[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11531-S11551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I expected Senator Domenici to be in the 
Chamber. We have a couple of amendments we wanted to clear before the 
vote began, but he is not present. So Senator Feinstein should go ahead 
and start her debate if she cares to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask the minority whip how much time 
I have.
  Mr. REID. Before I respond, Senator Domenici is present and we will 
be happy to extend the time of the Senator if we need to.


           Amendments Nos. 1665, 1666, 1667, and 1668 En Bloc

  Mr. REID. Senator Domenici and I have been working on a number of 
issues. I send a series of four amendments to the desk and ask that 
they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1665, 1666, 1667, and 1668 en bloc.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1665

       At the appropriate place insert the following:


                          Working Capital Fund

                              (Rescission)

       From unobligated balances under this heading $4,525,000 are 
     rescinded.


                           Amendment No. 1666

       On page 32, line 10 strike ``853,517,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``859,517,000''.


                           Amendment No. 1667

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.  . That of the funds provided, an additional 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for the Middle Rio Grande, NM 
     project and an additional $3,000,000 shall be available for 
     the Lake Tahoe Regional Wetlands Development project.


                           Amendment No. 1668

       On page 33, at the end of line 12 insert the following:


              ``Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account

       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     program for direct loans and/or grants, $200,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which the amount that can be 
     financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from that 
     fund.''

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, our staff has worked on these amendments 
during the last several days. I ask they be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1665 through 1668) en bloc were agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I ask that the Senator from California be given an extra 
minute from the time we just took.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 1655

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when 7 
minutes have expired so I can defer to my cosponsor, Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
names of Senators Johnson, Murray, Clinton, and Rockefeller be added to 
our amendment as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Kennedy and I came 
to the floor and we spent some time arguing on behalf of an amendment 
to this bill which contained language similar to what was recently past 
by a large majority in the House of Representatives. The bill passed by 
the House of Representatives struck the language that appropriates 
funds to begin a new generation of nuclear weapons.
  Now, there are some on the other side who say, and continue to say, 
this is just a study; there is no development. I believe that is not 
the case. Let me connect the dots for you.
  In January of 2002, the administration put forward a Nuclear Posture 
Review which advocates the development of new types of nuclear weapons. 
Later that year, the President signed National Security Directive 17, 
indicating that the United States might use nuclear weapons first to 
respond to a chemical or biological attack.
  Earlier this year, a decade-old prohibition on the development of 
low-yield nuclear weapons was rescinded in the Defense authorization 
bill. For 10 years, this kind of thing was prohibited. That 
prohibition, known as the Spratt-Furse amendment, was repealed earlier 
this year.
  This spring a statement of administration policy for the Defense 
authorization bill clearly included support for the research and 
development of low-yield nuclear weapons.
  In this bill the Senate is being asked to provide the dollars to 
begin this effort--$15 million for the study of a robust nuclear earth 
penetrator. We are talking in excess of 100 kilotons; $6 million for 
advanced concepts research, including low-yield weapons; funding for 
enhanced test site readiness; and a huge new $4 billion plutonium pit 
facility--all of this when we are already spending $2.3 billion for a 
Los Alamos facility that can provide replacement for the U.S. nuclear 
stockpile.
  We are strongly opposed to America beginning a new generation of 
nuclear weapons. We are opposed to it for two reasons: No. 1, the low-
yield nuclear weapon--under 5 kilotons--essentially begins to blur the 
use between conventional and nuclear weapons, therefore making it 
easier to use. And, No. 2, because the world will watch this and the 
world will respond. The way in which they will respond is with a new 
nuclear arms race.

  If the United States begins to develop tactical, battlefield nuclear 
weapons, how long will it take for two indigenous nuclear powers, 
namely India and Pakistan, arch enemies, to say we should do the same 
thing. How long will it take for North Korea or Iran or any other 
nation that so seeks to begin such a similar program?
  As many internationally have said: America preaches nonproliferation, 
and then it goes ahead and develops new nuclear weapons.
  I think that is hypocritical. I do not think this country should be 
in that position.
  So we strike these items; we fence two, we place the rest of the 
money in deficit reduction.
  I want to say a few words about the nuclear pits because I think 
there is some misunderstanding. Although current production capacity 
may be limited, it is simply not true, as some have asserted, that the 
United States lacks the capacity to manufacture replacement pits. 
According to the Department of Energy's own Web site:

       The first pit that could be certified for use in the 
     stockpile was manufactured in April 2003 as a first step to 
     establish an interim--10 to 20 pits per year--production 
     capability at Los Alamos in 2007.

  And the Los Alamos facility can be modified to produce 150 pits a 
year.
  Although the exact number is classified, reputable open sources 
estimate that there are between 5,000 and 12,000 extra pits in reserve 
at Pantex, beyond the 10,600 current intact warheads.
  The average age of the plutonium pits in the U.S. stockpile is 19 
years, and the Department of Energy estimates a pit minimum life to be 
between 45 and 60 years, with no life-limiting factors.
  This is the beginning. This money will go to field a new generation 
of nuclear weapons. We should not do this. The House had the good sense 
to eliminate this language. The Senate should follow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes ten seconds.

[[Page S11532]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. And how much on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 13 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Four minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am recognized for how long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has yielded 4 
minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield the remainder of 
my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Then, would the Chair let me know when I have a minute 
and a half left, please?
  First of all, I welcome the opportunity to be here with my friend and 
colleague from California in what I consider to be one of the most 
important votes that we will have this year. It is an issue involving 
our security. It is an issue, I believe, also, in the battle on 
terrorism.
  It was just 40 years September 24, 40 years ago on September 24, that 
we had the signing of the first partial test ban treaty.
  This chart reflects in a very abbreviated way, but an enormously 
important way what has happened over the last 40 years as leaders of 
the Democrats and Republicans alike moved us away from the real 
possibility of nuclear confrontation, and we have seen enormous 
success. We have seen the willingness of countries around the world to 
give up their capability of developing nuclear weapons because they 
wanted to be a part of the worldwide effort on nuclear proliferation. 
They also recognized it would be a more secure world if we didn't have 
further nuclear expansion.
  We listened to the debate yesterday and the points that were well-
made by my very good friend from New Mexico about how this legislation 
is really not about developing a new nuclear weapon. But the Senator 
from California pointed out three different references, all which have 
been included as a part of the Record. The most obvious is the 
administration's own statement of administration policy this past 
spring asking for the continued need for ``flexibility in the 
cooperative threat reduction program and support for critical research 
and the development''--I will say this again--``and the development for 
low-yield nuclear weapons.'' That is what this issue is about.
  Are we going to reverse the last 40 years? Do we possibly think there 
will be a safer America if we begin to move back towards the testing 
and the developing of what they call mini-nukes?
  I don't believe so, because I believe a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. It 
is an entirely different weapons system than those in our conventional 
forces. We understand that. We have to take what the administration has 
stated: they intend to move ahead in the development of a new nuclear 
capability.
  Those with responsibility within the administration have made it very 
clear. In February of 2003, Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Nuclear Affairs, said:

       If a nuclear bomb could be developed to penetrate rock and 
     concrete and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded.

  In April of 2003, Linton Brooks, Chief of Nuclear Weapons at the 
Department of Energy, stated before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee:

       I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because . 
     . . I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable.

  We have been warned. We have the capability that exists to make sure 
we have the deterrence on into the future. But this is a radical 
departure of 40 years of Republicans and Democrats alike moving us away 
from the dangers of nuclear confrontations and the dangers of nuclear 
proliferation to the development of small nuclear weapons. And we will 
find this an invitation for the terrorists around the world to come and 
seek out that weapon. If we develop a small nuclear weapon, what are we 
going to find? The corresponding action by countries around the world--
the Iranians and the North Koreans continuing their progress in 
developing their own nuclear weapons system.
  That doesn't make sense in terms of the country that is the number 
one military force in the world today. It doesn't make sense, and it 
doesn't make sense for our battle against the war on terrorism.
  It is very clear why this amendment is needed. The administration 
pretends it is not really planning to produce these new kinds of 
nuclear weapons--the mini-nukes and the bunker busters. They just want 
to find out if they are feasible.
  We all know what is at stake. The administration wants us to take the 
first steps down a new path. But going down that path could easily make 
nuclear war more likely. Just a little step--they say. But it is still 
a first step. And a step down that path now could make the next step 
easier, and the next and the next. It is a path that makes nuclear war 
more likely, and the time to call a halt is now--before we take the 
first step.
  We ask for and implore the support of our colleagues to move us away 
from the real dangers of nuclear proliferation and the development of 
these dangerous mini-nukes that can pose a danger to the world 
population.
  I withhold whatever time is left.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before the chairman of the committee 
speaks, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow be listed as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, first of all, it should 
be understood by everyone that this language which is being stricken 
does not permit the United States of America to build any new nuclear 
weapons--large, small, medium-sized, or otherwise. There is no 
authority in this bill to build new nuclear weapons.
  No. 2, this bill says that in Nevada we used to test nuclear weapons 
for decades. Whenever our nuclear laboratory experts used to certify to 
our Presidents that the weapons were in good shape, ready, reliable, 
available, and safe, they did it principally because we had a testing 
ground in Nevada, and we tested bombs to know precisely their efficacy, 
reliability, et cetera.
  When we decided to no longer test, we essentially closed down or put 
that test facility in mothballs. But we knew we must always keep it in 
case we needed it. We left it there, saying if we ever need it, we can 
use it in 3 years.
  All this amendment does--it could be a totally freestanding 
amendment, if one wanted, but it is part of the amendment that the 
Senator from California strikes--is say let us upgrade that Nevada Test 
Site so if we need it, we can use it in 1\1/2\ years. There are few 
American nuclear experts who do not think 1\1/2\ years is the correct 
amount--not 3 but 1\1/2\. That has nothing to do with us setting about 
to build a brand new small nuclear weapon. It has nothing to do with us 
building a stockpile of new weapons. It has to do with just what I 
explained and nothing else.
  Third, regardless of what has gone on in Los Alamos for the last 7 
years in an effort to produce for America plutonium pits--the 
ingredient for a nuclear weapon that must be there or you don't have a 
nuclear weapon--we have no American manufacturing center for the 
production of pits. The Los Alamos facility has been a facility that we 
just pushed. We pushed it and pushed it, and finally it has almost 
produced a pit. But it has not produced a certifiable pit yet in 7 
years of effort. It has produced a pit or two, but they are not 
certifiable, which means they are not complete.
  All this bill says is the time has come to build a plant to 
manufacture pits for the next 40 years--not for a new weapons system 
but so we can have them in storage for the next 40 years. We are the 
only nuclear weapons power without spare pits for nuclear weapons. Yes, 
the only one. Why would we say we should not do that? The only reason 
we would do it is if we believed what the Senator from California 
alleges; that is, we are doing it because we are going to build a new 
set of nuclear weapons.
  If we were authorizing a series or a set of new nuclear weapons, this 
amendment would be the biggest amendment in the country. It would have 
been written about, talked about, harked about, and we would have been 
all over and upside down and inside out. But there is nothing in the 
bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon.

[[Page S11533]]

  That comes to the final part. It is very simple, if you will just 
listen and know what we are trying to do.
  Those who manage our nuclear, those who are our nuclear experts, who 
use their minds to dream up ideas about where we are going to be, what 
troubles we might have in the future, and what new might occur in the 
world that might require changes, are the men and women of great 
talent. This bill does what the executive branch and the experts on 
nuclear management say: Let those people think, let those people 
design, let those people postulate, and don't put blinders on their 
brains and say you can't even think about these things because it might 
someday yield an idea that might cause us to do something different 
with a nuclear weapon.
  Frankly, I believe the men and women who already put that fantastic 
brainpower to work in this area deserve to have their brains used, not 
tied in knots by rules about what you cannot think about and what you 
cannot plan for.

  The third part, this amendment says you cannot plan, think about, 
design for the future, even when you know you cannot build them, which 
is what the rule is going to be.
  We have argued this about as long as we can. I have argued it about 
as hard as I can. I am getting close to being tired of arguing this, 
but it is so important we not make a mistake. It would be a tragic 
mistake to vote for the Feinstein amendment. There is nothing we are 
doing that the Feinstein amendment should stop. If, in fact, we were 
going to build nuclear weapons, you ought to be concerned and perhaps 
vote with her, if she is saying do not do it. But we do not plan to. It 
is not in here. And she cannot stop it because we are not going to do 
it. In that regard, the amendment is useless.
  But it is not useless when it comes to the three things that it does: 
It will stop us from planning the manufacturing plant of the future for 
pits. It will do that. And we should not do that. Second, it will stop 
the money and the planning and the work to bring the Nevada Test Site 
up to par and ready for a new test in 18 months rather than 3 years. It 
will do that. And third, it will put blinders on the scientists with 
reference to them being able to speak about the future and future 
needs, which change.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 4 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from California has 9 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve my time.


               Amendments Nos. 1676, 1677, 1678, En Bloc

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send three amendments of Senator Domenici 
to the desk. They have been reviewed. I ask they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes amendments Nos. 1676, 1677, and 1678, en bloc.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1676

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 403(f) of the 
     Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1543(f)), no 
     amount from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund 
     shall be paid to the general fund of the Treasury until each 
     provision of the revised Stipulation Regarding a Stay and for 
     Ultimate Judgment Upon the Satisfaction of Conditions, filed 
     in United States district court on April 24, 2003, in Central 
     Arizona Water Conservation District v. United States (No. CIV 
     95-625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-OHX-EHC (Consolidated 
     Action)), and any amendment or revision thereof, is met.
       (b) Payment to General Fund.--If any of the provisions of 
     the stipulation referred to in subsection (a) are not met by 
     the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, payments to the general fund of the Treasury shall 
     resume in accordance with section 403(f) of the Colorado 
     River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1534(f)).
       (c) Authorization.--Amounts in the Lower Colorado River 
     Basin Development Fund that but for this section would be 
     returned to the general fund of the Treasury may not be 
     expended until further Act of Congress.


                           amendment no. 1677

  (Purpose: To set aside additional funds for the Mni Wiconi project, 
                             South Dakota)

       On page 33, line 12, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided under this heading, an additional $5,000,000 may be 
     available for the Mni Wiconi project, South Dakota''.


                           amendment no. 1678

(Purpose: To set aside funds for certain projects and activities at the 
                     Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama)

       On page 15, line 16, after the colon, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, may use not less than 
     $5,461,000 of the funds made available under this heading for 
     the Alabama-Coosa River, Alabama (including for routine 
     operations and maintenance work at Swift Creek Park), of 
     which not less than $2,500,000 may be used for annual 
     maintenance dredging of navigational channels of the Alabama-
     Coosa River:''.

  Mr. REID. These have been cleared by Senator Domenici, this Senator, 
and our respective staffs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1676, 1677, and 1678) were agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment NO. 1655

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the remaining time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield my remaining time. I move to table the 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, is there a sufficient 
second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Fitzgerald) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is absent 
because of a death in the family.
  Mr. REID of North Carolina. I announce that the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Edwards
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Jack Reed has an amendment that 
is acceptable, if he is ready. Is the Senator ready?

