[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22939-22946]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2605, making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2605) have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 27, 1999.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1 
hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Nevada, my 
ranking member, does he have any time problems that would make his 
schedule better if he went first?
  Mr. REID. I have some things to do, as does the chairman, but I think 
the chairman should go first.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  We have before us the Energy and Water Development Act, which is the 
appropriations bill for the year 2000. Last night, the House passed 
this conference report by a vote of 327-87, and I hope the Senate will 
also overwhelmingly support this conference report.
  Incidentally, while this is a small bill in terms of total dollars in 
comparison to some of the very large bills, such as Labor-Health and 
Human Services, and many others, this is a very important bill. A lot 
of Senators don't know, and a lot of people don't know, that the

[[Page 22940]]

title of this subcommittee and this bill--energy and water 
development--is kind of a misnomer because if you wanted to put in the 
major things that are in this bill that are of significance to 
America's well-being and security, you would hardly think that an 
energy and water development bill would have that in it.
  But this bill funds the entire research, development, maintenance, 
and safety of the nuclear weapons of the United States. It funds the 
three major National Laboratories which are frequently called America's 
treasures of science. One is in Los Alamos, NM. The history of why it 
got started is well known and why it was selected to be up on that 
mountain. A sister institution is in California, which is called 
Lawrence Livermore, and there is an engineering facility that is 
different from those two. The other two labs are used to design and 
develop the weapons themselves; that is, the bombs.
  Incidentally, we are not building any new bombs now. People keep 
challenging us when we put money in this bill, asking us how many 
weapons we are building. The argument is that Russia keeps building 
them and we are not building them. We are not terribly frightened about 
that. They build them differently, and they have a different philosophy 
about how to build them than we do.
  These National Laboratories are engaged in the mission of maintaining 
these nuclear weapons indefinitely, without underground testing. For 
all of the history of the building and development of nuclear weapons, 
the State of Nevada could be added as the fourth site that was of 
significance for America to keep its weapons of a nuclear nature safe, 
sound, reliable, and capable of doing what we expect them to do. That 
is because we tested these weapons underground, in cavernous 
underground facilities loaded with all kinds of equipment that did 
measurements, and that was in the great State of Nevada. Now, those are 
shrunk because we have adopted a policy, sometimes called the Hatfield 
amendment, by a vote in the Senate, signed by the President, which says 
we don't do any underground testing.
  The question is, If we are not going to do any testing, how do we 
make sure the weapons are reliable, safe, efficient, and effective? So 
there is a new concept and these three laboratories, in conjunction 
with the Nevada underground test site, which does some lesser 
experiments--not the nuclear blasts--are engaged in trying to prove 
that our weapons are safe and sound. If parts need to be replaced over 
time, we are able to know which ones, how, why, and that is called 
science-based stockpile stewardship--science-based stockpile 
stewardship--instead of science-based underground testing.
  So we have to develop new kinds of activities at these laboratories, 
and it is about a 5-year venture. This is the sixth year of funding. 
Maybe this year, we will have put it into the lexicon of programs that 
America has on the nuclear weapons side, where maybe it will be 
permanent and accepted.
  As we discuss the international treaty prohibiting underground 
testing, there will be a lot of discussion about whether this approach 
is adequate over time to let us sign a treaty that we will never do 
underground testing again. That will be a separate debate, but it will 
turn, to some extent, on the credibility and reliability of this 
science-based stockpile stewardship. So I am very pleased we were able 
to fund that at a very healthy level, and I am pleased that we have 
been able to get this bill to this point. The House and Senate passed 
versions of their respective bills and had very different priorities. I 
am not critical, but for some time I worried whether we simply would be 
able to reach an agreement because we were so far apart in terms of the 
amount of funding for this bill and the amount of money for the nuclear 
weapons side.
  However, a very distinguished California legislator who has been in 
the House a long time is Chairman Packard. He chairs the subcommittee 
in the House. We met 2 weeks ago and dedicated ourselves to a 
chairmen's recommendation on all items. I will tell you that I have the 
greatest respect for Chairman Packard. He is new at this job, but he is 
not new at being a legislator. Together, we have overcome differences 
that, had they occurred between two other chairmen, might have been 
irreconcilable.
  I must acknowledge openly that this subcommittee has a wonderful 
minority leader in the name of the minority whip for the Democratic 
Party, Senator Reid. Senator Harry Reid understands these issues. He is 
growing, and if he is not already, he will be a national spokesman when 
we get off track, and don't worry about maintaining this nuclear 
stockpile until we have a different world or until we have a different 
policy about what we are going to do with our nuclear weapons and how 
many we are going to have, et cetera.
  So in the conference report before you, we have recognized that the 
Senate is as interested in water projects as is the House, and the 
conference has provided water projects. We all know what those are. 
They are in every State. They are flood protection projects, Corps of 
Engineers projects, dams and the like; they are the dredging of the 
harbors of America to keep them sound and in an appropriate maintenance 
of depth and the like. We have moved in their direction by increasing 
the water projects in our bill $415 million over the level proposed in 
the Senate.
  However, as we have done this, we have been very strict about not 
including newly authorized projects included in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 or any that might be brought to our attention. 
Even those that were authorized in that act are so numerous and so 
expensive that, if we started to give one Senator one piece of that, 
either Democrat or Republican, or similarly in the House, there would 
be no end to how many projects we would have to fund.
  So we stuck to our guns in that regard and we did not put any of 
those projects, and we did not put in any unauthorized projects, which 
I think many people urged us to do over time, and we are pleased to 
make that announcement. As I indicated, if we tried to add those, we 
would be overwhelmed and we probably would not be here today.
  As we have increased water projects, we decreased funding for some of 
the accounts the Senate proposed. The weapons activities of the 
environmental management, science, and energy research accounts have 
borne a portion of the reduction. I am here to say that we have done 
quite well, and I believe those programs can continue at a pretty good 
level, in particular, those centering on science-based stockpile 
stewardship.
  Finally, we had to deal with a number of very onerous, general 
provisions in the House bill, and I believe those issues have been 
resolved to our satisfaction. I don't believe, on many of them, there 
is any concern at this point about the way we wrapped them up, be it on 
power marketing or on the nuclear weapons or the laboratories. I need 
to address Secretary Richardson's views.
  First of all, I am very pleased the President of the United States 
has indicated that he will sign the Defense authorization bill. That is 
the bill that authorizes the entire funding for the military of the 
United States, which also bears an amendment that will establish within 
the Department of Energy a new entity, a semiautonomous agency that 
will be in charge of all the nuclear weapons activity--the most 
significant reform in perhaps 28 to 30 years in a department that has 
grown like Topsy and is filled with programs that don't necessarily 
relate one to another. We will carve out of it a management scheme that 
will be far more accountable, reliable, and trustworthy than we had 
before.
  Now, obviously, those specifics in that new scheme are not funded 
precisely, but they are funded in the general sense, and we hope 
Secretary Richardson and the President will begin quickly to implement 
that new management scheme so we can show the American people that 
there is a better way to do it. None of this casts any aspersions on 
Secretary Richardson. He inherited this department, which has no 
accountability to speak of, with reference to secret activities. It is 
very

