
deterrent of the United States, we must have a safe, reliable, and
effective science based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
As a key element to the SSP, NIF will be the only facility able to
achieve conditions of temperature and pressure in a laboratory setting
that have only been reached in explosions of thermonuclear weapons and
in the stars. It is expected to provide important contributions to the
goals of stockpile stewardship in the absence of nuclear testing and to
contribute to the advancement of inertial fusion energy and other
scientific research efforts.
I am proud that institutions and contractors throughout New York
State have provided valuable services and tools for this project that
are essential to its completion. Because New York companies and
research institutions provide laser, optics, and other tools,
underground nuclear testing will no longer be necessary. That would be
a huge benefit to the entire world.
I understand that DOE has recognized that there are some problems
with NIF, but DOE is working hard to take the necessary steps to
correct these issues. Project management has been restructured and has
demonstrated over the last six months that it is capable of managing a
project of this scope. It has already been determined that the
underlying science associated with NIF is sound.
Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding
for this program. The cost increases should not override the importance
of this project in our goal to ensure the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons.
Any repeal of this funding will cripple the valuable science and
knowledge that is coming together from around the world in our effort
to maintain the United States nuclear deterrent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4101) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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.
Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057,
4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077,
4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered
a
[[Page S8168]]
large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can
agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have
numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to
review them.
I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046,
4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072,
4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, and
4100, 4102, and 4103, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 4024
(Purpose: To authorize the Corps of Engineers to include an evaluation
of flood damage reduction measures in the study of Southwest Valley
Flood Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico)
On page 47, line 18 before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided, That in conducting the Southwest
Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage
reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the
frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of
runoff''.
____
amendment no. 4032
Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66,
line 7.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4033
(Purpose: To establish a Presidential Energy Commission to expore long-
and short-term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and
severe spikes in energy prices)
On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
SEC. 4__. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of
America's energy consumption;
(2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled
1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural
gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
(3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories
totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year
average of 334,000,000 barrels;
(4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel
fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent
below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
(5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude
oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased
demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely
have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
(6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
(b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
(1) Establishment.--
(A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among
a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to
in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist
of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following
categories:
(i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
(ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
(iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
(iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
(v) Environmental groups.
(vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and
demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
(vii) The Energy Information Administration.
(B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission
shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall
appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the
Commission.
(E) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Commission have been
appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(2) Duties.--
(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
(i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and
natural gas industries, of--
(I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil,
and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends
and projections for those inventories;
(II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply
disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in
particular regions;
(III) ways in which the United States can become less
dependent on foreign oil supplies;
(IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and
utilize its domestic energy resources;
(V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used
to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
(VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy
consumption;
(VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--
(aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy
resources to locations throughout the United States;
(bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United
States; and
(cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other
energy-related petroleum product storage in the United
States; and
(VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission
considers pertinent; and
(ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that
contains--
(I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(II) the recommendations of the Commission for such
legislation and administrative actions as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted,
conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the
Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph
(A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date
of the report.
(c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use
$500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to
fund the Commission.
(d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which
the Commission submits its report under subsection
(b)(2)(A)(ii).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4039
(Purpose: To provide for funding of innovative projects in small rural
communities in the Mississippi Delta to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies)
On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, of
which an appropriate amount shall be available for innovative
projects in small rural communities in the Mississippi Delta,
such as Morgan City, Mississippi, to demonstrate advanced
alternative energy technologies, concerning which projects
the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report not
later than March 31, 2001:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4040
(Purpose: To require an evaluation by the Department of Energy of the
Adams process)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Department
of Energy is seeking innovative technologies for the
demilitarization of weapons components and the treatment of
mixed waste resulting from the demilitarization of such
components.
(b) Evaluation of Adams Process.--The Secretary of Energy
shall conduct an evaluation of the so-called ``Adams
process'' currently being tested by the Department of Energy
at its Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory
using funds of the Department of Defense.
(c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the
evaluation conducted under subsection (b).
____
amendment no. 4042
(Purpose: To provide funding for a topo/bathy study of coastal
Louisiana)
Insert the following at the end of line 18, page 47 before
the period. ``:Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
use $200,000, of funds appropriated herein for Research and
Development, for a topographic/bathymetric mapping project
for Coastal Louisiana in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the interagency
federal laboratory in Lafayette, Louisiana.''
____
amendment no. 4046
On page 67, line 9, after ``activities'' insert the
following: ``, and Provided Further, That, of the amounts
made available for energy supply $1,000,000 shall be
available for the Office of Arctic Energy.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4047
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a
report on national energy policy)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3__. REPORT ON NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) since July 1999--
(A) diesel prices have increased nearly 40 percent;
(B) liquid petroleum prices have increased approximately 55
percent; and
(C) gasoline prices have increased approximately 50
percent;
(2)(A) natural gas is the heating fuel for most homes and
commercial buildings; and
[[Page S8169]]
(B) the price of natural gas increased 7.8 percent during
June 2000 and has doubled since 1999;
(3) strong demand for gasoline and diesel fuel has resulted
in inventories of home heating oil that are down 39 percent
from a year ago;
(4) rising oil and natural gas prices are a significant
factor in the 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price
Index for June 2000 and the 3.7 percent increase over the
past 12 months;
(5) demand for diesel fuel, liquid petroleum, and gasoline
has continued to increase while supplies have decreased;
(6) the current energy crisis facing the United States has
had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on the
economy;
(7) the price of energy greatly affects the input costs of
farmers, truckers, and small businesses; and
(8) on July 21, 2000, in testimony before the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the
Secretary of Energy stated that the Administration had
developed and was in the process of finalizing a plan to
address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report
detailing the Department of Energy's plan to address the high
cost of home heating oil and natural gas.
____
amendment no. 4057
(Purpose: Concentrating Solar Demonstration Project)
Insert at the end of line 9, page 67 of the bill ``;
Provided, further, That $1,000,000 is provided to initiate
planning of a one MW dish engine field validation power
project at UNLV in Nevada''.
____
amendment no. 4062
(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the demonstration of an underground
mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That $4,000,000 shall be made
available for the demonstration of an underground mining
locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen at
existing mining facilities within the State of Nevada. The
demonstration is subject to a private sector industry cost-
share of not less than equal amount, and a portion of these
funds may also be used to acquire a prototype hydrogen
fueling appliance to provide on-site hydrogen in the
demonstration.''
____
amendment no. 4063
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to demonstrate a commercial facility
employing thermo-depolymerization technology)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $5,000,000 shall be made
available to support a project to demonstrate a commercial
facility employing thermo-depolymerization technology at a
site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. The project shall
proceed on a cost-share basis where Federal funding shall be
matched in at least an equal amount with non-federal
funding.''
____
amendment no. 4067
(Purpose: To provide that the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not
proceed with a sale of mineral rights in land within the Daniel Boone
National Forest, Kentucky, until after the Tennessee Valley Authority
completes an environmental impact statement)
On page 97, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 7 . SALE OF MINERAL RIGHTS BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.
The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not proceed with the
proposed sale of approximately 40,000 acres of mineral rights
in land within the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky,
until after the Tennessee Valley Authority completes an
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
____
amendment no. 4068
On page 47, line 18 after the phrase ``to remain available
until expended'' insert the following:``; Provided, That
$50,000 provided herein shall be for erosion control studies
in the Harding Lake watershed in Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4069
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for equipment acquisition for the
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL
Instrument Center)
At the appropriate place in the bill providing funding for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, insert the following:
``Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided for
equipment acquisition for the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL Instrument
Center.''
____
amendment no. 4070
(Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 to support a program to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams that
threaten public health and environmental security along the U.S.-Mexico
border; and to provide $2,000,000 for the Materials Corridor
Partnership Initiative)
On page 73, line 22, after the word ``expended'', insert
the following: ``Provided, That, $3,000,000 shall be made
available from within the funds provided for Science and
Technology to support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad
office of the Department of Energy, in coordination with the
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, to apply and
demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams
that threaten public health and environmental security in
order to advance the potential for commercialization of
technologies relevant to the Department's clean-up mission.
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be made available
from within the funds provided for Science and Technology to
support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad office of the
Department of Energy to implement a program to support the
Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative.''
____
amendment no. 4071
On page 61, line 25, add the following before the period:
``: Provided further, That $2,300,000 of the funding provided
herein shall be for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water
Reclamation and Reuse project authorized by Title XVI of
Public Law 102-575 to undertake phase II of the project''.
____
amendment no. 4072
(Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $1,000,000 shall be made
available for the Kotzebue wind project.''
____
amendment no. 4073
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a
demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska)
On page 67, line 4 after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made
available for the design and construction of a demonstration
facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in
Southeast Alaska.''
____
amendment no. 4074
(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioreactor landfill project to be
administered by the Environmental Education and Research Foundation and
Michigan State University)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following: ``Provided, That, $500,000 shall be made available
for the bioreactor landfill project to be administered by the
Environmental Education and Research Foundation and Michigan
State University.''
____
amendment no. 4076
(Purpose: To exempt travel within the LDRD program from the Department-
wide travel cap)
On page 83, before line 20, insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to
reimbursement of management and operating contractor travel
expenses within the Laboratory Directed Research and
Development program.''
____
amendment no. 4077
(Purpose: To provide erosion and sediment control measures resulting
from increased flows related to the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico)
On page 93, line 18, strike ``enactment'' and insert:
``enactment, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake immediate
measures to provide erosion control and sediment protection
to sewage lines, trails, and bridges in Pueblo and Los Alamos
Canyons downstream of Diamond Drive in New Mexico''.
____
amendment no. 4078
(Purpose: To provide that up to 8 percent of the funds provided to
government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories shall be available
to be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development)
On page 82, line 24, strike ``6'' and replace with ``8''.
____
amendment no. 4083
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to
carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St.
Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``SEC. __. ST. GEORGES BRIDGE, DELAWARE.
``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
to carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of
the St. Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Delaware, including a hearing or any other activity
relating to preparation of an environmental impact statement
concerning the closure or removal.''
____
amendment no. 4085
(Purpose: To provide for an additonal payment from the surplus to
reduce the public debt)
On page ___, after line ___, insert the following:
``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
``bureau of the public debt
``supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
``For deposit of an additonal amount for fiscal year 2001
into the account established
[[Page S8170]]
under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to
reduce the public debt, $5,000,000,000.''
____
amendment no. 4088
(Purpose: To provide sums to the Secretary of the Interior to refund
certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12 insert:
``Sec. __. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and
directed to use not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under title II to refund amounts received by the
United States as payments for charges assessed by the
Secretary prior to January 1, 1994 for failure to file
certain certification or reporting forms prior to the receipt
of irrigation water, pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1226, 1272; 43
U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)), including the amount of associated
interest assessed by the Secretary and paid to the United
States pursuant to section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (101 Stat. 1330-268; 43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4093
(Purpose: To set aside funds for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet
Harbor breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island)
On page 53, line 8, strike `'facilities:'' and insert the
following: ``facilities, and of which $500,000 shall be
available for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet Harbor
breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island:''.
AMENDMENT NO. 4100
(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit
to Congress a report on electricity prices in the State of California)
On page 97, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
SEC. 7__. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) California is currently experiencing an energy crisis;
(2) rolling power outages are a serious possibility;
(3) wholesale electricity prices have soared, resulting in
electrical bills that have increased as much as 300 percent
in the San Diego area;
(4) small business owners and people on small or fixed
incomes, especially senior citizens, are particularly
suffering;
(5) the crisis is so severe that the County of San Diego
recently declared a financial state of emergency; and
(6) the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(referred to in this section as the ``Commission'') is
currently investigating the crisis and is compiling a report
to be presented to the Commission not later than November 1,
2000.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall--
(A) continue the investigation into the cause of the summer
price spike described in subsection (a); and
(B) not later than December 1, 2000, submit to Congress a
report on the results of the investigation.
(2) Contents.--The report shall include--
(A) data obtained from a hearing held by the Commission in
San Diego;
(B) identification of the causes of the San Diego price
increases;
(C) a determination whether California wholesale
electricity markets are competitive;
(D) a recommendation whether a regional price cap should be
set in the Western States;
(E) a determination whether manipulation of prices has
occurred at the wholesale level; and
(F) a determination of the remedies, including legislation
or regulations, that are necessary to correct the problem and
prevent similar incidents in California or anywhere else in
the United States.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4102
(Purpose: To provide a greater level of recreation management
activities on reclamation project land and water areas within the State
of Montana east of the Continental Divide)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
SEC. 2__. RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
MONTANA PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--To provide a greater level of recreation
management activities on reclamation project land and water
areas within the State of Montana east of the Continental
Divide (including the portion of the Yellowtail Unit of the
Pick-Sloan Project located in Wyoming) necessary to meet the
changing needs and expectations of the public, the Secretary
of the Interior may--
(1) investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain
public recreational facilities on land withdrawn or acquired
for the projects;
(2) conserve the scenery, the natural, historic,
paleontologic, and archaeologic objects, and the wildlife on
the land;
(3) provide for public use and enjoyment of the land and of
the water areas created by a project by such means as are
consistent with but subordinate to the purposes of the
project; and
(4) investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain
facilities for the conservation of fish and wildlife
resources.
(b) Costs.--The costs (including operation and maintenance
costs) of carrying out subsection (a) shall be
nonreimbursable and nonreturnable under Federal reclamation
law.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4103
(Purpose: To modify the law relating to Canyon Ferry Reservior,
Montana)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
SEC. 2__. CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR, MONTANA.
(a) Appraisals.--Section 1004(c)(2)(B) of title X of
division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-713;
113 Stat. 1501A-307) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``be based on'' and
inserting ``use'';
(2) in clause (vi), by striking ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law,'' and inserting ``To the extent consistent
with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisition,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(vii) Applicability.--This subparagraph shall apply to
the extent that its application is practicable and consistent
with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisition.''.
(b) Timing.--Section 1004(f)(2) of title X of division C of
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-714; 113 Stat.
1501A-308) is amended by inserting after ``Act,'' the
following: ``in accordance with all applicable law,''.
(c) Interest.--Section 1008(b) of title X of division C of
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-717; 113 Stat.