[[Page S11534]]

  Mr. REED. I have my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 1659 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 1569.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of fund for certain activities relating 
  to advanced nuclear weapons concepts, including the robust nuclear 
                           earth penetrator)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 313. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     to the Department of Energy by this Act may be available for 
     activities at the engineering development phases, phase 3 or 
     6.3, or beyond, in support of advanced nuclear weapons 
     concepts, including the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson 
of Florida be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Feinstein-Kennedy 
amendment did not pass because I believe that amendment really 
responded to the issues of the moment. We are in a dangerous time 
because we see around the globe where there are nations aspiring to 
become nuclear powers, where proliferation is one of the most dangerous 
threats this Nation faces, particularly proliferation that would 
provide fissile material to terrorists, which is the great fear of all 
of us.
  In order to resist the growth of nuclear powers around the globe, we 
have to be faithful to our commitment to arms control and our sense 
that further development of nuclear weapons--and, I would argue, 
weapons without military requirements--is really not so much an 
exercise in protecting the United States but it is an exercise that 
will lead us down a path that could see our country exposed to even 
more dangers. So I am very much concerned that the Feinstein-Kennedy 
amendment failed.
  Therefore, I am proposing an amendment that I hope will essentially 
put restraints upon the use of these dollars in the development of 
nuclear weapons, and I will explain it in more detail later. It would 
constrain the expenditure of funds to the the research phase. It would 
preclude monies to be used to engineer a weapon, to test a weapon, and 
to deploy a weapon. It is language that is consistent with the language 
included in the Defense Authorization Act which we passed several 
months ago.
  We are at a difficult moment in our history, as I mentioned.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield for a question to my cosponsor, 
Senator Nelson.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I appreciate the Senator offering this 
amendment and I just want to underscore with a question that the 
Senator's amendment will allow the research to go on as we intended in 
the Defense authorization bill but would not allow the development and 
the engineering where these weapons would be actually designed until 
such time as the executive branch would come back to the Congress to 
get approval to do that. Is that correct?
  Mr. REED. That is absolutely correct. It reflects the value of the 
contribution the Senator from Florida made in the Defense authorization 
debate.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REED. There are some who have criticized any attempts at arms 
control as futile, as failures. That, I think, is a dangerous idea. I 
hope arms controls work because history seems to show that, without 
controlling arms, eventually they wind up being used, and when it comes 
to the issue of nuclear weapons, that is a great nightmare that has 
haunted all mankind since 1945.
  Since that date, we have been successful in containing the use of 
nuclear weapons. It is because we took prudent steps to try to control 
the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the development of nuclear 
weapons. And at this juncture in history, to stand up and say arms 
control does not work not only misreads history but misses the point 
entirely. We have to make it work. Indeed, arms control has provided us 
at least some respite, some bit of breathing space, from the horrors of 
Hiroshima. That in itself is a success.
  Today, particularly when we look at North Korea, I think we had all 
better hope fervently that arms control can work because without some 
type of arms control there, we will be in an extraordinarily precarious 
situation.

  If we look at the situation in Iran, where the international arms 
control agency is trying to work with the Iranians, trying to get them 
to cooperate with the world community, that is an example of arms 
control in action. I hope--and I am sure I speak for everyone else--
that that effort succeeds.
  Time and again, when we have had serious situations, we have been 
able to use the norms established by international arms control 
agreements as leverage in a particular crisis. Arms control is not 
perfect, but without it we would be in a much more dangerous and much 
more devastating world environment.
  This administration, however, has effectively turned its back on so 
many different initiatives: The repeal of the ABM Treaty, the failure 
to follow up the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty by sending it again to 
the Senate for a vote. This and so many other examples suggest that the 
administration has not effectively read the lessons of history. I 
believe they have the mistaken view that arms control will never work 
rather than trying to make it work, understanding it is not perfect but 
it is essential to our national security strategy.
  My colleague and friend John Spratt stated it very well in an article 
in the March 2003 edition of Arms Control Today. In his words:

       My greatest concern is that some in the administration and 
     in the Congress seem to think that the United States can move 
     the world in one direction while Washington moves in another, 
     that we can continue to prevail on other countries not to 
     develop nuclear weapons while we develop new tactical 
     applications for such weapons and possibly resume nuclear 
     testing.

  Congressman Spratt was very clear. In life, one really cannot have it 
both ways. I think this is an example of that. At one time, you cannot 
be trying to persuade, convince, and cajole other nations to abandon 
the development of nuclear weapons while you are blatantly going ahead 
and developing them yourself. The approach of the administration has 
been to attempt to get it both ways. It will be doomed to failure.
  I would argue that rather than declaring the arms control movement 
dead, we have to give it renewed life. Indeed, we can point to 
successes in the past that should give us some comfort to know that if 
we work hard, if we work in a disciplined and dedicated way, we can use 
arms control to enhance our security--not exclusively depend, 
certainly, on arms control, but it has to be an important part of our 
repertoire.

  In the early 1960s, when there were a few nuclear powers--the United 
States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China--there was a fear that 
within a decade or more, as President Kennedy expressed it, there would 
be at least 25 countries that developed nuclear weapons. What was 
feared did not come to pass because of effective, meaningful arms 
control exemplified in many respects by the nonproliferation treaty and 
other initiatives.
  Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has cited this record, 
indicating his support for continued efforts at arms control. In his 
words:

       [I]nstead of the 25 or so countries that President Kennedy 
     once predicted, only a handful of nations possess nuclear 
     weapons. Of course we suspect many more countries have 
     chemical or biological weapons, but still short of the scores 
     that had been predicted in the past. We have reached this 
     state of affairs in no small part through the concerted 
     effort of many nations. Agreements, such as the nuclear 
     nonproliferation treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
     organizations such as the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers 
     Group--these constitute a global security architecture that 
     has served us satisfactorily and kept us safe.

  But critics of arms control fail to acknowledge that Argentina and 
Brazil and South Korea and Taiwan ceased

[[Page S11535]]

their suspected nuclear programs in part because of the international 
norms represented by the nonproliferation treaty. Without these norms 
and without the United States exemplifying these norms, I don't think 
we would have the success we have had in these cases that I have cited.
  Similarly, when the Soviet Union dissolved and the Newly Independent 
States of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine found themselves with 
nuclear weapons, they voluntarily turned them in as a result of the 
norms established by the international arms control regimes. South 
Africa has also given up their nuclear weapons.
  This is an example, not of perfect success but of success. If we 
begin to abide by our commitment to the nonproliferation treaty, to our 
commitments to reducing nuclear weapons rather than building new ones, 
we might be able to provide more leverage on countries such as India 
and Pakistan so that they would join the nonproliferation treaty and 
the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. That is the kind of leadership we 
need at the moment. I hope we can get it.
  As I mentioned before, we also are facing very serious problems with 
North Korea and Iran. I hope they can be resolved peacefully. But that 
peaceful resolution implies extending arms control agreements to these 
countries. So disparaging arms control is doing a great disservice to 
our national security and to our strategy.
  The Bush administration has seemed bound since their first days in 
office to reverse 50 years of arms control activities, both by 
Republican and Democratic administrations. In December 2001, they 
published their Nuclear Posture Review.
  This review was troubling in many respects. For the first time in 
history, this review suggested that we would use weapons, nuclear 
weapons, not simply to deter another nuclear power but to engage a 
nonnuclear power. The report essentially said that we would consider 
for the first time and be prepared to use nuclear weapons against 
nonnuclear nations that were nonaligned with a nuclear power--a 
tremendous reversal in our strategic outlook, blurring the distinction 
between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, a distinction that 
since Hiroshima we on both sides of the aisle have endeavored mightily 
to maintain crystal clear. This blurring, this suggestion that we would 
use nuclear weapons in a first strike against nonnuclear powers, set 
the tone for other administration pronouncements.

  Last November, a memo from then-Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Pete Aldridge, became public. 
The memo directed nuclear weapons laboratories to:

     . . . assess the technical risks associated with maintaining 
     the U.S. arsenal without nuclear testing . . . [and suggested 
     the] U.S. take another look at conducting small nuclear 
     tests.

  Following up to this memo, the President's budget for fiscal year 
2004 included $24 million to reduce the time needed to prepare to 
conduct a nuclear weapons test from 2-3 years at present to 18 months--
once again, a very sobering and ominous suggestion that we would begin 
to test nuclear weapons again; that we would abandon our efforts to 
assure the quality of our stockpile through nontesting means and that 
we would conduct tests.
  If the United States of America begins again to conduct nuclear 
tests, I think that would be an open invitation to other countries, 
such as India and Pakistan, and perhaps powers undeclared as yet, to 
begin a nuclear testing program. It certainly would be good cover 
internationally.
  The President's budget in 2004 also went on to request $22.8 million 
to accelerate the design and select a site for a new modern pit 
facility.
  Plutonium pits are necessary components of nuclear weapons. We have 
not had the ability to build such pits since 1988. We do need a pit 
facility. But the proposal of the administration goes far beyond any 
conceivable needs, given the current situation. They want to create a 
facility that is capable of producing up to 500 pits per year. That 
would be 500 nuclear weapons per year. That is a rate that rivals 
anything in the cold war, and according to the administration, the cold 
war is over--except, I guess, when it comes to nuclear policy or at 
least nuclear design and production policy.
  Then in addition to this development, the administration has been 
vigorously pressing for the design of a robust nuclear earth-penetrator 
to be used against hard and deeply buried targets. The RNEP would be a 
modification of an existing nuclear device, necessarily a very large 
nuclear device. It has been deemed a bunker buster. But, frankly, the 
kilotonnage or the tonnage of this RNEP is so large it would be a city 
buster, not a bunker buster. The kilotons of the weapons dropped on 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 14 and 21 kilotons, respectively, and this 
RNEP could be 71 times larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That 
is not a bunker buster. That is not a discrete weapon that could take 
the place of precision conventional weapons. Yet the administration is 
pressing forward.
  Then this year the administration requested the repeal of the 1993 
statutory ban on the research, development, and production of low-yield 
nuclear weapons and $6 million for funding for advanced nuclear weapons 
concepts.
  Current law prohibits work, design, research with respect to weapons 
below 5 kilotons. The administration seeks to repeal this ban--strike 
it out--even though there is no military requirement for these small 
sized nuclear weapons.
  When asked about this proposal, Ambassador Linton Brooks, the Acting 
Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated before 
the Armed Services Committee:

       I have a bias in favor of something that is the minimum 
     destruction. . . .that means I have a bias in favor of things 
     that might be usable.

  Here we have it. A history of 5 decades of trying to create a nuclear 
policy that dissuades the world from using nuclear weapons and we are 
trying to develop small nuclear weapons, which the scientists at this 
time say--the lab leaders say--are designed to be used. We have crossed 
a huge space between our policy of 5 decades and this newly emerging 
policy. We have moved from being the leader in arms control to being 
someone who treats arms control casually, if not flippantly. The irony, 
of course, is we stand to suffer the most. I hope we could reverse this 
trend.
  I had hoped very much that the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment would be 
agreed to because I think that would have sent a strong signal and be a 
practical and pragmatic step. But now we have the opportunity to 
constrain the funds that are being expended for those preliminary 
research aspects of nuclear weapons development. As my colleague, 
Senator Nelson, said, it will give Congress a chance to decide, after 
more information, more debate, and more justification, whether it is in 
our national interest to proceed with the development, engineering, and 
deployment of a new class of nuclear weapons.
  The amendment I offer today will allow the Department of Energy to 
use $22 million in funding that the President requested for advanced 
nuclear weapons concepts for research alone. The amendment would not 
allow money to be used for developing, testing, or deploying new 
nuclear weapons, or RNEP, which is a modification of an existing 
weapon.
  This amendment would assure that the appropriations bill is 
consistent with the language that is included in the fiscal year 2004 
Defense authorization bill. During that debate, an amendment that would 
require the Department of Energy to seek specific authorization and 
appropriations before proceeding with phases beyond research passed 
this body by a vote of 96 to 0. The Senate has clearly spoken on this 
issue. The amendment I offer today will ensure that the Department of 
Energy will comply with the wishes of Congress by returning to the 
Congress before beginning development, testing, production, and 
deployment of a new nuclear weapon or the RNEP.
  I believe we should retain the prohibition on any research or 
development of low-yield nuclear weapons. But if that must change--if 
we must eliminate the threat-first amendment--I believe the research is 
all that is necessary at this time and that there should be a full and 
complete debate on any development funding for a system of nuclear 
weapons or the RNEP based upon research first.

[[Page S11536]]

  The primary reason that the administration says it needs this money 
for advanced nuclear concepts is to, in their terms, ``train the next 
generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers.''
  Ambassador Brooks, Director of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, stated that research must be funded to ``remove the 
chilling effect on scientific inquiry that could hamper our ability to 
maintain and exercise our intellectual capabilities to respond to needs 
that one day might be articulated by the President.''
  In July, Energy Secretary Abraham said: ``We are not planning any 
nuclear weapons at all.'' If research is the reason, if research is the 
justification, if we are planning no nuclear weapons, then this 
amendment provides the funding and the authority for the research.
  This amendment is very clear about what is allowed. There are very 
distinct phases in the development of nuclear weapons. Since 1953, the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have worked in a 
very formalized weapons development process. Indeed, the Atomic Energy 
Commission was one of the predecessors of the effort. And the Atomic 
Energy Commission was also involved in the formulation of the process.
  My amendment would prohibit ``development engineering,'' which is the 
third phase. This is for new weapons development.
  All of these phases would be authorized, and the funds could be 
expended for concept definition, feasibility study, design definition, 
and cost study. But you could not go into phase 3, development 
definition. It is clear and precise--allowing the research and allowing 
all that is necessary, according to both the rationale to train our 
scientists and also the affirmation by the Secretary of Energy that we 
were not planning to develop new nuclear weapons.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator conclude amendment No. 1659 regarding 
the Energy Department's research on nuclear weapons?
  Mr. REED. I did not. In the next few minutes I will complete my 
comments on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator might offer that amendment so I 
could give him my concurrence.
  Mr. REED. The amendment has been offered. I think Senator Levin wants 
to speak. But the Senator's concurrence will be invited as soon as I 
conclude.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on this side of the aisle, we accept the 
Reed-Levin-Kennedy-Feinstein amendment because it is current policy. It 
just repeats current policy unequivocably. This is what the policy of 
the country is. We did not change that in our bill. The Senator is most 
welcome to try to make it eminently clear what that current policy is. 
For that reason, we will accept it whenever it is ready to be accepted 
by the Senate.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for 
his kindness in accepting the amendment. The policy is included in the 
Defense authorization bill. But there is a debate ongoing about what 
the precise policy is. We want to at least set this limit with respect 
to the policy.
  The chairman suggesting that it will be accepted will prompt me to 
quickly conclude my comments.
  I note that my colleague from Michigan is here also seeking 
recognition.
  We brought this measure to the Defense authorization debate. As was 
indicated in my discussion with Chairman Domenici, the Senate passed 
this provision overwhelmingly. This is now included in this 
appropriations bill. It is going to be an interesting conference 
because our colleagues in the House have stricken the money; that is 
the preference that I would suggest is the best approach. But short of 
that, this at least constrains the spending of the funds to the first 
three phases of research, which apparently, at least in my view, 
directly responds to the professed need for the funds, and it will also 
again support the statement of the Secretary of Energy that there is no 
plan to develop nuclear weapons.
  In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Admiral Ellis, the 
Commander of the Strategic Command, which command is responsible for 
all nuclear weapons, stated that:

       U.S. Strategic Command is interested in conducting rigorous 
     studies of all new technologies examining the merits of 
     precision, increased penetration, and reduced yields for our 
     nuclear weapons.

