[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 17, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7789-S7796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued

  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are now 
back on the energy and water appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, be recognized to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the managers of 
the energy and water appropriations bill for their commitment to 
renewable energy. I particularly want to thank Senator Reid for his 
leadership in bringing additional funding to advance the cause of clean 
energy in this Nation.
  Growing problems associated with fossil fuel energy use, including 
fine particulates and global warming, make it critically important that 
renewable energy play a much larger part in future energy needs.
  Each year, the important role renewable energy should play in meeting 
our future energy needs becomes more apparent. This year 61 Senators 
joined Senator Bingaman and myself in requesting an increase for 
renewable energy in this year's budget. I am happy to say that this is 
seven more Senators than we had last year.
  I am also happy to say that Chairman Reid and Ranking Member Domenici 
provided almost $60 million more than last year for renewable energy 
and $160 million more than was requested by the administration. They 
recognize the importance of renewable energy and once again 
demonstrated their strong Senate leadership on this issue.
  For many years, I have come to this Chamber to offer an amendment on 
renewable energy. This year is the second year in a row that I come to 
ask Members to praise--not raise--the renewable energy budget. This is 
a practice to which I could easily become accustomed to.
  There is perhaps no better time to push these technologies forward. 
Our Nation is focused on energy issues unlike it was in the last 
decade. We are at crossroads where we can begin to see the end of the 
path toward a clean, sustainable energy future. Renewable energy is the 
most important landmark on that path.
  Today, renewables are beginning to take hold. Our faith in these 
clean energy sources has not been without merit. Wind power, for 
example, is the fastest growing form of energy in the world. In the 
United States, my home

[[Page S7790]]

State of Vermont is a leader in the use of wind power. My wind energy 
bill with representatives Blanchard and Mineta started this program in 
the late 1970's. Worldwide almost 4,000 megawatts of new wind energy 
capacity were added in the year 2000. This year will likely see a 
similar, if not larger increase.
  Although much of that capacity was added outside the United States, 
many of the high-tech jobs needed to make that possible came from 
inside the United States. And as the use of wind energy goes up, the 
costs will only come down. The best news of all is that our own wind 
resources remain largely untapped.
  Other forms of renewable energy--such as solar, biomass and 
geothermal--have the same kinds of benefits:
  These technologies provided high-tech jobs for U.S. workers.
  They help reduce acid rain and other forms of air pollution, 
including greenhouse gas emissions.
  They are not subject to the kinds of supply changes that lead to 
large fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels and they help us reduce 
our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels.
  This is good for the health of citizens and for the health of our 
economy.
  I thank Senators Reid and Domenici, once again, for their leadership 
on this issue. I will continue to assist in whatever way I can to 
ensure that the strong statement made by the Senate today will be 
included in the final energy and water appropriations bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Vermont, there are 
a lot of reasons that we increased the funding for renewables, but 
there is no reason more than the diligence the Senator from Vermont has 
shown over the past several years on this issue. As a result of his 
tenacity, every year we have had to increase the funding in this bill.
  Senator Domenici and I thought: We are not going to do this anymore. 
The Senator should know his handprints are all over this part of the 
bill dealing with renewables. But for his efforts, it would not be 
here.
  I am a real believer in renewables. Any long-term energy policy we 
are going to have in this country will not be successful unless a large 
segment of it deals with renewables. I express my appreciation to the 
Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for those kind 
comments, and I assure him I will continue to work to improve our 
situation in this regard.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 987, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Madam President, there is a matter pending. The Senator 
from Michigan has a modification to her amendment to have the amendment 
accepted.
  On behalf of Senator Domenici and myself, I send a modification to 
the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 2, line 18, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, of which such sums as are necessary shall be 
     used by the Secretary of the Army to conduct and submit to 
     Congress a study that examines the known and potential 
     environmental effects of oil and gas drilling activity in the 
     Great Lakes (including effects on the shorelines and water of 
     the Great Lakes): Provided, That during the fiscal years 2002 
     and 2003, no Federal or State permit or lease shall be issued 
     for oil and gas slant, directional, or offshore drilling in 
     or under 1 or more of the Great Lakes (including in or under 
     any river flowing into or out of the lake)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from Nevada, 
is this the amendment we worked out when we put in a quorum call?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Mexico, that is right. Our 
staffs have done just exactly what we asked them to do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Not only do we not have any objection, but we think it 
is a good compromise and ought to be accepted. We will do our best in 
conference to retain it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and leader who 
are working so hard. I very much appreciate both Senator Reid and 
Senator Domenici working with us to fashion a 2-year ban on any 
drilling of oil and gas in the Great Lakes, coupled with a study that 
would be commenced by the Army Corps of Engineers as to the 
environmental impacts of any future drilling.
  I am very appreciative of the leadership on both sides of the aisle 
from our colleagues and their willingness to work with me to make sure 
the Senate language is adopted by the Congress in the conference 
committee.
  I also thank staff who have worked very hard on this amendment--
Sander Lurie, Noushin Jahanian, and my chief of staff, Jean Marie 
Neal--for all their hard work.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it is my understanding Senator Reid 
was on the floor with reference to the amendment regarding the Great 
Lakes. It was his and my understanding we had agreed to that amendment. 
I think we stopped short of the magic words ``agreeing'' to it.
  I indicate there is no further debate on the amendment, and we yield 
back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
987, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 987), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have the bill before the Senate and 
have recently accepted an amendment, and we have had a number of 
statements on the bill. Senator Domenici and I hope to move forward 
with amendments. I have spoken to the Senator from Idaho who has an 
amendment to offer, although he will not offer it this evening. We are 
waiting for him to offer that amendment.
  Senator Domenici and I will be patient for the next little bit, but 
tomorrow afternoon if we do not have people offering amendments, we 
will move to third reading. It is not fair to everyone else. I say to 
my friends in the minority, they have been very anxious to move forward 
on nominations. We have the President's choice to lead his consumer 
safety board and we have agreed to go forward on that. It has been 
reported out of the committee. We have a time set for debating that 
nomination. That cannot take place until we finish this bill.
  In addition to that, Senator Daschle wants to work on the 
Transportation appropriations bill. We have a number of things we need 
to do this week. We are not accomplishing them now. Part of it is not 
the fault of the minority or the majority who have interests in this 
bill. Part of the problem is having been interrupted by the bankruptcy 
legislation which takes our eye off the mark. We are back on it now and 
there is nothing to take us off this until we complete the bill.
  We have submitted an unanimous consent agreement not on a filing 
deadline for amendments but, rather, a finite list of amendments. That 
is now being circulated. We hope that can be approved.
  As chairman of this subcommittee and also the Transportation 
Subcommittee under the Environment and Public Works Committee, I spend 
a lot of my time thinking about and worrying about the State of our 
Nation's physical infrastructure. The American Society of Civil 
Engineers' 2001 report card for America's infrastructure gives the 
Nation's infrastructure a cumulative grade of D+. That is pretty low. 
The two prime reasons for the rating include explosive population 
growth, lack of current investment, and growing obsolescence of an 
aging system, identified as problems in California and in the Nation's 
decaying water structure. We have created some of the problems in 
Washington by setting, for example, water quality standards that