1501A-310) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047,
4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076,
4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103) were agreed
to.
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION IN THE SOUTHWEST VALLEY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW
MEXICO
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes
about my amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill now
before the Senate. My amendment is needed to allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to continue to work on a feasibility study to alleviate the
chronic flooding in the Southwest Valley of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
First, I want to thank the chairman, Senator Domenici, the
distinguished ranking member, Senator Reid, and their fine staffs for
all their good work on this Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This
bill provides vital funding for a number of programs that are important
to my state of New Mexico and to the nation, and I thank them for their
efforts.
For a number of years the Southwest Valley area of Albuquerque in my
state of New Mexico has been prone to flooding after major rainstorms.
The flooding has caused damage to irrigation and drainage structures,
erosion of roadways, pavement, telephone and electrical transmission
conduits, contaminated water and soil due to overflowing septic tanks,
damaged homes, businesses, and farms, and presented hazards to
automobile traffic. In 1997, Bernalillo County approached the Army
Corps Engineers to request a reconnaissance study of the chronic
flooding problems
The study area encompassed 17.8 square miles of mostly residential
neighborhoods along the banks of the Rio Grande in the Southwest Valley
and the 50 square miles on the West Mesa, including the Isleta Pueblo,
that drain into the valley. The reconnaissance study began in March
1998 and is now completed.
The conclusions of the reconnaissance study define the magnitude of
the continuing flooding problem in the Southwest Valley. The study also
established a clear federal interest in the drainage project, found a
positive cost to benefit ratio for the project, and identified work
items necessary to begin designing a range of solutions to alleviate
the chronic flooding problems in the valley.
In 1999, based on the positive findings of the reconnaissance study,
the Environment and Public Works Committee authorized the Army Corps of
Engineers to conduct a full study to determine the feasibility of a
project for flood damage reduction in Albuquerque's Southwest Valley.
The authorization is contained in section 433 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999--P.L. 106-53. I want to thank the EPW committee
for authorizing this
[[Page S8171]]
much needed feasibility study. The study began in March 1999 and is
expected to be completed in February 2002.
Currently, Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo
Flood Control Authority and the Corps are working cooperatively on the
feasibility study. Last year, the administration requested, and the
Congress appropriated $250,000 in federal funding for the feasibility
study. This year, the request was for $330,000. I want to thank the
committee for again providing the full amount requested.
Last July I had an opportunity to meet with the engineers from the
Corps, the County, and AMAFCA to get an update on the study and to tour
the areas in the Southwest Valley that are subject to chronic flooding.
At the end of the tour, the Corps indicated to me that based on the
initial results of the feasibility study, the flooding there was quite
severe but the project did not seem to meet the Corps' required flow
criterion of 1800 cubic feet per second for the 100-year flood. These
flow criteria are outlined in the Engineering Regulations established
for Corps. Because of the obvious severity of the flooding, the
engineers requested a legislative waiver of the regulations. Without a
waiver, the Corps could not continue as a partner in the project. They
also indicated the Corps' regulations do not contain any provision to
waive the peak discharge criterion.
I would like to take a few moments to describe briefly the unique
situation in the Southwest Valley that necessitates a waiver of the
Corps' standard regulations. The land along the west side of the Rio
Grande is essentially flat. The river is contained by large earthen
levees, which were built for flood control. When a river is contained
this way by levees, the sediment accumulates in the river bed, slowly
raising the level of the river. Of course, if there were no levees,
when sediment builds up, the river would simply change course to a
lower level. However, over the years, as the sediment has continued to
accumulate in the Rio Grande, the level of the river within the levees
is now higher than the surrounding land. Thus, when there are heavy
rains during the monsoon season, the runoff has nowhere to go--it
simply flows into large pools on the valley floor, flooding homes and
farms. The water can't flow uphill into the river, so it stays there
until it either evaporates or is pumped up and hauled away.
If the flood water sits in large pools and isn't flowing, it clearly
can't meet any criterion based on the flow rate of water. Indeed, given
the unique nature of the flooding in the Southwest Valley, most areas
subject to chronic flood damage do not meet the Corps' peak discharge
criterion.
During my visit in July, the three partners in the feasibility study
specifically asked me for help in obtaining a waiver of the Corps'
technical requirements to deal with this special situation. My
amendment provides the necessary waiver the Corps needs to continue to
work in partnership with the county and AMAFCA on this project. This is
not a new authorization; Congress authorized this study last year. My
amendment is a simple technical fix to the existing authorization.
Similar language is already in the House companion to this Energy and
Water appropriations bill. I do believe the unique situation in
Bernalillo County warrants a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations,
and I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the amendments en bloc, 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Grassley from Iowa
for 2 minutes with reference to explaining an amendment in which he
procured a number of cosponsors, which was just accepted. He would like
to talk about it.
Heretofore, Senator Kyl was referring to the Senator from Iowa, and
there were two Senators from Iowa on the floor. I believe it should be
reflected that he was speaking of Senator Harkin from Iowa, not Senator
Grassley.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. In the first place, I ask unanimous consent, to the
amendment I have had filed at the desk that was just accepted, that the
additional cosponsors be added of Senators DeWine, Lugar, and Kerrey. I
thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for accepting the amendment.
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a
critically important amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill, and I would like to thank Senators Grams, Voinovich, DeWine,
Lugar, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Snowe for joining me in this effort.
This amendment would require the administration to provide Congress
their plan to address the increasing costs in home heating fuels by
September 30. Quite frankly, this plan is long overdue.
Mr. President, on July 3 of this year, I wrote President Clinton and
Energy Secretary Richardson to bring their attention to the ever-
increasing price of natural gas. I also shared my concern regarding the
inadequacy of natural gas supplies to meet demand through the summer
and into this winter. I requested that the President inform me of the
actions he planned to take to address the higher-than-normal heating
bills my constituents will surely face this winter.
Jack Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget responded
to my letter on July 31. Regrettably, Mr. Lew thanked me for expressing
my concerns regarding the increase in fuel costs this past winter.
Let me repeat that. In response to my letter about the inadequacy of
home heating fuel for the upcoming winter to the President, I received
a letter thanking me for my concerns about the increase in fuel costs
last winter. Mr. President, it is this type of irresponsible behavior
that has led this country into the next energy crisis.
Today, natural gas is at a record high near $5.00 per million BTU's,
while supplies hover below the five-year average. This 50 percent
increase will certainly impact the more than 80 percent of Iowa
households which use natural gas to heat their homes.
Furthermore, home heating oil is near a 10-year high, at 98 cents per
gallon, already 41 percent above the average price last fall and
winter. And crude oil remains near a 10-year high.
While testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee on July 20,
Secretary Richardson stated that the administration had developed a
plan and was in the process of finalizing a plan to address potential
home heating oil and natural gas shortages. Mr. Secretary, I have not
seen your plan. I want to see the plan.
I won't allow the Department of Energy to sit idly by as home heating
fuels double. For this reason, I am offering this amendment to require
the Department of Energy to provide a report to Congress by September
30, 2000, detailing their plan to address the high cost of home heating
oil and natural gas.
I believe this amendment will force the administration to take a much
more active role in remedying the home heating fuel crisis.
Amendments Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055, 4056, 4058,
4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and 4112, En Bloc, as
Modified
Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of myself and Senator Reid, I have a series
of amendments, again, offered by number, which are filed, which anybody
can read, which have been carefully reviewed and can be agreed to with
certain modifications. In each instance, the modification is before the
Senator from New Mexico and has been reviewed by the Senator from
Nevada and with the proponents of the amendment and the authorizing
committee that might be interested. I send to the desk this list of
modified amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc,
as modified.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes
amendments Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055,
4056, 4058, 4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and
4112, en bloc, as modified.
The amendments, as modified, are as follows:
[[Page S8172]]
AMENDMENT NO. 4034, as modified
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding limitations on the
capacity of the Department of Energy to augment funds for worker and
community assistance grants in response to the closure or downsizing of
Department of Energy facilities)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 320. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) The closure or downsizing of a Department of Energy
facility can have serious economic impacts on communities
that have been built around and in support of the facility.
(2) To mitigate the devastating impacts of the closure of
Department of Energy facilities on surrounding communities,
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h) provides a mechanism for
the provision of financial assistance to such communities for
redevelopment and to assist employees of such facilities in
transferring to other employment.
(4) Limitations on the capacity of the Department of Energy
to seek reprogramming of funds for worker and community
assistance programs in response to the closure or downsizing
of Department facilities undermines the capability of the
Department to respond appropriately to unforeseen
contingencies.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that,
in agreeing to the conference report to accompany the bill
H.R.4733 of the 106th Congress, the conferees on the part of
the Senate should not recede to provisions or language
proposed by the House of Representatives that would limit the
capacity of the Department of Energy to augment funds
available for worker and community assistance grants under
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal
Year 1993 or under the provisions of the USEC Privatization
Act (subchapter A of chapter 1 of title III of Public Law
104-134; 42 U.S.C. 2297h et seq.).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4035, as modified
(Purpose: To set aside funds to carry out activities under the John
Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program)
On page 47, strike line 18 and insert the following:
``$139,219,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$100,000 shall be made available to carry out activities
under the John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program established
under section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-21).''
____
amendment no. 4036, as modified
(Purpose: To appropriate $10,400,000 in Title I, Corps of Engineers--
Operation and Maintenance for Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi, to
continue critical improvement projects)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in Title I, Operations
and Maintenance, General, $10,400,000 is available for the
operation and maintenance of the Pascagoula Harbor,
Mississippi.
____
amendment no. 4037, as modified
(Purpose: To appropriate $200,000 in Title I, Corps of Engineers,
Construction, General for Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi channel width
dredging)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in Title I, Construction
General, $200,000 is available for the Gulfport Harbor,
Mississippi project for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a
project study plan and to initiate a general reevaluation
report for the remaining authorized channel width dredging.
____
amendment no. 4043, as modified
(Purpose: To set aside funds for implementation of certain
environmental restoration requirements)
On page 53, line 14, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That $1,700,000 shall be
used to implement environmental restoration requirements as
specified under the certification issued by the State of
Florida under section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341), dated October 1999 (permit
number 0129424-001-DF), including $1,200,000 for increased
environmental dredging and $500,000 for related environmental
studies required by the water quality certification.
____
amendment no. 4051, as modified
(Purpose: To set aside funds to develop the Detroit River Masterplan)
On page 47, strike line 18 and insert the following:
$139,219,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$100,000 may be made available to develop the Detroit River
Masterplan under section 568 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368).
____
amendment no. 4055, as modified
(Purpose: To include additional studies and analyses in the
Reconnaissance Report for the Kihei Area Erosion, HI study)
Insert the following after line 13, page 58.
Sec. . Studies for Kihei Area Erosion, HI, shall include
an analysis of the extent and causes of the shoreline
erosion. Further, studies shall include an analysis of the
total recreation and any other economic benefits accruing to
the public to be derived from restoration of the shoreline.
The results of this analysis shall be displayed in study
documents along with the traditional benefit-cost analysis.
____
amendment no. 4056, as modified
(Purpose: To include additional studies and analyses in the
Reconnaissance Report for the Waikiki Area Erosion Control, HI study)
Insert the following after line 13, page 58.
Sec. . Studies for Waikiki Erosion Control, HI, shall
include an analysis of the environmental resources that have
been, or may be, threatened by erosion of the shoreline.
Further, studies shall include an analysis of the total
recreation and any other economic benefits accruing to the
public to be derived from restoration of the shoreline. The
results of this analysis shall be displayed in study
documents along with the traditional benefit-cost analysis.
____
amendment no. 4058, as modified
(Purpose: Newlands Water Rights Fund)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert:
Sec. . Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, any
amounts provided for the Newlands Water Rights Fund for
purchasing and retiring water rights in the Newlands
Reclamation Project shall be non-reimbursable.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4061, As Modified
(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 for small wind projects, including not
less than $2 million for the small wind turbine development project)
On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the
following ``Provided, That of the amount available for wind
energy systems, not less than $5,000,000 shall be made
available for small wind, including not less than $2,000,000
for the small wind turbine development project:''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4064, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for a linear accelerator at the
University Medical Center of Southern Nevada)
On line 15, page 68, after the word ``expended:'' Insert
the following: ``Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be made
available for high temperature super conductor research at
Boston College:''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4079, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To make a technical correction in language relating to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant)
On page 73, line 22, strike everything beginning with the
word ``Provided'' through page 74, line 3.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4080, as Modified
(Purpose: To make funds available for a study by the Secretary of the
Army to determine the feasibility of providing additional crossing
capacity across the Chesaspeake and Delaware Canal)
On page 53, line 8, before the colon, insert the following:
``; and of which $50,000 shall be used to carry out the
feasibility study described in section 1__''.
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 1__. DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND
MARYLAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army, in cooperation
with the Department of Transportation of the State of
Delaware, shall conduct a study to determine the need for
providing additional crossing capacity across the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal.
(b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) analyze the need for providing additional crossing
capacity;
(2) analyze the timing, and establish a timeframe, for
satisfying any need for additional crossing capacity
determined under paragraph (1);
(3) analyze the feasibility, taking into account the rate
of development around the canal, of developing 1 or more
crossing corridors to satisfy, within the timeframe
established under paragraph (2), the need for additional
crossing capacity with minimal environmental impact;
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4082, As Modified
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the dredging of
the main channel of the Delaware River)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 1__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE DREDGING OF THE
MAIN CHANNEL OF THE DELAWARE RIVER.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Corps of Engineers should continue to negotiate in
good faith with the State of Delaware to address outstanding
environmental permitting concerns relating to the project for
navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening,
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized by section
101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 4802) and modified by section 308 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 300); and
(2) the Corps of Engineers and the State of Delaware should
resolve their differences through the normal State water
quality permitting process.
[[Page S8173]]
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4092, as Modified
(Purpose: To set aside funds for activities related to the selection of
a permanent disposal site for environmentally sound dredged material
from navigational dredging projects in the State of Rhode Island)
On page 47, line 18, before the period, insert the
following: ``, of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be
available for the conduct of activities related to the
selection, by the Secretary of the Army in cooperation with
the Environmental Protection Agency, of a permanent disposal
site for environmentally sound dredged material from
navigational dredging projects in the State of Rhode
Island''.