  Once again, this proposal corresponds to the request from our 
military leaders in what they are looking for today.
  I hope that not only this amendment will be incorporated into this 
pending appropriations bill but that in conference we at least maintain 
this.
  I again urge my colleagues to think hard again about the Kennedy-
Feinstein proposal and the proposal that is already included in the 
House provisions. But today is an opportunity at least to slow down a 
rush to develop nuclear weapons which have no, or very limited, 
military requirements, and it would give us an opportunity as a 
Congress to debate the wisdom of our course of action.
  Let me conclude by saying we have changed course dramatically. After 
50 years of being the leading nation in the world arguing for arms 
control, arguing for sensible constraints in the development of nuclear 
weapons and limits on nuclear weapons, we have become a nation that is 
casual about our commitment to arms control, that denigrates it too 
often, and that course has left us with the only other option which is 
I think less appropriate. As I said initially, if there are no arms 
control, then there is a higher probability of arms usage. With nuclear 
weapons, that is a thought that no one wants to contemplate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Rhode Island for 
his leadership in this area. It is critically important that we show 
some constraint--at least in funding of new nuclear weapons and 
modifications of existing nuclear weapons in order to make them more 
usable.
  Appropriating funds, as this bill does, for research on a new nuclear 
weapon and research on a modification of existing weapons in order to 
make them more useful moves us in a dangerous new direction which marks 
a major shift in American policy. It is inconsistent with our 
longstanding commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to 
end the nuclear arms race. It undermines our argument to other 
countries around the world that they should not develop or test nuclear 
weapons. Unfortunately, the bill before us supports this dangerous new 
direction by putting funds into research of both the new weapon and 
modification of existing weapons to make them more usable.
  At least the pending amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island puts 
an explicit constraint on the expenditure of that money. Why it is so 
important this language be included is that it makes explicit, before 
we can move to the developmental stage of these new weapons, there must 
be an explicit congressional vote. It cannot happen--this next stage, 
which we hope will never come--if the Reed language is adopted and 
maintained in conference, and if we were able to maintain similar 
language in conference in the authorization bill that development of 
these new weapons and modified weapons, to make them more usable, could 
not happen without an explicit action on the part of Congress.

  That is not the current policy that there be an explicit 
authorization. It is not inconsistent with current policy that there be 
an explicit authorization before we approve development, but it is not 
the existing policy.
  It is critically important that at least if we cannot stop this 
country from moving in a direction which is so totally inconsistent 
with what we are urging the rest of the world to do, at a minimum, we 
go as far as we can in expressing the determination of at least many of 
us that we move not at all, if possible, before we move that there be a 
formal vote on the part of Congress.
  I do not understand how we can argue to other countries, with our 
heads high, that they should not move in a nuclear direction at the 
same time we are doing research on new nuclear weapons. We are telling 
others, do not go down that road. But instead of being a leader in the 
effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are going to 
move recklessly down that

[[Page S11537]]

same road. We are following a policy that we do not tolerate in others.
  The adoption of the Reed amendment would at least put some brake on 
the speed at which we are going down that road, and hopefully, before 
development is reached, before taking the next milestone on that road.
  Appropriating funds for research in new nuclear weapons begins to 
take the United States in a dangerous new direction that marks a major 
shift in American policy, is inconsistent with our longstanding 
commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to end the nuclear 
arms race, and undermines our argument to other countries around the 
world that they should not develop or test nuclear weapons. 
Unfortunately the bill now on the Senate floor would also support this 
dangerous new direction. But the pending amendment puts an explicit 
constraint on it.
  Current U.S. law bans research and development of new nuclear weapons 
that could lead to their production. The specific weapons covered by 
the ban are so called low-yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear 
explosive yield of 5 kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third 
the size of the nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima, which 
immediately killed an estimated 140,000 people and left many more 
injured.
  The Bush administration asked that this ban be repealed. If the ban 
is repealed, the purpose is to make nuclear weapons more usable. As 
stated by Linton Brooks, the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration in testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 8, 
2003, ``I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I 
have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum destruction . . 
. I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable.''
  The language approved by a majority of the Armed Services Committee 
and included in the Senate passed version of the Defense authorization 
bill would repeal this ban. Without this ban there is no impediment in 
law to research, development, testing, production, or deployment of 
new, low yield nuclear weapons. The bill before us would also support 
the repeal of this ban by appropriating $6 million to begin the 
research on new low-yield nuclear weapons, or for any other advanced 
new nuclear weapons concept.
  The Defense authorization bill authorizes the National 
Nuclear Security Administration to continue work on a robust nuclear 
earth penetrator (RNEP). The Energy and Water bill would appropriate 
these funds.

  This effort would modify one of two existing high-yield nuclear 
weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will penetrate rock. Both 
weapons being looked at for possible modification are high yield 
nuclear weapons with yields that are approximately 30 and 70 times the 
explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Without a requirement that the 
earth penetrator weapon be authorized by Congress, there is no legal 
impediment to its development, testing, production, or deployment.
  At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other 
countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we 
strongly oppose North Korea's pulling out of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty, when we are trying to prevent Iran from 
establishing a nuclear weapons program and when we are spending over a 
billion dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and 
technology, these actions would send a terrible message. We are telling 
others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons. But instead of being 
a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, 
we are recklessly driving down that same road. In short, the United 
States is following a policy that we do not tolerate in others.
  President Bush on June 18 stated that the United States will not 
tolerate a nuclear Iran. Similarly in May President Bush, in a joint 
statement with the President of South Korea, said he would not tolerate 
a North Korean nuclear weapon.
  The leaked version of the Nuclear Posture Review identifies both 
North Korea and Iran as countries against which the United States 
should be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Clearly North Korea is the 
focus of the concern about hard and deeply buried targets and the 
desire to pursue the development of an RNEP.
  At the same time that the United States is actively engaging in talks 
with North Korea to persuade them to give up their nuclear weapons 
program and urging the IAEA to ensure that Iran does not pursue a 
nuclear weapons program, we are beginning the process to develop new 
nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is taking action to ensure 
that there is a robust complex to build new nuclear weapons and an 
accelerated test readiness program to test them.
  Where is the consistency in our actions? Having undertaken a 
preemptive war against an alleged imminent threat in the name of 
counter proliferation, can the United States effectively unite the 
world against Iran and North Korea's pursuance of nuclear weapons 
programs when the Bush administration appears to be on the verge of 
reversing a decades old nuclear policy and pursuing new tactical 
nuclear weapons? Weapons that, in the words of Linton Brooks, the 
Administrator of the National Security Administration, ``might be 
usable.''

  The inconsistency of U.S. action was noted in a May 17 editorial in 
the Economist Magazine:

     . . . America would dangerously blur the line against nuclear 
     use by anyone. That would make it more likely, not less, that 
     America's own forces would eventually have nuclear weapons 
     used against them too. Mr. Bush has said repeatedly, with 
     reason, that he wants America to rely less on nuclear weapons 
     for its future security, not more. In their determination to 
     leave no weapons avenue unexplored, his advisors are 
     proposing to lead America along a dangerous path. Time the 
     president called a halt.

  On July 17 of this year the New York Times also commented on the 
inconsistency between urging others to forego nuclear weapons 
development at a time when the United States is beginning to put in 
place all the elements of a new nuclear weapons program. Particularly a 
program whose goal appears to be to produce nuclear weapons that 
``might be usable.''
  The July 17 editorial cautioned:

       Nuclear bombs should not be casually re-engineered for 
     ordinary battlefield use at a time when countries like North 
     Korea, Pakistan and India have added nuclear weapons to their 
     arsenals and a chief objective of U.S. policy is to make sure 
     these weapons are never used.

  I urge the Bush administration to continue to work to persuade both 
North Korea and Iran to disavow nuclear weapons programs. Arms control 
still has a vital role to play. As Deputy Secretary of State Armitage 
said, in defense of the Nonproliferation Treaty, ``Agreements such as 
the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
organizations such as the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group--these 
constitute a global security architecture that has served us 
satisfactorily and kept us sage.''
  As Rose Gottemoeller, a former Assistant Secretary of Energy said:

       Other countries watch us like a hawk. They are very 
     attentive to what we do in the nuclear arena. This is going 
     to be considered another step in the tectonic shift. I think 
     people abroad will interpret this as part of a really 
     enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to 
     renuclearize. And I think definitely there's going to be an 
     impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the 
     world.

  Let us slow down and think about the road on which we are about to 
travel.
  Senator Reed, Senator Kennedy, and I offer an amendment today to once 
again preserve Congress's role in any decision to move toward the 
design, engineering, testing, or deploying of any new nuclear weapon. 
And equally important, this amendment will require us to stop and think 
seriously before going down the road toward new nuclear weapons.
  The amendment would require the Department of Energy to obtain a 
specific authorization from Congress before the Department could move 
to phase 3 or beyond in the nuclear weapons development process. Phase 
3 is the engineering development phase, the point at which a concept 
would begin to be a new weapon.
  The amendment would also apply to this same phase, the engineering 
development phase, in the process of modifying an existing weapon for a 
new military requirement. When the Department modifies an existing 
weapon the engineering development phase is the 6.3 phase. This 
amendment would apply to the 6.3 phase as well.

[[Page S11538]]

  Language similar to this amendment passed the Senate 95-0 during the 
consideration of the Defense Authorization Act. There was no 
disagreement then, and should not be now, that Congress retain a 
central role in any decision to seek new nuclear weapons.
  In 1994, Congress determined that the United States did not need to 
embark on a new nuclear weapons program, which would require nuclear 
weapons testing prior to being deployed, and banned research that could 
lead to production of new, low-yield, nuclear weapons. The current law 
is found at section 3136 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense 
Authorization Act. It is commonly known as the Spratt-Furse provision.
  The Senate passed version of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense 
Authorization Act repeals the current Spratt-Furse law, while the 
House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense 
Authorization Act, modifies the current law. The House modification 
would allow the Department of Energy to conduct research on low yield 
nuclear weapons but not to begin the engineering design phase of the 
nuclear weapons process.
  The conferees have been working for several months to resolve the 
many differences in the two versions of the Defense Authorization Act. 
One of the issues that the conferees have yet to resolve is the issue 
of the Spratt-Furse provision.
  The conferees are discussing whether Spratt-Furse should be modified, 
as in the House-passed bill, or repealed, as in the Senate-passed bill, 
or whether both provisions could be dropped and the current law 
preserved. It is important to note that the Reed amendment is 
consistent with any of the possible outcomes in the defense 
authorization conference.
  Whatever the outcome, the Reed amendment will ensure that Congress 
plays a role in future nuclear weapons decisions.
  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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, we have nothing further to say about the 
amendment. We are ready to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1659) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. 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.
  The bill 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 address Senators--and I am sure if 
Senator Reid were here, he would concur--there is a real chance that we 
could finish this bill this evening. We have two windows. We have this 
window that lasts until 4:30 and then Senators have to be elsewhere. We 
understand that. Then there is a window from 6 to 7 when Senators could 
be here.
  I am asking Senators, if you have amendments, bring them down and 
let's get them considered. We will move ahead as soon as Senator Reid 
gets here with amendments that are getting checked and cleared to which 
there is no objection. We have quite a few of those. We would be very 
pleased if we heard from Senators, if your staff could tell us there 
were no more amendments. Then we could say we could finish from 6 to 7 
p.m. this evening.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, Senator Domenici and I have worked during 
the lunch hour and up to now to clear some amendments.


  Amendments Nos. 1646, As Modified; 1656, As Modified; 1681 through 
                             1683, En Bloc

  Mr. President, I send five amendments to the desk, two of which--
amendments Nos. 1646 and 1656--will be offered as modified, and I ask 
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1646, as modified, 1656, as modified, and 1681 
     through 1683, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                    amendment no. 1646, as modified

    (Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the Waikiki Beach 
                         project, Oahu, Hawaii)

       On page 3, beginning on line 2, strike ``the continuation'' 
     and all that follows through line 8 and insert 
     ``preconstruction engineering and design of Waikiki Beach, 
     Oahu, Hawaii, the project to be designed and evaluated, as 
     authorized.''


                    amendment no. 1656, as modified

    (Purpose: To authorize a wastewater infrastructure project for 
                         Coronado, California)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 117. Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-580; 106 Stat. 4835), as amended 
     by section 502(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (Public Law 106-53; 113 Stat. 335) and section 108(d) of 
     title I of division B of the Miscellaneous Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-
     220), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(71) Coronado, california.--$10,000,000 may be authorized 
     for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, California.''.


                           amendment no. 1681

       On page 67, strike line 7 through line 11 and insert in 
     lieu thereof:

     ``SEC. 506. CLARIFICATION OF INDEMNIFICATION TO PROMOTE 
                   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

       ``Subsection (b)(2) of section 3158 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (42 U.S.C. 
     7274q(b)(2)) is amended by adding the following after 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(D) Any successor, assignee, transferee, lender, or 
     lessee of a person or entity described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C).' ''
       (b) The amendment made by section 506, as amended by this 
     section, is effective as of the date of enactment of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.


                           amendment no. 1682

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Section 560(f) of Public Law 106-53 is amended by 
     striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``7,500,000''.


                           amendment no. 1683

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a water 
       supply feasibility study for Tualatin River Basin, Oregon)

       On page 42, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 2____. TUALATIN RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

       (a) Authorization To Conduct Feasibility Study.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior may conduct a Tualatin River Basin 
     water supply feasibility study--
       (1) to identify ways to meet future water supply needs for 
     agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses;
       (2) to identify water conservation and water storage 
     measures;
       (3) to identify measures that would--
       (A) improve water quality; and
       (B) enable environmental and species protection; and
       (4) as appropriate, to evaluate integrated water resource 
     management and supply needs in the Tualatin River Basin, 
     Oregon.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     study conducted under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall not exceed 50 percent; and
       (2) shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.
       (c) Activities.--No activity carried out under this section 
     shall be considered a supplemental or additional benefit 
     under Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 
     Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and 
     amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.)).
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,900,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are adopted 
en bloc.
  The amendments No. 1646, as modified; No. 1656, as modified; Nos. 
1681 through 1683 en bloc were agreed to.