[[Page S7791]]

rural America simply does not have the money to meet. With these 
problems, our infrastructure is in a deep state of distress.
  In Nevada, we are witnessing these problems on a daily basis. We have 
the most urban State in America. It is surprising to people when they 
learn Nevada is more urban than California, Illinois, Michigan, New 
York, and Florida. The reasons for that is 90 percent of the people 
live in the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas and Reno. Only 10 percent 
of the people live outside those metropolitan areas. However, in that 
10 percent, it is very rural and it is an example of what we have in 
rural America.
  The growth in the Las Vegas area has been phenomenal. We are having 
to build schools, roads, water systems, and all other basic 
infrastructure for modern life for the exploding population. We are 
having trouble keeping up. We have to build one school each month to 
keep up with the growth of school districts. We were the sixth largest 
school district a few months ago; we are now the fifth largest school 
district. There were 240,000 students in that school district, one new 
school each month. We hold the record in America for dedicating 18 new 
schools in one year.
  The superintendent of education in Clark County where Las Vegas is 
located it not a superintendent of education; that person is a 
superintendent of construction. He spends a great deal of his time 
simply dealing with construction
  At the same time, smaller communities throughout rural Nevada do not 
have clean drinking water due to natural contaminants in the ground 
water. The costs for moving the contaminants is several times the 
annual budgets of most small communities. Flooding problems throughout 
Nevada continue to devastate lives and property. As I said yesterday, 
people wonder, how can you have flooding problems in Nevada?
  The Senator from Washington, the Presiding Officer, knows the whole 
State of Washington is not like Seattle, but as you move east in the 
State of Washington it becomes much the same as some parts of Nevada. I 
don't know if it could be called desert, but it sure doesn't rain very 
much so the Presiding Officer understands what I am talking about when 
I talk about the fact that these rural, arid areas can suffer from real 
flood problems. It happens. When the rains come the waters come, and 
they cause all kinds of degradation to property and sometimes lives are 
lost.
  Environmental projects are sorely needed when we restore the natural 
areas of our environment, not only in Nevada but all over the country. 
Our Nation's medium and large cities have similar problems as well. 
Hartford, Atlanta, Chicago, and Richmond have antiquated storm systems 
that allow sewage and storm water runoff to be collected by the same 
system and sent to a treatment plant. During heavy rains, these systems 
are overwhelmed and raw sewage is dumped into our Nation's waterways.
  Many of our citizens still live with the threat of flooding. 
Environmental restorations of degraded ecosystems are needed throughout 
our country. The infrastructure that makes up our inland and coastal 
waterways is really aging. The Corps of Engineers operates 276 
navigation locks at 230 sites around the country. One hundred fifty of 
these locks are more than 50 years old. Nearly 100 of the remaining 
locks are nearly 25 years old. Most of these structures continue to 
perform as designed, but evidence of the need for reconstruction and 
modernization is becoming, very evident. Some facilities have reached 
their capacity and have reached the end of their design lives.
  The Army Corps has been serving our Nation's infrastructure needs for 
more than 200 years, primarily in the areas of navigation and flood 
control. While some may quibble with individual projects that Congress 
instructs the Corps to undertake, no one can question the value that 
the Corps has historically played and continues to play in our Nation's 
development. However, we are slowly but surely strangling the Corps and 
our Nation's infrastructure to death with our fiscal inattention.
  Financial shortfalls year in and year out in the water accounts of 
the Army Corps have now resulted in the backlog of $40 billion in 
authorized projects. They are awaiting the first dollar of funding; $40 
billion of authorized projects have yet to receive their first dollar 
of funding.
  This shortfall just takes into account the Corps' historic missions 
of navigation and flood control and does not take into account some of 
the new directions Congress has pushed the Corps in recent years. It is 
wrong to give short shrift to important components of our Nation's 
infrastructure. Flood control projects protect human lives and 
property. Navigation projects ensure that our Nation's economic engine 
continues to hum.
  We have received some criticism in this bill that we spent too much 
money on dredging, having water areas made clear so dredges can come up 
and down. There are examples given that a lot of these projects that we 
have, there is not much commerce moving. But think what it would do if 
we did not have this barge traffic. It would only add to the trains 
that are already overwhelmed. It would only add to the number of 
trucks, and in my opinion there are too many of them on the roads 
anyway. So we have to understand that these projects are important.