____
amendment no. 4096, as modified
On page 52, line 10, strike ``$324,450,000'' and insert
``$334,450,000''.
On page 52, line 15, before the period insert ``: Provided
further, That of the amounts made available under this
heading for construction, there shall be provided $375,000
for Tributaries in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi, and
$45,000,000 for the Mississippi River levees: Provided
further, That of the amounts made available under this
heading for operation and maintenance, there shall be
provided $6,747,000 for Arkabutla Lake, $4,376,000 for Enid
Lake, $5,280,000 for Grenada Lake, and $7,680,000 for Sardis
Lake''.
____
amendment no. 4112, as modified
(Purpose: To set aside funds for a feasibility study of the Niobrara
River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point
Dam on the Missouri River, South Dakota)
On page 47, line 18, before the period, insert the
following: ``, of which $100,000 shall be made available to
carry out a reconnaissance study provided for by section 447
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
329)''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc, as modified.
The amendments (Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055, 4056,
4058, 4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and 4112), as modified,
were agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have additional cosponsors who were
not included in the first en bloc acceptance. They are: Senator Kyl on
4076, Senator Kyl on 4078, Senator Bingaman on 4070, Senator Reid on
4085, Senator Domenici on 4024, and Senator Bingaman on 4071. I ask
unanimous consent that these Senators be shown as cosponsors
appropriately on those amendments to which I have referred.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I had an opportunity to speak to my friend from New Mexico
that Senator Torricelli has called and ask for 5 minutes to speak
before the vote at 8 o'clock. I ask that in the form of a unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We accommodate that.
Mr. President, we have additional amendments we are working on with
various staff on both sides of the aisle that are not ready, that are
still being worked on. We will continue with the hope we will have them
finished before the time comes for final passage of this bill.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 4105
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make final revisions to the
Missouri River Master Manual)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4105 that I offered
last evening, that Senator Durbin is now going to debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Durbin,
proposes an amendment numbered 4105.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 58, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert the
following:
SEC. 103. MISSOURI RIVER MASTER MANUAL.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to
make final revisions to the Missouri River Master Water
Control Manual.
Mr. DURBIN. If I understand correctly, we have 20 minutes equally
divided on this amendment. I will try to be brief.
I had a conversation with Senator Bond. We are perilously close to
being in an agreement. I don't know if we will reach that point;
perhaps we will. Let me suggest to him and to those who are following
the course of this debate, I think the debate last night between
Senator Daschle and Senator Bond was a good one because it laid out, I
think, very clearly, both sides of this issue.
I come to this debate trying to find some common ground, if there is,
and I don't know how much common ground one can find on a river. In
this situation, we are dealing with the question of the future of the
Missouri River. It is not a parochial interest; it is an interest which
affects the Mississippi River and many who have States bordering the
Mississippi River, and agricultural and commercial interests that are
involved in the future of that river.
I listened to the debate yesterday and tried to follow it. I came to
the conclusion that the Senator from Missouri was arguing that he, with
his section 103, did not want to see the so-called spring rise occur
next year, in the year 2001, and that was the purpose of his amendment.
It is my understanding that if we did nothing, the spring rise would
not occur anyway because there is no intention to change the manual for
the river that would result in that as of next year.
The purpose of my amendment is to say that there would be no final
revisions to the manual that would take place in the upcoming fiscal
year, October 1, 2000, to October 1, 2001, but we would allow all of
the agencies that are currently studying the future of the river and
amending the 1960 manual the opportunity to consider all of the
options, to have public comment, to invite in the experts.
I went through the debate, read through the Congressional Record. My
colleague from Missouri, yesterday, I think, said something along these
lines because he said:
Contrary to what you just heard, [referring to Senator
Daschle's debate] any other aspect of the process to review
and amend the operation of the Missouri River, to change the
Missouri River manual, to consider opinions, to discuss, to
debate, to continue the vitally important research that is
going on now in the river and how it can improve its habitat
will continue.
The purpose of my amendment is to say let us protect that. Let us
protect that study and that option. No final revision can be made to
the manual that would effect the change that I think is a concern of
the Senator from Missouri and others during the course of the next
fiscal year. So we are preserving the right and opportunity to study
the future of the river, but we are saying you cannot make a change in
the manual that will change the policies on the river during that
period of time.
I think that will give us an opportunity for better information and a
full opportunity for public comment. We will learn more in the process
from the experts and the experts include not only the
environmentalists, who are very important to this discussion, but also
many, many others, including those in the agricultural community and in
the navigation community. All of them should have an opportunity to be
part of this debate about what the manual change will be. That is what
I am trying to preserve with this amendment, to try to find, if you
will, a middle ground between 103 and where Senator Daschle was
yesterday.
Let me also say that under my amendment the spring rise or low summer
flows proposal would not be implemented next year. We have discussed
this with the Fish and Wildlife, as well as the Corps of Engineers. It
is our understanding that if you prohibit a final revision in the
manual that you are not going to be able to change the manual as of
next year, and there is no proposal on the table that would suggest
anything is going to occur before the year 2003.
I will concede to my friend from Missouri the letter from the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and one particular sentence or two in it, leaves
some question. But our followup contact with the Corps of Engineers
suggests they are not going to authorize a spring flow next year.
I don't know if what I am suggesting by way of an amendment will win
the support of the administration. I don't know the answer to that.
What I am offering is a good faith attempt to continue the study,
continue the survey,
[[Page S8174]]
and not make any changes in the policy as of the next fiscal year; but
to then be prepared to look at the results, consider the public
comments, and try to come up with a policy that is sound.
The Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Illinois both
represent agricultural interests. We are constantly being asked to try
to balance this, the commercial needs and environmental needs.
Certainly the same thing applies to this debate on the history. We are
trying to balance the commercial needs for navigation and the needs for
environment. I think we can do it.
I think if we are open and honest and have the public comment, which
the Senator from Missouri has invited, that it will occur. I will
listen carefully. As the Senator from Missouri said last night during
the course of the debate: Let the debates go on. We would like to see
sound science. We would like to see the best information available.
Fish and Wildlife has not shown it to us. I concede during the next
year allowing that information to come forward.
Given the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently supports the
spring rise and low summer flows profile, taking it off the table for
discussion is a recipe for stalemate. Let us at least have the
discussion about the spring flow. I think section 103 precludes even
that discussion. Let us not change the policy as to the spring flow in
the next year, but let us debate it. Let's try to find what the best
outcome would be for the future of the river and those who depend on
it.
Proposed revisions to the manual would continue to be developed under
my amendment. Studies would continue. Talks about alternatives to river
management among all the river's stakeholders could continue.
In addition, we want to get the best science we can from the National
Academy of Sciences, which is in the process of completing an important
study on the future of the Missouri. We should not make any decisions
about the future of the river until that study is released, and I think
my amendment protects that possibility and gives you the opportunity
during this next year to listen to the National Academy of Sciences and
to try to resolve that as well as to invite public input.
The Corps is working on a lot of alternatives to managing the
Missouri River. I think it is fair for us to keep these proposals,
developed by farm and navigation interests and proposals developed by
recreation and environmental interests, all on the table and all open
to debate.
This is important to my colleague from Missouri. It is really
important in Illinois as well. The Missouri River feeds into the
Mississippi, and we have some 550 miles of Illinois border on that
river. A lot of people depend on it. I want to make certain we do the
right thing for our farmers but also for this important piece of
America's natural heritage, the Missouri River and Mississippi River.
I am not here to argue about the management of the Missouri River. I
am not competent to do it. But I think we have to bring the information
together and make the most sound judgment we can about the future of
the river, and it is that particular approach I have offered in this
amendment. I hope the Senator from Missouri will consider it as a
friendly amendment, a positive and constructive alternative in the
debate between him and the Senator from South Dakota. I yield the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact the distinguished
Senator from Illinois has said he did not want to see a spring rise in
2001. That basically was what my amendment did.
When I looked at his amendment, I was very much concerned that it
only deals with a final revision of the master manual. What we have
requested--and as he has already pointed out, it has been proposed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service in a letter that I believe has already
been submitted for the Record. If not, I will submit it again for the
Record.
I ask unanimous consent it be printed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Denver, Co, July 12, 2000.
Brig. Gen. Carl A. Strock,
Commander, Northwest Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Portland, OR.
Dear General Strock: This letter is a result of our July
10, 2000, meeting in Washington, D.C. regarding the Missouri
River Biological Opinion attended by Assistant Secretary
Westphal and Director Clark. The following is a summary of
the discussions related to the framework of conservation
measures needed to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence
of listed species on the Missouri River.
The Service will recommend in our draft biological opinion
a spring pulse starting point of 49.5 kcfs (+17.5 above full
navigation service) during the first available water year and
an annual summer low of 21 kcfs from Gavin's Point Dam. As an
interim step, a spring pulse of 49.5 kcfs from Gavins Point
during the first available water year and a summer low of 25
kcfs would be in effect each year, starting in 2001, until
the new Master Manual is in place or other appropriate NEPA
documentation. We would view this as an adaptive management
step that, in conjunction with robust monitoring of the
biological response, could help us refine a final set of
recommendations for implementation. A robust monitoring
program will be necessary to identify the desired beneficial
biological responses to listed species from these interim
measures and to provide a basis for any adjustments that may
be necessary. Corps representatives stated during the July
10th meeting that the Corps has significant discretion
regarding navigation and that there is flexibility in the 8
month navigation season. They also stated that the length of
the navigation season and the flows provided during the
navigation season was an ``expectation'' rather than a
guarantee.
The Corps will provide a spring pulse from Fort Peck Dam as
discussed in our recent Portland meetings approximately one
year out of three beginning in 2002. As a test of the
spillway infrastructure, the Corps will perform a ``mini-
test'' in 2001. The parameters of the test will be described
by the Corps in your response to this letter and will
incorporate the direction agreed to from recent discussions
held in Portland.
The Service will identify acres of habitat (sandbar and
shallow/slow water) necessary to avoid jeopardy in the
biological opinion. We believe the Corps can use existing
programs and the likely expanded mitigation program to result
in the creation of at least one-third of these acres
necessary in the lower river system. The rest will need to be
restored through additional physical modification of existing
river training structures and through hydrological
modification. The Service believes that a majority of the
habitat can be created through hydrological modification.
The monitoring needs relative to piping plovers and least
terns are currently being adequately addressed by the
existing Corps program. The short-term monitoring needs
relative to the Fort Peck test for pallid sturgeon have been
outlined in a letter sent to the Corps on April 7, 2000. The
Corps is currently assisting the Service relative to these
short-term needs below Fort Peck. There is a need for a
comprehensive short-term monitoring of the response of
pallids to the interim flows recommended from Gavins Point.
The long-term needs for pallid sturgeon monitoring throughout
the system will be addressed in the draft biological opinion.
The Service has outlined the short-term propagation needs
(which could efficiently be fulfilled at Garrison Dam and
Gavins Point National Fish Hatcheries) necessary to reach
stocking objectives in a letter dated April 25, 2000. While
the Corps has indicated that they may not have authority to
assist in meeting these needs at Service facilities, the
Service believes that the Endangered Species Act would
provide the basis for such authority. The Service has also
sent a letter dated June 27, 2000, to the Corps outlining our
concern that a new facility at Fort Peck Dam would not meet
these short term needs.
There is agreement in principle regarding using the
adaptive management approach in implementing the actions and
goals identified in the opinion. There is also agreement
regarding the unbalanced intra-system regulation issues. The
final discussion of these two topics will be outlined in the
draft biological opinion which is expected to be delivered to
the Corps on or bout July 31, 2000.
The Service needs to know by July 19, 2000, if you accept
the six elements discussed in this letter as being reasonable
and prudent. We also need to know if you want to revise the
project description to incorporate these elements or if you
prefer to have them presented in the form of a RPA in a draft
biological opinion.
Sincerely,
------ ------.
Regional Director.
Mr. BOND. Their July 10 letter said to the Corps--I used the term
``diktat'' as an authoritarian governmental directive. They tell the
Corps of Engineers in the letter of July 12:
As an interim step, a spring pulse of 49.5 kcfs from Gavins
Point during the first available water year and a summer low
of 25 kcfs would be in effect each year, starting in 2001,
until the new Master Manual is in place or other appropriate
NEPA documentation.
Basically what Fish and Wildlife is saying is: Forget about the
process.
[[Page S8175]]
You, Corps of Engineers, start a spring rise in 2001.
That is what we are here about. We pointed out all the problems that
the spring rise would provide, the fact that there are very good,
scientific judgments coming out of the Missouri Department of
Conservation, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and others,
saying that a spring rise would have a harmful effect, not only on
people along the river, on river transportation, but on endangered
species. We have asked the Missouri Department of Natural Resources of
the State of Missouri how they view the proposal by the Senator from
Illinois. The director of the Department of Natural Resources has just
faxed me a letter saying, in pertinent part:
Our conclusion is that the proposed Durbin amendment is not
protective of Missouri's interests. Nor is it protective of
Mississippi River states' interests. The amendment would
allow the spring rise and ``split season'' proposal to
proceed to the penultimate point of implementation--too late
to be stopped or even amended.
Basically, the view of the attorney general's office and the State
department of natural resources in Missouri is that striking section
103 would open up to the dangers that I laid out last night and this
morning of the spring rise and the low summer flow.
If the Senator from Illinois agrees that we don't want to have that
spring rise and the low summer flows next year, I suggest that we could
reach a simple accommodation. Keep section 103. If he wishes to say
that studies should go forward on the Missouri River, which is what I
firmly believe section 103 does anyhow, we would have no objection to
that. But we need to keep that underlying protection that says that you
shall not, during 2001, implement the spring rise. That is the purpose
of the amendment. That amendment has been in the energy and water bills
4 of the last 5 years, signed by the President.
There is no intent for us to stop the discussions. However, the
National Academy of Sciences has a very narrow study on the spring rise
itself. The studies that are going forward are studies which should
include the proposal of the Missouri Department of Conservation which
is a 41,000-cubic-feet-per-second flow of the Missouri River which they
think will protect the pallid sturgeon and other endangered species and
not subject the people of downstream States--Kansas, Missouri, States
along the Mississippi, Illinois, down through Louisiana--from spring
flooding and will not end the river transportation on the Mississippi
and the Missouri.