[[Page S11539]]

  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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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. 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, and 1692 En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have a package of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself and 
     Mr. Reid, proposes amendments numbered 1687 through 1692, en 
     bloc.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have cleared these amendments. We 
have worked on them on both sides. They are acceptable. I understand 
the distinguished minority leader is willing to accept them; is that 
correct?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, that is true.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have nothing further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered en bloc and are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                             amendment 1687

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend, on an 
  annual basis, the repayment schedule of certain debt to facilitate 
   Indian water rights settlements in the State of Arizona, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 34, line 6, strike ``$56,525,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,425,000''.
       On page 42, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 2____. FACILITATION OF INDIAN WATER RIGHTS.

       The Secretary of the Interior may extend, on an annual 
     basis, the repayment schedule of debt incurred under section 
     9(d) of the Act of August 4, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(d)) to 
     facilitate Indian water rights settlements in the State of 
     Arizona.


                           amendment no. 1688

       On page 13 of the bill, line 21, before the period, insert 
     the following:
     : Provided further, That within funds provided herein, 
     $500,000 may be used for completion of design and initiation 
     of construction of the McCarran Ranch, NV, environmental 
     restoration project


                           amendment no. 1689

    (Purpose: To set aside funding in connection with the harbor of 
  Morehead City, North Carolina, for a project to disperse sand along 
                              Bogue Banks)

       On page 16, line 12, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     the Army may use $3,000,000 of the funds provided under this 
     heading to undertake, in connection with the harbor of 
     Morehead City, North Carolina, a project to disperse sand 
     along Bogue Banks''.


                           amendment no. 1690

     (Purpose: To provide for a transfer of funds to the Bureau of 
    Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study for the purposes of 
     providing water to Park City and the Snyderville Basin, Utah)

       On page 2, line 18, after ``expended'' insert the 
     following: ``, of which $500,000, along with $500,000 of the 
     unobligated balance of funds made available under this 
     heading in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2003, may 
     be transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a 
     feasibility study for the purposes of providing water to Park 
     City and the Snyderville Basin, Utah''.


                           amendment no. 1691

  (Purpose: To set aside funding for dredging and other operation and 
          maintenance of the Rogue River, Gold Beach, Oregon)

       On page 15, line 8, strike ``facilities:'' and insert 
     ``facilities; and of which $500,000 may be available for 
     dredging and other operation and maintenance of the Rogue 
     River, Gold Beach, Oregon:''.


                           amendment no. 1692

(Purpose: To provide funds for use in carrying out Great Lakes remedial 
    action plans and sediment remediation programs under the Water 
                   Resources Development Act of 1990)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 
                   REMEDIATION PROGRAMS.

       Of the amounts made available by this title under the 
     heading ``GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS'', not less than $1,500,000 
     may be available for Great Lakes remedial action plans and 
     sediment remediation programs under section 401 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 
     Public Law 101-640).

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I think he would agree that 
we have spent all day working on this bill. It is an important bill 
with $27.3 billion in funding for some of the most important aspects 
this Government does.
  We are now at a point where we are about to wrap this up. If there 
are Members who have amendments to offer, they should get over here 
within the next 40 minutes. If they are not here by then, we will 
assume there are no other amendments to be offered. We have other work 
that we need to do. There are negotiations going on on some amendments. 
Other than that, we are arriving at a point where we will move forward.
  I have several amendments that I would like to send to the desk en 
bloc. I note that there are a number of amendments--in fact, two--in 
order, Nos. 1652 and 1660, which will be as modified.
  We are so efficient that we are trying to agree to them twice. I 
don't think that is necessary. These have already been cleared.
  I withdraw my request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. 1650, As Modified; 1653, As Modified; 1658, As 
 Modified; 1669, As Modified; 1675, As Modified; 1679; 1685; and 1696 
                         Through 1721, En Bloc

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk 
that have been cleared on both sides and ask for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes amendments numbered 1650, as modified; 
     1653, as modified; 1658, as modified; 1669, as modified; 
     1675, as modified; 1679; 1685; and 1696 through 1721, en 
     bloc.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be agreed to, en bloc. They have been cleared with my distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have reviewed these one by one over 
the afternoon and they are all acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to, en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 1650, as modified

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to implement the project 
           for ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. GWYNNS FALLS WATERSHED, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

       The Secretary of the Army may implement the project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in accordance 
     with the Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls 
     Watershed Feasibility Report prepared by the Corps of 
     Engineers and the city of Baltimore, Maryland.

[[Page S11540]]

                    amendment no. 1653, as modified

  (Purpose: To set aside funding for dredging and other operation and 
                maintenance of the Umpqua River, Oregon)

       On page 15, line 8, strike ``facilities:'' and insert 
     ``facilities; and of which $500,000 may be available for 
     dredging and other operation and maintenance of the Umpqua 
     River, Oregon:''.


                    amendment no. 1658, as modified

      (Purpose: To set aside funds for the Navajo electrification 
                         demonstration program)

       On page 42, line 20, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``, of which $3,000,000 may be available for the 
     Navajo electrification demonstration program under section 
     602 of Public Law 106-511 (114 Stat. 2376).''


                    amendment no. 1669, as modified

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a joint 
   project with Asotin County, Washington to construct a Snake River 
      Confluence Interpretative Center near Clarkston, Washington)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. SNAKE RIVER CONFLUENCE INTERPRETATIVE CENTER, 
                   CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army, acting through 
     the Chief of Engineers (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') is authorized and may carry out a project to 
     plan, design, construct, furnish, and landscape a federally 
     owned and operated Collocated Civil Works Administrative 
     Building and Snake River Confluence Interpretative Center, as 
     described in the Snake River Confluence Center Project 
     Management Plan.
       (b) Location.--The project--
       (1) shall be located on Federal property at the confluence 
     of the Snake River and the Clearwater River, near Clarkston, 
     Washington; and
       (2) shall be considered to be a capital improvement of the 
     Clarkston office of the Lower Granite Project.
       (c) Existing Structures.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary may demolish or relocate existing structures.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Total cost.--The total cost of the project shall not 
     exceed $3,500,000 (excluding interpretative displays).
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be $3,000,000.
       (3) Non-federal share.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project--
       (i) shall be $500,000; and
       (ii) may be provided--

       (I) in cash; or
       (II) in kind, with credit accorded to the non-Federal 
     sponsor for provision of all necessary services, replacement 
     facilities, replacement land (not to exceed 4 acres), 
     easements, and rights-of-way acceptable to the Secretary and 
     the non-Federal sponsor.

       (B) Interpretive exhibits.--In addition to the non-Federal 
     share described in subparagraph (A), the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall fund, operate, and maintain all interpretative exhibits 
     under the project.


                    amendment no. 1675, as modified

    (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary to remove oil bollards in 
                         Burlington Harbor, VT)

       After section 104, insert the following:
       ``The Secretary is authorized and may design, remove and 
     dispose of oil bollards and associated debris in Burlington 
     Harbor, VT, at full Federal expense.''


                           Amendment No. 1679

(Purpose: To provide for a report on administrative expenditures of the 
   Secretary of Energy for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
                           Compensation Act)

       On page 63, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:

     SEC. 3____. REPORT ON EXPENDITURES FOR THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES 
                   OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION ACT.

       Not later 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a 
     report on administrative expenditures of the Secretary for 
     the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
     Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.).


                           Amendment No. 1685

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to complete the general 
 reevaluation report for the project for flood damage reduction, Mill 
                        Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, MILL CREEK, CINCINNATI, 
                   OHIO.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall complete the general reevaluation report for 
     the project for flood damage reduction, Mill Creek, 
     Cincinnati, Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 1696

   (Purpose: To increase the authorization of appropriations for the 
  provision of environmental assistance for the State of Mississippi)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____.

       Section 592(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (Public Law 106-53; 113 Stat. 380) is amended by 
     striking ``$25,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal 
     year 2000'' and inserting ``$100,000,000''.


                           Amendment No. 1697

 (Purpose: To provide that the funds made available for a transmission 
study on the placement of 500 megawatt wind energy in North Dakota and 
                 South Dakota shall be nonreimbursable)

       On page 54, line 19, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That the $750,000 that 
     is made available under this heading for a transmission study 
     on the placement of 500 megawatt wind energy in North Dakota 
     and South Dakota may be nonreimbursable''.


                           amendment no. 1698

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds made available under Operation and 
     Maintenance, General, an additional $500,000 may be made 
     available to the Recreation Management Support Program to 
     work with the International Mountain Bicycling Association to 
     design, build, and maintain trails at Corps of Engineers 
     projects.


                           Amendment No. 1699

(Purpose: To modify the project for flood control, Park River, Grafton, 
                             North Dakota)

       On page 31, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. PARK RIVER, GRAFTON, NORTH DAKOTA.

       Section 364(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 314) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$18,265,000'' and inserting 
     ``$21,075,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$9,835,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,025,000''.


                           Amendment No. 1700

 (Purpose: To direct the Western Area Power Administration to provide 
     electrical power supply and delivery assistance to the local 
 distribution utility as required to maintain proper voltage levels at 
            the Big Sandy River Diffuse Source Control Unit)

       On page 54, line 19, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, in accordance with 
     section 203 of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1593), electrical power supply and delivery 
     assistance may be provided to the local distribution utility 
     as required to maintain proper voltage levels at the Big 
     Sandy River Diffuse Source Control Unit''.


                           amendment no. 1701

       On page 13 of the bill, line 21, before the period, insert 
     the following:

     : Provided further, That within funds provided therein, 
     $100,000 may be used for initiation of feasibility studies to 
     address erosion along Bayou Teche, LA within the Chitimacha 
     Reservation


                           amendment no. 1702

(Purpose: To provide a definition of rural Utah for the purposes of the 
                   environmental assistance program)

       On page 28, strike lines 13 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 115. Section 595 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat.383; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 595. IDAHO, MONTANA, RURAL NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, AND 
                   RURAL UTAH.'';

       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
       (B) by striking (a) and all that follows through ``means--
     '' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Rural nevada.--The term `rural Nevada' means''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Rural utah.--The term `rural Utah' means--
       ``(A) the counties of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Tooele, 
     Morgan, Summit, Dagett, Wasatch, Duchesne, Uintah, Juab, 
     Sanpete, Carbon, Millard, Sevier, Emery, Grand, Beaver, 
     Piute, Wayne, Iron, Garfield, San Juan, and Kane, Utah; and
       ``(B) the portions of Washington County, Utah, that are 
     located outside the city of St. George, Utah.'';
       (3) in subsections (b) and (c), by striking ``Nevada, 
     Montana, and Idaho'' and inserting ``Idaho, Montana, rural 
     Nevada, New Mexico, and rural Utah''; and
       (4) in subsection (h), by striking ``2001--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``2001 $25,000,000 for each of Idaho, 
     Montana, New Mexico, and rural Utah, to remain available 
     until expended.''.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds made available under Construction, 
     General, $1,500,000 may be made available work to be carried 
     out under Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (Public Law 106-53).


                           amendment no. 1704

  (Purpose: To set aside funding for a defense and security research 
                                center)

       On page 44, line 14, before the period at the end, insert 
     ``, of which $3,000,000 may be available for a defense and 
     security research center''.

[[Page S11541]]

                           amendment no. 1705

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Energy to report to Congress on acquisitions made by each Department of 
   articles, materials, or supplies manufactured outside the United 
                                States)

       On page 34, line 10, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of this amount, sufficient 
     funds may be available for the Secretary of the Interior, not 
     later than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, to 
     submit to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions 
     made by the Department of the Interior during such fiscal 
     year of articles, materials, or supplies that were 
     manufactured outside the United States. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of any articles, 
     materials, or supplies purchased by the Department of the 
     Interior that were manufactured outside the United States, an 
     itemized list of all waivers under the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10a et seq.) that were granted with respect to such 
     articles, materials, or supplies, and a summary of total 
     procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the United 
     States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of 
     the United States. The Secretary of the Interior shall make 
     the report publicly available by posting the report on an 
     Internet website.''.
       On page 47, line 12, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of this amount, sufficient 
     funds shall be available for the Secretary of Energy, not 
     later than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, to 
     submit to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions 
     made by the Department of Energy during such fiscal year of 
     articles, materials, or supplies that were manufactured 
     outside the United States. Such report shall separately 
     indicate the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased by the Department of Energy that were 
     manufactured outside the United States, an itemized list of 
     all waivers under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.) that were granted with respect to such articles, 
     materials, or supplies, and a summary of total procurement 
     funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus 
     funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United 
     States. The Secretary of Energy shall make the report 
     publicly available by posting the report on an Internet 
     website.''.


                           amendment no. 1706

       On page 41, line 5, strike ``655'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``566''.


                           amendment no. 1707

       On page 28, line 1 strike ``105-227'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``105-277''.


                           amendment no. 1708

     (Purpose: To provide funding to preserve Department of Energy 
   historical sites and other aspects of the history of its programs)

       On page 48, line 8, after the word ``expended:'' insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided, That the Secretary of Energy may use $1,000,000 
     of available funds to preserve historical sites associated 
     with, and other aspects of the history of, the Manhattan 
     Project''


                           amendment no. 1709

 (Purpose: To set aside funding for the Administration's Clean Energy 
                     Technology Exports Initiative)

       On page 42, line 20, before the period at the end, insert 
     ``, of which $400,000 may be made available to the Office of 
     International Market Development to carry out a program to 
     implement, and serve as an administrative center in support 
     of, the multi-agency Clean Energy Technology Exports 
     Initiative''.


                           amendment no. 1710

(Purpose: To limit the availability of funds for the Advanced Concepts 
 Initiative of the National Nuclear Security Administration pending a 
               report on activities under the initiative)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 313. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this title under the heading ``ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 
     ACTIVITIES'' may be obligated or expended for additional and 
     exploratory studies under the Advanced Concepts Initiative 
     until 30 days after the date on which the Administrator for 
     Nuclear Security submits to Congress a detailed report on the 
     planned activities for additional and exploratory studies 
     under the initiative for fiscal year 2004. The report shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
     classified annex.


                           amendment no. 1711

    (Purpose: To set aside funding for the Great Lakes fishery and 
                     ecosystem restoration program)

       On page 13, line 21, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     the Army may use at least $1,000,000 of the funds provided 
     under this heading for the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem 
     restoration program''.