  In the western United States, the Bureau of Reclamation is facing 
similar issues as the Army Corps, an aging inventory of projects and a 
shrinking budget. Many do not realize Reclamation has been around for 
almost 100 years. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the first 
ever Bureau of Reclamation project. It took place in Nevada. It was the 
Newlands Project named after the Nevada Congressman and it was to 
supposedly make the desert blossom like a rose.
  A few problems developed as it was blossoming. It dried up one river. 
Lake Winnemucca is as dry as this table. Pyramid Lake is beautiful. 
There are only 21 lakes like it in the world, desert terminus lakes. We 
have two of them in Nevada. It almost dried up, but it is now on the 
road to recovery because of actions taken by this Congress to reverse 
some of the bad parts of the Newlands Act. But the Army Corps does the 
best it can, as has been said, with the tools it has.
  The Newlands Project has done good for Nevada but also bad. We have 
to keep changing these projects. I cannot imagine what this part of 
Nevada would look like today without what has happened with water, but 
I can imagine what it used to look like with water going into these two 
lakes, one of which is now dried up.
  Still, we continue to underinvest in both of these agencies. The need 
for water for municipal and industrial uses is not declining. The need 
for flood control is not declining. The need for a modern navigation 
system to transport products to market is not declining. Yet the 
budgets of these two agencies seems to continue to dwindle.
  For example, I talked about the Newlands Project. One hundred years 
ago, people were enticed to come there. We said: This is going to be 
great for you and generations to come. People did come there. They have 
been farming for generations. Now the Federal Government has 
interfered, causing a disruption in their lives. It is not the fault of 
the farmers, but certainly the people who put in these reclamation 
projects did not understand what the full brunt of these programs would 
be.
  So I repeat, we need to go back. We need to go back and review and 
change some of these projects. We have not had the money in the past to 
do that. We still don't. As I have indicated, we continue to 
underinvest in both of these agencies.
  The need for water for municipal and industrial uses is not 
declining. The need for flood control is not declining. The need for a 
modern navigation system to transfer products to market is not 
declining. Yet the budgets of these two agencies continue to dwindle.
  Public investment including authorization for water infrastructure in 
1960 amounted to 3.9 percent of the gross domestic product. Today that 
figure is down to 2.6 percent, approximately. That may not sound like 
much of a change, but let's look at the Corps during that period.
  In the mid-1960s, the country was investing $4.5 billion annually in 
new water infrastructure. Today, it is less than $1.5 billion. That is 
a significant change. From 1960 to now, we have gone from $4.5 billion 
to $1.5 billion. Our water resource needs are no less

[[Page S7792]]

today than they were 40 years ago; They are more. Yet we are investing 
one-third as much.
  One major impact of that reduction is the increasingly drawn out 
construction schedules forced by underfunding these projects. These 
artificially lengthened schedules cause a loss of some $5 billion in 
annual benefits and increase the cost of these products by some $500 
million.

