[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7787-S7797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there is a desire for back and forth. 
That is perfectly fine with me. I think the Senator from Arizona wanted 
to say something, and then if we could go to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this debate has been held before, as has been 
noted. About a year ago, a similar amendment was defeated by a vote of 
55 to 42 in this body. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment 
this year as well. The question has been asked about whether we would 
be going down a road that we would be taking a step toward something--I 
am not exactly sure--if we were to conduct this study. As my colleague, 
the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has noted, 
this is not the testing of a weapon or even the design of a weapon. 
This is merely to study the feasibility.
  I want to make the point clear, to study the feasibility of what? To 
study the feasibility of taking an existing warhead and simply 
providing a different kind of casing for it and a different kind of 
fuse which would enable it to penetrate deep into the earth and 
potentially take out something that a potential enemy would have very 
deep underground.
  The deterrent effect of this is obvious. A country that might wish us 
harm, such as North Korea, for example, that thinks it can bury 
something deep within the ground because we have no way of getting to 
it, would no longer be able to pursue that course of action if they 
understood that we had this kind of a weapon.
  It is precisely the point that Secretary Rumsfeld made when he said:

       Countries all across the globe are putting things 
     underground. And we have no capability, conventional or 
     nuclear, to deal with the issue of deep penetrator.

  He goes on to say:

       The idea of proceeding with this study is just imminently 
     sensible. And anyone would look back five years from now, if 
     we failed to take a responsible step like that, and feel we'd 
     made a mistake.

  General Cartwright, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, stated 
before the Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces:

       We're going to have to have multiple ways by which we can 
     hold [hard and deeply buried targets] at risk. . . . The 
     robust nuclear earth penetrator is one of several 
     capabilities and I think will be necessary.

  The point is deterrence. Because we are already a nuclear power under 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we are entitled to have nuclear 
warheads and weapons. We have them. We are not developing any new ones. 
We would be taking something out of the inventory and putting it into a 
form which a potential enemy would have to believe could be used 
against them. It might just prevent some of our potential enemies from 
going deep, as Senator Warner has said--from deeply burying things into 
the ground with the belief and hope that we would never be able to get 
to it. That is what this study is for. I remind my colleagues that only 
if the feasibility study demonstrates that it can work, and only if the 
Nuclear Weapons Council approves its development, and only if Congress 
authorizes its development could it ever proceed.
  So Congress still has at least two opportunities to determine whether 
or not to proceed with something that has never even been studied. My 
colleagues seem very certain about the consequences of one of these 
weapons. They have never even been designed, let alone tested. I think 
it is a little premature to suggest, with great certainty, exactly what 
would happen if one of these weapons were ever used. Again, the point 
is to have the deterrence, not to use the weapons. We have not used 
anything in our nuclear stockpile. Yet it has provided a great 
deterrence for this country because an enemy cannot know we will not 
use it if they ever act against us.
  Again, it simply modifies a Clinton administration design of a 
previous warhead, which was determined could not penetrate the kind of 
rock, for example, that we believe some of our potential adversaries 
have. That is why this study to try to find a way, if we could, to be 
able to penetrate that rock and send a signal to those countries that 
they ought not try to go deep with their nuclear programs.
  Again, there is nothing violative of the nonproliferation treaty 
because we already have the weapon. We would simply be taking an 
existing warhead and determining whether or not it could be used for 
this purpose.
  I remind my colleagues, as I said, we already voted on this before. 
We have defeated this amendment in the past. The Secretary of State, 
the Secretary of Defense, and the general in command of the U.S. 
Strategic Forces all have asked that we proceed to fund the $4 million 
for this study. As Senator Warner pointed out, what could be wrong with 
a study to simply determine whether something like this is feasible?
  It seems to me that since our military leaders have requested it, 
since the President requested it, it is up to Congress to fulfill our 
obligation to provide the resources necessary for the study. As 
Secretary Rumsfeld said, if we don't do it and one of our adversaries 
has something deeply buried that we would like to get to and we cannot 
do it because we don't have this, we would ask ourselves someday why we 
were not willing to provide this funding for a study.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to this feasibility study, the study is 
really to determine the effect of the casing that we use on nuclear 
weapons--hardened casing--and how deeply that would penetrate. It is 
not going to be a feasibility study in which a nuclear weapon would be 
detonated; is that correct?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is exactly correct. There are no plans--
none--to test any kind of nuclear weapon. The study, as the Senator 
from Alabama has noted, is not to test any kind of nuclear weapon but 
simply to determine whether or not a casing, and fuse, and the other 
elements of a weapon could be designed to include an existing 
nuclear warhead within it in order to have this kind of capability.

  I believe my time is up. I inquire of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 14 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. I believe the agreement was that I had 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I think there may well be----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The total time in opposition is 14 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, it is somewhat 
difficult for those who are just trying to grasp a short debate here 
tonight, which is really a repetition of 2 previous years of debates. 
Let us assure our colleagues that nothing in this entire test scenario 
will involve any fissionable material whatsoever. As the distinguished 
Senator said, it would not involve a bomb. It didn't involve the use of 
any fissionable material whatsoever. It is simply a study.
  It is important that the Congress be informed, and it is interesting 
that the money for this was struck last year. But guess what. North 
Korea went out and proudly announced--once the money was knocked out of 
the bill--we have a nuclear weapon. So I think it is very wise for this 
Nation to have this. It does not involve the use of any fissionable 
material.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think Senator Clinton has asked for 
5 minutes, and I yield that time to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues from 
California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and elsewhere to oppose this 
funding for the robust nuclear penetrator, the so-called nuclear bunker 
buster. I thought this issue was closed at the end of last year. 
Regrettably, it is not.
  This program has been the subject of debate and discussion for 
several years.

[[Page S7788]]

