[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.
____________________