  When many of these reclamation projects came into being, the main, 
the only intent was for agricultural purposes. Over the years, it has 
been found that some areas are very interested in these reclamation 
projects because of the recreation aspects of them. People like to 
water ski. They like to fish. They like to boat. They like to have 
picnics on the beach. Now they are competing with these farming 
projects. We need to go back and take a look at them.
  These artificially lengthened schedules cause the loss, as I have 
indicated, of some $5 billion in benefits, either agricultural or 
recreational, and increase the cost of these projects by some $500 
million--and that is each year. Failure to invest in maintenance, major 
rehabilitation, research and development, and new infrastructure 
resulted in the gradual reduction in the value of our capital water 
resources stock and, in turn, the benefits we receive.
  The value of the Corps' capital stock peaked in 1981 with a 
replacement value of $150 billion. Today its estimated value has 
decreased to $124 billion. We need to reverse this trend. Public 
infrastructure is too important to our lives.
  Federal waterway projects, including ports and inland waterways, 
handle more than 2.2 billion tons of our Nation's cargo, valued at more 
than $660 billion. As I said before, we could try to put that on 
trains, on trucks, on airplanes--2.2 billion tons of our Nation's 
cargo. I do not think that would be a good idea.
  These waterways generate more than 13 million jobs, and Federal taxes 
collected at ports generate more than $150 billion a year. Federal 
flood control projects prevent more than $2 billion per year in 
damages, and my being from Nevada, I can vouch for that. Even though 
Las Vegas gets 4 inches of rain a year, the flood control projects 
probably save hundreds of millions of dollars more than that in 
property damage, loss of production, and certainly in lives.
  Federal flood control projects prevent more than $2 billion per year 
in damages. Recreation provided by Federal water projects provide more 
than 500,00 jobs and provide recreational opportunities to more than 10 
percent of the U.S. population. Water stored at Federal projects 
provides more than 250 million acre-feet of water for municipal, rural, 
and industrial users.
  How much water is that? Las Vegas with 1.6 million people uses just a 
little more water than that. Two-hundred and fifty million acre-feet of 
water is stored at Federal projects. That is important.
  Finally, Federal water projects provide nearly 30 percent of our 
Nation's hydropower or about 4 percent of our total electric capacity. 
In the west, Federal hydropower project provide an even higher 
percentage of the total electric capacity--as we have recently learned 
with the California energy crisis.
  Public water infrastructure is the only Federal program that is 
required to be analyzed on a strict benefit to cost basis. The water 
infrastructure provided by the Army corps alone provides an annual rate 
of return of approximately 26 percent. The steam of benefits are 
realized as flood damages prevented, reduced transportation costs, 
electricity, recreation, and water supply services.
  Society's values are increasingly emphasizing sustainability and 
ecological considerations in water infrastructure management and 
development. Like most people, I support these considerations.
  The Army corps and reclamation expend nearly a quarter of their 
annual budgets on environmental projects. These ranges from major 
restoration projects such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration, 
to smaller projects, such as oyster recovery efforts in the Chesapeake 
Bay. Both agencies will continue to meet the nation's challenges in 
this arena.
  As you can see, I am one who firmly believes that investments in our 
nation's infrastructure more than pay for themselves through improved 
productivity and efficiency. To ignore these needs in the short term is 
going to cause us problems over the long haul.
  All of this is to say that we, as a body, need to think about the 
state of our nation's infrastructure comprehensively and soon.
  Our physical infrastructure sustains our way of life, so we must 
sustain it.
  We are here today to discuss energy and water matters, but, in the 
next few weeks, I hope to come back to the floor to discuss our 
nation's transportation infrastructure, another area of concern.
  Before I close, I want to say some words of praise for the Federal 
employees and contractors that populate the departments, agencies, and 
other organizations that are funded under this bill.
  Members of Congress are frequently critical of Federal agencies and 
departments, particularly ones where we have an oversight role. As I 
mentioned earlier, I have been a frequent critic of the Department of 
Energy.
  But I have said that I think things are greatly improving as a result 
of some work done by Senator Domenici and some of his colleagues.
  None of that is to suggest that I, or any other Member, am anything 
other than proud of the hard work and accomplishments of our Federal 
workforce, including, contractors, lab employees, and others that make 
these important organizations run.
  I invite everyone who has the opportunity--as I have had--to go to 
the Federal Laboratories and some of our test sites where they have 
done things relating to the cold war--places where Federal employees 
are in love with their jobs. They spend long hours with little 
recognition. Many of these agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Energy, that we fund in 
this bill I think do a wonderful job. I have very few criticisms of the 
employees. There is a tiny fraction--as in any organization--that tries 
to cause trouble to the whole organization, but as far as I am 
concerned, they haven't succeeded.
  I throw a bouquet to those entities funded within this bill, and I am 
very proud of working with them. We expect a lot of these 
organizations. With very few exceptions, they live up to all of my 
expectations and the demands we impose on them. I think they serve our 
Nation with distinction. I think I speak for Senator Domenici when I 
say we appreciate all the work they do.
  My friend from New Mexico has been very patient with me. We are 
waiting for somebody to come and offer the next amendment. The floor is 
open. This is a good time to do it. After 5 o'clock, we are happy to 
work, if the leader wants to work awhile tonight. But because I think 
we are not coming in until 10:30 tomorrow because we have a special 
order in the morning dealing with our dear friend, Paul Coverdell, we 
are not going to be able to start on this bill until 10:30 in the 
morning. I hope we can get some work done tonight.
  I repeat that we are not going to be able to go to the nomination 
until we complete this bill. There are, I believe, 7 hours on it. All 
that time probably won't be used. But then we have the Transportation 
appropriations bill on which we need to also work this week. I hope 
Members will come and help work through this bill. If there are 
problems, tell us. We have had a number of Members come to us during 
the vote--some Democrat--and we have been able to recognize what the 
problems are, and we have been able in most instances to satisfy the 
problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Let me say to the Republican Senators that it is important you begin 
to tell us what amendments you have. Obviously, we haven't been on this 
bill very long. For anybody who thinks we are wasting time, when you 
consider all the time we took off this bill to do other things, we have 
been on it only a few hours. This is a serious bill with a lot of 
serious issues.
  Once again, we are hopeful that Senators will be able to come up with 
amendments. If in fact we can't complete that list this evening, we 
will do

[[Page S7793]]

our best, and we will inform the distinguished chairman of our best 
efforts. For now, I once again ask if you have amendments, let us know 
through the Cloakroom. We can start listening. I think we only have a 
few at this point. We have specifically requested amendments on our 
side.
  I do not know about our distinguished friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee. Have you begun to accumulate a list? Is it small like our 
list?
  Mr. REID. Yes. We are getting our Senators to tell us what amendments 
they want to offer. That is also being done on the other side. 
Hopefully, within a short time we will have at least a finite list, and 
hopefully we will be able to work through that. Of course, our very 
able staff will work through them also. I hope we can have that done 
pretty soon.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  Mr. President, let me proceed with some discussion while we wait for 
the activities and desires of our Senators, both Democrat and 
Republican.
  First, I want to make a comment about the President's energy policy. 
Then I would like very much to talk about the future in terms of the 
economies of the world, prosperity and growth, and how it is related to 
energy, and how I see that future compared with others.
  First, let me talk about the President's energy policy. It is 
contained in notebook form. For anyone who wants to read it from cover 
to cover, it is a cover-to-cover approach. It covers almost every 
issue. They have assessed almost every kind of energy and conservation 
issue that I believe has been in or around Washington, or anywhere in 
this Nation. They have begun to list what our energy needs of the 
future are and to come up with them in a rather basic way to let people 
challenge what we need in the future. That is all well and good.
  But essentially, I would like to make a point that has not been made 
very often. If you look at the whole policy on energy that the 
President submitted to us--which was worked on for weeks on end by the 
Vice President and a distinguished staff, some of whom used to serve us 
here in the Senate--let's talk just a bit about how much new energy we 
are going to need out to 2020. They worked on it with economic experts, 
with projectors of growth, and with those who could estimate the 
electricity needs of our country for certain episodes during the next 
20 years.
  The conclusion was that the current ratio between energy demand and 
the gross domestic product might remain constant. Now gross domestic 
product is what we all reference to measure how much growth we have and 
how much we grow is measured as an addition to gross domestic product. 
When it is growing over a sustained period of time at a powerful rate, 
in America we equate that with prosperity, with jobs, with more 
opportunity, and higher pay for those who are not earning so. I don't 
think they have estimated the gross domestic product increase for the 
next 20 years at any exceptional rate, but rather sustained--something 
like blue chip experts estimate.
  In doing that, we concluded we would need 77 percent more energy in 
2020 than we are producing today.
  If we drew a pie chart of a certain size which showed how much we are 
using today and then drew one around the outside, you would add 77 
percent. Or you could take 2020 and draw one big pie. Then you would 
show a piece of it that is current needs and another piece that is 
future. In any event, the piece that is future needs would be 77 
percent more than we are using today.