I think it is important to look at the funding request because it tells 
a slightly different story about what the intentions are behind this 
program.
  In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Department of Energy 
sought $15 million to fund the first year of what was to be a 3-year, 
$45 million study to determine the feasibility of using one of two 
existing large nuclear weapons as a robust nuclear earth penetrator. In 
fiscal year 2003, $15 million was authorized and appropriated for this, 
but the DOE was not to begin work until it submitted a report setting 
forth the requirements for the penetrator and the target types that the 
nuclear penetrator was designed to hold at risk. DOE submitted the 
report in April 2003, the funds were released, and the work began.
  In its fiscal year 2004 budget request, DOE again sought $15 million 
for the penetrator, but only $7.5 million was appropriated.
  In the fiscal 2005 budget request, DOE sought $27.5 million for the 
RNEP. For the first time, however, DOE included the robust nuclear 
earth penetrator in its 5-year budget report. The cost of the 
feasibility study had increased dramatically, from $45 million to $145 
million. Moreover, the DOE determined that the feasibility would take 5 
years rather than 3 to complete.
  Most significantly, the DOE 5-year budget plan also included $484.7 
million to complete the engineering and design phases. Based on this 
cost progression, the nuclear penetrator would cost in excess of $1 
billion to produce.
  Finally, Congress had enough of this, although the administration 
persisted in pursuing the nuclear penetrator, and in its fiscal 2006 
budget requested $4 million to restart the feasibility study. An 
additional $14 million would be needed in fiscal 2007 to complete the 
feasibility study.
  We have heard that the robust nuclear penetrator is a concept to 
modify an existing large yield nuclear weapon to be an earth penetrator 
that would penetrate hard rock. But we also now know more than we knew 
a couple of years ago. The administration told us a couple years ago 
about what the effect of this would be, how far into the earth it could 
penetrate--12 feet or so, according to the National Academy of 
Sciences. What would be the collateral damage? Maybe up to a million 
casualties.
  The funding requests would lead to the development of a weapon that 
would have devastating impacts.
  I conclude by pointing out that before Operation Iraqi Freedom 
started, Iraq was one of the countries used as an example of a 
potential enemy with a hard and deeply buried WMD storage and 
manufacturing areas. It was the principal justification for the 
development of this bunker buster. I believe this body needs to once 
again join the House in saying that to create a weapon--which, believe 
me, this may not be just a research and report; the DOE budget figures 
demonstrate they clearly have much more in mind in the administration 
that would be used in a first strike offensive manner--would require 
confidence in the accuracy of intelligence that at this time we simply 
do not have.
  I hope this amendment will be successful this year based on the 
additional information, particularly with respect to the National 
Academy of Sciences' analysis which demonstrates the devastating effect 
such a weapon could have with very little intelligence available to 
guide the use of it.
  I yield back my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for 
those comments. She put all of this in both a practical and fiscal 
perspective. I also thank the Senator from Michigan because he was 
right on. Do what we say, don't do what we do to every other nation. 
The nonproliferation treaty does not matter. It is just a terribly 
arrogant position for the United States to take and I think a morally 
wrong one.
  How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to stop and think hard 
about this, not just be swayed by the fact the Pentagon is asking for 
it, not just be swayed by the fact our great friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is arguing in favor of it. 
But I ask my colleagues to stop and think about this for a minute: Do 
we have a bunker buster with a nuclear warhead today? The answer is no, 
we do not. So if we are going to study the--whatever you want to call 
it--the modification, creation, it is the creation of a weapon we do 
not have today.
  By any definition anywhere in the world, any leader in any country 
looking at us sees that as a new weapon, as a new weapon capacity. I do 
not remember everything from nuclear, chemical, biological warfare 
school, but that is one of the things the Navy did for me. I will tell 
you, a nuclear weapon that goes 10 or 12 feet into the ground with 70 
times the capacity of Hiroshima is a weapon that is going to have 
unbelievable consequences to civilian populations all over the world.
  This is a study of the absurd. There are two outcomes to this study: 
Either you find it does not work and you don't use it, or you find that 
it does and then you have to confront the choice, would you ever use 
it. With the thousands of warheads we still have, with the deterrent we 
still have, do we need to go seeking yet another kind of nuclear weapon 
to send some kind of deterrent threat? It just does not make sense 
against any measurement of what we need to defend ourselves and provide 
for the security of the United States.
  Should we look at other forms of deep penetrating bunker busting? 
Sure, that would make more sense, far more sense than the notion of the 
United States using a nuclear weapon for the purpose of bunker busting, 
especially when you consider that tactically, if you were going to use 
it, you would probably try to use it in a selective way that takes out 
a few bunkers, and you wind up with a nuclear weapon usage that only 
invites more consequences with nuclear weapons. It is not usable.
  That is the conclusion the National Academy of Sciences came to, and 
for the Senate to casually dismiss our own National Academy of Sciences 
and pretend we have to study something that has already been studied is 
really a study of the absurd in itself. It is a study in a waste of 
money, especially at a time when the resources of this country are 
already taxed.
  I do not know any person you talk to who has dealt with proliferation 
issues over a long period of time who is not sensitive to the fact that 
if we go ahead and study this new kind of weapon, we invite any other 
country that views us as a threat to do the same. If you look at every 
stage of the arms race, from the late 1940s all the way through every 
weapon that was designed, each stage of it was driven by one nation or 
the other--usually the United States, incidentally--being the first to 
develop a particular new technology.
  You can go right back through every stage of nuclear development, 
from the first bombs to the hydrogen to the silent submarines to the 
MIRVing and all the way through until the modern times. I think it was 
only on two occasions that the Soviet Union, in fact, was first in the 
development of a particular weapon.
  This is the United States leading down the road, sending a signal to 
the world that we are trying to develop a new nuclear weapon that we do 
not have today. It is just a matter of common sense that has an impact 
on people throughout the world.
  By every test, by what it does to proliferation efforts, by what it 
does with respect to common sense and the possibility of it being used, 
by what it does with respect to the dismissal of the National Academy 
of Sciences and the studies already done, by what it does with respect 
to a test of common sense as to its usage at 71 Hiroshimas and the 
implications of the fallout and what is dismissed as collateral damage, 
the vast implications of nuclear fallout that would come from that, 
this is a study truly that we do not need to undertake that has 
dramatic negative consequences.
  I hope colleagues will make a commonsense assessment with respect to 
this new weapon.

[[Page S7789]]

  I yield back to the Senator from California the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has made 
some excellent points. I very much appreciate them.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has time expired on the Feinstein amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do the proponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes in opposition and 7 
minutes for the Senator from California.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator from California, in the interest of 
moving along, would she like to shorten her time if we shorten ours? We 
have 12 minutes, and the Senator from California has 7.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What would the Senator from New Mexico propose?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I propose we have 5 minutes and Senator Feinstein have 
2.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Make it 5 and 5.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Five and 5? We have 12, and the Senator from California 
has 5. I will take it: 5 and 5; is that all right?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Five and 5.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Five and 5. Without using this time on this unanimous 
consent request, I ask we move off this amendment for the purpose of 
offering two amendments that are going to be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1097

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk on behalf of Senators 
Allard and Salazar an amendment relating to the purchase of mineral 
rights at Rocky Flats technical site. I note the presence of both 
Senators from Colorado, and I say to them that I am pleased to accept 
the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides. I appreciate their 
work. We will do everything we can to keep it in conference.
  I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Allard 
     and Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 1097.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 set aside certain amounts for the purchase of mineral 
        rights at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site)

       At the end of title _ , add the following:
       Sec. ___. Of amounts appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Energy for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site for 
     fiscal year 2006, the Secretary may provide no more than 
     $10,000,000 for the purchase of mineral rights at the Rocky 
     Flats Environmental Technology Site.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1097) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The second amendment I referred to will be offered by 
the Senator from Colorado and withdrawn--no, it will not be withdrawn. 
It will be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I have a rather lengthy statement on this amendment. 
There is still some time, I understand, on the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator; is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Five minutes on our side.


                    Amendment No. 1084, As Modified

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and that 
amendment is amendment No. 1084.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for himself and Mr. 
     Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 1084, as modified.

  Mr. ALLARD. This amendment should read sponsored by both Allard and 
Salazar. Here is a corrected amendment. I will send that to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment at the desk appears to be the 
same amendment that was just adopted.
  Mr. ALLARD. The only difference would be that the listing of the 
sponsors on there should list Allard and Salazar. Otherwise there is no 
difference. Maybe we are okay to move forward. Is that correct, Mr. 
President?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the previous amendment that was adopted, 
I ask consent that Senator Salazar be deemed an original cosponsor when 
it was entered as if it were there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That takes care of that one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment 1084, as 
modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1084), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

  (Purpose: To set aside certain amounts to provide regular and early 
    retirement benefits to workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental 
                            Technology Site)