                           amendment no. 1712

       At the appropriate place on page 42, after section 211, 
     insert the following:

     ``SEC. XX. RESTORATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AND 
                   PROVISION OF BOTTLED WATER FOR FALLON 
                   SCHOOLCHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out section 2507 of Public Law 
     101-171, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
       (1) notwithstanding sec. 2507(b) of P.L. 101-171, provide 
     $2.5 million to the State of Nevada to purchase water rights 
     from willing sellers and make necessary improvements for 
     Carson Lake and Pasture.
       (2) provide $100,000 to Families in Search of Truth, 
     Fallon, NV for the purchase of bottled water for 
     schoolchildren in Fallon-area schools.
       (b) Limitation.--The funds specified to be provided in 
     (a)(1) shall only be provided by the Bureau of Reclamation 
     when the title to Carson Lake and Pasture is conveyed to the 
     State of Nevada; the waiver of sec. 2507(b) of P.L. 101-171 
     shall only apply to water purchases for Carson Lake and 
     Pasture.
       (c) Administration.--The Secretary of Interior, acting 
     through the Commissioner of Reclamation, may provide 
     financial assistance to State and local public agencies, 
     Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and individuals to 
     carry out this section and sec. 2507 of P.L. 101-171.


                           amendment no. 1713

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to provide technical, 
planning, design, and construction assistance for the Schuylkill River 
                   Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SCHUYLKILL RIVER PARK, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary of the Army may provide technical, planning, 
     design, and construction assistance for Schuylkill River 
     Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in accordance with section 
     564(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public 
     Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3785), as contained in the May 2000 
     report of the Philadelphia District based on regional 
     economic development benefits, at a Federal share of 50 
     percent and a non-Federal share of 50 percent.


                           amendment no. 1714

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain 
                        public lands in Wyoming)

       On page 63, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:

     SEC. 3  . MARTIN'S COVE LEASE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Bureau of land management.--The term ``Bureau of Land 
     Management'', hereafter referred to as the ``BLM'', means an 
     agency of the Department of the Interior.
       (2) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the 
     Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus 
     Christ of Latter-day Saints, located at 50 East North Temple 
     Street, Salt Lake City, Utah.
       (3) Martin's cove.--The term ``Martin's Cove'' means the 
     area, consisting of approximately 940 acres of public lands 
     in Natrona County, Wyoming as depicted on the Martin's Cove 
     map numbered MC-001.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Lease.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary may enter into an 
     agreement with the Corporation to lease, for a term of 25 
     years, approximately 940 acres of Federal land depicted on 
     the Martin's Cove map MC-001. The Corporation shall retain 
     the right of ingress and egress in, from and to any part of 
     the leasehold for its use and management as an important 
     historical site.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--
       (A) Survey.--As a condition of the agreement under 
     paragraph (1), the Corporation shall provide a boundary 
     survey to the Secretary, acceptable to the Corporation and 
     the Secretary, of the parcels of land to be leased under 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Access.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the Corporation shall 
     enter into a lease covenant, binding on any successor or 
     assignee that ensures that, consistent with the historic 
     purposes of the site, public access will be provided across 
     private land owned by the Corporation to Martin's Cove and 
     Devil's Gate. Access shall--
       (I) ensure public visitation for historic, educational and 
     scenic purposes through private lands owned by the 
     Corporation to Martin's Cove and Devil's Gate;
       (II) provide for public education, ecologic and 
     preservation at the Martin's Cove site;
       (III) be provided to the public without charge; and
       (IV) permit the Corporation, in consultation with the BLM, 
     to regulate entry as may be required to protect the 
     environment and historic values of the resource at 
     Martin's Cove or at such times as necessitated by weather 
     conditions, matters of public safety and nighttime hours.
       (C) Improvements.--The Corporation may, upon approval of 
     the BLM, improve the leasehold as may become necessary from 
     time to time in order to accommodate visitors to the 
     leasehold.
       (D) Archaeological preservation.--The Corporation shall 
     have the obligation to protect and maintain any historical or 
     archaeological artifacts discovered or otherwise identified 
     at Martin's Cove.
       (E) Visitation guidelines.--The Corporation may establish, 
     in consultation with the BLM, visitation guidelines with 
     respect to such issues as firearms, alcoholic beverages, and 
     controlled substances and conduct consistent with the 
     historic nature of the resource, and to protect public health 
     and safety.
       (F) No abridgement.--The lease shall not be subject to 
     abridegment, modification, termination, or other taking in 
     the event any

[[Page S11542]]

     surrounding area is subsequently designated as a wilderness 
     or other protected areas. The lease shall contain a provision 
     limiting the ability of the Secretary from administratively 
     placing Martin's Cove in a restricted land management status 
     such as a Wilderness Study Area.
       (G) Right of first refusal.--The Corporation shall be 
     granted a right of first refusal to lease or otherwise manage 
     Martin's Cove in the event the Secretary proposes to lease or 
     transfer control or title of the land to another party.
       (H) Fair market value lease payments.--The Corporation 
     shall make lease payments which reflect the fair market 
     rental value of the public lands to be leased, provided 
     however, such lease payments shall be offset by value of the 
     public easements granted by the Corporation to the Secretary 
     across private lands owned by the Corporation for access to 
     Martin's Cove and Devil's Cove.
       (I) Renewal.--The Secretary may offer to renew such lease 
     on terms which are mutually acceptable to the parties.
       (c) Mineral Withdrawal.--The Secretary shall retain the 
     subsurface mineral estate under the leasehold, provided that 
     the leased lands shall be withdrawn from all forms of entry, 
     appropriations, or disposal under the public land laws and 
     disposition under all laws relating to oil and gas leasing.
       (d) No Precedent Set.--This Act does not set a precedent 
     for the terms and conditions of leases between or among 
     private entities and the United States.
       (e) Valid and Existing Rights.--The Lease provided for 
     under this section shall be subject to valid existing rights 
     with respect to any lease, right-of-way, permit, or other 
     valid existing rights to which the property is subject.
       (f) Availability of Map.--The Secretary shall keep the map 
     identified in this section on file and available for public 
     inspection in the Casper District Office of the BLM in 
     Wyoming and the State Office of the BLM, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
       (g) NEPA Compliance.--The Secretary shall comply with the 
     provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in carrying out this section.


                           amendment no. 1715

   (Purpose: To appropriate funds to develop an environmental impact 
statement for introducing non-native oyster species into the Chesapeake 
                                  Bay)

     : Provided, That using $200,000 appropriated herein, the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     may develop an environmental impact statement for introducing 
     non-native oyster species into the Chesapeake Bay. During 
     preparation of the environmental impact statement, the 
     Secretary may establish a scientific advisory body consisting 
     of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the University 
     of Maryland, and other appropriate research institutions to 
     review the sufficiency of the environmental impact statement. 
     In addition, the Secretary shall give consideration to the 
     findings and recommendations of the National Academy of 
     Sciences report on the introduction of non-native oyster 
     species into the Chesapeake Bay in the preparation of the 
     environmental impact statement. Notwithstanding the cost 
     sharing provisions of Section 510(d) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3760, the preparation of 
     the environmental impact statement shall be cost shared 50% 
     Federal and 50% non-Federal, for an estimated cost of 
     $2,000,000. The non-Federal sponsors' may meet their 50% 
     matching cost share through in-kind services, provided that 
     the Secretary determines that work performed by the non-
     Federal sponsors is reasonable, allowable, allocable, and 
     integral to the development of the environmental impact 
     statement.


                           amendment no. 1716

       On page 14, line 26, strike ``$1,949,000,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``2,014,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 1717

       On page 42, at the end of line 20 insert:
     : Provided, That of the funds made available for the Office 
     of Electricity and Energy Assurance, the Office may provide 
     grants to states and regional organizations to work with 
     system operators, including regional transmission 
     organizations and independent system operators, on 
     transmission system planning. The Office may require that 
     grantees consider a full range of technology and policy 
     options for transmission system planning, including energy 
     efficiency at customer facilities and in transmission 
     equipment, customer demand response, distributed generation 
     and advanced communications and controls. Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available for the Office of 
     Electricity and Energy Assurance, the Office may develop 
     regional training and technical assistance programs for state 
     regulators and system operators to improve operation of the 
     electricity grid.


                           amendment no. 1718

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the project for Passaic 
 River Steambank Restoration, Minish Park, New Jersey, with an offset)

       On page 10, line 9, strike ``That'' and all that follows 
     through line 12 and insert the following: ``That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     may use $1,000,000 of the funds made available under this 
     heading to continue construction of the project for Passaic 
     River Streambank Restoration, Minish Park, New Jersey, and 
     $6,500,000 of the funds made available under this heading to 
     carry out the project for the Raritan River Basin, Green 
     Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of the Army,''


                           amendment no. 1719

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Labor to provide technical and 
 managerial assistance to the Secretary of Energy to carry out claims-
  related activities under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
                     Compensation Program Act 2000)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) Memorandum of Agreement.--Not later than 45 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Energy and the Secretary of Labor shall enter into a 
     Memorandum of Agreement (referred to in this section as the 
     ``MOA'') under which the Secretary of Labor shall agree to 
     provide technical and managerial assistance pursuant to 
     subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385o et seq.).
       (b) Requirement.--Under the MOA entered into under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Labor shall, not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, assume 
     management and operational responsibility for the development 
     and preparation of claims filed with the Department of Energy 
     under subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385o et seq.), 
     consistent with the regulations under part 852 of title 10, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, including the development of 
     information necessary for the informed consideration of such 
     claims by a physicians panel (which shall include work 
     histories, medical records, and exposure assessments with 
     respect to toxic substances).
       (c) Procurement of Services.--The Secretary of Labor may 
     procure temporary services in carrying out the duties of the 
     Secretary under the MOA.
       (d) Duties of Secretary of Energy.--Under the MOA entered 
     into under subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy shall--
       (1) consistent with subtitle D of the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 7385o et seq.), manage physician panels and secure 
     necessary records in response to requests from the Secretary 
     of Labor; and
       (2) subject to the availability of appropriations, transfer 
     funds pursuant to requests by the Secretary of Labor.
       (e) Submission to Congress.--The MOA entered into under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress and made available to the general 
     public in both printed and electronic forms.


                           amendment no. 1720

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the Great Lakes Sediment 
                           Transport Models)

       On page 15, line 16, after ``2004'' insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be used for the Great Lakes Sediment 
     Transport Models''.


                           amendment no. 1721

 (Purpose: To reinstate and transfer a hydroelectric license to permit 
redevelopment of a hydroelectric project in the State of New York, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 63, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:

     SEC. 3____. REINSTATEMENT AND TRANSFER OF THE FEDERAL LICENSE 
                   FOR PROJECT NO. 2696.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (2) Town.--The term ``town'' means the town of Stuyvesant, 
     New York, the holder of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     Preliminary Permit No. 11787.
       (b) Reinstatement and Transfer.--Notwithstanding section 8 
     of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 801) or any other 
     provision of that Act, the Commission shall, not later than 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) reinstate the license for Project No. 2696; and
       (2) transfer the license to the town.
       (c) Hydroelectric Incentives.--Project No. 2696 shall be 
     entitled to the full benefit of any Federal law that--
       (1) promotes hydroelectric development; and
       (2) that is enacted within 2 years before or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Co-Licensee.--Notwithstanding the issuance of a 
     preliminary permit to the town and any consideration of 
     municipal preference, the town may at any time add as a co-
     licensee to the reinstated license a private or public 
     entity.
       (e) Project Financing.--The town may receive loans under 
     sections 402 and 403 of the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2702, 2703) or similar 
     programs for the reimbursement of the costs of any 
     feasibility studies and project costs incurred during the 
     period beginning on January 1, 2001 and ending on December 
     31, 2006.
       (f) Energy Credits.--Any power produced by the project 
     shall be deemed to be incremental hydropower for purposes of 
     qualifying for energy credits or similar benefits.

  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.

[[Page S11543]]

                    amendment no. 1650, as modified

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers meets its responsibilities to 
the restoration of the Baltimore metropolitan area ecosystem 
restoration project. The amendment authorizes and directs the Corps to 
implement the project in accordance with the Baltimore Metropolitan 
Water Resources--Gwynns Falls Feasibility Report, prepared by the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the city of Baltimore.
  For 10 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been studying 
water resource problems in the Baltimore metropolitan area. In 1994, 
the Baltimore District completed a reconnaissance report which 
concluded that there has been extensive degradation to the marine, 
aquatic, wetland, riparian and terrestrial habitats in the Baltimore 
metropolitan area. Over the years, rapid growth of the area, filling of 
wetlands, and previous construction of Federal works to meet flood 
control and navigation needs, among other things, have contributed to 
the degradation of the streams that drain the Baltimore basin. The 
report identified a Federal interest in restoring the ecosystem of six 
watersheds, with the Gwynns Falls watershed selected first for further 
study.
  The city of Baltimore agreed to share with the Corps in the cost of 
the next phase of the study process--a $1.6 million feasibility study. 
During the course of that more detailed study, the Corps found that 
there was a significant loss of stream water and groundwater into 
sewers located in the stream channels and, in order to restore the 
Gwynns Falls ecosystem and more than 2 million gallons of water per day 
to the watershed, the cracks in these sewers must be repaired. In 
December 2001, Corps Headquarters agreed that the sewer line 
rehabilitation work was integral to--and should be included in--the 
ecosystem restoration project and was within the Corps' environmental 
restoration authority. In fact, the Corps found that it was far less 
expensive to line the sewers and seal the manholes than undertake other 
alternatives such as channel lining and artificial watering. The draft 
Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources Gwynns Falls Watershed 
Feasibility Report, completed in January 2002, recommended sewer system 
rehabilitation as a key part of the environmental restoration projects 
for Gwynns Falls. It was anticipated at that time, that the feasibility 
report would be completed by May 2002 and the project would be 
authorized for construction in the Water Resources Development Act of 
2002.
  In 2001, the city of Baltimore and EPA began the process of 
negotiating a consent decree to address the city's collection system 
overflow problem which was polluting area streams and waterways in 
violation of the Clean Water Act. Baltimore signed the consent decree 
with EPA in April 2002 making the city legally responsible for 
approximately $900 million in sewer infrastructure improvements 
throughout the city, including fixing the sewer system in the Gwynns 
Falls watershed by the year 2007. The city did so with the 
understanding that the Corps would share in the approximately $13 
million cost of sewer rehabilitation in this area.
  Months went by and no action was taken on the feasibility report 
until April 2003, when the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army effectively reneged on the agreement to participate in this 
project. Although the office, once again, concurred that the sewer work 
was integral to the ecosystem restoration project, it claimed that the 
sewer rehabilitation portion of the recommended project was now the 
legal responsibility of the city--because it signed the consent 
decree--and therefore it was inappropriate for the Federal Government 
to cost-share in this part of the project. Despite having acted in good 
faith to comply with Federal law and participating for years in studies 
with the Army Corps of Engineers with the intended purpose of improving 
the urban ecosystem in this area, the city of Baltimore is now being 
penalized for signing this consent decree. Throughout this process, the 
city was never appraised by the Corps that, if it signed the consent 
degree, the Corps would not be able to share in the cost of this 
project. Now Baltimore is left with the prospect of either attempting 
to remove the Gwynns Falls project from the consent decree--an 
uncertain prospect at best--or somehow overcoming a Corps planning 
guidance document. That is what we are seeking to do with this 
amendment.
  It is important to point out that there is no other instance that we 
have been able to identify in Federal law or regulation, that prohibits 
a municipality from using Federal funds or programs to help achieve 
compliance with a consent decree. Indeed, a number of cities have used 
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund or EPA State and Tribal Assistance 
Grants for this purpose. There is no logical reason that the Corps of 
Engineers' program should not follow suit.
  Why offer the amendment to this measure? First of all, it does not 
appear that the Senate will consider a Water Resources Development Act 
this year. Second, time is running out for the city of Baltimore. In 
order to meet the 2007 consent decree deadline and to avoid future 
penalties for sewage discharges, the city must begin design and 
construction of the Gwynns Falls project shortly.
  This amendment simply directs the Secretary to implement the project 
in accordance with the original plans in the Gwynns Falls Feasibility 
Study.


