[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 118 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9453-S9455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on H.R. 4733 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4733) making appropriations for energy and water development 
     for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, having met, 
     after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and 
     do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed 
     by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
September 27, 2000.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate now turn to 
consideration of the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 
2001 Energy and Water Development Act. Earlier today, the House passed 
the conference report by a vote of 301 to 118, and I hope the Senate 
will also overwhelmingly support the conference report. I am very 
pleased that we are able to get this very important conference report 
to the floor, given the difficulties affecting more appropriations 
bills this time of year. Senator Reid and I, along with Chairman 
Stevens and Senator Byrd, have worked hard to prepare an outstanding 
bill that meets the needs of the country and addresses many of the 
Senators' top priorities.
  The Senate and House full committee chairman were very supportive and 
have provided the additional resources at conference that were 
necessary to address many priority issues for Members. They have 
allowed the House to come up $630 million to the Senate number on the 
defense allocation $13.484 billion, and the Senate non-defense 
allocation has increased by $1.1 billion.
  I would now like to highlight some of the great things we have been 
able to do in this bill.
  The conference report provides $4.5 for Army Corps of Engineers water 
projects, an increase of $400 million over the Senate and $383 over the 
President's Request.
  The increased resources have allowed us to get started on the very 
highest priority new starts in 2001--something we were not able to do 
under our original allocation.
  The conference report provides $3.20 billion for DOE Science, an 
increase of $330 million over the Senate and $420 million over last 
year. We heard from many members over the last few months about 
providing more money for science and I am pleased we were able to heed 
their concerns and make significant investments in our future.
  On the defense side, the conference report provides $5 billion for 
nuclear weapons activities, an increase of $150 million over Senate and 
$600 million over last year.
  On clean-up, we have been able to continue to provide the 
environmental clean-up money that is so important to many of our 
members across the country. The conference report provides $6.1 
billion, and increase of $390 million over last year.
  We do have a few controversial provisions in this bill. The 
conference report

[[Page S9454]]

includes a provision that we have carried for several years that would 
prohibit the use of funds to revise the Missouri River Master Manual if 
such would result in increased springtime flood risk on the lower 
Missouri River. I know the administration has threatened a veto on this 
issue, and I take that seriously. But, we have been unable to forge an 
acceptable compromise and have insisted that the provision remain in 
the conference report just as it passed the Senate floor. Although 
there are other issues the administration has raised, we have made a 
good faith effort to address their concerns were possible. I believe we 
have a good bill that the President will sign.


              laboratory directed research and development

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, would the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee indulge 
me in a colloquy for clarification purposes on use of Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development by Department of Energy national 
laboratories?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to oblige my friend from Idaho, a valuable 
member of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAIG. When DOE's Environmental Management budget request for FY 
2001 was submitted to Congress earlier this year it continued a 
restriction on the use of DOE environmental management funds for LDRD 
purposes carried over from FY 2000. The EM restriction of LDRD was 
subsequently rescinded by OMB later in the year at strong urging by 
numerous Senators including myself. Subsequently, the Senate Defense 
Authorization and the Senate Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bills directed that DOE return LDRD to full scope, to 
include use of EM funds. The Senate Defense Authorization bill permits 
use of LDRD up to 6%; and this conference report also permits use of 
LDRD funds at 6%. Is this the Chairman's understanding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The gentleman from Idaho is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. As the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee knows 
from the Department's testimony including Secretary Richardson and Dr. 
Carolyn Huntoon, EM Assistant Secretary, the Administration, with 
significant encouragement from the Congress, is now on record in 
support of restoring EM programs as a funding source for LDRD in 2001.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. That has been a factor in the 
Conference Committee's considerations.
  Mr. CRAIG. Would it be fair then to assume that all 2001 laboratory 
planning budgets prepared while the EM restriction was in place would 
be impacted by removal of the LDRD restriction?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That would be an accurate assumption.
  Mr. CRAIG. Is it the Chairman's view that permission to derive LDRD 
funds from EM sources should be granted to all National laboratories 
under the new authority established in this bill?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, that is my view and the view of the Committee.
  Mr. CRAIG. Does the Chairman see any circumstances to justify 
granting this authority to some of the laboratories but not to others?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I see no conditions under which I or the Committee 
would support any effort by the Administration to withhhold this 
authority from any laboratory, including the EM lead laboratory in 
Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.