       At the end of title _ , add the following:
       Sec. ___. Of amounts appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Energy for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site for 
     fiscal year 2006, the Secretary may provide not more than 
     $15,000,000 to provide regular and early retirement benefits 
     to workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  The Chair would note that amendment 1084, as modified, has been 
agreed to. It reflects the additional cosponsors.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and 
make a few comments, if I might.
  I have had faith in the workers of Rocky Flats and I am pleased to 
say that Kaiser-Hill and the workers at Rocky Flats have not 
disappointed me. In fact, it appears that Kaiser-Hill and the workers 
at Rocky Flats are far exceeding their cleanup commitments at Rocky 
Flats in the State of Colorado. I cannot express the full extent of how 
proud I am of their achievements.
  Listen to some of their accomplishments. All weapons-grade plutonium 
was removed in 2003; more than 1,400 contaminated glove boxes and 
hundreds of process tanks have been removed; more than 400,000 cubic 
meters of low-level radioactive waste have been removed; 650 of the 802 
facilities have been demolished; all 4 uranium production facilities 
have been demolished; all 5 plutonium production facilities have been 
demolished or will be within the next 3 months; 310 of 360 sites of 
soil contamination have been remediated, and the last shipment of 
transuranic waste was shipped this last April.
  It now appears the cleanup of Rocky Flats will be completed as early 
as October, a full year ahead of schedule, and save the American 
taxpayer billions upon billions of dollars of what was envisioned when 
we first started talking about cleanup at Rocky Flats.
  One can appreciate the magnitude of this accomplishment only when 
they realize that within 6 years Rocky Flats will have been transformed 
from one of the most dangerous places on Earth to a beautiful and safe 
natural wildlife refuge. Yet the cleanup contractor could not have 
achieved this demanding goal as established by the Department of Energy 
without the hard work and determination of the Rocky Flats workers. 
Most of these workers had to literally develop an entire new skill set. 
They went from manufacturing plutonium pits to dismantling glove boxes. 
They tore down buildings while wearing stiff environmental protection 
suits. They cleaned up rooms that were so contaminated that they were 
forced to use the highest level of respiratory protection available. 
Perhaps more importantly, these workers were extraordinarily productive 
even though they knew they were essentially working themselves out of a 
job.
  With the completion of the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats, they 
knew they would have to find employment elsewhere. There was no 
guarantee that their next job would pay as much or provide the same 
level of benefits. Despite knowing that they were going to lose their 
jobs, the workers of Rocky Flats remained highly motivated and totally 
committed to their cleanup mission. They believed in what they were 
doing and worked hard to clean up the facility as quickly and safely as 
possible.

[[Page S7790]]

  They achieved more in less time and with less money than anyone 
dreamed possible. I am proud of the workers at Rocky Flats. I believe 
they have once again earned our Nation's sincere appreciation and 
respect. Given the sacrifice and dedication demonstrated by these 
workers, one would think the Department of Energy would do everything 
it could do to ensure that these workers received the compensation and 
benefits they have earned. One would think assisting those workers who 
lose their retirement benefits because of the early completion of the 
cleanup would be a top priority for the Department. After all, these 
workers saved the Department billions upon billions of cleanup costs.
  Last year, it became clear to the Department of Energy and to me that 
the cleanup at Rocky Flats would be completed much earlier than anyone 
expected. The workers were supportive of early closure but were 
concerned that some of their colleagues would lose retirement benefits 
because of early closure. I shared their concern and requested in last 
year's defense authorization bill that the Department of Energy provide 
Congress with a report on the number of workers who would not receive 
retirement benefits and the cost of providing these benefits.
  After a lengthy delay, the Department of Energy reported that about 
29 workers would not receive pension and/or lifetime medical benefits 
because of early closure. The cost of providing benefits to those 
workers was just over $12 million.
  To my dismay, I discovered the Department of Energy's report was 
woefully incomplete. I was subsequently informed that at least another 
50 workers would have qualified for retirement benefits had the 
Department of Energy bothered to include those workers who already had 
been laid off because of the accelerated closure schedule.
  This means as many as 75 workers at Rocky Flats will lose their 
pensions, medical benefits, or in some cases both because they worked 
faster, less expensively and achieved more than they were supposed to.
  They not only worked themselves out of a job, but they also worked 
themselves out of retirement benefits and medical care.
  I find the Department of Energy's refusal to pay these benefits to be 
outrageous and shameful.
  Many of the workers at Rocky Flats have served our Nation for over 2 
decades. They have risked their lives day in and day out, first by 
building nuclear weapon components and then by cleaning up some of the 
most contaminated buildings in the world. All they have asked for in 
return is to be treated with fairness and honesty.
  To my disappointment and to the disappointment of the workers at 
Rocky Flats, the Department of Energy cannot seem to keep its end of 
the bargain. The Department seems to think that the only thing these 
workers deserve is a shove out the door.
  These workers would have received their retirement benefits had the 
cleanup continued to 2035 as originally predicted. These workers would 
have received their retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 
2007 as the site contract specifies. But by accelerating the cleanup by 
over a year and saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of 
dollars, these workers are left without the retirement benefits they 
deserve and have earned.
  The Department's refusal to provide these benefits has ramifications 
far beyond Rocky Flats. Because Rocky Flats is the first major DOE 
clean-site, workers at other sites around the country are watching to 
see how the Department of Energy treats the workers at Rocky Flats. 
Unfortunately, they have seen how the Department of Energy has failed 
to step up and provide retirement benefits to those who have earned it.
  The workers at other sites now have no incentive to accelerate clean-
up. Why should they? The Department of Energy has not lifted a finger 
to help the workers at Rocky Flats. It would be foolish for workers at 
other sites think the Department of Energy would act fairly with them.
  To me, the Department's decision is a penny wise and a pound foolish. 
By refusing to provide these benefits, the Department saves money in 
the short term. Yet, by discouraging the workers from supporting 
acceleration, the Department is going to cost the American taxpayer 
hundreds of millions in additional funding in the long run.
  I believe Congress needs to correct the Department's mistake before 
it is too late.
  Today, I offer an amendment that will provide the benefits to those 
workers who would have lost their retirement benefits because of early 
closure. This amendment is designed to provide retirement benefits to 
only those who would have received retirement benefits had the site 
remained open until December 15, 2005, the date of site cleanup 
contract.
  To be clear, this funding is not an additional bonus for a job well-
done. Nor is it a going away present for two decades of service. These 
retirement benefits are what these workers have already earned--nothing 
more, nothing else.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. These workers have 
earned these benefits, and it is up to this body to see that they 
receive them. Let us not let the bureaucrats in the Department of 
Energy tarnish the credibility of the Federal Government. It is time 
for this body to correct this mistake before the Department's 
foolishness costs the American taxpayer even more money in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I will be very short. I want to first 
congratulate my good friend from Colorado, Senator Allard, for the 
sponsorship of these amendments which are important for Rocky Flats and 
for the cleanup of our DOE facilities. I think we have a great facility 
and a model in the State of Colorado that is applicable to other 
Department of Energy sites and in the end we are going to be able to 
provide some cost savings to our whole DOE cleanup challenge in this 
country.
  The legislation in front of us in the form of the modified amendments 
would do two things: One, it would help all of the employees who have 
been laid off at Rocky Flats because of the closure of that plant and 
the surplus funds would therefore go for a very good purpose to help 
with the retirement of the employees who have worked at Rocky Flats for 
a very long time.
  The second amendment deals with the mineral rights, which is all part 
of completing the stewardship process at the DOE facility, which will 
be one of the first ones cleaned up in the Nation. So I applaud my 
friend from Colorado for helping in this effort and for having worked 
on it for such a long time. I also want to state my appreciation to the 
minority leader, Senator Reid, for his work on this effort as well as 
to the chairman, Senator Pete Domenici, and Senator Warner for his 
great assistance in this effort as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is no time agreement on the 
amendment, but I did understand we were going to accept it. I didn't 
think we were going to have any time. I ask the Senator, could we 
proceed to adopt the amendment, if the Senator from New Mexico is 
willing to do that?
  Mr. ALLARD. Yes, that will be fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are willing to accept the last amendment that was 
offered by the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes the amendment of the Senator 
from Colorado has already been adopted as modified.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, you understand this is a 
difficult amendment. We have had objection from the Armed Services 
authorizing committee. We take it to conference willingly, with the 
clear understanding we are going to work on it with the Secretary of 
Energy, and Defense, and with you and the Armed Services Committee, and 
do the best we can as we complete the matter in conference.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is my understanding. I thank the chairman of the 
Energy and Water Committee and I thank the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.