                           amendment no. 1709

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have strongly supported efforts to advance 
opportunities to open markets abroad to an array of clean energy 
technologies. At my urging, the Bush administration, in October 2002, 
released the Clean Energy Technology Exports, CETE, strategy. This 
action plan outlined a 5-year, nine-agency initiative that is intended 
to ``increase U.S. clean energy technology exports to international 
markets through increased coordination among Federal agency programs 
and between these programs and the private sector.'' The CETE directive 
is geared at helping to address three major challenges in global energy 
policy: increased U.S. competition in developing country markets; 
environmental sustainability, including climate change; and energy 
security.
  Even though the participating Federal agency partners released this 
strategic plan last year, no funding has been identified by any of the 
agencies to implement the CETE strategy. All too often, this is the 
case with multi-agency initiatives that do not have the explicit 
support of the administration, and I fear that, once again, this is the 
case. At this point, little, if anything new, is being done by this 
administration to promote clean energy technologies overseas.
  My amendment is a small step that is intended to get the ball rolling 
by establishing an administrative center. A truly effective program of 
this magnitude deserves significantly more attention and funding, and 
the U.S. is missing a huge opportunity to capture a greater share of 
global clean energy technology markets. However, we must start 
somewhere, and my amendment is a practical one. If the CETE strategic 
plan is going to be successful, then such an initiative requires a 
focal point--a one-stop-shop, so to speak--to allow industries and 
organizations with interests to more effectively access the services of 
the Federal Government.
  Thus, my amendment provides $400,000 in funding for the Office of 
International Market Development within the Department of Energy to 
help carry out the task. While this center is to be physically housed 
at the Department of Energy, DOE, the center's mission is to help carry 
out the multi-agency CETE strategy. I also strongly urge all 
participating agencies such as the Department of Commerce, U.S. Agency 
for International Development, and others to contribute staff and other 
appropriate resources to get this center up and running.
  This is just a start on a long overdue Federal initiative. But, if we 
are serious about addressing the immense global energy and 
environmental challenges that we commonly share with other nations, 
this initiative must get much greater attention and far more support 
from this administration.


                           Amendment No. 1715

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Warner 
in offering this amendment directing the Secretary of the Army to 
develop an environmental impact statement, EIS,

[[Page S11544]]

to evaluate the risks and benefits of introducing non-native oysters in 
Chesapeake Bay.
  The Chesapeake Bay was once the largest producer of oysters in the 
world, providing some 20 million bushels annually at the turn of the 
century. The once abundant oyster populations not only sustained an 
important part of our economy, providing jobs for thousands of 
oystermen and others in the seafood and maritime industries, but served 
as filters, cleaning the entire volume of the Bay's waters every three 
to six days and provided habitat and sustenance for many of the Bay's 
living resources. Today, the Bay's oyster population is only one 
percent of what it was a century ago--the victim of the deadly diseases 
MSX and Dermo as well as over-harvesting and the loss of habitat. 
Maryland's watermen and the oyster industry are being threatened with 
economic extinction and scientists estimate that it now takes the 
current population of oysters nearly a year to filter the Bay's waters.
  In 1999, scientific experts from Maryland and Virginia reached a 
consensus on how to restore oysters which contained two essential 
components--the construction of three-dimensional oyster reefs and the 
establishment of permanent reef sanctuaries--to create habitat and 
provide for the growth and increased fecundity of oyster populations. 
This approach was embraced in the Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement which 
set an ambitious goal of increasing oyster abundance by tenfold by the 
year 2010. Over the past three years, our Chesapeake Bay area 
Congressional Delegation has worked closely together to secure the 
necessary authorizations and appropriations of approximately $5 million 
a year through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA to help the 
States of Maryland and Virginia implement this strategy. Indeed, we are 
delighted that the Senate energy and water appropriations bill, which 
we are considering today, provides $4.5 million an increase of $1.5 
million over the fiscal 2003 level and President's budget request to 
continue this effort. By restoring the physical oyster habitat, 
creating new oyster reefs and planting disease-free oysters on these 
reefs, it is our hope that this project will increase native oyster 
populations and ultimately help to ensure the economic and 
environmental revival of the Bay.
  In order to expedite the process of repopulating oysters in 
Chesapeake Bay, officials in Maryland and Virginia have recently 
proposed introducing a non-native Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis, 
which is quick growing and more disease resistant into the Bay. 
However, because of differing opinions about the risks and benefits 
involved, the Chesapeake Bay Commission a tristate legislative 
commission--requested that the National Academies of Science National 
Research Council, NRC, undertake a study of the pros and cons of 
introducing this non-native species. On August 14, 2003, the National 
Research Council released this report entitled ``Non-native Oysters in 
Chesapeake Bay'' which concluded that introducing a reproductive 
population of the Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis, in Chesapeake 
Bay should be delayed until more is known about the potential 
environmental risks.
  The NRC report found that ``[I]t is not possible to predict if a 
controlled introduction of reproductive C. ariakensis will improve, 
further degrade, or have no impact on either the oyster fishery or the 
ecology of the Chesapeake Bay.'' The report recommended contained 
aquaculture of sterile C. ariakensis as an `` interim action that 
provides an opportunity for researchers to obtain critical biological 
and ecological information on the non-native oyster required for risk 
assessment.'' It included detailed recommendations for biological, 
ecological, and socio-economic research that should be conducted to 
better inform public decisionmaking about the Asian oyster.
  In a letter dated July 22, 2003, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
the Secretaries of the Virginia and Maryland Departments of Natural 
Resources requested that the Corps coordinate development of an 
environmental impact statement to evaluate the States' proposal to 
introduce reproductively capable Asian oysters in the waters of 
Chesapeake Bay. The Corps responded that it cannot initiate an EIS 
unless specifically authorized and funded by Congress to do so. This is 
what our amendment seeks to accomplish. The amendment provides $200,000 
in Federal funds to initiate the study, which must be matched by the 
States. It further directs the Secretary to establish a scientific 
advisory body consisting of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 
the University of Maryland, and other appropriate research institutions 
to review the sufficiency of the environmental impact statement. In 
addition, it directs the Secretary to consider the findings and 
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences in the preparation 
of the environmental impact statement.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. 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 say to our fellow Senators, we are 
finished with the exception of a colloquy or two, which are going to be 
ready shortly. However, we have been informed that Senator John McCain 
of Arizona desires to offer an amendment relative to a provision in the 
bill. We are trying to contact him to let him know we are finished but 
for his amendment. If we can get him here--and we are going to try our 
best--we will ask him to offer his amendment. We will vote on it and 
then vote on final passage and we will be finished, which means that, 
on the request of our leader that we be finished by 7 o'clock tonight, 
we should do that easily, if we can find the Senator and start that 
process.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman allow me to 
speak?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no 
other amendments in order except those cleared by the two managers of 
the bill; and the Senator from Arizona is going to offer an amendment. 
I ask unanimous consent that those be the only amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I 
will not--I just want to say I agree because we have been telling the 
Senate that for a number of hours today, and now the time has come. We 
want to finish tonight, and there should not be any other amendments. 
They should have brought them here, if they have them. So I think the 
consent request is well taken. It should be granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for the time I shall need. If any other pending 
business comes up, I will gladly step aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                    los angeles river revitalization

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, the ranking member 
of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I want to thank Senators Domenici and Reid for their hard work in 
developing this legislation. In particular, I appreciate the attention 
that they have given to the infrastructure needs of California, as well 
as to the overall importance of this bill for those of us representing 
western States.
  Los Angeles, the largest metropolitan area in the western United 
States, faces many challenges. Local community leaders are working hard 
to revitalize the areas surrounding the Los

[[Page S11545]]

Angeles River. The river, reinforced with concrete to provide flood 
control benefits, runs 51 miles through much of urban Los Angeles.
  Both the Senate and House of Representatives include funding in the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bills for operation and maintenance of 
the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project. However, the House 
Appropriations Committee also included language directing $2 million of 
additional funding to be used to ``support Corps of Engineers 
assistance in local activities to revitalize the project areas for 
public safety, environmental restoration, recreation, aesthetics, 
community improvement, and related purposes.''
  This additional funding would provide essential support for local 
leaders and community stakeholders, working in conjunction with the 
Army Corps of Engineers, to move forward with this critical project. I 
urge the Senate conferees to agree with the House funding level for 
this project.
  I know how much the Senator from Nevada cares about improving our 
communities and protecting our precious natural resources. This project 
works toward achieving both of these important goals.
  Mr. REID. I agree with the Senator from California that our 
communities need the tools and resources to develop infrastructure 
projects that revitalize the environment, as well as the economy. I 
also agree that the project described by Senator Boxer has the 
potential to offer many benefits to the Los Angeles area and I will 
work to support this in conference.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his support.


                           dworshak reservoir

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for your 
efforts, and those of the subcommittee ranking member, Senator Reid, in 
working with Senator Craig and me to support the important work of the 
U.S. Corps of Engineers in the Clearwater River Valley to mitigate 
damages caused by fluctuating levels in the Dworshak Reservoir.
  As my colleagues know, the challenges of responding to the riverine 
needs of endangered salmon have been an enormous strain on the 
communities of the Pacific Northwest. We all share the commitment to 
restore Pacific Northwest salmon. This is a national interest. However, 
the efforts to restore the runs have a disproportionate and direct 
impact in communities in Idaho and the Pacific Northwest.
  The town of Orofino in the Clearwater River Valley of Idaho is just 
such a community. The town sits at the base of the Dworshak Reservoir, 
which is capped by a Corps-managed dam. The Corps periodically uses 
water from Dworshak Reservoir to help adjust temperatures in the 
downstream rivers when salmon are making their runs to and from the 
ocean.
  When spills are required, the levels of Dworshak Reservoir fall. 
Sometimes, this can amount to drops of approximately 90 feet. A 90-foot 
drop is catastrophic to recreational opportunities provided by the 
reservoir. Boat docks and trailer ramps no longer reach the water, 
beaches dangle precariously above the waterline, and muddy banks 
exposed for as far as the eye can see.
  The Corps has offered its help in mitigating the economic hardships 
caused by its actions in periodic reductions in reservoir water levels. 
I applaud that offer. I also commend Senator Domenici and Senator Reid 
for providing the extra resources in the operations and maintenance 
account for the Dworshak Reservoir in this legislation to accommodate 
those mitigation efforts. I yield to the distinguished chairman to 
elaborate on that point.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to echo the comments of the Senator about the 
importance of these resources. We have provided an additional $1 
million above the President's request for the O&M function for this 
specific economic mitigation commitment for the community. It is the 
committee's intent that the Corps should use these resources to help 
address the recreational needs of the Clearwater River Valley community 
resulting from the alterations of the water level in the reservoir.
  I believe the senior senator from Idaho, and a member of the 
subcommittee, also would like to be heard on this point.
  Mr. CRAIG. I echo the words of my colleague from Idaho on the 
importance of this enhanced funding. Few areas in the Pacific Northwest 
suffer more directly or as clearly by the changing needs of migrating 
salmon.
  I have been to Orofino and surrounding communities several times and 
have noted the rise and fall in fortunes of the nearby towns in 
accordance with the levels of water in the reservoir. As the Nation 
continues to press on this and other Pacific Northwest communities to 
take steps to revive protected salmon species, the Nation should also 
assist towns disproportionately affected by that national call to 
action. I appreciate the committee chairman securing these resources to 
recognize that commitment.
  It is my understanding that it is the committee's intention that 
these resources are provided to the Corps to be spent in the community 
in a manner that helps restore the economic base of the surrounding 
towns. These activities would include environmental measures and the 
establishment of a functional large boat moorage. Is this correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is the committee's intention, and I appreciate 
your commitment to this important provision. I also appreciate Senator 
Crapo's desire in helping to clarify these issues so that the needs of 
the Clearwater River Valley communities can be effectively addressed. I 
yield back to Senator Crapo.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the chairman, and I yield back the floor.


                              section 104

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have some concerns with the language in section 104. 
These are, I believe, technical concerns. My understanding is that the 
Corps of Engineers, in order to more effectively manage their 
resources, is interested in having continuing contract authority for 
congressionally authorized water resource studies. I have no problem 
with that, but I am not sure that the language is correct in 104.
  Mr. REID. That is my understanding as well, and I believe that we 
need to work together and with the Corps to draft language that is 
exactly correct. I will work with the Senator from Vermont to make the 
necessary changes in conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will also work with my colleagues to make the 
necessary changes, as I do not believe there is a substantive 
disagreement.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation, and I look 
forward to working on this language in conference.


                        high-level waste cleanup

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Chairman Domenici knows I have been 
concerned about DOE's high-level waste cleanup program from its 
inception. Shortly after our committee concluded action on the bill, 
the GAO issued a report, entitled, ``Challenges to Achieving Potential 
Savings in DOE's High-Level Waste Cleanup Program.'' In light of the 
language in our committee report on the program, the GAO provides a 
valuable and timely perspective on the nuclear waste clean-up program 
and confirms many of my concerns, as well as those expressed by our 
committee during our hearings.
  Mr. President, as stated in our committee's report:

       The Committee notes with concern the recent notification by 
     the Department that the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, 
     Richland, Washington, construction project baseline would 
     increase from $4,350,000,000 to $5,781,000,000, an increase 
     of over $1,400,000,000. The relative lack of outrage over a 
     baseline change of that magnitude speaks volumes about what 
     the Congress and public have come to expect from the 
     Department's clean-up program. The tank waste treatment 
     project has a long and sordid history that indicates both the 
     magnitude of the task before the Department, as well as the 
     Department's historic combination of overly optimistic cost 
     estimates coupled with consistent project mismanagement. The 
     Committee notes its concern in the demonstrated pattern of 
     Departmental officials announcing reform of some aspect of 
     the clean-up program, only to depart and be replaced by a new 
     set of officials coming before the Committee to describe 
     dramatic cost overruns on the project baselines promised by 
     their predecessors, and claiming no responsibility for the 
     assumptions underlying those previous commitments.
       The Department is now into the second year of entering into 
     new acceleration and reform agreements consistent with the 
     policy conclusions of the Secretary's 2001 top-to-bottom 
     review of the environmental clean-up program. The efforts is 
     commendable in its success in focusing the Department and its 
     stakeholders on the importance

[[Page S11546]]

     of completing clean-up activities decades earlier than 
     planned. The acceleration agreements entered into at the 
     various clean-up sites have allowed the Department to book 
     huge paper out-year savings and acceleration of completion 
     dates. For example, the Department is claiming savings of 
     $12,000,000,000 and 20 years at the Savannah River Site, 
     South Carolina; $30,000,000,000 and 35 years at Hanford, 
     Washington; $2,000,000,000 and 6 years at Oak Ridge, 
     Tennessee; and $19,000,000,000 and 35 years at Idaho. In many 
     cases the savings are based on assumed changes in law, yet-
     to-be reformed regulatory environments, contractor savings, 
     and other highly optimistic assumptions. The Department has 
     had its successes, most notably Rocky Flats, Colorado, and 
     should be commended. But even with such highlights, the 
     weight of the historical record leaves the Committee to 
     question who will be around in the future (other than the 
     taxpayers) when these estimated cost savings will inevitably 
     be revised.