If the only question the Senator from Illinois has is whether or not
we cut off studies, I will be happy if he asks unanimous consent to
change his amendment so it does not repeal section 103 and states that
studies of the Missouri River master manual, all of the studies, shall
continue but there will be no spring rise in 2001 as provided in
section 103; then I think we can reach agreement.
The question has been raised as to whether, even with that
modification, that will be acceptable to Members of this body. There
are some who appeared to say that would not be acceptable to them.
The question has been raised whether the President might veto the
entire appropriations bill over section 103 after having signed it for
4 years in a row. We have already shown there is strong bipartisan
support in States affected by the Missouri River manual, that a spring
rise would be very hazardous to the human life along the river, as well
as to farmers who farm in the productive bottom lands, as well as to
the water supply, as well as to river transportation.
I do not think the President will ignore the strong voices of the
flood control associations, the bipartisan, strong opposition of the
Democratic government of Missouri, the Democratic Governor and mayors
of Kansas City and St. Louis who would be subjected to the dangers of
flooding from a spring rise.
The President will have to look at the concerns of the people
downstream. I think he will realize the scheme is too risky as a result
of the action we took today. If the President realizes we are not going
to accept the risky scheme of a controlled flood, then maybe we can
avoid the need for a vote.
If the distinguished Senator from Illinois wants to leave section 103
and work with us to craft an amendment which says that investigations
can continue, which is what I believe section 103 will do, if we can
muster even greater support, then we will have much less a danger of
having this bill vetoed.
With that in mind, I am happy to work with the Senator from Illinois
because his State is at risk of flooding. A spring rise on the Missouri
can threaten flooding in Illinois. A low flow on the Missouri River in
the summer and in the fall in navigation season not only threatens and
ends barge transportation on the Missouri River, but it puts at risk
the river transportation on the Mississippi which carries a very
significant bulk of the grain going to the export market.
If that is what we are talking about, if we can assure that studies
will continue--and I am concerned about the language of his amendment
saying we cannot have a final master manual development--that master
manual could be implemented so long as it does not include the spring
rise--if he is willing to do that, then I say we are on the same page.
But I cannot accept and certainly our State governments, the agencies
directly involved in the Missouri, cannot accept striking 103.
We went through that battle. We spoke, I thought, with a majority
vote, saying there shall be no implementation of a spring rise during
the year covered by the bill, which is 2001. If we keep that in place,
then I will be happy to work with the distinguished Senator from
Illinois to fashion a new section 104 which at least makes clear the
agreement we may have reached.
However, if the Senator still feels the need to strike 103, I have to
say that is what we voted on; we have been through this. That is the
risky scheme of a controlled flood that we cannot accept, and I do not
believe, nor do people in the State of Missouri believe, that his
amendment standing alone, unmodified, will do that.
I hope, having voted on this and having had the opportunity to tell
our colleagues a whole lot more about the Missouri River manual than
they ever wanted to know, we might be able to avoid having them vote
again. If they vote again, I say to those who supported us, I wish them
to continue to support section 103.
If the Senator from Illinois will accept keeping section 103 and work
with us to craft a section 104 that further clarifies it, I will be
happy to do so. Otherwise, I will just ask all the people who voted
with us this morning to vote with us again in opposition to the Durbin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand where we are, and we will
be ready with the remaining amendments very soon. Since there is time
remaining, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are about to adopt a bill tonight
commonly known as the energy and water appropriations bill, but
everybody should know that, at a minimum, it is an interesting set of
words--``energy and water.'' On the other hand, it is even more than an
interesting set of words. There is a great irony with reference to this
bill.
First of all, believe it or not, by precedent, this bill contains all
of the nuclear weapons research and development, preservation, and
manufacturing, and along with it are all the water projects--the Corps
of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and all the waterways--and a
whole group of nondefense-related science research projects.
What has happened over the years, it seems to this Senator, is that
piling these kinds of programs together and then limiting the amount of
money has, over time, yielded more attention
[[Page S8176]]
to the water projects because there are hundreds of House Members
concerned, and rightly so, and scores of Senators concerned, and here
is our great nuclear weapons program. We have stood before the world
and thanked our great scientists because they do not belong to the
military. These are free-minded Americans, some who have worked for 40
years and are still at Los Alamos as the nucleus of scientists who
understand the nuclear weapons.
What I tried to do in the last few years is build a wall in the bill
between the defense money and the nondefense money so we can move ahead
with some of the things that are so desperately needed for the nuclear
activities of this country, especially since we continue to say we have
to compete in that area in the world until we have no more nuclear
weapons, which we hope will occur sometime.
In spite of this wall, and trying to hold the defense money harmless
from domestic spending, what has happened this year in the House
allocations just beats anything you could imagine. For the House
decided to underfund both, believe it or not. They decided to underfund
the President's defense requirements and underfund his nonnuclear,
nondefense projects. We cannot expect to get a bill based on those
numbers.
I submit the Senate would have a lot of difficulty accepting that
bill that would come from those kinds of numbers. Thanks to Senator
Stevens and Senator Byrd, they have allocated $600 million more on the
defense nuclear side than the House. And we are still short somewhere
between $300 and $400 million for the water projects. So many of you
Senators know that your water projects could not be accepted.
We understand there are some new projects that have been new for 5
years, maybe some for 7. It is awful to still call them new, but they
have not been started, so we call them new, and we cannot fund them. We
are going to try to get some additional resources because every
subcommittee is being helped along. If we can, we can do better when we
come back.
But I want to just share a couple things that I think everybody
should know.
There are two huge problems that exist with reference to our nuclear
weapons activities and personnel and physical plant--where they live
and work and do the kinds of things that keep us up there, where we can
certify to the President of the United States, from these three nuclear
labs, that our weapons are safe and will do what they are supposed to
do. These lab directors--civilians--certify that based on what they
have in their laboratories.
To give you an example of how bad off we are on physical plant, I
just want to cite to you a situation that you would find unbelievable
at Y-12 over at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
I say to the Presiding Officer, part of that is nondefense, as you
well know. But part of it is defense and related to nuclear weapons. If
you went there tomorrow and said: The subcommittee that funds this
asked me to come and take a look at one of the big buildings in Y-12
that has some roofing problems, the first thing they would do to you,
Mr. President--especially considering the condition of your scalp,
where you have no protection from hair--they would put a helmet on you
as soon as you walked in this building. Did you know that? A helmet.
And you would say: What's that for? And they would say: Well,
distinguished Senator, it is because if you walk around this building,
the roof falls in on you in pieces. So we don't want to hurt you. Even
though you're not doing anything that is harmful down here in your job,
the roof falls in on you in pieces.
This is a building, owned by the Department of Energy, which does
nuclear deterrent work for the U.S. Government. It is a shame. We are
repairing it. We are putting the money in this year. But just as we do
that, there are 40- and 50- and 60-year-old buildings that are part of
the complex that we still have alive in some of our laboratories, from
the very first Manhattan Project, whenever that was. We have not
rebuilt them.
So scientists are finding it difficult, in today's America, to
continue working at some of our labs. We need a major new program if we
are going to maintain this situation of safe and reliable nuclear
weapons, with whatever number of warheads. We need a program to start
replacing these buildings. Either we are serious about this--we want
the very best for our best scientists--or we do not.
The second thing is there is a huge morale problem among the very
best scientists, who have been with us a long time and know everything
one could know about our nuclear weapons. There is a serious problem
that is objectively recorded that says the young brilliant scientists
coming out of our schools with Ph.D.s and post-docs are coming to the
laboratories in smaller and smaller numbers per year when we go out to
try to encourage them to come. In fact, it is tremendously off this
year.
The morale problem is so bad that the superscientists are beginning
to quit. They are being offered an enhanced retirement program by the
University of California. The professors and the university want this
program because the University has too many senior professors. They
need to tenure more new professors. But when this University program
comes along it applies to the great scientists, too, at our
laboratories.
There is a morale problem built around the FBI and Justice Department
from this last episode at Los Alamos, making a whole group of
scientists in one of the most secret, most sophisticated, most
important operations in nuclear weaponry in America feel as though they
are criminals. They just do not appreciate this. They do not like that.
Some of them have been there 35 years. They just do not like the FBI
treating them all like criminals or even suggesting that, as patriotic
scientists, they ought to take their lie detectors and be treated as if
there is some criminal in their midst. Frankly, some have decided they
are just not going to do that.
I do not know where that ends up, but I submit it ought to end up
soon for those who are threatened by prosecution from that last episode
of a hard drive being found behind some kind of a multipurpose machine.
If there is no evidence of spying and no evidence of distributing
information, they ought to get on with this. They ought to get on with
it. They ought to even talk to some of these scientists, who have been
working for us 30, 40 years, about their attorney's fees, because every
one of them has been looked at, and told: You might be the one we're
looking for. It couldn't be all of them.
When you put that kind of thing out, it labels everybody in a
national laboratory. It includes our most patriotic nuclear physicist,
who is one of the greatest design people in all of nuclear history. You
are telling him: We are not quite sure about all this, but you may be
the one, you could go to jail for 24 months--or whatever number is
used. There is no spying. So why don't we get on with it? I have not
said this publicly, but I thought I would use this opportunity tonight.
It is serious business. Did you know that we keep saying the only
thing the Soviet Union is doing well, in spite of their economic
depression and all the rest, is to maintain a pretty adequate and
sophisticated nuclear delivery system? I could spend the evening
telling you about the difference between the two.
They can maintain their weapons much easier than we can keep ours,
because they make nuclear weapons differently. We make them
sophisticated, complicated, and that is part of their greatness. They
make them simple, robust, and re-make them very often, like every 10
years. They are not as worried about us. We keep them for many years,
and then we try to prove they will last longer with this new program we
are funding called the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
That is my little summary. There is much more to talk about. I
thought it would be good tonight to put in perspective the significance
of this bill. It is not just for the harbors of America. It is for
those laboratories and plants that harbor the scientists, the manpower,
and the equipment to keep our nuclear weapons on the right path. That
is pretty important stuff, it seems to me.
My job is to make sure everybody at least understands part of it, so
they will help us get out of the dilemma we are in and have a much more
robust, much more positive atmosphere around these laboratories soon.
[[Page S8177]]
In conclusion, there is a new man in charge. We ought to be hopeful.
General Gordon has been put in charge of this under the new law which
you helped us with, I say to the Presiding Officer--and many did--which
put one person in charge of the nuclear weapons aspects at the DOE. We
are so fortunate we got a four-star general, CIA oriented, Sandia Lab-
trained individual who in retirement took this job. If it is going to
be fixed, he will fix it.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Amendment No. 4105, withdrawn
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
2 minutes and at the end of that time to withdraw my amendment, if
there is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Bond, as well as Senator Reid and representatives from
Senator Daschle's staff.
We just had a floor conversation about section 103, which has been
the subject of great debate over the last several days. We are, as I
said, close to at least common ground on the floor, but I do not
believe we are at a point where we can put language in the bill to
solve the problem between the administration and the committee. It is
my heartfelt intention to work with Senator Bond, Senator Domenici, and
Senator Reid to try to do that.
This is an important bill. We don't want to go through and veto, have
a return of the bill, if we can work it out. I hope we can. But I don't
believe my amendment, in and of itself, is going to solve that problem
this evening. Instead, I would like to, at the end of my remarks, ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and pledge between now and
the conference and thereafter to work with all of the principals
involved to see if we can work out the important question about the
future of the Missouri River and the debate that took place both
yesterday and today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No.
4105.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Illinois and my
friend from Missouri, I appreciate very much, as I am sure Senator
Domenici does, resolving this temporarily at this time. Hopefully, the
temporary delay will allow us, by the time we get to conference, to
have a solution to the problem which will allow all parties to be
satisfied. I appreciate very much Senator Bond, who is a veteran in
State and national politics, understanding the quandary we are in
tonight. I say the same to the Senator from Illinois, who is the
epitome of a good legislator.
Senator Domenici and I will do everything we can, before conference
and in conference, to try to resolve this matter finally. We recognize
there is a veto threat on this bill, so it is in our interest to try to
work something out also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might say to both Senators, I very
much appreciate their efforts. I think while they were talking, I was
expressing to anyone who wanted to listen my heartfelt concerns about
this bill in terms of the future of our nuclear weapons.
It would not be good if we wasted a year operating under last year's
levels or operating under some kind of a veto. I join in not knowing
what the veto threat really means. Nonetheless, it would be marvelous
if we could work it out to their satisfaction so in some way the issue
were resolved.
There is going to be a year hiatus, one way or another, when nothing
is going to happen. I don't think the President is going to be able to
deny us that. But I think if we worked it out where everybody
understood and maybe we could convince him that that is a good idea--
that means his council on environmental quality and others--it would be
a very good thing for the United States. I hope it works out.
I compliment Senator Bond this evening and earlier on this bill. I
think he made a very strong case. It is pretty obvious this is a
difficult issue. As he knows, I have been on his side. I have similar
problems with endangered species and other things out in the West. We
don't have enough water. All our rivers combined don't equal the
Missouri River. I think that is a pretty fair statement--maybe even
half the flow for all of ours that we have. We don't quite understand
how the Missouri River is a problem. We see it as something fantastic.
One time we tried to get a little bit of it, take it west, and Scoop
Jackson stood in the way, I guess, from the State of Washington.
Anyway, I thank the Senator for what he has done. There is not going
to be a vote tonight on that issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator
from Illinois, with whom I think we have reached an agreement that
there should not be a spring rise in 2001.
I believe there are some areas that go beyond the existing section
103 on which we might be able to satisfy some of the legitimate
concerns raised by the minority leader. He was concerned about the
possibility of cutting off debate, cutting off all consideration of
other issues relating to the Missouri River manual. That was not our
intent. If we can add language that will clarify that, maybe it will at
least satisfy some of these problems.
Also, we have a Governor and we have other congressional Members from
States affected who might want to communicate with the White House
about the workability of this.