              yellowstone energy and transportation study

  Mr. CRAPO. I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, Mr. Domenici, in a colloquy regarding the Greater Yellowstone-
Teton energy and transportation systems study and the International 
Centers for Environmental Safety, ICES.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am delighted to accommodate my friend from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. As the chairman of the energy and water appropriations 
subcommittee knows, the pending conference report does not provide 
funds for the Yellowstone energy and transportation study. It is my 
understanding the Department of Energy supports this study and the 
Department may provide funds to support the Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory's participation in this effort. If DOE 
makes a decision to provide funds for this study, would the chairman 
support that decision?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would agree that funding for this important study 
would be appropriate.
  Mr. CRAPO. As the senior Senator from New Mexico knows, the ICES 
program was formed last year through a joint statement signed by 
Secretary Richardson and the Minister for Atomic Energy of the Russian 
Federation, Yevgeny Adamov. The centers were created to provide a 
mechanism for technical exchange and effective collaboration between 
the DOE and Minatom on matters of environmental safety in both 
countries. The U.S. Center is managed by the Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. In 
Russia, the Ministry for Atomic Energy operates the Center in Moscow. 
Both work collaboratively to ensure overall ICES success in reducing 
environmental threats and costs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is my understanding.
  Mr. CRAPO. Report language in the FY2001 Senate Energy and Water 
Development bill supports DOE's efforts to use the experience and 
expertise of scientists of the former Soviet Union to address waste 
management and environmental remediation challenges within the DOE 
complex. Isn't it also true that the centers are intended to facilitate 
international collaboration to address environmental and nuclear safety 
issues important to the national security?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Idaho is correct in his understanding. 
I would add that committee saw fit to support the International Nuclear 
Safety Program at the President's requested level of funding. This 
includes funding for the Russian and U.S. centers.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.


              hopi-western navajo water development study

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the conference report to H.R. 4733 provides 
$1 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a comprehensive 
Hopi-Western Navajo water development study. This funding was added to 
the bill at my request, and I would like to take this opportunity to 
detail the reason why I consider this to be a very important 
undertaking.
  Efforts have been ongoing for several years to settle the various 
water rights claims of the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes and other 
water users in the Little Colorado River watershed of Northern Arizona. 
Numerous proposals have been advanced in an effort to settle these 
water-rights claims, including identifying alternative sources of 
water, means of delivery and points of usage to help provide a reliable 
source of good-quality water to satisfy the present and future demands 
of Indian communities on these reservations. Cost estimates for the 
various existing proposals run into the hundreds of millions of 
dollars, the majority of which would likely be borne by the Federal 
Government. This study is needed to identify the most cost-effective 
projects that will serve to meet these objectives.
  I have asked the Bureau to hire an outside contractor to complete 
this study to ensure that a fresh and objective analysis of existing 
studies and data is conducted. In addition, using a private contractor 
will enable the Bureau to complete the study in a timely manner without 
requiring the Bureau to divert personnel needed to accomplish other 
vital priorities. The study should be complete and submitted to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee as soon as possible but no later than 
April 1, 2002.
  I also want to assure the parties that this study is intended to be 
used to facilitate this settlement, and cannot be used for any other 
purpose in any administrative or judicial proceeding.


                              NIF STUDIES

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member to engage in a brief colloquy on the National Ignition 
Facility. The bill as it passed the Senate requested a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences of a number of issues regarding the 
National Ignition Facility. The current bill and conference report 
language require reviews of several issues, including the need for the

[[Page S9455]]

facility, alternatives to NIF, consideration of starting with a smaller 
facility, and planning for the Broader stockpile stewardship program. 
All these elements are important, but the bill does not specify how 
these reviews are to be conducted.
  Previous supposedly independent DOE reviews of NIF have been strongly 
criticized in the recent GAO report and in a recent article in the 
journal Nature, and have even been subject to lawsuits for violating 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. I believe it is critical for the 
credibility of these reviews that they be conducted by an independent 
body, such as the National Academy of Sciences, and that they be 
organized as independent studies under FACA rules. This is a troubled 
program, and we need the very best thought of independent experts to 
help us get it back on track or to scale it back as needed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague and want to 
emphasize how important it is to Congress that these be outside, 
independent reviews. DOE has unfortunately lost credibility on this 
issue and needs to bring in outside experts to regain it. I have 
already conveyed my expectations on this point to Madelyn Creedon and 
am happy to join my colleagues in clarifying this today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, our country has very important needs 
that many hope NIF can solve. The credibility of outside experts will 
be crucial as we consider the future of this program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I now ask unanimous consent the vote occur on the 
adoption of the conference report at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from New 
Mexico, I am disappointed that we are not voting on this tonight. I 
think it would be an opportunity to get a bill to the President's desk 
and speed up things around here. I think it is a shame we are waiting 
until 5:30 Monday night. It is going to consume too much time in the 
process.
  I hope whoever has caused this, whoever that might be who is 
responsible, recognizes that they are responsible for slowing up what 
goes on around here. We have to move these appropriations bills. 
Senator Domenici and I and especially our staffs have worked night and 
day all this past week, and I literally mean night and day. We were 
looking forward to completing this bill tonight.
  Having said that, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, 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. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________