  Mr. President, I respect Secretary Roberson's efforts to encourage 
innovation in the program. Last February, she proposed a new initiative 
aimed at accelerating cleanup at DOE's sites and focusing on more rapid 
reduction of the considerable environmental risks. She projects this 
will cut years off the program and produce $63 billion in savings.
  Now that GAO has issued its first report on the acceleration 
initiative, I hope the chairman will join me in examining their 
findings and recommendations and identifying actions that we may 
recommend to the conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has my assurance that GAO's report and 
recommendations will be carefully analyzed and that I will work with 
him to ensure that they are considered as we work toward conference.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman and urge that he give special 
attention to the following GAO recommendation:

       DOE's accelerated cleanup initiative should mark the 
     beginning, not the end, of DOE's efforts to identify other 
     opportunities to improve the program by accomplishing the 
     work more quickly, more effectively, or at less cost. As DOE 
     continues to pursue other management improvements, it should 
     reassess certain aspects of its current management approach, 
     including the quality of the analysis underlying key 
     decisions, the adequacy of its approach to incorporating new 
     technologies into projects, and the merits of a fast-track 
     approach to designing and building complex nuclear 
     facilities. Although the challenges are great, the 
     opportunities for program improvements are even greater. 
     Therefore, DOE must continue its efforts to clean up its 
     high-level waste while demonstrating tangible, measurable 
     program improvements.

  This recommendation underscores my view that DOE should continue to 
develop and test new technologies, which may have the potential to 
provide price and schedule savings. Since 1996, our committee has 
recommended that DOE investigate alternative melting technologies, 
including the advanced vitrification system, to back-up the baseline 
system. These recommendations came from the National Academy of 
Sciences and from DOE's own sponsored studies.
  Pursuing backup systems has always made sense. As GAO points out, the 
risks inherent in the chemical composition of the tanks require a 
backup approach as insurance. As our committee report explains, ``the 
weight of the historical record'' often requires us to ask ``who will 
be around in the future (other than the taxpayers) when these estimated 
cost savings will inevitably be revised.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. I share the Senator's concerns and will inquire about 
GAO findings and will join you in urging the Department to give 
priority to developing technologies that are different from the 
baseline system and could provide an insurance policy.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's response and 
request his efforts in conference to encourage DOE to evaluate and 
demonstrate backup technologies that have shown potential to provide 
cost and schedule savings in the program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator raising these issues, and I 
urge the Department to carefully consider his thoughtful comments and 
recommendations.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman and appreciate his leadership.


  u.s. army corps of engineers' operation and maintenance funding for 
        noxious weed control at lake sakakawea, garrison dam, nd

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I commend the leadership of the 
Appropriation Committee, and particularly subcommittee Chairman 
Domenici and Senator Reid for their work on this bill. I bring to the 
chairman's attention a troubling problem we have in North Dakota around 
Lake Sakakawea, a reservoir controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. As water levels drop, more of the land around the lake owned 
by the Corps becomes exposed, which is a perfect habitat for noxious 
weeds. In fact, an additional 140,000 acres have become exposed due to 
low water levels causing explosive growth.
  The spread of noxious weeds is directly impacting farmers, ranchers, 
and other landowners in the vicinity of Lake Sakakawea. These 
landowners are responsible for controlling noxious weeds on their land; 
however, their efforts are futile when their land can be easily 
contaminated from weeds on Corps land. Unless the Corps has more 
resources to fight the noxious weeds, landowners will continue to face 
an uphill battle.
  Mr. REID. I, too, am concerned about the situation around Lake 
Sakakawea and appreciate my colleague from North Dakota for bringing 
this to our attention. I agree that the Corps of Engineers has an 
obligation to address it, and I would be happy to work with my 
colleagues to identify additional funds to tackle the noxious weeds 
around Lake Sakakawea.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his 
support, and I would like to work with him and the chairman of our 
subcommittee to find additional funding to combat this growing problem 
in the energy and water conference. Right now, the Corps is stretched 
thin financially and, as a result, it cannot keep pace with this 
expansive and growing problem. The Corps has a clear responsibility to 
address this problem and it cannot be ignored. It is my hope that the 
Corps will dedicate funds to controlling this weed problem from the 
money that would be provided from the amendment offered by Chairman 
Domenici and Senator Reid that would add $65 million to the Corps 
operations and maintenance budget. The low lake level is due to the 
persistent drought plaguing much of the West, and I believe that the 
Corps has a responsibility to address problems on its lands resulting 
from weather-related conditions.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the situation faced by those around Lake 
Sakakawea, and I will work with you to address this problem as we move 
this bill to the Energy and Water Appropriations conference.


                              section 310

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, section 310 of the current legislation 
directs the Secretary of Energy to file a permit modification to the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's, WIPP, Waste Analysis Plan, WAP. Section 
310(a) requires that for determining compliance with the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et. seq., and any other applicable laws, 
all waste received for storage and disposal shall be limited in 
confirmation that it contains no ignitable, corrosive or reactive waste 
through the use of radiography or visual examination of a statistically 
representative population of waste; and to review of the waste stream 
profile form to verify that the waste contains no ignitable, corrosive 
or reactive waste. Section 310(b) requires that compliance shall be 
monitored exclusively in the WIPP underground rooms through airborne 
monitoring of volatile inorganic compounds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, is the chairman aware of an ongoing 
study, due December 2003, by the National Academy's Board on 
Radioactive Waste Management regarding waste characterization 
requirements for contact handled transuranic waste to be disposed of at 
the WIPP facility?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yes I am aware that there has been 
ongoing scientific studies in this area.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the chairman agree that as section 
310 undergoes conference with the House and the language is considered 
that it is consistent with the ongoing study by the National Academy?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I believe the provision has been developed based

[[Page S11547]]

upon sound science and will be glad to compare the National Academy 
report with section 310.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for taking the time 
to discuss this matter with me.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have agreed not to offer my amendment 
which would have required the submission to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of a log of documents relating to New 
Source Review at the Department of Energy by a time certain. My 
agreement is based on a promise from the Department made to my staff 
today. The Department has committed that this log will be delivered to 
me and the committee within the next few days. I ask unanimous consent 
that a September 25, 2002, letter from the Department to me, as then 
chairman of the committee, be printed in the Record following my 
remarks. This letter promised delivery of the document log by October 
24, 2002, yet the Department failed to provide that log.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Department of Energy,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2002.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is in further response to 
     your December 19, 2001, letter to Secretary Abraham 
     requesting certain documents in the possession of the 
     Department of Energy (DOE) and related to Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA) review of its New Source Review 
     (NSR) program. This supplements our earlier acknowledgment of 
     your request on March 1, 2002, as well as a letter earlier 
     today that transmitted certain documents that are arguably 
     responsive to your request.
       Based on conversations with Committee staff following our 
     letter from earlier this afternoon, we understand that the 
     Committee staff is interested in what additional responsive 
     documents DOE has located and what our intentions are with 
     respect to those documents. Other than Congressional 
     testimony and the like, which we understand not to be covered 
     by the Committee's request, the additional arguably 
     responsive documents DOE has located consist of internal 
     Administration communications regarding the ongoing 
     development of proposed and final rules.
       We understand that EPA has previously indicated to you its 
     concerns providing internal executive branch deliberative 
     communications of this nature but has also indicated that it 
     wants to continue to work with the Committee on a cooperative 
     basis. We further understand that you have reached agreement 
     with EPA regarding how these interests may be accommodated. 
     We share EPA's wish to work out a reasonable accommodation of 
     these interests, and stand ready to provide you these 
     materials on the same basis as that set out in EPA's letter 
     to you of today.
       Specifically, on or before October 24, 2002, we will 
     provide the Committee the 1996 NSR rulemaking documents 
     responsive to Items I through V of your December 19, 2002 
     request. With respect to documents responsive to Items II and 
     IV of your request, we will continue discussions with the 
     Committee to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation for 
     the delivery and protection of information that is attorney 
     work product or otherwise protected by law. With respect to 
     documents responsive to your request that related to the 
     upcoming proposed rule, we agree to continue to discuss our 
     respective positions on Congressional access to those 
     documents. In the meantime, and not later than October 24, 
     2002, we will produce a log of documents responsive to your 
     request that relate to the upcoming rules on new source 
     review. Finally, with respect to any responsive documents we 
     locate that are not addressed above, including responsive 
     documents related to the NSR ``90 day review,'' we will 
     provide these to the Committee by October 24, 2002, on the 
     same basis as EPA.
       If you have any questions regarding this matter, please 
     call me or have a member of your staff call me.
           Sincerely,

                                           Dan R. Brouillette,

                                           Assistant Secretary for
                      Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2754, the 
fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, as reported by 
the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
  I commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for 
bringing the Senate a carefully crafted spending bill within the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and consistent with the discretionary 
spending cap for 2004.
  The pending bill provides $27.3 billion in discretionary budget 
authority and $27.3 billion in discretionary outlays in fiscal year 
2004 for the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 
Corps of Engineers.
  The bill is $1 million below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and $47 million in outlays below the 302(b) 
allocation. The bill provides $511 million more in budget authority and 
$483 million more in outlays than the President's budget request, and 
$1.2 billion in budget authority and $1.8 billion in outlays more than 
the 2003 enacted level.
  I am concerned that there may be an amendment to add $125 million in 
emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers. This amendment, if 
offered, will have a Budget Act violation and I will not be able to 
support it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee 
scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks. I urge the adoption of the bill as it was reported from 
committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 S. 1424, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 2004: SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2004, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.....................    27,312   .........    27,312
  Outlays..............................    27,312   .........    27,312
Senate Committee allocation:
  Budget authority.....................    27,313   .........    27,313
  Outlays..............................    27,359   .........    27,359
2003 level:
  Budget authority.....................    26,156   .........    26,156
  Outlays..............................    25,555   .........    25,555
President's request:
  Budget authority.....................    26,801   .........    26,801
  Outlays..............................    26,829   .........    26,829
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................    27,080   .........    27,080
  Outlays..............................    27,173   .........    27,173
 
                   SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO--
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................        (1)  .........        (1)
  Outlays..............................       (47)  .........       (47)
2003 level:
  Budget authority.....................     1,156   .........     1,156
  Outlays..............................     1,757   .........     1,757
President's request:
  Budget authority.....................       511   .........       511
  Outlays..............................       483   .........       483
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................       232   .........       232
  Outlays..............................       139   .........       139
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, July 21, 2003.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to address two parts of the Senate 
energy and water bill that are extremely important to Washington State: 
the environmental cleanup program, which impacts the Hanford Nuclear 
Reservation, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
  First, let me express my deep appreciation to Chairman Domenici and 
Senator Reid for their work on this bill. As always, they have taken 
limited resources and produced a well-balanced bill. That's a big 
challenge given the great needs our country faces in infrastructure, 
water, and energy. They have worked hard to understand the needs of my 
State and every State, and I thank them. I also thank the subcommittee 
staff. Clay, who is now at the White House, Drew, Tammy, Roger and 
Nancy do a remarkable job dealing with the thousands of requests from 
Members, and I thank them as well.
  I want to begin by talking about the environmental cleanup program at 
the Department of Energy. That program is charged with cleaning up 
nuclear sites across the country, including the Hanford Nuclear 
Reservation in Washington State. For many years, I have had to fight 
the efforts of this and other administrations to under-fund this 
critical responsibility.
  This year, I am pleased that we don't have to fight for increased 
funding. I think that success is due to several factors. First, we have 
a bipartisan group of Senators who are committed to cleaning up sites 
in their States, and our group has pushed hard for this increased 
funding. In addition, we are fortunate to have the subcommittee 
chairman and Senator Reid as allies in this effort. The Department of 
Energy also deserves credit for putting forward a good budget request 
that puts these funding issues behind us this year.
  But despite the agreement on funding levels, there is another problem 
that is brewing which I believe threatens the effective cleanup of 
these sites.
  Like the people of the Tri-Cities, WA, I want to make sure that 
dangerous waste is cleaned up. I am concerned that this administration 
may try to change the ground rules so it could declare victory and walk 
away from the

[[Page S11548]]

site, without doing all the clean up work that's required. That could 
happen if the administration changes the definition of high-level 
nuclear waste.
  To prevent that type of game-playing, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, NRDC, brought a lawsuit against the Department of Energy. That 
suit sought to block new DOE rules on the reclassification of nuclear 
waste. Before that case went to trial, the NRDC and the States offered 
to settle the issues. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Energy rejected that cooperative approach.
  The case went to court, and the Department of Energy lost. One would 
expect the DOE to go back to the plaintiff and the states to settle the 
issues, but that's not what happened. Instead the DOE came running to 
Congress, asking for legislation to do what it could not do in court.
  Unfortunately, this tactic of fighting the states and trying to do an 
``end run'' around the other partners in the cleanup is not new for 
this administration. The truth is that the fastest, most effective way 
to clean up these sites is for the DOE to work in partnership with the 
States and Federal regulators. Time and time again, however, this 
administration has tried to go it alone to the detriment of the 
residents who live near these contaminated sites.
  To make the best use of the funding provided in this bill, the 
Department of Energy needs to get back to working in partnership with 
the States and Federal regulators. A unilateral approach will simply 
cost more money and will only create further delays. I understand the 
Department and contractors want to get on with their work, but they 
must recognize that State and Federal regulators also have a job to do. 
And most importantly, the people who live near these sites deserve to 
know, understand, and have input on the activities taking place near 
their homes.
  In a letter to Speaker Hastert, the Department claims the loss in 
court will greatly impede the cleanup of waste in Idaho, South 
Carolina, and Washington State. That simply is not true, according to 
the NRDC, the attorneys general of those three States, and the 
environmental directors of each State. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
reject the Department's request for a change in law.
  I also strongly urge the Department of Energy to get back to its job 
of cleaning up the waste, rather than wasting valuable time seeking 
help from Congress over a court case that it lost.
  I would also like to applaud the report language in the Senate bill 
that directs the Office of Management and Budget to review the 
Department of Energy's cleanup agreements, contracting, and cost 
estimates. I believe we should press the Department and contractors to 
cleanup these sites faster and more cheaply. Everyone supports this 
goal. However, we should not reduce the cleanup standards or threaten 
the safety of workers and surrounding communities. We must examine 
agreements and contracts to make sure they are realistic and that they 
don't rely on regulatory agreements and technologies that do not exist 
today. I do not want to stand here in two, three or ten years and have 
to explain that the reason some agreement or contract did not meet 
success was because it was never achievable in the first place.
  Let me close this topic by making clear that we are making progress 
on cleanup around the country. This is a very challenging program that 
deals with the most dangerous materials in the world. That often 
requires new solutions and technologies, but our scientists, engineers, 
and workers have risen to the occasion. At Hanford, we are nearly done 
removing the spent fuel from the K-basins. This work is likely to be 
complete before the required timeline. Early success is also being 
achieved on the cocooning of reactors and cleanup of the plutonium 
finishing plant.
  In short, we are starting to make real and substantive progress in 
this effort. In this bill, we are providing the necessary funding. Now, 
we need the Department of Energy to take this money and work hand-in-
hand with regulators and communities to make the cleanup a success.
  The second issue I would like to address is the budget for the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  As Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid often say, we face the 
challenge of an inadequate budget for the Corps with every 
administration. In that simple sense, this year is nothing new. 
However, I think we are facing a compounding crisis this year when you 
consider: the scale of this year's cutback of the Corps' budget, the 
cumulative effect of years of inadequate funding, and the President's 
failure to fund low-use/shallow draft ports.