                           Amendment No. 1098

  Mr. DOMENICI. I have an amendment on behalf of Senator Lindsey Graham 
that has been cleared on both sides. I send it to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.

[[Page S7791]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1098.

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

 (Purpose: To make the Savannah River National Laboratory eligible for 
         laboratory directed research and development funding)

       On page 105, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 3___. Notwithstanding Department of Energy order 
     413.2A, dated January 8, 2001, beginning in fiscal year 2006 
     and thereafter, the Savannah River National Laboratory may be 
     eligible for laboratory directed research and development 
     funding.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1098) was agreed to.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 1085

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand we are now back on the 
Feinstein amendment and there is 5 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I tell Senators, if nothing else breaks here, there 
are no other amendments. We will vote on this. Senator Coburn has one 
and he will withdraw it. Can the Senator wait until Senator Feinstein 
finishes and then he will be recognized?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think we have had a good discussion. 
I was somewhat interested in the comment that: We have done this 
before, why should we do it again?
  Probably this is one of the most important issues we have to deal 
with because it will affect, I believe, my family's lifetime and my 
grandchildren's lifetime. I think if we have learned anything, it is 
that human nature is better off without nuclear weapons.
  In this case, I would like to sum up with one of the conclusions of 
the National Academy of Sciences' recent reports. It is conclusion No. 
3: Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth 
penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total 
containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion.
  That is not my view. That is the view of the National Academy of 
Sciences. To my knowledge it has been backed up by everybody. So why 
does the administration persist?
  The one bright light in this is the House of Representatives. They 
have removed the money from all programs, from time to test readiness, 
increasing it from 3 years to 18 months; money for the 400 new 
plutonium pits; and money for the robust nuclear earth penetrator.
  This year the administration did not come back and request the so-
called advanced weapons concepts, which is essentially low-yield 
tactical nuclear weapons. It has been stated here, and I believe it has 
been stated correctly, that you cannot have a policy which says, ``Do 
as we say but don't do as we do.''
  I do not believe we can have a policy that puts at risk hundreds of 
thousands, and, yes, even millions of lives. And I do not believe we 
can develop a weapon and then say: Well, this is just to protect us. It 
will never be used. I do not believe that.
  I truly believe the documents coming out of this administration, from 
the Nuclear Posture Review to the National Security Directive No. 17, 
clearly indicate that it is the goal of this administration to build a 
new generation of nuclear weapons. For those of us who do not believe 
that is the way to go, they must vote. To those of us who are not on 
this side, I want to say we will be back, and back, and back. So get 
used to hearing from us because it is not going to end here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator wants 2 minutes, and then I 
will wrap it up.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will just take 1 minute. The point I want 
to make is to correct something that was incorrectly noted before. It 
was stated this will be a brand new weapon. The truth is that this 
weapon was already developed during the Clinton administration. Using 
the current B61, which is a nuclear warhead, the B61 mod 11 was 
developed as an earth penetrator weapon. But it was determined by 
feasibility studies that it did not have sufficient capability to 
penetrate and thus provide a deterrent. The B61-11 is not sufficiently 
hardened to penetrate certain target geologies. So the feasibility 
study is designed to determine whether a more robust outer casing, 
which still protects the internal components of the warhead, could be 
developed for the B83 warhead.
  That is all it is, is to determine whether an existing warhead could 
be used with a different casing to penetrate, and thus replace a weapon 
that is already in our inventory.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment before us.
  The bill before us includes an appropriation of $4 million to 
continue an Air Force-led feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth 
penetrator--RNEP. This is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. 
In both the defense authorization and energy and water appropriations 
bills the last 2 years, amendments have been offered to cut all funding 
for the robust nuclear earth penetrator. These amendments have been 
defeated on multiple occasions.
  The purpose of the RNEP feasibility study is to determine if an 
existing nuclear weapon can be modified to penetrate into hard rock in 
order to destroy a deeply buried target that could be hiding weapons of 
mass destruction or command and control assets. The Department of 
Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to modernize their 
safety, security, and reliability aspects. We have also modified 
existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. Under the 
Clinton administration, we modified the B-61 so that it could penetrate 
frozen soils.
  The RNEP feasibility study is narrowly focused on determining whether 
the B-83 warhead can be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced, 
underground facilities. Funding research on options--both nuclear and 
conventional--for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our 
country to take.
  As many as 70 nations are developing or have built hardened and 
deeply buried targets to protect command and communications, and 
weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. Of that 
number, a number of nations have facilities that are sufficiently hard 
and deep enough that we cannot destroy most of them with conventional 
weapons. Some of them are so sophisticated that they are beyond the 
current U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. I believe it is prudent and 
imperative that we fund this study on potential capabilities to address 
this growing category of threat.
  Should the Department of Energy determine, through this study, that 
the robust nuclear penetrator can meet the requirement to hold a 
hardened and deeply buried target at risk, the department still could 
not proceed to full-scale weapon development, production, or deployment 
without an authorization and appropriation from Congress. Let me repeat 
that: the Department of Energy cannot go beyond this study without the 
expressed authorization and appropriation from Congress.
  We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust 
nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried 
targets. Then Congress would have the information it would need to 
decide whether or not development of such a weapon is appropriate and 
necessary to maintain our nation's security.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment before us.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am hearing talk about a new nuclear weapon. I wish 
those who were talking about a new nuclear weapon were reading the 
current evaluations and studies about the future of nuclear weapons. 
You sure are not talking about this. If ever there were going to be new 
nuclear weapons, they would be little nuclear weapons. They would not 
be blockbusters. Whole

[[Page S7792]]

studies are looking at whether all the countries with big nuclear 
weapons are going to have a whole new generation someday of smaller 
ones, less in size, where the world can have far fewer.
  That is not the subject tonight because this weapon is not a new 
nuclear weapon. First of all, this is a bill, appropriations, that says 
the Congress is approving to build a new nuclear weapon for the 
astronomical sum of money of $4 million. I don't know what you could 
build for $4 million. It says ``a study.'' And then it determines what 
the study is.
  I don't know, I have never heard so much said about so little. That 
sounds like something somebody said about something else in history, so 
I don't want to demean it because we are just talking about an issue on 
the floor of the Senate. But if you want to give a speech of 
significance about nuclear weapons and put maps up showing the 
devastation of the two that were used, we ought to have a big debate. 
Maybe some think that was a mistake. But the truth is, none of that has 
anything to do with this amendment. The United States of America, 
through its experts, says we should have a study.
  This Senator said to them, tell me how much money you need for a 
study--not 10 years from now to build something. What do you need for a 
study? They said: $4 million. That is what is in this bill. That is 
all. No more, no less. That is what the amendment is about.
  I hope we will once again say let's let our country do this kind of 
research.
  I yield any time I might have.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no time.
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator yielded some back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has about 50 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am glad to yield that.
  Mr. KERRY. Two questions. No. 1, is it not true there is $14 million 
not just $4 million; $14 million for the next year? And, second, do we 
have a bunker busting nuclear weapon today? The answer to that is no. 
If we do not have it, don't you agree, if we are studying the creation 
of one, that is a new nuclear weapon? It is a weapon we do not have in 
the arsenal today.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say in the appropriations in this bill for the 
fiscal year we are appropriating, it is $4 million. There is no 
appropriation for the following year or the following year or the 
following year. So I do not know what that will be.
  But I tell you, you have to come back for another appropriation, so 
that is for sure. That is the situation.
  With reference to whether we have this in our arsenal, I think the 
distinguished Senator from the State of Arizona answered that question 
with reference to the instrument that will deliver a weapon, if we ever 
do the research to know whether we need it. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor. We don't need any additional time. 
Have you had the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 2 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, there is only $4 million in this budget and 
there is $4.5 million in defense. It is a different strategy this year. 
The money was split.
  Last year the request was for $27.5 million and a 5-year projection 
of $486 million. That is fact.