To the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nevada, I
appreciate the difficulties they faced. They have both been most
accommodating on these issues. We don't want to make life more
difficult for them. The Senator from New Mexico may not have river
problems, but he has had controlled burn problems. We want to make sure
we don't have a controlled flood problem.
I am delighted we don't have to ask our colleagues to vote again on
this issue tonight. I think there may be further clarification that
might satisfy some of the concerns that were raised, certainly by the
minority leader. I will be happy to work with them.
On behalf of the State of Missouri and the people of the State of
Missouri, I express my appreciation to this body for making it clear
that there will not be a controlled flood on the Missouri River or
abnormally low flows during the summer of 2001, the year to which this
appropriations bill applies.
As always, we are more than happy to work with the committee leaders
in trying to resolve these problems in the future. I thank my
colleagues for their understanding of the importance of this issue to
the people I represent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe I have a unanimous consent
request pending to withdraw amendment No. 4105.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Amendment No. 4109, As Modified
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 4109, filed
with the clerk. It is my understanding that will be in the manager's
package. I do not, therefore, call it to the floor of the Senate at
this time.
I do wish for a moment to discuss with my colleagues the merits of
this legislation and to thank the Senator from New Mexico and the
Senator from Nevada for their cooperation and their assistance.
Within this legislation is $27 million to deepen and widen the main
channel of the Delaware River. To the city of Philadelphia, the city of
Camden, and the States of New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, this
is of some considerable importance. The Delaware River is a major
artery of maritime commerce. I have always supported, and I will always
support that river being efficient and available to maritime traffic,
but there are serious problems.
When this legislation was considered in the House, my colleague,
Representative Andrews from southern New Jersey, with the support of
Congressman Kasich, offered an amendment to strike this funding. I will
not do that tonight because I believe, first, the votes are not
available and, second, I still hope the general problems with this
dredging can be solved.
[[Page S8178]]
The problems are relatively simple. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has proposed to dredge 33 million yards of material from the Delaware
River. Three States will benefit by this dredging. Primarily the
benefits will go to Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania, simply
based on the size of the economic activity in the region by these
States comparatively. Ten million of these 33 million yards will be
used to replenish beaches in the State of Delaware. Twenty-three
million yards will be placed on prime waterfront property in the State
of New Jersey. Ten million goes to Delaware; 23 million occupies prime
real estate in the State of New Jersey. And although the principal
economic benefits of the dredging are for the city of Philadelphia,
none--I repeat, not an ounce--of the material goes to the State of
Pennsylvania.
Now I recognize we all have to share the burden, and we may not share
the burden equally; it may not be shared proportionally to the economic
benefit. But certainly accepting nothing, while the State of New Jersey
takes the overwhelming majority of the material, cannot be right and it
cannot be fair. Let me make clear that Senator Specter and Senator
Santorum have been remarkably helpful in this matter. They have
understood the inequity. They want the three States to work
cooperatively. I am very grateful to both of them that, while
protecting the interests of their State first and foremost, they have
been good neighbors and have been cooperative.
I believe there are solutions to this problem: Primarily, ironically,
that while this material is being dumped on the shorelines of New
Jersey to our disadvantage, there is an enormous desire by construction
companies and others in land development to have this material
available.
It is a strange and ironic, even tragic, situation. I hope by this
experience, which is also happening in the Port of New York, the Army
Corps of Engineers will begin to understand and learn from the
situation. Contracting companies, land development companies, major
corporations, and communities want this material. Market it, sell it,
use it, but no longer use it as if it is a waste material to be dumped
on valuable real estate, on the unwanted.
Because of that, in my amendment, we reserve $200,000 for the Army
Corps of Engineers to begin actively marketing this material for
private and public projects--from road projects in south Jersey, to the
future expansion of the Philadelphia Airport, to new construction in
Atlantic City, there are willing users, even buyers. This $200,000 can
go a long way to solving this problem. Particularly, I thank Senators
Specter and Santorum for their help and cooperation. Of course, to
Senator Biden, the Senator from New Mexico, and the Senator from
Nevada, I am grateful that this is being put in the managers'
amendment. I thank them for this time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will withhold that. We are within a
few minutes of having the last amendments ready that we have been
working on collectively and collaboratively. Then we will be ready for
final passage very soon.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 4017, 4044, 4059, 4089, 4099, 4110, and 4111, En Bloc
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to add to the list of managers'
agreed-to amendments, all of which are filed and at the desk, starting
with Nos. 4017, 4044, 4059, 4089, 4099, 4110, and 4111.
I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and agreed to
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 4017, 4044, 4059, 4089, 4099, 4110, and 4111)
were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 4017
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
contracts with the city of Loveland, Colorado, to use Colorado-Big
Thompson Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage
of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other
beneficial purposes)
On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
SEC. 2__. USE OF COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT FACILITIES FOR
NONPROJECT WATER.
The Secretary of the Interior may enter into contracts with
the city of Loveland, Colorado, or its Water and Power
Department or any other agency, public utility, or enterprise
of the city, providing for the use of facilities of the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado, under the Act of
February 21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 523), for--
(1) the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject
water originating on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains
for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial
purposes; and
(2) the exchange of water originating on the eastern slope
of the Rocky Mountains for the purposes specified in
paragraph (1), using facilities associated with the Colorado-
Big Thompson Project, Colorado.
____
amendment no. 4044
SECTION 1. FUNDING OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING,
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT.
Section 4(a) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C.
777c(a)), is amended in the second sentence by striking
``2000'' and inserting ``2009''.
____
amendment no. 4059
(Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 for technology development and
demonstration program in Combined Cooling, Heating and Power Technology
Development for Thermal Load Management, District Energy Systems, and
Distributed Generation)
On line 4, page 67, after the word ``Fund:'' Insert the
following:
``Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be made available for
technology development and demonstration program in Combined
Cooling, Heating and Power Technology Development for Thermal
Load Management, District Energy Systems, and Distributed
Generation, based upon natural gas, hydrogen, and renewable
energy technologies. Further, the program is to be carried
out by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory through its Building
Equipment Technology Program.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4089
(Purpose: To set aside funding for participation by the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in the Greater Yellowstone
Energy and Transportation Systems Study)
On page 68, line 15, strike ``expended:'' and insert
``expended, of which $500,000 shall be available for
participation by the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory in the Greater Yellowstone Energy
and Transportation Systems Study:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4099
(Purpose: To extend the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to collect fees through 2005 and improve the administration of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954)
On page 97, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
TITLE __--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Subtitle A--Funding
SEC. __01. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ANNUAL CHARGES.
Section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``September 30,
1999'' and inserting ``September 20, 2005''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or certificate
holder'' after ``licensee''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Aggregate amount of charges.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of the annual
charges collected from all licensees and certificate holders
in a fiscal year shall equal an amount that approximates the
percentages of the budget authority of the Commission for the
fiscal year stated in subparagraph (B), less--
``(i) amounts collected under subsection (b) during the
fiscal year; and
``(ii) amounts appropriated to the Commission from the
Nuclear Waste Fund for the fiscal year.
``(B) Percentages.--The percentages referred to in
subparagraph (A) are--
``(i) 98 percent for fiscal year 2002;
``(ii) 96 percent for fiscal year 2003;
``(iii) 94 percent for fiscal year 2004;
``(iv) 92 percent for fiscal year 2005; and
``(v) 88 percent for fiscal year 2006.''.
SEC. __02. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AUTHORITY OVER
FORMER LICENSEES FOR DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING.
Section 161i. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2201(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (4) to ensure that
[[Page S8179]]
sufficient funds will be available for the decommissioning of
any production or utilization facility licensed under section
103 or 104b., including standards and restrictions governing
the control, maintenance, use, and disbursement by any former
licensee under this Act that has control over any fund for
the decommissioning of the facility''.
SEC. __03. COST RECOVERY FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
Section 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2201(w)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, or which operates any facility
regulated or certified under section 1701 or 1702,'';
(2) by striking ``483a'' and inserting ``9701''; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and, commencing October 1, 2000, prescribe and
collect from any other Government agency any fee, charge, or
price that the Commission may require in accordance with
section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, or any other
law''.
Subtitle B--Other Provisions
SEC. __11. OFFICE LOCATION.
Section 23 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2033) is amended by striking ``; however, the Commission
shall maintain an office for the service of process and
papers within the District of Columbia''.
SEC. __12. LICENSE PERIOD.
Section 103c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2133(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``c. Each such'' and inserting the
following:
``c. License Period.--
``(1) In general.--Each such''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Combined licenses.--In the case of a combined
construction and operating license issued under section
185(b), the initial duration of the license may not exceed 40
years from the date on which the Commission finds, before
operation of the facility, that the acceptance criteria
required by section 185(b) are met.''.
SEC. __13. ELIMINATION OF NRC ANTITRUST REVIEWS.
Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2135) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Applicability.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to an
application for a license to construct or operate a
utilization facility under section 103 or 104(b) that is
pending on or that is filed on or after the date of enactment
of this subsection.''.
SEC. __14. GIFT ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Section 161g. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201(g)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)'';
(2) by striking ``this Act;'' and inserting ``this Act;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) accept, hold, utilize, and administer gifts of real
and personal property (not including money) for the purpose
of aiding or facilitating the work of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.''.
(b) Criteria for Acceptance of Gifts.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 170C. CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS.
``(a) In General.--The Commission shall establish written
criteria for determining whether to accept gifts under
section 161g.(2).
``(b) Considerations.--The criteria under subsection (a)
shall take into consideration whether the acceptance of the
gift would compromise the integrity of, or the appearance of
the integrity of, the Commission or any officer or employee
of the Commission.''.
(2) Conforming and technical amendments.--The table of
contents of chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 170C. Criteria for acceptance of gifts.''.
SEC. __15. CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) (as amended by section
__14(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in section 161, by striking subsection k. and inserting
the following:
``(k) authorize to carry a firearm in the performance of
official duties such of its members, officers, and employees,
such of the employees of its contractors and subcontractors
(at any tier) engaged in the protection of property under the
jurisdiction of the United States located at facilities owned
by or contracted to the United States or being transported to
or from such facilities, and such of the employees of persons
licensed or certified by the Commission (including employees
of contractors of licensees or certificate holders) engaged
in the protection of facilities owned or operated by a
Commission licensee or certificate holder that are designated
by the Commission or in the protection of property of
significance to the common defense and security located at
facilities owned or operated by a Commission licensee or
certificate holder or being transported to or from such
facilities, as the Commission considers necessary in the
interest of the common defense and security;'' and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 170D. CARRYING OF FIREARMS.
``(a) Authority To Make Arrest.--
``(1) In general.--A person authorized under section 161k.
to carry a firearm may, while in the performance of, and in
connection with, official duties, arrest an individual
without a warrant for any offense against the United States
committed in the presence of the person or for any felony
under the laws of the United States if the person has a
reasonable ground to believe that the individual has
committed or is committing such a felony.
``(2) Limitation.--An employee of a contractor or
subcontractor or of a Commission licensee or certificate
holder (or a contractor of a licensee or certificate holder)
authorized to make an arrest under paragraph (1) may make an
arrest only--
``(A) when the individual is within, or is in flight
directly from, the area in which the offense was committed;
and
``(B) in the enforcement of--
``(i) a law regarding the property of the United States in
the custody of the Department of Energy, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, or a contractor of the Department of
Energy or Nuclear Regulatory Commission or a licensee or
certificate holder of the Commission;
``(ii) a law applicable to facilities owned or operated by
a Commission licensee or certificate holder that are
designated by the Commission under section 161k.;
``(iii) a law applicable to property of significance to the
common defense and security that is in the custody of a
licensee or certificate holder or a contractor of a licensee
or certificate holder of the Commission; or
``(iv) any provision of this Act that subjects an offender
to a fine, imprisonment, or both.
``(3) Other authority.--The arrest authority conferred by
this section is in addition to any arrest authority under
other law.
``(4) Guidelines.--The Secretary and the Commission, with
the approval of the Attorney General, shall issue guidelines
to implement section 161k. and this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--The table of
contents of chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) (as amended by section
__14(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 170D. Carrying of firearms.''.
SEC. __16. UNAUTHORIZED INTRODUCTION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
Section 229a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2278a(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or
subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or to
certification by the Commission under this Act or any other
Act'' before the period at the end.
SEC. __17. SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL.
Section 236a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2284(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``storage facility'' and
inserting ``storage, treatment, or disposal facility'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``such a utilization facility'' and
inserting ``a utilization facility licensed under this Act'';
and
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``facility licensed'' and inserting ``or
nuclear fuel fabrication facility licensed or certified'';
and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) any production, utilization, waste storage, waste
treatment, waste disposal, uranium enrichment, or nuclear
fuel fabrication facility subject to licensing or
certification under this Act during construction of the
facility, if the person knows or reasonably should know that
there is a significant possibility that the destruction or
damage caused or attempted to be caused could adversely
affect public health and safety during the operation of the
facility.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 4110
(Purpose: To redesignate the Interstate Sanitation Commission as the
Interstate Environmental Commission, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
AND DISTRICT.
(a) Interstate Sanitation Commission.--
(1) In general.--The district known as the ``Interstate
Sanitation Commission'', established by article III of the
Tri-State Compact described in the Resolution entitled, ``A
Joint Resolution granting the consent of Congress to the
States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to enter into
a compact for the creation of the Interstate Sanitation
District and the establishment of the Interstate Sanitation
Commission'', approved August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 933), is
redesignated as the ``Interstate Environmental Commission''.
(2) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Interstate Sanitation Commission shall be deemed to be a
reference to the Interstate Environmental Commission.
(b) Interstate Sanitation District.--
(1) In general.--The district known as the ``Interstate
Sanitation District'', established by article II of the Tri-
State Compact described in the Resolution entitled, ``A Joint
Resolution granting the consent of Congress
[[Page S8180]]
to the States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to
enter into a compact for the creation of the Interstate
Sanitation District and the establishment of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission'', approved August 27, 1935 (49 Stat.
932), is redesignated as the ``Interstate Environmental
District''.
(2) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
Interstate Sanitation District shall be deemed to be a
reference to the Interstate Environmental District.
____
amendment no. 4111
On page 68, line 21 after the word ``program'' insert the
following:
``; Provided Further, That $12,500,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available for Molecular Nuclear
Medicine.''