  Most interesting, this national energy policy recommends conservation 
and efficiency measures that would reduce that increase by over half, 
resulting in us only needing to produce 29 percent in real energy 
additions.
  The rest of it would be made up by enhancing and increasing our 
conservation and our efficiency. And there are numerous examples there 
on how you would increase efficiency, which equals a lot of research on 
products that will use less, on conservation. All kinds of things that 
we have already learned to do and are doing well, we would do more and 
do better.
  Frankly, the President and some of the President's spokesmen may have 
started off talking about supply. We might have gotten a little bit 
excited about it. Some people in the country asked: What about 
conservation?
  Well, I am just recalling, when it is all finally done, this is what 
it is: 77 percent new energy need; only 29 percent of it with new 
powerplants. They may use natural gas, which seems to be almost the 
singular source of every new powerplant in the country, and that can't 
continue forever. We will have to do some others. There's not been many 
new coal-burning powerplants, even though we are applying clean coal 
technology and, yes, not a new nuclear plant for two decades or so. But 
everything is moving in the direction of ``let's do it better.'' Let's 
do it more efficiently; let's do it cleaner. And let's permit America 
to grow.
  That is for starters. I am not changing any of that when I speak of 
this bill being a very good start in implementing an energy policy that 
moves us in the direction of diversity of energy, not just one kind; 
diversity so there is competition; diversity so that, in fact, you can 
address some overarching issues such as ambient air pollution that 
produces global warming.
  We ought to be able to address some of those issues in our future 
thinking, because they are caused by certain types of energy being used 
to produce our energy supply, by kinds that produce the carbon dioxide 
and other things that go into the atmosphere and cause pollution. What 
if we can produce energy that causes little or none of those gases or 
much less of those. You can understand that clearly we don't have to be 
worried about global warming to the extent that we reduce the very 
essence of global warming pollutants in the basic supply of energy for 
electricity in our country.
  Obviously, we are not talking as much about automobiles and their 
pollution here, but clearly, it is a very powerful thing to just look 
at the electricity needs and see if we can do that in a way that truly 
helps us with reference to global warming instead of hurting us.
  There are a lot of people around that say there is a Kyoto agreement 
and we should follow it, even though the Senate voted about 2\1/2\ to 3 
years ago, 95-0, that the Senate would not ratify the Kyoto agreement 
if they sent it to us. It seems to me every time we get in this debate 
in this country and the President is talked to about Kyoto, or for 
those who argue with him overseas, nobody even brings up the subject: 
``What about the Senate which voted 95-0 that we did not want to 
enforce that kind of program because it would put too much pressure on 
our future in terms of prosperity and, yes, indeed, may put a lot of 
pressure on countries that truly need to build new electric 
generating capacity so they can prosper.''

  What I am suggesting is, this bill moves in the direction of what we 
might very well call ``beyond Kyoto'' or what we may call ``prosperity 
beyond Kyoto.''
  I will go through some of the very exciting things that are done in 
this bill that permit us to move in the direction of having a mindset 
beyond the Kyoto agreement, having a mindset for great prosperity for 
the underdeveloped countries and the developed countries in terms of 
being able to use energy for growth and prosperity without concern 
about global warming.
  This is a pretty big vision, a pretty big idea, but frankly, I 
believe America should do it. I believe our President should take the 
lead.
  I will go through a few things we are doing here and then fit them 
into a wrap-up as to how that could be America's vision beyond Kyoto.
  First, the renewable energy programs in this country have made great 
strides in terms of innovation, proving concepts, but today it is still 
a very small portion of the energy production in our country. We ought 
to do what we did in this bill--increase our focus on renewables, ask 
that more be done in that area, and that it be part of a great 
inventory of potential products for this ``beyond Kyoto'' idea.
  In this bill we made a good start. We funded renewable programs to 
the tune of $435 million. This is not legislation saying we shall have 
solar and who will do what. It just says we have these programs going, 
the Department of Energy shall manage $435 million during this year for 
the various renewable programs we have. That is 16 percent higher than 
current levels. There is no