  Now, their projection over 5 years is not this year in the budget so 
it is a little tricky because they have split it up and they have 
operated it into two budgets. The House removed all of the money. The 
House removed the authorization.
  Clearly, there are people on this Hill who believe it is a mistake. 
Last year, the money was removed. So this year is a slightly different 
approach by the administration.
  What we are saying is, it is a new weapon. If you do not have it 
today, and you might have it tomorrow, it is a new weapon. What we are 
saying is, there is not one physicist who will say that a casing can be 
built to drive a weapon deep enough into the Earth with enough 
explosive power that will take out a bunker and not spew radiation that 
can kill hundreds of thousands and, yes, even millions of people. We 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am trying to get us finished so we will have two 
votes back to back, one on this amendment and one on final passage.
  Senator Coburn wants to take a few minutes. He wants to offer an 
amendment.


                      Amendment No. 1086 Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will call up amendment 1086 and then I 
will withdraw it by unanimous consent. It is important that Members 
recognize what is written in the report language in this bill. I will 
read a portion of one sentence and talk about it: Congressionally 
directed projects. The committee recommends including the following 
congressionally directed projects. The committee has provided 
sufficient funding to cover the cost of these additions so as not to 
impact research.
  That is the key question. By the misstatement of the committee 
itself, these projects are not essential. Yet, there is $87 million in 
projects to 30 States averaging less than $1 million a project. These 
are for biomass, biodiesel, hydrogen, solar, and other forms of energy.
  It is going to pass, there is no question. I can't stop it, but I 
think the American people ought to go online and look at this. There 
are two problems. No. 1, it is not essential and we will spend $544 
billion we do not have this year; No. 2, by having this many projects 
at such low value, we do not get our money's worth because we spend a 
ton of money in administrative and overhead costs for these small 
projects. If we are going to spend this money, it ought to be 3 or 6 
projects, not the 30-some projects that are in there.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1086) is withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 1095, as Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask amendment 1095 be modified as 
stated in the instruction which I am going to send to the desk. There 
is an error. This corrects the error. I ask consent that be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       (Purpose: Making technical corrections for NNSA security)

       ``Strike everything after ``buses;'' on page 90, line 14, 
     through page 92, line 25 and insert the following:''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask consent that Senator John McCain be recognized 
now for 10 minutes to speak on the bill, or whatever he desires; when 
he has completed, we proceed to the Feinstein amendment; then we 
proceed to final passage and there will be 10 minutes on the Feinstein 
amendment on the rollcall, after which we proceed to rollcall on final 
passage.
  Mr. REID. I ask it be modified to have the second vote also 10 
minutes. We have a lot of work to do after that vote is over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona will have 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rest of the request was that subsequent 
votes would be 10 minutes each and there would be a 10-minute vote on 
the Feinstein amendment and a 10-minute vote on final passage.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on 
final passage at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the hour now is 5 minutes to 
midnight

[[Page S7793]]

as I note from the clock. We are now completing consideration of an 
appropriations bill that entails $31.2 billion of the taxpayers' money. 
We began consideration of this around 10:30, I think. So, between the 
hours of 10:30 p.m. and midnight we have now thoroughly scrutinized the 
expenditure of $31.2 billion of taxpayer money, which also happens to 
be $1.5 billion over the request. I am sure all of my colleagues feel 
we have thoroughly examined a $31.2 billion expenditure of their money.
  This system we are under now is broken. We shouldn't be, on a night 
before we are--we all know we are going into a recess--considering a 
bill of this magnitude in an hour and a half at a very late hour. I 
certainly do not quarrel with any of my colleagues who did not have an 
opportunity to examine the bill and the report language.
  It really rolls out the pork barrel. It has $1.5 billion for 
unrequested earmarks with more than $1.3 billion going to 618 Army 
Corps of Engineers projects, 618 projects that the Corps has not 
identified as priorities for fiscal year 2006. I don't know how we can 
justify providing more than $1 billion for low priority, nonessential 
water projects and, at the same time, pat ourselves on the back for a 
very stringent budget that we passed which caused many Americans to 
make sacrifices in very important programs because we could not afford 
them.
  So we are adding $1 billion for low priority, nonessential water 
projects. Certainly when it comes to funding the pet water projects, 
budget deficit and national priorities flow out of the minds of our 
appropriators.
  We just found out that we had about $1 billion or $1.5 billion or $2 
billion shortfall in funding for our veterans and their health care, 
but we can afford more than $1 billion for nonessential projects. One 
of them, $145 million for additional Army Corps projects in 
Mississippi. The banks of the Yazoo River Basin overflow with $113.3 
million and the Yazoo pumps are humming right along with $25 million. 
The Yazoo pumps is the controversial project that I spoke about in the 
Senate more than 2 years ago. The bill brings the total appropriated to 
the pumps since fiscal year 2003 to $59 million. The project was 
opposed by the EPA. It was opposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service 
because it will drain and damage 200,000 acres of public and private 
wetlands in the heart of the Mississippi flyway for no important public 
purpose. Residential flooding problems were addressed decades ago by 
the Federal construction of the Yazoo backwater levy.
  We have $90 million for the central and south Florida and the 
Kissimmee River; $67 million for Alaska projects, including $15 million 
for the Nome and Unalaska Harbor improvements. With these improvements 
Alaska residents will continue to enjoy a great deal of the taxpayers' 
dollars; $30 million for the American River watershed in California, 
and the list goes on.
  I will turn, instead, to some of the authorizations in this 
appropriations bill. It is a violation of Senate rules to authorize on 
an appropriations bill. That rule continues to be violated in an 
egregious fashion. Directing or authorizing policy is a function 
reserved for the authorizing committee. With an appropriations bill 
full of authorizations that modify existing law and policy and 
significantly run up the tab for the taxpayers, these authorizing 
provisions belong in the water resources development legislation. And 
that is where some of them were taken from and placed into this bill. 
Others were newly created for the purpose of authorizing projects and 
appropriating funds for them.

  Some examples:
  An authorization to increase the funding of the Marmet Lock, Kanawha 
River, West Virginia, by more than $128 million--not authorized.
  An authorization for the construction of a project on the Lower Mud 
River, West Virginia, in accordance with a draft Corps report--a draft 
Corps report; not a final report, a draft Corps report--and a 75-
percent Federal cost share of $34,125,000.
  If a 75/25 Federal cost share seems generous, well, my friends, there 
is a provision in this bill that goes even further, to strike the 
required cost-sharing provisions secured by President Reagan in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Yazoo Basin Headwater 
Improvement, Mississippi, is authorized to include the design and 
construction at full Federal expense such measures as determined by the 
Corps to be ``advisable''--take note of the word ``advisable''--not 
technically feasible or economically beneficial--for the entire Yazoo 
River and more than 27 tributaries and watersheds. There is no way of 
telling how much advisable measures might end up costing the taxpayers.
  Authorization to increase the cost ceiling of the Central New Mexico 
Army Corps project by $25 million.
  Authorization for the Corps of Engineers to remove the sunken vessel 
State of Pennsylvania from the Christina River in Delaware with funding 
of $275,000. I guess when $175,000 was earmarked for this project in 
the Emergency Supplemental Act of 2005, no one appreciated that the 
Corps did not have the authority to address this ``emergency'' as well 
as not knowing the cost.
  Authorization for $10 million for the Army Corps projects in Alpine, 
CA.
  Language reauthorizing the Water 2025 grant program and making it 
permanent.
  Language deauthorizing a portion of an Army Corps project in Tacoma, 
WA. I have cosponsored the Corps of Engineers Modernization and 
Improvement Act of 2005 with Senator Feingold for the purpose of making 
effective and responsible changes in the Army Corps water projects 
program through a deliberative process.
  I encourage my colleagues to look at page 123 of the committee 
report. Under the heading of Congressionally Directed Projects, as my 
colleague from Oklahoma has just pointed out, you will find a list of 
47 projects totaling $60.75 million that the committee states are not 
essential.
  I quote:

       The Committee has provided sufficient funding to cover the 
     cost of these additions so as not to impact essential 
     research.