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.
Amendment No. 4041, As Modified
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send about four amendments
that have been modified and agreed to.
I send amendment No. 4041, as modified, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for Mr. Grams,
proposes an amendment numbered 4041.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a
report on impacts of a state-imposed limit on the quantity of spent
nuclear fuel that may be stored onsite)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3__. REPORT ON IMPACTS OF A STATE-IMPOSED LIMIT ON THE
QUANTITY OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL THAT MAY BE
STORED ONSITE.
(a) Secretary of Energy.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
submit to Congress a report containing a description of all
alternatives that are available to the Northern States Power
Company and the Federal Government to allow the Company to
continue to operate the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant until the end of the term of the license issued to the
Company by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in view of a
law of the State of Minnesota that limits the quantity of
spent nuclear fuel that may be stored at the Plant, assuming
that existing Federal and State laws remain unchanged.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield any time I might have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4041), as modified, was agreed to.
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.
Amendments Nos. 4060, 4087, 4091, 4108, 4109, and 4113, En Bloc, As
Modified
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send amendments that are at the desk
that have been modified: Amendment No. 4060, as modified; modification
of amendment No. 4087; modification of amendment No. 4091, all of which
are printed and at the desk; amendment No. 4108 as modified; amendment
No. 4109, as modified; and amendment No. 4113, as modified.
I send them to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be
considered and agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are
considered and agreed to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 4060, 4087, 4091, 4108, 4109, and 4113) were
agreed to en bloc, as follows:
amendment no. 4060, as modified
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to promote or advertise any
public tour of a facility or project of the Department of Energy)
On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
SEC. 3___. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PROMOTE OR ADVERTISE
PUBLIC TOURS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds made available under this title shall be used
to promote or advertise any public tour of Yucca Mountain
facility of the Department of Energy.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a
public notice that is required by statute or regulation.
____
amendment no. 4087, as modified
(Purpose: To extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation
and irrigation water contractors in Wyoming and Nebraska that receive
water from the Glendo Reservoir)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section and renumber any remaining sections accordingly:
``SEC. ___. AMENDMENT TO IRRIGATION PROJECT CONTRACT
EXTENSION ACT OF 1998.
(a) Section 2(a) of the Irrigation Project Contract
Extension Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-293, is amended by
striking the date ``December 31, 2000'', and inserting in
lieu thereof the date ``December 31, 2003.'';
(b) Subsection 2(b) of the Irrigation Project Contract
Extension Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-293, is amended by:
(1) striking the phrase ``not to go beyond December 31,
2001'', and inserting in lieu thereof the phrase ``not to go
beyond December 31, 2003''; and
(2) striking the phrase ``terminates prior to December 31,
2000'', and inserting in lieu thereof ``terminates prior to
December 31, 2003.''
____
amendment no. 4091, as modified
(Purpose: To provide funding for a flood control project in Minnesota)
On page 52, line 2, insert the following before the period:
``Provide further, That $500,000 of the funding
appropriated herein shall be used to undertake the Hay Creek,
Roseau County, Minnesota Flood Control Project under Section
206 funding.
amendment no. 4108, as modified
(Purpose: To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to develop standards for evaluating dredged material for
remediation purposes at, and to provide funding for a nonocean
alternative remediation demonstration project for dredged material at,
the Historic Area Remediation Site, New Jersey)
On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 1. APPROPRIATION FOR ALTERNATIVE NONOCEAN REMEDIATION
SITES.
The Secretary of the Army may use up to $1,000,000 of
available funds to carry out a nonocean alternative
remediation demonstration project for dredged material at the
Historic Area Remediation Site.
amendment no. 4109, as modified
(Purpose: To set aside funds to establish a program for direct
marketing of certain dredged material to public agencies and private
entities)
On page 53, line 8, after ``facilities'', insert the
following: ``, and of which $150,000 of funds made available
for the Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, shall be
made available for the Philadelphia District of the Corps of
Engineers to establish a program to allow the direct
marketing of dredged material from the Delaware River
Deepening Project to public agencies and private entities''.
____
amendment no. 4113, as modified
(Purpose: To set aside funding for an ethanol demonstration project)
On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, and
of which $100,000 shall be made available to Western Biomass
Energy LLC for an ethanol demonstration project:''.
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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does Senator Reid have anything further
to add?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the
chairman of the Budget Committee and to the chairman of this
subcommittee for the great work he has done. He has been a pleasure to
work with.
I also express my appreciation to your very excellent staff. David
Gwaltney and Lashawnda Smith have been tremendous to work with. My
staff complimented them through me on many occasions.
I also want to thank Steve Bell, chief of staff; and Drew Willison
has done such a brilliant job, assisted by your detailee from the Army
Corps of Engineers from Vicksburg; and Elizabeth Blevins of the
subcommittee staff.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have already mentioned today and on
another occasion the importance of this bill. I thank all Senators for
cooperating. We did our very best on the numerous amendments, and we
will do our very best in conference. Everyone knows we are very short
of money on the nondefense side. If we can get some assistance from the
appropriations committee, we will be able to help solve many of these
problems in conference.
[[Page S8181]]
In the meantime, I want to say to Senator Reid that it is always a
pleasure to work with him. We will go to conference and do the best we
can.
I want to thank Drew Willison of Senator Reid's staff. He is a
tremendous asset, and we very much like working with him.
I thank the Senator for his thanks to the two members of my staff.
They are truly professional, and I am very grateful to them.
Mr. President, we have nothing further. I ask for the yeas and nays
on final passage of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
houghton lake in michigan
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year
2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development, I wonder if
the Senator from Nevada would answer a question about funding for a
serious problem with Houghton Lake in Michigan.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would be pleased to offer any information
about this bill to my friend from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Is it correct that the Committee has
provided $6,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to
States program and that only $200,000 of this funding is currently
obligated to a specific project?
Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I would ask if the Senator would be willing to consider in
conference a request of $75,000 to conduct a comprehensive water
management study for Houghton Lake, MI. The Eurasian milfoil is a non-
indigenous water plant that floats on the water's surface and forms
large mats of plants, which lower the oxygen levels in the water below
them, killing fish and making passage by boat very difficult. A large
amount of the lake's surface has been infested by the milfoil.
Mr. REID. I understand that this matter is of great importance to the
Senator from Michigan and the people he represents. I can assure my
friend that I will attempt to provide that funding in Conference.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the courtesy of the
distinguished Senator from Nevada.
national synchrotron light source
Mr. SCHUMER. I would first like to thank Senator Reid and Senator
Domenici for their leadership and continued funding of science and
research facilities.
I would like to take a moment to engage my colleague in a colloquy.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator for his kind words and would be happy
to engage in a colloquy with him.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, due to severe budget constraints in the
Fiscal Year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations, additional funding
has not been made available for the National Synchrotron Light Source
at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The President's FY2001 Budget
included $3 million for upgrades and enhancements to the NSLS at
Brookhaven National Laboratory under the Basic Energy Science (BES)
account. The NSLS facility at Brookhaven, bringing 2,300 scientists
annually is used for a whole host of issues, ranging from the first
images of the AIDS virus attaching itself to a human cell; landmark
progress in understanding the structure of the ribosome, the most
complex component in each living cell; pivotal work on the Lyme disease
bacterium, leading to a vaccine; and pioneering studies on hepatitis.
These additional funds will allow Brookhaven to begin construction of
two experimental stations and to hire additional staff members, which
are essential in handling the growing demand of this facility.
I ask the Senator from Nevada that if additional funds are made
available for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, that the
enhancements to the NSLS be added to the current funding for
Brookhaven.
Mr. REID. I agree with the Senator from New York that the additional
funding for the NSLS is a high priority and the enhancements will allow
more people to research and develop experiments that will effect the
future of our world. Unfortunately funding constraints have prohibited
the Committee from including these essential funds. When additional
resources become available, we will give the NSLS priority
consideration under additional science funding.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for helping with this
priority issue.
the clinton river spillway
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year
2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development.
I thank the Committee for including an $100,000 appropriation for the
Clinton River Spillway for an evaluation to determine whether the
Clinton River Spillway in Michigan has a design deficiency requiring
remediation.
During the 1950's, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
constructed a dam on the Clinton River and a spillway to alleviate
flooding. Since the completion of the project, debris has built up at
the confluence of the Clinton River and spillway.
I agree with the Committee that a study must be conducted, however I
ask that the study include an analysis of the cause of the debris build
up as well as a determination as to whether or not there is a design
deficiency. This is a continuing problem in this river basin and the
Corps needs to examine the cause of the problem in order to devise a
long term solution.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan is correct. The cause of this
problem needs to be determined and the Corps needs to include causation
as a part of this study. I assure the Senator that we will interpret
the study to include a causation analysis.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
the rouge river in southfield michigan
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year
2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development, I wonder if
the distinguished Senator from Nevada would answer a question regarding
Emergency streambank and shoreline protection--sec. 14--funds?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would be pleased to offer any information
about this bill to my friend from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Is it correct that the Committee has
included $8,000,000 for section 14, Emergency streambank and shoreline
erosion protection?
Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would also ask if the
Senator would be willing to consider in conference a request of $40,000
for the Rouge River in Southfield, Michigan. A large slope area on the
banks of the Rouge River has collapsed and is currently threatening
public infrastructure. This area must be stabilized and restored before
winter sets in to prevent damage to the sanitary sewer and to eliminate
the threat of pollution to the Rouge River. This is a very urgent
project.
Mr. REID. I understand that this matter is of great importance to the
Senator from Michigan and the people he represents. I can assure my
friend that I will carefully consider his request in Conference.
Mr. LEVIN. As always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished
Senator from Nevada.
THE BRUNSWICK HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT IN BRUNSWICK, GEORGIA
Mr. CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the
current situation of Brunswick Harbor, an issue which is very important
to me. I hope that I can engage the Chairman and the Ranking Member of
the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee in a floor discussion of this
key matter.
The Brunswick Harbor deepening project, which was authorized in the
1999 Water Resources Develop Act, has received a favorable report from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has met all required cost-benefit
and environmental reviews. Preconstruction engineering and design are
in the final stages. In order to keep this project on schedule, it is
necessary to complete several administrative requirements before the
deepening project begins. Namely, the Corps of Engineers and the Non-
Federal sponsor must initiate Project Cooperation Agreement
discussions, complete the final project design, and develop contract
award documents. I have requested a modest funding level of $255,000 to
carry out these tasks. Unfortunately, no funds were provided in the
House or Senate bills.
[[Page S8182]]
I believe it is important to take action on this issue immediately.
Navigation channel restrictions in Brunswick have cost shippers and
consumers a significant amount in lost revenue. The current controlled
depth of 30 feet subjects 57 percent of the vessels to tidal delays,
sub-optimal loading and inefficient port rotations. In fact, it is
estimated that these delays result in an annual loss of $6.65 million
in revenue. We can avoid incurring these losses another year by
providing nominal funding to complete the required administrative
processes.
I would echo the remarks of the Committee's report language which
notes the importance of our waterways and harbors to our national
transportation system. The Port of Brunswick plays an integral role in
supporting the maritime transportation arm of our national
infrastructure. Additionally, I would say that the Port of Brunswick is
very much an intermodal facility. Brunswick is well-connected to our
nation's system of highways and railroads, providing increased
opportunities for commercial transportation.
I will go one step further in stating that the Port of Brunswick is
not only important to our national transportation system, but it is
important to our national defense. Located between Savannah and
Jacksonville, Brunswick is readily accessible to the numerous military
installations in the region. As a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and as a former Army Officer, I know very well the need to
move troops, tanks, and supplies as rapidly as possible. During a war,
more than 95 percent of all the equipment and supplies needed to
sustain the U.S. military are carried by sea. The potential for the
Port of Brunswick to play a major role in the movement of military
cargo must not be overlooked, nor must it be hindered by administrative
delays.
I understand the tight budget restraints the Subcommittee faces this
year, and I respect the fact that there will be no ``new start''
projects appropriated. However, we are not attempting to start dredging
in Brunswick. We are simply trying to complete the administrative
requirements which are necessary prior to such action. I appeal to my
colleagues to help me keep the Brunswick Harbor deepening project on
schedule through the inclusion of funds in Conference with the House.
In fact, I believe we can proceed with the Project Cooperation
Agreement, the final project design, and the development of contract
awards if the Conference Committee were to simply include favorable
report language to this effect. I thank my distinguished colleagues,
and I yield the floor.
Mr. MILLER. I, too, would like to offer a few comments relative to
the Brunswick Harbor deepening project. Although I have been a member
of the Senate for only a short while, I certainly understand the
importance of this project and I fully support the inclusion of funds
to keep it on schedule. Brunswick handles cargoes important to the
region such as grain, gypsum, limestone, perlite, potash, oats, wood
pulp, and motor vehicles. As the region has grown, so has the size of
the vessels calling on the Port. I am very concerned that if we further
delay the deepening project, we run the risk of hindering economic
growth. This concern is underscored by the fact that the number of
operational delays has increased by 36 percent since 1984. I believe
that it is essential to stay the course and keep the project on
schedule, and I join my colleague in urging the inclusion of $255,000
to support the administrative tasks which must be completed this year.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senators from Georgia. I share your concern for
the funding of this important project, and I assure you that I will
give this project due consideration in conference with the House.
Should additional funds become available, as I hope they will, the
Brunswick Harbor Deepening Project will be one of my chief priorities,
and I will support the inclusion of the report language sought by the
Georgia Senators.
bonneville power administration
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from
Washington, Senator Gorton, on the floor. Our committee report on this
bill includes language he recommended relative to the particular
challenges the Bonneville Power Administration status as a Federal
agency presents to the BPA in its possible participation in a regional
transmission organization. Our report acknowledges that certain steps
may need to be taken to mitigate impacts on BPA employees, and that
legislation may be necessary. I understand that the Senator from
Washington would like to comment further on this issue.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I appreciate his
interest in this matter and his willingness to consider legislative
remedies, should they become necessary. I only want to make clear for
the record that if administrative remedies are insufficient to protect
the rights and benefits of BPA employees should they move into a new
regional transmission organization, then any legislative remedy that
might be proposed will be developed in full consultation with other
stakeholders in the region and other participants in the RTO. Since any
legislation that may be developed may very well be carried as an
administrative provision in this bill, I wanted to be sure the manager
knew that this is my intent.
Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate that elaboration, Mr. President, and look
forward to working with Senator Gorton on this issue of great interest
to his constituents.
fernald environmental management project
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico, and floor manager of the pending bill, Senator
Domenici in a colloquy.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to respond to the distinguished
Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator. Senator, last year we discussed the
tremendous progress being made at the Fernald Site in my home state of
Ohio. It is in many ways a model of what can be done to safely and
effectively clean-up a former weapons production site left from the
cold war. The Fernald site is poised to be the first major DOE site to
be cleaned-up and in effect `taken off the books.' Wouldn't the Senator
agree that this effort deserves both our appreciation and support?
Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely, I concur with the Senator.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chairman. In the event that additional
resources become available, I ask the chairman to help secure
additional resources for the Fernald project to ensure that the pace of
closing the site by 2006 is assured. I further ask the Chairman if he
would support my call to the DOE to make an expeditious decision
concerning the site contractor. There is no competition--the site is
running smoothly--let's give them the resources they need and
demonstrate that at least one project can be completed on budget and on
schedule without any further delays.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Committee once again recognizes the outstanding
contributions of the entire effort at the Fernald site-workers,
community leaders, and regulators. We will try to support the Senators
request and encourage the DOE to make an expeditious decision
concerning the pending contract.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly engage Senator
Domenici, Chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee
on an important energy issue.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to oblige the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, I would like to
thank Senator Domenici for his hard work on this important bill. In
particular I would like to thank him for his actions in response to
requests by many, including this Senator, on behalf of renewable
energy. These funds will go far to help in many areas of science, the
environment, national security and the economy. On a related topic, I
wonder if I could briefly discuss the Consortium for Plant
Biotechnology Research (CPBR) with the Chairman.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would inform the Senator from Colorado that I am
aware of CPBR's work and would be happy to address the Senator on this
topic.
Mr. ALLARD. As I'm sure the Chairman knows, research that has been
undertaken by CPBR's member universities, including the University of
Colorado, in conjunction with the Department of Energy has led to
improved biomass energy technologies that help develop a competitive
biomass-based energy industry and a safer, cleaner environment.
[[Page S8183]]
Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the words of the Senator from Colorado and
would note that New Mexico State University is an important partner in
the consortium. Unfortunately, due to our subcommittee allocation,
there was not enough room in the Senate mark to cover many good
programs and projects.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his time and
would encourage him to consider the important work of CPBR when this
bill moves to conference with the other body.
general investigations activities of the corps of engineers
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee regarding the General Investigations Activities of the
Corps of Engineers.
The Corps of Engineers is authorized to repair the Goshen Dam/
Spillway system on Lake Merriweather in Rockbridge, Virginia. This dam
is classified as a ``high hazard'' dam according to the Federal Dam
Safety Guidelines because its failure threatens the downstream
community of Wilson Springs. The Corps has completed a Technical Report
on the engineering and design specifications for the project's repairs
and upgrades.
The House passed bill includes $150,000 for further planning and
design activities for this important project. I call this situation to
the attention of the Chairman and respectfully request that he give
favorable consideration to this matter in conference.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Warner for bringing this matter to may
attention. I am aware that this facility is utilized by the National
Capital Area Boy Scouts organization. It is important that the non-
federal sponsor finance their share of the costs of these safety
repairs and I am aware that the Commonwealth of Virginia may become the
non-federal sponsor.
I know how important this project is to the Senator and I will give
it full consideration during Conference.
delta regional authority
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Mississippi River Delta possesses
many common characteristics and unique problems throughout the 7-state
alluvial floodplain which it encompasses. The subcommittee report
includes funding for a new Delta Regional Authority, an economic
development effort aimed at extending special help to an area of the
country that I have long considered to be a special part of my state
and this nation.
I am concerned that many of the real needs in the region never feel
the full impact of federal assistance efforts because of the centrally-
planned and bureaucratic delivery systems which accompanied some of
these initiatives. Because of this history, the people of the region
have become skeptical about new election year promises of federal
assistance.
I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee
for clarification of the intent and purpose of this funding. First, how
is the Delta defined for purpose of extending this proposed federal
assistance?
Mr. DOMENICI. The provisions included in the bill do not specifically
define the Delta.
Mr. COCHRAN. The historical Delta area is the Mississippi Alluvial
Valley, which includes only small portions of Tennessee and Kentucky,
the typically flat and gently-sloping land of eastern Louisiana and
Arkansas, Northwest Mississippi, the boot-heel of Missouri, and the
Cache River lowlands of Illinois. Is it the Committee's intent that the
Delta, for purposes of the federal assistance in this appropriation
measure, be defined as that land which underlies those communities,
counties, parishes and part-counties, which are geographically
delineated by the topography commonly recognized as the Delta alluvial
floodplain?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. It is my understanding that this is the area
suffering most in terms of economic distress.
Mr. COCHRAN. As the distinguished chairman knows, the Delta suffers
from an acute need for infrastructure development that inhibits
economic growth.
In the Report to Congress by the Lower Mississippi Delta Development
Commission, which was co-chaired by then-Governor Bill Clinton of
Arkansas, the Commission stressed that the ten-year goal of any plan to
assist the Delta should emphasize, and I quote from page 92 of this
report, ``every Delta resident will have access to adequate water and
sewer, fire protection, flood control, roads, streets, and bridges, to
improve the quality of life and provide for economic growth and
development.''
Although there are many very important needs in the Mississippi River
Delta region which are unique to that area, better roads, educational
enhancements, protection from floods, natural resource conservation and
equipment and instruction support for workforce training ought to be
the primary focus of this funding.
There are existing and proven delivery systems for these purpose
which have the benefit of local planning and priority-setting by the
people who reside in the Delta.
Is it the intent of this committee that this founding be utilized in
this way for these purposes?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, Senator, In fact, it is the interest of the
subcommittee to bring this federal support to the Mississippi River
Delta region in the most timely and cost-efficient manner. It is my
understanding that much like in your own State of Mississippi, the
other six states have similar delivery systems in place through their
local community colleges, universities, departments of transportation,
and water resource agencies that should be used as the primary vehicles
through which these funds are properly administered to provide the
greatest regional impact.
Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Chairman's response. Delta communities
in my state have been unable to provide their local cost-share for
rural water and sewer projects, road and railroad improvement projects,
drainage and flood protection projects, and other developments that are
fundamental to a viable, local economy because they simply cannot
afford the match. Unlike more affluent areas which can take full
advantage of the federal cost-sharing programs such as this, the Delta
typically lags behind even further. Is it the Chairman's view that
these funds could be used as a local match for other federal programs?
Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with your view that these funds could utilized
for the type of infrastructure support you have described. If
distressed communities in the Mississippi River Delta region are
struggling to qualify for federal assistance due to their inability to
provide the local match for infrastructure improvements, I think it
should be one of the highest priorities for these funds to be applied
in this way.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my friend from New Mexico and I appreciate your
support for the use of this funding through existing delivery systems
to provide needed assistance to the Delta.
federal power marketing administrations and regional transmission
organizations
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee and the senior Senator from Washington to clarify the
intent of legislative language in Section 319 of H.R. 4733.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to discuss this
provision with my friend, the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. GORTON. As would I, Mr. President.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one of the Power Marketing Administrations,
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is working with other
transmission-owning electric utilities to file a document with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in October evidencing an intent to
form a regional transmission organization in the Northwest. It is my
understanding that this language would give BPA the authority to engage
in the activities necessary to making that filing. Is that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho is correct.
Mr. GORTON. I concur, Mr. President.
Mr. CRAIG. It is also my understanding that the Department of Energy
is currently of the opinion that no further legislation would be needed
in order for BPA to actually participate in a Northwest regional
transmission organization. However, issues may
[[Page S8184]]
arise as a result of the October filing, or otherwise, that would
necessitate further legislation before BPA participates in the
Northwest regional transmission organization. If such legislation is
necessary, would the Chairman and the Senator from Washington be
willing to work with me to enact it expeditiously, so as to not delay
the actual operation of the Northwest regional transmission
organization?
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to work with the Senator from Idaho,
the Senator from Washington, and other members of the Northwest
delegation to assure expeditious enactment of any such necessary
legislation.
Mr. GORTON. I too, am committed to prompt enactment of such
legislation, if needed. I think it is crucial that Congress facilitate,
rather than impede or delay, the formation of a regional transmission
organization for the Northwest.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senators.
channel deepening
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the Fiscal Year
2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill prepared on behalf of myself,
Senator Moynihan, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Torricelli, that
would dedicate $53 million and $5 million, respectively, for the Kill
van Kull and Arthur Kill channel deepening projects in the Port of New
York and New Jersey. These are the amounts that the President's Budget
requests for the vital navigation projects. I will withhold from
offering the amendment at this time.
I would just like to ask the Chairman and ranking Member, who are
working hard to stay within their allocations, if they agree that the
redevelopment of the Port of New York and New Jersey to accommodate
modern container vessels is in the national interest. I would also like
to inquire whether they will grant both of these projects priority
consideration in the event that additional funds become available under
the Army Corps accounts.
Mr. REID. I would agree with the Senator from New York that the
authorized Federal navigation projects for the Port of New York and New
Jersey are in the national interest, and that both the Kill van Kull
and Arthur Kill projects should receive priority consideration if
additional general construction funding for the Army Corps of Engineers
becomes available.
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE MISSISSIPPI
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President. I would like to engage the distinguished
Chairman of the Subcommittee in a brief colloquy on an extremely
important public safety project in St. Paul, Minnesota. As the Chairman
may recall, I have been a strong proponent of $3,000,000 in Federal
funding for the Mississippi Place project in downtown St. Paul. Not
surprisingly, I am quite disappointed that the Committee was unable to
accommodate requests to initiate work on recently authorized projects.
This project, authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1999, entails much needed improvements to the Mississippi River
shoreline. For the past 100 years, this shoreline was virtually
inaccessible to residents of St. Paul, cut off by a major parkway,
industrial property and a main rail line. However, much has changed in
the last five years, and the community now finds itself with an
unprecedented opportunity to re-establish a physical connection to the
Mississippi River. The industrial property has been converted into a
new Science Museum and parkland, the parkway has been re-aligned and
the rail lines have been regraded.
As envisioned by the Corps, the project will consist of a series of
improvements to a section of river which contains some of the strongest
currents on the Upper Mississippi. The need to initiate prompt work on
the project led the Minnesota State Legislature to allocate $3,000,000
in state matching funds to the 2000 Bonding Bill signed by the
Governor. An additional $3,000,000 in funding from local and other
sources will be made available for parklands, trails and other
amenities. All told, the community has pledged two thirds of the
funding required for the project, far in excess of what is required by
law.
But the most important work of all is the Corps portion along the
shoreline, work which is critical to keeping the public (including 1.5
million annual visitors at the new Science Museum of Minnesota) away
from the fast moving current. Without the funding I have requested from
the Committee, this project will not be initiated.
Mr. President, could the distinguished Chairman provide me with his
views on the upcoming conference with the House on this legislation,
with particular emphasis on the funding which I am seeking for this
project?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to respond to the
Senator's question. As my good friend pointed out, the funding
allocation for the Energy and Water Subcommittee for fiscal year 2001
did not afford us the luxury of initiating new construction projects.
However, I am aware of the Senator's strong support and interest in
this project and, should the subcommittee receive sufficient additional
budgetary resources, I will assure my colleague that the project
outlined by the Senator would certainly be considered along with
numerous other projects which have been brought to the subcommittee's
attention.
objectionable provisions
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 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. My colleagues are aware that I am a strong defender of our
national security which is, in part, funded through this bill. Taking
care of our national energy needs is also high in priority to our
taxpaying constituents who are concerned about ever-increasing gas and
energy prices.
That is why I am disappointed to report that this year's bill once
again fails to fulfill our responsibility to American taxpayers to
expend their tax dollars in a wise and prudent fashion that addresses
the nation's most critical needs. Instead, included in this year's bill
and its accompanying Senate report is $508 million in unrequested and
low-priority earmarks. A number of legislative riders are also added
which will effectively prevent a fair and deliberative consideration of
certain issues that should be determined in a legislative review
through the appropriate Congressional committees.
I recognize the hard work that the managers of this bill have put
into moving this measure through the Senate. I thank them for their
tireless efforts and appreciate that their jobs have not been easy.
However, I must repeat a criticism I have made many times during
consideration of appropriations bills and will continue to make as long
as the practice of earmarking continues--this bill inappropriately
singles out projects for funding based on criteria other than need and
national priority.
This year, earmarks account for more than $508 million in funding for
local projects contained in the bill and the committee report. Yet, we
have no way of knowing whether, at best, all or part of this $508
million should have been spent on different projects with greater
national need or, at worst, should not have been spent at all.
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 time-frame.
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.
Our current system of earmarking in order to fund national projects
is fundamentally flawed. I hope that we will soon develop a better
system, one which allows the projects with the greatest national needs
to be funded first.
I remind my colleagues that I object to these earmarks on the basis
of their
[[Page S8185]]
circumvention of our established process, which is to properly
consider, authorize and fund projects based on merit and need.
Although I was not present to vote on final passage of this bill, I
wish to state for the record that I would have voted against this bill
because this is not the honorable way to carry out our fiscal
responsibilities.
I reviewed this bill and report very closely and compiled a list of
objectionable provisions in H.R. 4733 and its accompanying Senate
report. This list is too lengthy to be included in the Record, but it
will be available from my Senate office.
renewable energy
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier this year I joined many of my
colleagues in signing a letter supporting increased funding for
renewable energy. I am pleased today to see that the subcommittee on
Energy and Water Appropriations has honored our request with an $82
million increase in renewable energy funding, raising the total from
$362 million to $444 million. That this substantial 23 percent increase
occurred under severe budgetary pressures makes it all the more
commendable. I thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid for their
efforts in producing this bill.