[[Page S7794]]

question that if we keep the pressure on and have a broader vision, 
this would be part of what we can do better. We can impose on that kind 
of technology to do more.
  Then there are hydrogen-based technologies. Some think the world 
ought to be on a hydrogen diet for energy in the not too distant 
future, and some think it could be the basis for future growth 
projections. I am not quite there yet, but clearly it belongs in the 
equation. We have added about 30 percent to the research in that area.
  This might end up decreasing our use of petroleum products in 
transportation, even though our basic agenda here is not with reference 
to the automobile and the internal combustion engine and the like. That 
research is largely being moved ahead in another appropriations bill.
  High temperature superconductivity is important because it causes us 
to waste a lot less electricity as you run the electricity down the 
lines. Superconductivity would make it such that you would lose very 
little, if any, a very dramatic step forward. We have increased that 
about 20 percent, hoping that our great scientists can move into 
superconductivity and capture some of the waste that now goes into 
transmitting electricity--an exciting kind of idea.
  Geothermal: We know there is a lot of it out there. We have added 
some research money, although we have been doing this for many years; 
that is, spending money on this system. We think we should try harder 
and do more.
  Wind systems: They are already in existence. Now I am not one who 
thinks that wind energy can be as big a component of the future as 
others, just because I have observed what we currently do and I can't 
visualize doing 10 times as much or 50 times as much. But in any event, 
we said let's proceed with a little more dispatch.
  And then on the side that we would call nuclear: The problem is that 
when you say nuclear power, people think of driving by a nuclear 
powerplant. Incidentally, you don't see any smoke come out of the 
chimneys because there is none. You don't see any pollution because 
there is none.
  The spent fuel rods are inside that machine, and to the extent they 
are not careful with those, that creates some source of problem for 
human beings. But these are gigantic nuclear powerplants. They are 
almost all of one type. It is amazing how the American people, over the 
last 15 years, have grown more accustomed to driving by them and living 
with them, such that today in America there is a willingness to take 
another look at nuclear.
  I know as soon as we take another look there will be those who would 
like to blindfold us right now and say: ``Stop that. It is terrible, 
bad for everything.''
  Let me tell you, it is not bad for global warming; I will guarantee 
you that. If any group of environmentalists are really committed to 
solving the problem of global warming, let them at least listen to a 
proposal that would bring the world into contact with a new generation 
of nuclear powerplants. We might be able to set a goal for 10 or 15 
years from now when we would be diminishing the pollution that would be 
commensurate with that growth, as far as global warming is concerned.
  Why should that be dismissed when it is that profound and gigantic a 
potential? Why would we dismiss clean coal, moving it to the furthest 
level of cleanliness, even if it costs a lot of money to do the 
research? Why would we say that would not work? What are we supposed to 
live on?
  Right now, people would say: Your State will continue to flourish, 
Senator Domenici. Natural gases will do it. New Mexico is the fourth 
largest producer, and it is going up and away. Every new powerplant we 
have heard of, including the three in New Mexico--that won't be for our 
people but for somebody else--will be built with natural gas, as far as 
we know. We didn't have any for many years. The price is causing people 
to invest in natural gas. For the long term, you need natural gas, but 
you also need some other things.
  What does this bill do about nuclear? Well, first, there are some 
very significant increases and some very interesting approaches to 
keeping this option alive. For the 21 percent that we already get from 
nuclear power today, we need to make sure we don't close those plants 
down prematurely but continue them for their entire useful life and do 
what we can to make sure that transition is smooth, functional, and 
safe.
  Now, let me go through some of the things we are doing to create this 
option. This bill pushes nuclear power forward with the following 
initiatives: $19 million for university research reactor support--that 
is a $7 million increase--to make sure our country has the educational 
resources necessary for an economy that continues to rely substantially 
on nuclear power--the old ones plus new ones. After all, we came up 
with this technology. Some of our great companies built these 
powerplants. They are all over the world, although we didn't build all 
of them in foreign countries
  Seventy-eight percent of France's electricity comes from nuclear 
power. If you tell people that, they say they don't believe it, or so 
what? Well, they have a lot less problems with greenhouse gases than we 
do--sufficiently less that Mr. Chirac can lecture our President about 
it. That is pretty interesting. If we had 68 or 70 percent of our 
electricity from nuclear plants, we might be lecturing him. But we 
don't; we have 21 percent. Germany has around 35 percent, and Japan is 
building new ones--in fact, as we speak, they are building new ones.
  The United States is sitting on this problem of not having enough 
energy so we can maintain our prosperity in the future. We say our 
universities used to be the pride of the world in terms of creating 
nuclear physicists and design engineers who worked in this field. All 
of the universities, except a few, have dramatically reduced these 
programs and are very excited about building some of this back into 
their programs through intramural-type grant programs, where they can 
do research and learn these particular scientific professions.

  There is a $4 million increase in a program to improve the 
reliability of our 103 existing nuclear powerplants. Let me suggest 
another thing that is little known. While we had some brownouts in 
California and some shortages elsewhere, they were minimized because 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear powerplant industry 
in America had been working so well together, and the licensing process 
and the regulatory processed worked so well during the last decades, 
that more energy was produced by the nuclear powerplants by upping 
their capacity in total safety, such that, on average, they increased 
by the equivalent of 22 new powerplants. Nobody knows that, but that 
happened.
  So while we are looking around for new sources, these licensed 
facilities, getting up in years, ratcheted up a bit and produced the 
energy equivalent of 22 new nuclear powerplants on top of the 100-plus 
we have in the United States.
  This bill continues with an increase of $7 million for a total of $14 
million, in an area which is very exciting. I hope it will be used 
prudently. In fact, I hope it will be used to join with partners in the 
world to produce something really important. This is for the next 
generation of nuclear reactors. Some people call it generation IV 
reactors. There are a couple of them in the design stage today, and 
some people have read about them. They are very exciting new 
technology.
  They are going to produce nuclear reactors that are passively safe. 
That means that their makeup, in terms of the physics, is such that 
they can't melt down. They will not have a meltdown possibility in the 
generation IV reactors that will be produced. In addition, they will 
have much less left over, much less unused, enriched uranium, so there 
is much less risk. This reduces greatly the proliferation concerns, 
with reference to the byproduct from the reactors.
  This bill also addresses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--which, 
incidentally, has been doing an outstanding job. The chairman now is a 
Democrat appointee. We urged the President to keep him on. He has been 
so exciting and powerful and such a force in terms of leading that 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the right direction toward the safety 
and well-being of our people, and maintaining the essence of our 
nuclear industry. We