  So, therefore, it must be nonessential. And there is only one thing 
in common with all of these projects: They are earmarked for a specific 
location or institute of higher learning. There is not a one that is 
just for a general purpose.
  Well, we are spending $87 million--oh, additionally, beginning on 
page 126 of the report, there are eight more Congressionally Directed 
Projects totaling over $26 million that, again, the committee describes 
as nonessential.
  Why are we spending over $87 million on research that is not 
essential? We have a $365 billion deficit. We are in a war. I do not 
think it is in keeping with the priorities we need to establish if we 
are going to address the budget deficit nor our priorities of winning 
the war on terror and taking care of the men and women in the military.
  I hope that at some point in time we can restore the authorization 
process which then would precede the appropriations process. I would 
hope we would at some time consider enforcing the rule of the Senate 
against authorizing on an appropriations bill.
  I do not think there is any doubt that with us considering a bill at 
10:30 p.m. until midnight, for $31.5 billion, it is not the way the 
American taxpayers want us to do business. Therefore, I will oppose 
passage of this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1085

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe from our side--and Senator 
Reid is here--there is no further business to bring before the Senate 
on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct in understanding this is a 10-
minute rollcall vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1085. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Specter).
  Further, if present and voting. the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page S7794]]

  Mr. Durbin. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) is 
absent due to a death in family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bunning
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 1085) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Ecosystem Restoration

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague 
from Florida, Senator Mel Martinez, to talk about the biggest ecosystem 
restoration project in our country's history, the restoration of 
America's Everglades. The chairman and ranking member of the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee have supported the Everglades, and I appreciate 
their dedication to this worthwhile endeavor.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, Senator Nelson and I stand united to 
continue the bipartisan tradition of support for this project. I, too, 
commend the chairman and ranking member for their support of Everglades 
restoration.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, even before the Congress passed 
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, CERP, in 2000, the 
country had begun some important projects that set the stage for CERP. 
One of those projects is the Modified Waters Delivery Project. The goal 
of the Modified Waters Delivery Project, authorized by the Everglades 
National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, is to increase 
water deliveries to Everglades National Park, to improve the natural 
habitat and, to the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological 
conditions within the park. To do this, however, we must undo the work 
of the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940s and 1950s which resulted in 
the Central and Southern Florida Project, C&SF Project. The C&SF 
Project created 1,000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, and more 
than 200 water control structures to alter water flow in the 
Everglades, control flooding, open land for agriculture and provide 
water supplies to urban areas.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, CERP provides that the Modified Waters 
Delivery Project must be completed before several CERP projects 
involving waters flows on the east side of the Everglades National Park 
can receive appropriations. For that reason, it is imperative that we 
continue to receive funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project 
and that the project be completed as soon as possible.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President we realize that for the first 
time the administration's budget included funding for the Modified 
Waters Delivery Project in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 
Prior to this year, it had been funded solely through the Interior 
Appropriations bill. The House Energy and Water Subcommittee included 
funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project. No matter which bill 
it receives funding through, it is imperative that it receive the 
funding needed to complete it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President I say to my colleagues from Florida, I know 
how important restoring America's Everglades is to the United States 
and to the State of Florida, and I appreciate the efforts of Senator 
Nelson and Senator Martinez to keep this project on track. I agree that 
funding for the Modified Waters Delivery Project is essential to 
restoring the Everglades and I know that it is the administration and 
not the elected representatives of the State of Florida that have 
changed how funding for this project has been allocated. With this in 
mind, I continue to believe this project should be funded through the 
Interior Committee, but I will work to ensure that all facets of the 
Everglades Project receives appropriate funding when our bill goes to 
conference.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President I wholeheartedly thank Senator 
Reid for his work on behalf of the Everglades and look forward to 
working with him and Chairman Domenici on Everglades restoration in the 
future.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I too commend Senator Reid for his 
efforts and look forward to working with him and Chairman Domenici to 
continue to make progress on restoring America's Everglades.


                       Independent Oil Producers

  Mr. INHOFE. The independent producers of oil and gas are a backbone 
of our domestic supply of energy. The independent producers have made 
clear the high value they place on research performed at the Tulsa 
office of the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at National 
Energy Technology Laboratory.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am aware of the concern expressed by numerous 
producers and Senators about Department of Energy plans to close such 
oil and gas research facilities.
  I understand that according to Energy Information Administration 
data, fossil fuels provide over 80 percent of U.S. energy supply, and 
oil and natural gas will continue to provide 65 percent of domestic 
energy needs for 20 to 25 years in the future.
  I understand the argument that is thus fitting that the National 
Energy Technology Laboratory devote a significant portion of its 
research to fossil fuels and oil and gas technology research and 
development.
  I understand that independent oil and natural gas producers--small-
business owners--drill 85 percent of the wells in the U.S. and provide 
75 percent of America's natural gas supply. Independents produce 60 
percent of the crude oil in the lower 48 States.
  I understand that a 2003 National Petroleum Council study stated: 
``Eighty percent of domestic natural gas production in 10 years will be 
from wells yet to be drilled. . . . Small, independent producers will 
drill most of these wells.''
  I understand the argument that such independent producers have 
comparatively limited capacity for research and development of new oil 
and gas technologies.
  I understand the argument that is thus fitting that the National 
Energy Technology Laboratory utilize its research capacity to assist 
these independent oil and gas producers by performing the all important 
oil and gas research and development function.
  I understand that the bulk of the independent oil and gas production 
in United States is performed in the west.
  I understand that many of the independent oil and gas companies are 
headquartered in the west.
  I understand the argument that it is thus appropriate to have a 
significant and even proportionate share of the research of the 
National Energy Technology Laboratory performed in the west, at such 
facilities as the Tulsa office.
  It is my hope that the Department of Energy will not perform 
organizational or staffing realignments in such a way as to reduce or 
close the Tulsa office of the National Energy Technology Laboratory.
  Mr. REID. I concur in these understandings.