At no time has investment in renewable energy research and
development been more important. As we have seen over and over again,
even a slight imbalance between supply and demand can lead to rapidly
escalating energy prices. Last winter, disruptions in oil supply caused
great hardship to Mainers who depend on home heating oil. Mainers are
also suffering at the pumps from gasoline and diesel prices that hit
their highest levels in decades. People across the nation are further
suffering from more and more frequent spikes in the price of natural
gas and electricity.
Unless we act to diversify our energy supply, this volatility is only
likely to grow worse. For example, United States currently imports
slightly over half of its oil. In less than 20 years, this number is
expected to grow to 70 percent. Unless we are content to live under the
perpetual threat of energy disruptions from Middle East energy barons
or other forces beyond our control, we must diversify our energy
supply. While renewable energy will not provide the whole answer, it
holds the potential to help stabilize energy prices and to provide us
with an increased level of energy security. By investing in renewable
energy research and development, we enhance fuel and technology
diversity and help provide the United States with insulation from
future energy shocks.
Investments in renewable energy have many other benefits as well.
These investments increase the U.S. market share of the growing
domestic and international markets for energy-supply products and
permit the expansion of high technology jobs within the U.S. economy.
Research in biomass and biofuels helps farmers and foresters by
creating valuable new uses for agricultural products. Renewable energy
has important military applications and is currently used on many
remote military bases. The funds contained in this bill will also lead
to improvements in distributed generation, energy storage, and
reliability of the electric grid. Finally, renewable are bringing extra
income to many farmers and local communities across the Nation.
My home State of Maine is a leader in renewable energy production and
technology. In fact nearly 30 percent of our electricity comes from
renewable energy generated in Maine. Central Maine Power is selling
renewable energy from biomass to green markets in other states. And
just next month, Endless Energy will be putting in a brand new wind
turbine at a blueberry farm in Orland. This turbine was made possible
in part by the renewable energy investments that I supported last year.
I again thank Senators Domenici and Reid for providing the increase
in renewable energy investments that I and many of my colleagues in the
U.S. Senate had asked for. This is a down-payment on future energy
diversity and a sound economy.
red lake river flood control
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment that
would have provided $1 million in funding for the Red Lake River Flood
Control Project at Crookston, Minnesota. This is a high priority of
mine, and I regret the Committee's inability to fund new start
construction projects. I understand there may be more flexibility to
fund new starts in conference, and I want to continue to work with
Chairman Domenici at that time to ensure funds are available to begin
construction of this important project.
Communities in the Red River Valley in Northwestern Minnesota have
suffered some of the worst flooding in our nation's history during
1997. Many Americans watched the television coverage of Grand Forks,
North Dakota and saw the burning buildings which destroyed a city
block, all in a sea of water. But just across the Red River, on the
Minnesota side, is East Grand Forks, a town of nearly 10,000 people
that had no water, no electricity, and no sewer system.
This disastrous flooding has severely disrupted the lives of many,
many Minnesotans. Dreams of enjoying warm, spring weather after a
brutally long Minnesota winter were replaced with efforts to ensure
families and communities were safe, and that adequate food, water, and
shelter was available.
Just 22 short miles east of East Grand Forks is the community of
Crookston. Fortunately, through hard work and some luck, Crookston
escaped major flooding in 1997. But Crookston's luck may not hold. The
Red Lake River has flooded Crookston in the past, and without improved
flood protection, it will flood the city again. The city has
experienced severe flooding as a result of the topography of the land,
as well as agriculture drainage, loss of wetlands, and the construction
of county ditch systems. In fact, all of which have altered the flow of
water adding to the risk of flooding. The threat to life and property
in Crookston has increased since the 1950 flood when many homes were
destroyed. The city has constructed levees between 1950 and 1965, but
these levees are seriously deteriorating.
Mr. President, there is a plan for flood protection in Crookston.
City planners have suggested a combination of channel cuts and dikes.
The channel cuts would allow water to flow more quickly through town.
The dikes would hold back flood water.
The city needs federal funding for this project. Already, the State
of Minnesota has appropriated $3.3 million for Crookston for the dual
purpose of providing funds to match the pending federal money, and to
buy out homes in preparation for construction of the project. Local
contributions, thus far, have exceeded $1.5 million, a third of which
was used to meet the 50% federal requirement for the feasibility study,
and the remainder is to be used as a part of the local match for the
construction of the project that was authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999. The cost benefit ratio for the project was
determined in the Corps' feasibility study to be 1.6, far exceeding the
federal requirement of a 1:1 cost benefit ratio for flood prevention
projects.
It is my understanding that the city has met every requirement,
cooperated with the Corps, and done everything asked of them to ensure
the federal funding they expected after the authorization.
I want to commend the leadership of Mayor Don Osborne, members of the
city council and city engineers in working on this important flood
control project for their community. It is my hope that federal funding
for this project be achieved so that work can begin to provide
essential flood protection for the people of Crookston.
I urge the support of conferees for this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am joined by my colleague from Alaska,
Senator Murkowski, in thanking the managers of this bill for accepting
an amendment important to the residents of Kake, Alaska.
The city of Kake is a predominantly Tlingit Indian community of 850
located on Kupreanof Island in a remote section of southeast Alaska.
Since the recent collapse of the timber industry in southeast Alaska,
Kake's economy has been almost entirely reliant on a local salmon
hatchery and a seafood processing plant.
The city water was supplied by the Gunnuk Creek Dam, a wooden dam
[[Page S8186]]
built in 1946 by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) at a cost of
approximately $1.5 million.
In late July, after three days of severe storms dumped approximately
24 inches of rain, several logs swept across Kake's water reservoir and
gouged an 18-foot by 12-foot hole in the 54 year old dam. The reservoir
emptied and within minutes Kake's residents, hatchery, fish processing
plant, general store, city offices, school, and fire department were
without water. For the next 10 days, residents were forced to boil
water before they could drink it. On August 10, the governor of Alaska
issued a disaster declaration for Kake.
As an interim measure, small pumps have been installed in Gunnuk
Creek to pump water to the filtration plant. Those pumps are highly
susceptible to storms, and must be monitored 24 hours per day for
debris and wear. The city purchased the small pumps with borrowed
money, which must be repaid. Because of lack of water, the salmon
hatchery has lost $2 million to date, primarily in loss of fish and egg
harvests for next year's run. Also because of a lack of water, the cold
storage plant--the major employer in Kake--laid off its 70 workers and
has lost $500,000 in business.
Engineers from the Indian Health Service and a private consulting
firm have declared the dam a total loss and estimate that $7 million is
needed for a replacement.
The amendment included in this bill would provide the needed funding
to replace the dam and I thank my colleagues for their support.
rio grande
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my amendment to strike the language in
section 204 results from an agreement reached between myself and
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to delay implementation of a
solicitor's opinion concerning the ownership of water facilities and
related use of Rio Grande water, and to work toward a long-term
solution to these water issues.
At issue is the relationship between ownership of water facilities
and the desire to maintain flows in the Rio Grande.
Secretary Babbitt agreed to refrain from implementing a June 19
Solicitor's opinion, unless agreed to by the parties in litigation and
the state engineer, or as permitted by court order.
I committed to work with him to achieve a long-term solution to these
complicated water issues, and we agreed the current allocation,
ownership and use of water in New Mexico have raised some issues of the
greatest magnitude and at this time the most appropriate forum for
their resolution is Federal court.
I have moved to strike this language based on the good faith of
Secretary Babbitt, and I also note that he agreed to continue to
resolve water issues related to the Fort Sumner Irrigation District
(FSID) and the Pecos River, recognizing that the FSID and MRGCD
facilities have different status.
However, based on our good faith discussions, I will continue to work
with him on the Pecos issue, and expect that the Department will not
take adverse action against that irrigation district in the meantime.
the harding lake watershed study
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the bill
for accepting the amendment on behalf of Senator Murkowski and myself
to help find a solution to the problem plaguing Harding Lake.
Harding Lake is the largest road accessible lake in the interior of
Alaska. It holds significant recreation, fishery, natural resources and
economic value for interior Alaska.
In a recent Fairbanks Daily News-Miner article, state officials
closed Harding Lake to pike fishing due to dried up spawning grounds.
Harding Lake is suffering from a dramatic drop in water levels.
This drop in water level has impacted the shoreline--in some areas
causing a recession of as much as 700 feet.
This loss of water could cause problems with water quality, land use,
and fishery harvests.
Residents of Harding Lake, have asked for help in identifying the
source of the water loss problem at the lake.
After discussions with the Corps of Engineers and officials at the
soil and conservation district, it appears a watershed study and plan
is needed to protect the lake from further degradation.
My amendment would provide the necessary funding to begin the
watershed study and to develop a comprehensive plan to address the
problem.
I thank the managers of the bill for their understanding and for
accepting this provision.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Research into the molecular basis of
disease using mouse models of human disease and a miniaturized version
of PET (positron emission tomography) called MicroPET currently being
conducted at the University of California Los Angeles School of
Medicine's Division of Nuclear Medicine offers exciting new
possibilities for development of treatments for human disease based on
the molecular disorders that cause it.
Among the diseases for which mouse models have already been developed
are breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancers, Parkinson's disease
and diabetes. New funding will allow for development of mouse models
for lymphoma cancers and dementia/Alzheimer's disease and will allow
development of extremely precise molecular diagnostics and molecular
therapies.
Added funding will allow development for the next generation of
MicroPET imaging technology.
The new technology will combine MicroPET, which measures the
biological processes of a body, and MicroCT, which measures a body's
anatomical structure into a single device for simultaneous and precise
imaging of both biology and structure and will allow for the
differential screening of biological, genetic and structural changes
caused by disease in living mice.
This will allow researchers to see precisely the effect of new
molecular, targeted treatments including gene therapies for a wide
range of diseases using human disease genes inserted into mouse models.
Because the mouse models are developed using human disease genes, the
added funding for these new technologies and procedures will lead to
new means of treating and tracking human disease using clinical PET
technology.
The research will lead to the ability to both diagnose disease and
track the effect of targeted molecular/genetic therapies on a broad
range of serious human diseases.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address briefly the
issue of funding for the fundamental science and engineering research
supported by the Department of Energy.
The DOE is the leading source of federal support for the physical
sciences in the nation. Not many people know that, but it is true. DOE
and its predecessor agencies developed this broad portfolio of physical
sciences research in pursuit of the agency's statutory missions. To
understand energy and its myriad transformations, you have to know a
lot about the properties of matter, and of energy flows in matter, at a
very fundamental level. In order to conserve energy by, for example,
running industrial processes at higher temperatures that have greater
thermodynamic efficiencies, you have to know a lot about basic
materials science. These are research needs that other science
agencies, such as the NSF, cannot meet within their missions and
funding levels. It's an important reason why we have a Department of
Energy, to begin with.
DOE is also a crucial supporter of scientific research in the life
sciences. In the life sciences, the DOE initiated the Human Genome
Program and co-manges this enormously important and promising effort
with the NIH.
DOE also plays a leading role in supporting other biological
sciences, environmental sciences, mathematics, computing, and
engineering. In all these areas, its basic research contributions
relate to DOE's energy missions.
As a consequence of these research investments, the DOE is
responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding to
scientists and students at our colleges and universities.
In addition to the overall size of DOE's basic science funding, the
type of activities that DOE funds has a special character among the
federal science agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of DOE's
Office of Science is to support large-scale specialized user facilities
focussed on national scientific priorities. This particular mission
makes the Office of
[[Page S8187]]
Science unique among, and complementary to, the scientific programs for
other federal science agencies, including the NIH and NSF. Each year
over 15,000 sponsored scientists and students from academe, industry,
and government--many funded by agencies other than the DOE--conduct
cutting-edge experiments at the Department's research facilities. Every
State in the country has scientists and engineers with a stake in DOE's
user facilities.
One of the challenges the Office of Science has faced during the past
decade is that its funding has been reduced by approximately 13 percent
in constant dollars. Other science agencies, such as NIH, have been
growing strongly, while the DOE Office of Science has significantly
less funding today, in constant dollars, than 10 years ago.
These reductions have prevented the Office of Science from fully
participating in new initiatives in exciting technical areas important
to DOE's statutory missions such as high performance computing and
nanotech- nology. More troublesome, the declining funding for the
Office of Science has reduced the number of scientists and students
able to conduct research suing DOE's national user facilities. In fact,
DOE's national and university-based laboratories are currently
operating well below their optimum levels, especially in light of
growing demand from the scientific community.
DOE's scientific user communities and DOE's own scientific advisory
committees have completed a number of reports over the past year to two
to put a number on what DOE's science budget should look like, in order
to fully take advantage of the scientific opportunities that are out
there. They estimated that in FY 2001 alone a funding level of over
$3.3 billion can easily be justified in order to support research and
to fully utilize and modernize DOE facilities.
I am mindful that both the Chairman and the Ranking member of this
appropriations subcommittee would like to make more money available for
DOE's science programs. They have made statements yesterday that they
will seek additional funds for the non-defense side of this bill as it
moves forward. As they know, Senator Frank Murkowski, and I are
circulating a letter in the Senate for signature by Senators to
indicate their support for this goal. It's a letter that I hope
strengthens their hand in getting a better allocation as we move
forward. The letter is addressed to the bipartisan leadership of the
Senate, and is already attracting strong bipartisan support.
I hope that when the Conference Report on this bill is finally
written, the FY 2001 funding level for the DOE Office of Science will
be no less than the President's request level of $3.16 billion. I hope
that the funding level can be higher, in some areas, if at all
possible. And I hope that both the President and Congress will provide
significant increases in funding for the DOE Office of Science in
future years in order to sustain the Office's steady growth. Such
funding increases are merited by the important and unique work being
conducted by the DOE Office of Science. The funding increases would
also be consistent with the Senate's passage of a bill that both
Senator Domenici and I were original co-sponsors of the Federal
Research Investment Act (S. 296) which calls for doubling investment in
civilian research and development efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read
the third time.
The bill was read the third time.
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.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
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
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Baucus
NOT VOTING--6
Akaka
Boxer
Feinstein
Lieberman
McCain
Murkowski
The bill (H.R. 4733), as amended, was passed.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate insists upon its amendments,
requests a conference with the House, and the Chair appoints Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hollings, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Inouye conferees on the part of
the Senate.
____________________