[[Page S7795]]

hope he is going to remain as the chairman. Now, I don't think I was 
saying anything out of school there. I think the chairman knows what is 
thought of him. I think I may have indicated that he is going to stay 
on and he wants to stay on.
  Remember, just a few years ago we didn't have any money in these 
programs that I am talking about. We decided it was best to have an 
Energy Department for this great United States. But back then, when you 
walked in the door, what we wanted was no nuclear energy and nothing 
nuclear in the Department of Energy for the greatest nation on Earth. 
That is the end to which we had gone in terms of our anti-nuclear-power 
sentiments. I am not exaggerating; that is a truism.
  I was fortunate to be chairman of the subcommittee for 6 years. My 
good friend was ranking member part of the time--Senator Reid. We 
started to build a little bit of nuclear energy capacity back up, so 
that now they are no longer ashamed. Obviously, they have divisions and 
departments that are doing nuclear work, so they can't hide anymore. I 
think they are very forward-thinking about it.
  But just remember, with generation IV we are not talking about the 
kind of reactors we have now, although they are pretty safe and people 
now are excited about how clean they are.
  The only thing people who oppose nuclear power are saying is: What 
about the waste that comes out of them? We are doing well when we can 
produce energy that will no longer cause any global warming, but we 
have a problem of how do we get rid of the waste. Just think of this. 
What is the dimension of this problem?
  I want to speak of it in physical dimensions. A football field--you 
have a number in your great State, Mr. President. A football field 12 
feet deep is the waste problem of America. That is how big it is. When 
people scare us to death about it, the truth is, it is just a matter of 
human beings deciding with technical excellence, engineering expertise, 
and resources what to do about that. You can either bury it, put it 
away for an interim period of time, or change it from its current form 
to another.

  In Europe, they are not in a hurry to bury it permanently. They are 
doing other things with it--interim storage--and they are moving ahead 
with other technologies to make the end product far less toxic.
  This bill says we are not going to fund Yucca Mountain, the permanent 
repository, as much as we have in the past. Although we will go to 
conference, where the House has a higher number to keep it going. We 
will have that debate in conference, and we do not always win every 
nickel and every penny. So we are looking forward to going to 
conference and seeing what can be done.
  There are two other technologies that are right there ready to go. 
One of them is called accelerator transmutation. This is very exciting 
new technology, proven out beyond the experimental stage, and we have 
$70 million to continue the work.
  It is an accelerator, therefore it is not a nuclear reactor, that 
will change what high-level waste is as this accelerator does its work 
on the waste product. Ultimately, just to make it simple, what it will 
produce is a residue that instead of having a half-life in the 
neighborhood of tens of thousands of years, the residue will have a 
half-life in the neighborhood of 700 years. After 300 years, it would 
be no more dangerous than uranium ore from the ground.
  If we can get a byproduct like that, there is nobody who would stand 
up and say we cannot handle that. What is difficult to handle is 
proving modular-wise and scientific-wise what will happen 10,000 years 
from now when we put something underground and leave it there. That is 
what makes the problem and the job for nuclear power of the future a 
difficult one. I repeat. We are singularly the only country saying 
let's put it underground and forget about it forever, when it has only 
used up 5 percent of its energy. Ninety-five percent of the energy is 
still in the rod that you put in the ground.
  So true and so powerful is that statement that you cannot talk to the 
Russian leaders at any level about energy. You cannot talk to any of 
them about getting rid of the waste product in any way other than using 
it, which is amazing. As a matter of fact, they just put out word the 
other day that if we are so frightened about the waste product, they 
would accept it. Nobody is seriously thinking about that, although 
maybe some are. But it just shows you the difference, the mentality 
between those who have worked that problem in Russia. Some of them 
learned from us; we learned some from them.
  They had the greatest nuclear scientists; we had the greatest. We 
never did decide who had the best. They both had so much respect for 
each other in nuclear weaponry; I think that kept us from ever having 
war. You can bet the greatest scientists working on our nuclear weapons 
knew exactly who the greatest scientists were over there. And they were 
the greatest. They were not just getting a degree in physics and going 
over and taking on a program. They were fantastic people. That 
expertise has come down to nuclear reactor waste and they understand 
it. They even moved to the next generation of nuclear power, breeder 
reactors, which we have become so frightened about that even Senator 
Domenici does not talk about it. So we moved to an interim discussion 
of the kind of nuclear reactors we are talking about today.
  We have transmutation, a big word which means changing the makeup and 
content of this product into something far less toxic.