                             JEFFERSON LAB

  Mr. WARNER. I respectfully request if the chairman, Senator Domenici,

[[Page S7795]]

would engage in a colloquy regarding the Jefferson Lab in Virginia with 
the Senators from Virginia?
  First, I would like to compliment the chairman of the Energy & Water 
Subcommittee, and the ranking member, Senator Reid, for an excellent 
job in preparing a good and balanced appropriations bill for 
consideration by the Senate. I particularly want to compliment the 
chairman and ranking member for providing increases for the Office of 
Science and for the several important programs within the Office of 
Science, including Nuclear Physics. I know the chairman is well 
acquainted with Jefferson Lab in Newport News, VA, which is one of our 
world-class basic research laboratories. My colleague from Virginia, 
Senator Allen, and I are both proud of the excellent scientific 
programs at Jefferson Lab, which is a credit to the commonwea1th of 
Virginia and to the Nation. The increase in funding provided by the 
subcommittee for nuclear physics will permit Jefferson Lab to increase 
its operational time so the Nation's return on this investment will be 
enhanced.
  In the 10 years since commissioning, Jefferson Lab has made 
groundbreaking discoveries on several scientific fronts. An important 
next step to insure we maintain the pace of scientific discovery, as 
recommended by the Department's November 2003 report, is to upgrade the 
energy of the Jefferson Lab electron beam. This will enormously expand 
the scientific discovery potential of the lab, as well as leverage 
future technological advances.
  Senator Allen and I wrote to the subcommittee suggesting that 
language be included in the committee report urging that the Department 
proceed with the project engineering and design for this energy 
upgrade.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senators from Virginia and their 
interest in this important matter and I agree with the importance of 
the 12GeV Upgrade at the Jefferson Lab. With the funds available to the 
subcommittee, we made recommendations to give priority to increasing 
operational time for all of our existing labs as opposed to spending 
these resources on capital expansions. I recognize, however, that with 
regard to Jefferson Lab we are soon at a scientific turning point when 
the increased energy will be critical to maintaining the pace of 
discovery. If it would be satisfactory to the two Virginia Senators, I 
would like to explore this matter further to see if it can be addressed 
in the fiscal year Conference and by the Department in their fiscal 
year budget proposal.
  Mr. REID. I also thank the Virginia Senators for their support of the 
Energy & Water bill and for their strong support for programs that 
advance science. I will join with Senator Domenici in an effort to 
accommodate the matter that has been brought to our attention.
  Mr. ALLEN. want to add my voice in thanking the chairman, Senator 
Domenici and the ranking member, Senator Reid, for their commitment to 
help us keep Jefferson Lab at the forefront of scientific discovery. We 
appreciate their continued interest and look forward to working with 
them.


                       ALTAIR AND WMU PARTNERSHIP

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Michigan and I 
would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished ranking 
member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee regarding 
the partnership between Western Michigan University and Altair on the 
development of nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare 
agents.
  Senator Reid, is it your understanding that $1 million of the funding 
provided to Altair Nanosensor in this bill will be utilized for the 
continued partnership between Altair Nanosensor and Western Michigan 
University for the development of nanosensors for chemical and 
radiological warfare agents?
  Mr. REID. Yes, the Senator has my assurance that it is the 
committee's intent that $1 million of the funds provided to Altair 
Nanomaterials should be used for the ongoing partnership with Western 
Michigan University.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for his support of 
this important research and join with my colleague from Michigan in 
supporting this project.
  As the ranking member knows, Western Michigan University, Altair 
Nanomaterials and the University of Nevada, Reno have had a successful 
partnership to build on their unique strengths to develop nanomaterials 
and nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare agents.
  We also thank him for his support of this partnership and work on 
this important legislation.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his 
support of this partnership and my colleague for joining me in this 
colloquy.


        department of energy--state energy conservation program

  Mr. INOUYE. I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Domenici, in a brief colloquy on the subject of the State 
Technologies Advancement Collaborative, commonly called STAC, a program 
in the energy efficiency portion of the Department of Energy 
appropriation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the 
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. INOUYE. The STAC program is a collaboration among two State 
organizations and the Department of Energy, initiated by an agreement 
among the parties in November of 2003. The program was to be a 5-year 
pilot of a joint planning process between the States and the 
Department, resulting in projects that were multistate collaborations 
across the country, of interest to both States and the Federal 
Government, and cost-shared by the State at no less than 50 percent To 
date the program has had two competitive solicitations for projects, 
resulting in almost $24 million in buildings, industry, transportation, 
distributed generation and fossil energy activities, with over $12 
million of that amount being provided by the States. These projects 
involve 36 different States.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As you know, the comprehensive energy legislation that 
the Senate recently passed authorizes this program.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am aware that the energy legislation does that, and I 
thank the chairman for including such support in the Energy bill. 
Despite the support of Congress for this program in the past, and in 
the Energy bill, no funds are provided for the program in the Energy 
and Water appropriation now before us. This highly leveraged, 
efficiently managed program, with wide participation from the States, 
will not continue, even with the language included in the Energy bill, 
without strong support from the appropriations process. Would the 
chairman consider including such support for the program in the 
conference agreement on the Energy and Water appropriations bill by 
directing the Department to provide funds out of its regular programs 
at the level no less than the level Congress supported in the fiscal 
year 2005 appropriation for the program?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to assure the Senator from Hawaii that I 
will work with him to ensure that this program will be considered in 
conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for his consideration and for his 
support of programs important to the States.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage in colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water 
Development Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. I commend 
them for putting together a bill that provides critical support to our 
Nation's waterways while promoting energy conservation and protecting 
our environment.
  One of the important programs funded by this legislation is the 
Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, which 
promotes energy conservation and reduces utility bills for low-income 
Americans by supporting home weatherization. I want to share with the 
chairman and ranking member my concern with language on page 122 of the 
committee report that calls for the consolidation of six DOE regional 
offices that are used by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy to reach out to State and local weatherization programs.
  State energy officials, as well as nonprofit organizations, involved 
in weatherization across the country have expressed concern that the 
proposed consolidation would reduce the effectiveness of the WAP and 
the State Energy

[[Page S7796]]

Program. DOE Regional Office Weatherization Project Managers currently 
review and approve State plans and determine whether all requirements 
of WAP have been met. They provide day-to-day oversight of grants, 
including monitoring performance by the States against their plans, and 
they provide technical assistance to DOE Headquarters and the States 
with regard to special projects, regional training and technical 
assistance, and resolution of issues among States and local service 
providers.
  I share the concerns of weatherization program managers and state 
energy officers across the country that it would be unwise to remove 
this valuable network of DOE personnel that has served the regions so 
well. At the same time, I recognize the subcommittee leadership's 
desire to develop a cost effective outreach plan that will maintain the 
level of service we enjoy today and have a minimal impact on DOE's 
dedicated public servants. I hope the Chairman and ranking member can 
work with me as the Energy and Water Appropriations bill moves to 
conference to preserve the important role of regional DOE staff in a 
variety of programs, including the Weatherization Assistance Program 
and the State Energy Program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns the Senator 
from Rhode Island has raised and assure the Senator that I will work to 
find a solution that does not diminish services and recognizes the 
concerns of State and local weatherization program managers.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I second what the chairman has just stated 
and commit to work with the Senator from Rhode Island during conference 
to address his concerns. I am confident we can find a way to continue 
to support local and State weatherization efforts and the State energy 
offices that have depended on the guidance provided by DOE regional 
offices.


             REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF ENERGY FUTURES MARKETS

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss regulatory 
oversight of energy futures markets. Would the distinguished chairman 
of Agriculture Committee engage me and the Senator from California, 
Mrs. Feinstein, in a colloquy on this subject?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would be pleased to enter into such a colloquy.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Senators Feinstein, Levin, and I have raised serious 
concern about off exchange futures transactions in energy commodities 
under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 
the wake of the Western energy crisis, we believe that there needs to 
be adequate Federal authority over these energy markets and that they 
be more transparent in order to prevent fraud and manipulation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is our understanding that the Agriculture 
Committee is considering a CFTC proposal to clarify that its antifraud 
authority in the Commodity Exchange Act clearly covers principal-to-
principal off exchange transactions and a second CFTC proposal to 
clarify its existing authority to bring civil and administrative 
actions, including false reporting cases. We would also hope that the 
committee would add language to clarify that exempt energy transactions 
are subject to the CFTC's antimanipulation and false reporting 
authorities.
  It is our hope that the Agriculture Committee will include these 
proposals in legislation when reauthorizing the CFTC this year. 
However, should the committee report a mark that does not include 
similar provisions when placed on the Senate Calendar, we would like 
assurances from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that we will 
have the ability to offer an amendment to address these issues when 
this bill is considered by the full Senate.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am willing to consider your proposals as part of the 
reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act. In addition, you have my 
assurance that I will work with the leadership to accommodate the 
Senators' desire to address these issues when this matter comes before 
the full Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, our water resources contribute mightily to 
our Nation's economic at environmental well-being.
  Ports and waterways are integral to our national transportation 
system that contribute $718 billion to the Nation's gross domestic 
product while ensuring domestic and international trade opportunities 
and safe, low-cost and eco-friendly transportation of import products.
  While some consider it an anachronism in the age of e-commerce, the 
system remains vital to a broad swath of the economy, carrying 
everything from consumer goods, steel, coal, fertilizer, salt, sand, 
gravel, cement, petroleum and chemicals, to the wax for coating milk 
cartons.
  The U.S. maritime transportation system moves more than 60 percent of 
the Nation's grain exports and 95 percent of the Nation's imports. We 
cannot be competitive in world trade if we don't maintain efficient and 
reliable transportation.
  Much of the infrastructure was built early in the last century. It's 
showing the effects of time and, according to some, of neglect. Old 
equipment takes longer to repair, and it's more vulnerable to nature's 
extremes.
  Earlier this year, unusually heavy winter rains swelled rivers and 
caused a series of accidents, including one on the Ohio River in which 
a towboat pushing six barges sank after passing through a lock near 
Industry, PA.
  After the accidents, General Electric Co.'s plastics division had to 
halt chemical operations at a plant in Washington, WV, because barges 
carrying butadiene, a key raw material, couldn't get through. The GE 
plant, which makes plastic used in phones and laptops, continued other 
production processes during the disruption.
  Consol Energy Inc., based in Pittsburgh, moves about a third of the 
68 million tons of coal it produces each year by water, with most of 
that going directly to power plants. After the recent accidents, the 
company told customers it was invoking the force majeure clause in its 
contracts, which indicates it won't be able to fulfill its obligations 
because of circumstances beyond its control.
  Costs associated with problems on the waterway network, which carries 
about 13 percent of U.S. intercity freight annually, can be hard to 
measure. Towboat companies say it costs them hundreds of dollars an 
hour to have their vessels sitting idle with barges that can't move.
  I was recently told about a port on the Texas coast where bauxite is 
shipped in to the local aluminum plant. Dredging of this port has not 
been a priority for the administration due to their budgetary criteria 
so it has not been dredged on a regular basis. For every inch that the 
ships have to be light loaded to enter the port, it costs the shipper 
$180,000. In other words, for every foot of authorized depth not 
provided here it cost the shipper nearly $2.2 million dollars. If one 
assumes at least one shipment per week, lack of dredging costs the 
shipper more than $100 million annually. Ultimately this cost is passed 
on to you and me in the form of higher prices.
  The routine inspection of a lock in Greenup, KY, in September 2003 
was supposed to close the facility for 3 weeks. When the inspectors 
found bad decay, the shutdown stretched to 2 months. Companies could 
continue using a much smaller auxiliary lock at that location to keep 
moving some goods, but that meant major delays. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, which oversees and maintains the waterways, studied that 
closure and found the cost of delays to towing companies alone totaled 
about $14 million.
  Big companies like U.S. Steel Corp., DuPont Co. and Archer-Daniels-
Midland Co. make extensive use of the inland waterway system, and 
usually don't have easy alternatives. The rail- and truck-freight 
systems, which carry about 45 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of 
U.S. intercity freight, are near capacity and much more costly. Moving 
materials by barge is about a tenth the cost of using trucks, and two-
thirds that of rail.
  Many of the facilities are at the fatigue point now, where they need 
major rehabilitation.
  Each year, the U.S. spends about $500 million on operations and 
maintenance, including dredging channels of the inland waterway system. 
The budget for maintenance has held roughly steady in inflation-
adjusted dollars for three decades. The fact that the system has held 
together as well as it has is a

[[Page S7797]]

tribute to the foresight and ingenuity of those that made the 
investments in these structures.
  Ports are our gateways to international trade, and their channels 
must be enhanced and maintained to accommodate the new generations of 
ships sailing to our shores.
  Our flood damage reduction program saves lives and prevents almost $8 
in damages for each dollar spent.
  Corps hydropower facilities supply 24 percent the hydropower 
generated in the United States.
  Shore protection projects provide safety from hurricanes and other 
storm events for transportation, petroleum and agriculture 
infrastructure around our coastal waterways and deltas as well as 
recreational benefits, returning $4 in benefits for each dollar 
invested.
  Projects for water supply, irrigation, recreation and wildlife 
habitat provide innumerable benefits.
  Investing in water resources sustains economic growth and the 
American worker, directly eases growing congestion on our Nation's 
roads and railroads and provides a finer quality of life.
  Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the Nation's 
water a ``D-''--their lowest grade--because of their steadily 
deteriorating condition and reliability.
  Our Nation simply cannot afford for this trend to continue. The 
administration, whether Republican or Democrat, has consistently 
refused to provide the resources necessary to reverse the decline in 
our infrastructure.
  For fiscal year 2006, the Senate has asserted leadership in reversing 
this trend. The Senate Bill provides $5.3 billion for the Corps of 
Engineers.
  The Senate has included $180 million for the Corps' general 
investigations program. This account funds nearly all studies that the 
Corps undertakes to determine the technical adequacy, environmental 
sustainability and economic viability of water resource solutions. The 
funding will provide the Corps with a robust national program as 
opposed to the paltry $95 million proposed in the administration's 
fiscal year 2006 budget request.
  The Senate bill includes $2.087 billion for the Corps' construction 
account. This account provides funding for construction of the water 
resource solutions authorized by the Congress. The Senate has provided 
nearly $450 million more than the administration's fiscal year 2006 
request. These additional funds will allow the Corps to make 
substantial progress on projects recommended by the budget as well as 
all of the ongoing projects that the administration chose not to fund.
  The Senate bill includes $2.1 billion for the operations and 
maintenance account. This is about $121 million more that the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request and will allow the Corps to 
restore routine levels of services at Corps' facilities and provide 
dredging for projects that the administration has designated as low 
use.
  The Senate bill rejects the budget proposals from the administration 
concerning multiple year contracting and direct funding of hydropower 
maintenance by the Power Marketing Administrations.
  The Senate bill also recommends that the administration and the Corps 
go back to the drawing board on the process that they use to determine 
which projects should be budgeted. The current process introduces too 
much uncertainty into the project development process.
  The administration needs to honor the commitments that they have made 
to local sponsors. The sponsors need the certainty that if they get 
their funding for these projects, the Federal Government will meet 
their commitments.
  Finally, the Senate bill reaffirms the need for the Corps to be able 
to manage their program in an effective and efficient manner. The 
ability to reprogram project funds and the use of continuing contracts 
are a necessary part of this overall management strategy.
  The Senate has produced a balanced and fair bill for the Corps.
  Thank you Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill. The amendments were ordered 
to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McConnell. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Specter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and 
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) is 
absent due to death in family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Coburn
     McCain
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bayh
     Bunning
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Specter
  The bill (H.R. 2419), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House and the 
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.
  There being no objection, the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Allard, Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. 
Inouye conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________