  First, the President's budget for the Corps is $445 million less than 
our current fiscal year budget. I commend the chairman and Senator Reid 
for restoring $233 million of this funding. In the end, however, it 
creates a downward trend at a time when we cannot afford to ignore our 
infrastructure. This funding shortfall means we are not keeping up on 
our time-lines to construct projects that are already underway. It also 
means we are not moving ahead on new projects that are critical for 
expanding our infrastructure capability and expanding our ability to 
export American products.
  Even more troubling is the growing backlog in our operation and 
maintenance funding. Our infrastructure is falling apart around us--
threatening our economy, and in some cases the lives of our sailors and 
boaters.
  In Washington and Oregon, we have many examples of Corps 
infrastructure that is falling apart. John Day Lock and Dam has a crack 
running the entire length of one monolith. That threatens the entire 
operation of the lock. This will require more than $8 million, which is 
twice what is included in the President's budget. I thank the 
Subcommittee for providing an increase for the John Day Lock in the 
Senate bill.
  Here's another example. Thousands of feet of the north and south 
jetties at the Mouth of the Columbia River have been lost to storms. 
The loss of these jetties creates greater dredging issues and threatens 
the safety of ships and boats that are navigating one of the most 
treacherous bars in the country.
  If left unchanged, the amount of funding provided in the budget for 
Bonneville Lock and Dam would result in a $4 million penalty against 
the United States. Again, thankfully, the Senate subcommittee increased 
funding and will avoid that penalty.
  These are just a few of the threats facing our existing, major water 
infrastructure. Clearly, the budget for the Corps is grossly 
inadequate.
  We also need to remember that the budget does not provide sufficient 
funds for low-use and shallow draft ports. In fact, in some cases there 
is no funding to meet these needs. The President's budget seems to take 
pride in under-funding or zeroing out funds for these ports and 
channels. There is an apparent belief in the administration that 
because of the low volume use of these harbors it would constitute an 
unwise use of Federal funds to keep them open. This narrow view of the 
situation abandons some of our most economically-challenged rural 
communities in Washington, in Oregon, and across the country.
  Look at the port of Chinook in Washington State where a failure to 
perform maintenance dredging on the Chinook channel has nearly closed 
the Port. It was only because the subcommittee intervened and the Corps 
responded quickly that the port will not be closed this fall and winter 
to fishing fleets. I express my sincere appreciation to the work of 
this subcommittee for protecting the jobs relying on this port.
  When the port of Chinook is properly maintained, the annualized cost 
of dredging the channel is about $400,000. That small investment 
produces major economic benefits. The commercial and recreational use 
of the Port's marina alone bring in more than $3 million. Add to that 
number the value of the Buoy Crab Company, which employs 40 year-round 
workers and 100 seasonal employees. It's the second largest crab 
processor in Washington State. And we cannot forget that the port is 
located in a rural county that is facing some of the highest 
unemployment rates in the State.
  Near Chinook is the port of Ilwaco, which generates almost $9 million 
in commercial seafood sales. Charter boat fishing generates an 
additional $2.8 million. Again, a consistent dredging program can 
maintain an economy

[[Page S11549]]

that brings millions of dollars into a rural economy and keeps our 
people employed.
  In Oregon, they have 7 or more low-use, shallow draft ports. All of 
them are located in rural, coastal communities, and none of them 
received funding in the President's budget. The only bright note once 
again is that the subcommittee has chosen to fund these ports and to 
protect the jobs they support.
  It appears that there are more than 25 ports and channels that 
receive funding not included in the President's budget. These are ports 
and channels that will remain open only because this subcommittee 
decided to value jobs and economies in rural America.
  We must find a way to get this administration and future 
administrations to provide adequate budgets for the Corps. We cannot 
continue to underfund our existing infrastructure and fail to invest in 
building our economies.
  I thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid for their support of water 
infrastructure and for their efforts on this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have often spoken of the grandeur of West 
Virginia's mountains and the abundance of tranquil mountain streams 
that gurgle quietly throughout the State. However, these same majestic 
mountains and streams are also conduits for disaster and devastation. 
When the heavy rains hit, waters from the mountaintops surge to the 
valleys and turn once peaceful meandering mountain streams into angry, 
raging, muddy torrents of horror, rising up over their banks and 
destroying anything in the way.
  In West Virginia, such torrential flooding seems to be an annual 
event--since 1993, the State has had eleven federally declared 
disasters. In this year alone, the State has had two federally declared 
disasters. In the latest round of devastating flooding in the state 
earlier this summer, twenty counties were declared Federal disaster 
areas. Homes were damaged or destroyed, and the severe impact on the 
infrastructure in the southern part of the State--from roads, bridges, 
water and sewer, to power sources--brought a normal way of life to a 
screeching halt once again.
  I know that West Virginia is not alone in attempting to recoup from 
such disasters. This year, many States have been impacted by floods, 
tornados, ice storms, and other severe conditions of nature that have 
crippled individuals and communities alike. That is why I am co-
sponsoring an amendment with Senator Reid in the amount of $65 million 
that would provide funding assistance through the Army Corps of 
Engineers to aid impacted States in recovering and rebuilding from 
recent natural disasters. This funding, coupled with the $983 million 
Federal Emergency Management Agency recently received through the FY 
2003 Supplemental, should go a long way in helping States get back on 
their feet.
  This amendment provides $65 million for the Corps under the 
operations and maintenance account to help repair damages to public 
facilities, such as obstructive deposits in flood control streams, bank 
erosion threatening public facilities, damages to other public 
infrastructure such as water and sewer facilities. Additionally, funds 
provided will allow the Army Corps to repair weather related damages 
that have occurred to Federal infrastructure.
  Weather-related damages have occurred to public infrastructure across 
the country that is beyond the ability of local governments to repair. 
As I mentioned, West Virginia has recently suffered devastating floods. 
Numerous other States such as Michigan, Louisiana, Missouri and 
Illinois are still suffering from damages that occurred in previous 
storm events. In May of this year, unusually heavy rainfall occurred in 
four counties of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan causing rivers and 
streams throughout the area to swell out of their banks, inflicting 
severe and widespread damages. The greatest damages occurred in 
Marquette County where an earthen dike at Silver Lake Basin failed, 
sending an estimated eight billion gallons of water cascading 
downstream through the city of Marquette toward Lake Superior. The 
floodwaters destroyed or damaged numerous public and private structures 
and caused unprecedented environmental and ecological damage within the 
Dead River Basin and into Lake Superior in Marquette County. Two power 
generation facilities were damaged. One of the power generation 
facilities, the Presque Isle plant in the city of Marquette, resulted 
in shutdown for more than 30 days. Without power, two iron ore mines, 
which produce about 20 percent of our nation's annual iron ore output, 
were shut down, idling 1,200 workers. Dozens of other area businesses, 
institutions and private homeowners were also seriously impacted. Three 
of the four counties affected are impoverished, with a majority of the 
population over 65 years of age. Local governments simply do not have 
the capital to pay for the public damages. Without an infusion of 
Federal aid, Marquette and the other three counties will have a 
difficult, if not impossible, task of recovering from this disaster.
  This amendment fills a significant funding void to provide States 
expedited recovery from natural disasters that have occurred throughout 
the United States. These funds are vitally needed, as any flood, 
tornado, or storm victim can tell you, and I urge the Senate to approve 
their inclusion in this bill.
  I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this important 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern regarding 
section 205 of H.R. 2754, the fiscal year 2004 energy and water 
appropriations legislation. The provision affects the protection of the 
Rio Grande silvery minnow. As ranking member of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over the 
Endangered Species Act, I am concerned about the impact this provision 
will have on the future survival of this species.
  In New Mexico, Federal, State and environmental stakeholders were in 
the midst of negotiations that would yield long-term solutions to the 
water crisis in the Rio Grande. These negotiations began in response to 
a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that both San Juan-Charm water 
and native Rio Grande water could be taken by Federal officials to meet 
environmental conditions for the silvery minnow. The discussions were 
recently suspended due to the time pressures placed on the parties by 
the provision in this bill.
  The parties, convened by Governor Richardson, are seeking locally 
driven resolutions that would both fulfill the intent behind this 
provision and also address the conditions that precipitated the need 
for the court's opinion.
  These negotiations have moved very close to agreement on the 
sustainable and equitable management of water resources in the Middle 
Rio Grande. The negotiations were a great step toward collaboration and 
made progress under the Governor's leadership. That they have been 
called off, due largely to this provision, puts at risk a precedent for 
collaboration that could be a model for endangered species and river 
management throughout the West.
  I am concerned that section 205 would prevent the Bureau of 
Reclamation from releasing water from its reservoirs to maintain 
silvery minnow habitat and that without access to this water, it will 
be more difficult to acquire the water needed to meet the target flows 
in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion endorsed in 
this provision. Any action that takes water out of the Bureau's hands 
increases the pressure on remaining water supplies and on the silvery 
minnow. Negotiated water management reforms, not exemptions to the 
Endangered Species Act, will best meet the needs of all who are 
dependent on the Rio Grande.
  This rider also would seek to sanction a biological opinion from the 
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act is a flexible 
tool that allows for biological opinions to adapt to changing 
circumstances and increased knowledge. If this biological opinion is 
endorsed by this provision, it is likely that it would not be reopened, 
even if the Service learns of more effective methods for protecting the 
silvery minnow.
  The Rio Grande silvery minnow occurs only in the middle Rio Grande. 
This species was historically one of the most abundant and widespread 
fishes in the Rio Grande basin, occurring

[[Page S11550]]

from New Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico. It was also found in the Pecos 
River, a major tributary of the Rio Grande, from Santa Rosa, NM, 
downstream to its confluence with the Rio Grande in south Texas. It is 
now completely extinct in the Pecos River and its numbers have severely 
declined within the Rio Grande. Currently, the species occupies only 
about five percent of its known historic range.
  The parties to the mediation, the Governor's office; environmental 
groups; the conservancy district; the Bureau of Reclamation; several 
Indian Pueblos; the State water engineer; and the city of Albuquerque 
should be able to continue their negotiations to find a mutually 
agreeable solution to this problem, without jeopardizing the underlying 
species protections provided by the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. LEVIN. In May of this year, unusually heavy rainfall occurred in 
four counties of the Upper Peninsula of my home State of Michigan--
Baraga, Gogebic, Marquette and Ontonagon Counties--causing rivers and 
streams throughout the area to swell out of their banks, inflicting 
severe and widespread damages. These four counties are not able to 
absorb this disaster as they have overall unemployment and poverty 
rates higher than the state average.
  The greatest damages occurred in Marquette County where an earthen 
dike at Silver Lake Basin failed, sending an estimated 8 billion 
gallons of water cascading downstream through central Marquette County 
and the city of Marquette toward Lake Superior. Rapidly moving water 
and massive amounts of trees, logs and other debris has severely 
undercut many sections of the riverbank, making them unstable and 
creating serious public safety and environmental concerns.
  Damages to one of the power generation facilities, the Presque Isle 
plant in the city of Marquette, resulted in shutdown for more than 30 
days. Without power, two iron ore mines, which produce about 20 percent 
of our Nation's annual iron ore output, were shut down, idling 1,200 
workers. These mines contribute nearly $115 million in personal income 
annually and are two of the largest employers in Marquette County. Even 
this temporary shutdown has had a significant negative impact on the 
local, regional, State and national economies. Dozens of other area 
businesses, institutions and private homeowners were also seriously 
impacted.
  Current estimates of economic damages alone to these counties, mostly 
to Marquette County, are calculated at over $100 million. There have 
been severe impacts to roads, bridges, culverts, water control 
structures, utility infrastructure and environmental and ecological 
damage to the waterways resulting from this flooding. When the public 
damage figures, currently estimated at $18-20 million, are combined 
with those high economic impacts caused by the loss of electrical power 
generation capabilities and the environmental degradation to the area, 
it paints a devastating picture for this area in Michigan. Further, 
this area is still recovering from the flooding that occurred last 
year. The fact that these counties have suffered two major disasters in 
two years is extremely significant.
  Without our assistance, Marquette and the other three counties will 
have a difficult, if not impossible, task of recovering from this 
disaster. And the health, safety, economic vitality, and quality of 
life of the communities and their citizens will certainly suffer for 
years to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support this request for $125 million in 
emergency funding for flood damage remediation assistance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I heretofore indicated there would be a 
vote on a McCain amendment preceding final passage. The Senator has 
sent word that he no longer desires to offer his amendment. He 
withdraws it. That means there are no amendments pending. We are ready 
to go to final passage.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is absent 
because of a death in the family.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Miller) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allard
     Breaux
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Smith
  The bill (H.R. 2754), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 1722

  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the passage of 
H.R. 2754, the energy and water appropriations bill, it be in order to 
consider the Bingaman amendment which is at the desk; that the 
amendment be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1722) was agreed to, as follows:

      (Purpose: To improve administration of the Energy Employees 
        Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA))

       On page 51, line 13, insert before the period:
     ``: Provided, That from the funds made available under this 
     heading for transfer to the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health for epidemiological research,

[[Page S11551]]

     $7.5 million shall be transferred to include projects to 
     conduct epidemiological research and carry out other 
     activities to establish the scientific link between radiation 
     exposure and the occurrence of chronic lymphocytic 
     leukemia;''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses and appoints the following as 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Alexander) appointed Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bond, 
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, 
Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Inouye conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________