  Incidentally, it has two other uses that are very positive that come 
out of this accelerator process, one of which is to produce all the 
radioactive isotopes you need for the medical programs of the country. 
One of these major accelerators would provide all you need.
  Plus another use that is rather significant would be to back up our 
tritium production; it will do that, too. We are currently going to use 
reactors to do that job. Under Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson we 
decided to do it down in Tennessee at one of their TVA nuclear 
reactors. So that is where the tritium in the program will be produced. 
This could even be a backup for that reactor in the event we moved 
ahead.
  Some people talk about the estimated costs of transmutation. They use 
the numbers wrong because the total number over a long period of time, 
when they tell you how much that is, does not take into consideration 
how much electricity it produces. It is just telling you what it costs. 
That would be like saying the next 10 nuclear powerplants, my gosh, are 
going to cost $1.5 billion each, but you don't know how much 
electricity it produces. You just hold to the $15 billion number.
  Let me emphasize I want to stop using the word ``waste'' and use 
``spent fuel'' because I just gave you an example of how much of the 
energy is still in the spent fuel. It is 95 percent. It is still energy 
that can be used. As long as we have cheap uranium, it is obvious we 
are not going to go full speed ahead to produce byproducts that cost a 
lot of money. In the process we do know these are some of the 
approaches to making sure we have options in the future.
  To wrap up the vision, the vision is to take these resources and 
others the administration might need to ask us for and produce a 
commitment by the United States of America, led by our President, to 
put together a 10-, 15-, or 20-year plan that says ``beyond Kyoto'' and 
say to the world: ``Let's bring together the electricity-producing 
resources we have been discussing--renewables, biomass, clean coal, 
nuclear--let's bring them together and decide in a scheduled approach 
to begin to produce them so that we can begin to use them in the world 
without any effect on global warming.
  It is very doable. We ought to be excited about it. It means this 
problem in America might have brought out the best in us. We may be 
able to tell poor countries with these new reactors that we can put one 
in every country. They will be very small. They will be modular in 
size. Perhaps they will be 50 megawatts each instead of 1,000 
megawatts. Perhaps they have the characteristics I described here. But 
let's set the world under our leadership to working on these kind of 
criteria and then develop the science and technology with our 
businesses and other countries to do it.

[[Page S7796]]

  I have asked the President to think about this. I call it now 
``reaching beyond Kyoto,'' but it may be ``prosperity in abundance for 
everyone post-Kyoto.'' It may be an equal title because if, in fact, we 
have to restrain the growth substantially because the energy source is 
polluting and thus causes some problems with reference to global 
warming, then it is an admission that other people cannot become as 
wealthy as we are; that they cannot have as many things as we have.
  We constantly remind the world how much energy we use, and, yes, we 
do; we use more than any other country. We use maybe 25 percent. But 
this little country, America, also produces about 25 percent of the 
gross domestic product of the world, too.
  We have a chance to reach beyond this bill, beyond the discussions 
about an energy policy in detail with reference to each of these 
different things on transmission lines, using the public domain for 
more gas and oil, and to set a goal beyond all of that which would say 
to the United States and the world: You can almost pick your resource 
because if you do not have any coal, you can use uranium; you can use 
these new fourth-generation reactors. If you have coal, we are 
developing the cleanest of coal technology so you can use that, be a 
nonpolluter and grow.
  I think it makes a lot of sense. I am pleased to have thought it 
through a little bit and to have spoken to it a couple times. The 
Senator can tell I might have spoken about it one time or another. Yes, 
I have. It is a pretty good message to be accompanying an energy and 
water bill if, in fact, this bill is supposed to be doing something 
about the energy crisis.
  We have discussed the approach that there might be something in 
America that says it is good enough for an America of the future and an 
America that can help lead the world in the future. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
S. 1171, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2002.
  The Senate bill provides $24.96 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $16.2 billion. 
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $24.7 billion in 2002. 
Of that total, $15.2 billion in budget authority and $14.9 billion in 
outlays is for defense spending. The Senate bill is within its Section 
302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays for both general 
purpose and defense spending. Further, the committee has met its target 
without the use of any emergency designations.
  I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for their 
bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly 
to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. I 
also commend subcommittee Chairman Reid and Senator Domenici for not 
only bringing this important measure to the floor within its 
allocation, but also for providing significant additional resources 
above the President's request for both the Department of Energy's 
Atomic Energy Defense Programs, which will help dramatically reduce the 
threat of proliferation of nuclear warheads, materials, and expertise 
in the former Soviet Union, and for renewable energy resources, which 
will help ensure an energy portfolio that balances the Nation's long-
term needs for both energy and the environment. I hope all Senators 
will join me in thanking our able colleagues from Nevada and New Mexico 
for their vision and good work.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee 
scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   S. 1171, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, 2002; SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE REPORTED BILL
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  General
                                  purpose   Defense  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority.............     9,713    15,247          0    24,960
  Outlays......................     9,782    14,908          0    24,690
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority.............     9,713    15,247          0    24,960
  Outlays......................    24,916         0          0    24,916
House-passed:
  Budget Authority.............     9,670    14,034          0    23,740
  Outlays......................     9,806    14,122          0    23,928
President's request:
  Budget Authority.............     9,003    13,514          0    22,517
  Outlays......................     9,336    13,758          0    23,094
 
 SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
              TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority.............         0         0          0         0
  Outlays......................     (226)         0          0     (226)
House-passed:
  Budget Authority.............        43     1,213          0     1,256
  Outlays......................      (24)       786          0       762
President's request:
  Budget Authority.............       710     1,733          0     2,443
  Outlays......................       446     1,150          0     1,596
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 budget resolution includes a ``firewall'' in the Senate
  between defense and nondefense spending. Because the firewall is for
  budget authority only, the appropriations committee did not provide a
  separate allocation for defense outlays. This table combines defense
  and nondefense outlays together as ``general purpose'' for purposes of
  comparing the Senate-reported outlays with the subcommittee's
  allocation.
 
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. For enforcement
  purposes, the Budget Committee compares the Senate-reported bill to
  the Senate 302(b) allocation.

                               LAKE BOND

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to thank the Senator for his support of 
continued funding for a small flood control project for Bono, Arkansas, 
which is very important to me. I appreciate his efforts to help me 
secure language in the statement of managers which would fund this 
project under the section 205 small flood control projects program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good friend from Arkansas that I understand 
the situation in Arkansas and the reason for his amendment. I am happy 
to support report language which will take care of this project in 
place of the Senate voting on your amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the ranking member and I also thank the 
honorable chairman, Senator Reid, for his help with this vital flood 
control project.
  I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________