[[Page 22941]]

hard to find who is responsible if something goes wrong. In many other 
respects, it is very dysfunctional in terms of the way it manages 
things. We have attempted to pursue with vigor some new management 
projects in terms of major projects.
  Secretary Richardson in his press release of last night said we did 
not do well enough, we deny that $35 million in cybersecurity upgrades. 
I want to address the situation in two regards. First, in response to 
the problems at the Department, whether cybersecurity or other 
problems, Secretary Richardson has taken an oversight approach. That 
means more independent, internal watchdogs, security czar, a 
counterintelligence czar.
  As many as my colleagues know, more layering at more levels of 
management, while well intentioned, can have the opposite effect. 
Making watchdog groups responsible for safety, health, or security 
removes that from the day-to-day responsibilities of the Department 
employees.
  I want to address cybersecurity in another manner with reference to 
the specific item the Secretary raised about not funding $35 million in 
new money. Let me say what we have funded in that regard: Nuclear 
safety guards and security, $69.1 million, $10 million over the request 
to protect against physical and cyberintrusions; security 
investigations, $35 million, $3 million over the request; independent 
oversight, $5 million to support the new office reporting directly to 
the Secretary.
  We believe when those are added up, that is about all a Department 
can assimilate unless one assumes there is a renewed vigor in security 
by overlapping of these new pieces of the Department that the Secretary 
has announced. We believe when they begin to reorganize this, they will 
find this is plenty of money to do the security work under the new 
streamlined agency. We never intended to do anything but fund 
adequately the notions expressed in the Secretary's letter.
  He mentioned a project in the State of Tennessee, the Spallation 
Neutron Source, a new project of high excitement in the science 
community. It has had difficulty meeting its goals of meeting scheduled 
attainment of construction, and it may very well be a case of overruns 
where it will spend more than expected. Nonetheless, it is important we 
proceed. The House only funded it for $50 million. We funded it for 
$150 million. I regret to say I could only split the difference--$100 
million plus $17 million to operate. Obviously, the Secretary would 
like $130 or $140 million. I couldn't do it. I hope the project can 
continue in this scaled-down number. I remain committed. I believe the 
subcommittee remains committed to it. I think everybody ought to know 
we will eventually take care of it. It will not be delayed very long 
based upon underfunding this year.
  With reference to other matters in this bill, I have worked with the 
Department on various issues the administration is considering with 
reference to a possible supplemental request. I suggest it is 
impossible to fund the Department of Energy request regarding their 
computers in the weapons complex. They indicate it would cost 
approximately $450 million next year. That is $150 million per 
laboratory and $150 million for the production complex. There is no way 
we could fund that kind of money in these appropriations. We leave it 
to the administration. If they seek this in a supplemental next year, 
we will look at it carefully. We stand ready eventually to fund that. 
It is not possible in a budget of this size to fund this year $450 
million for cybersecurity. It is not possible.
  DOE has also reviewed its fiscal security. I am hearing reports of 
substantial costs that may need to be incurred in the coming year to 
improve fiscal security. However, in our conference with the House, it 
was made clear we have never before been told cybersecurity or fiscal 
security problems were the result of lack of funding. The problem may 
very well be more than that and may be a combination of things. We 
stand ready and willing to help.
  Senators Kyl and Murkowski have proposed, along with this Senator, 
reform in the Department which I outlined early in my remarks. When 
that reform is made and we begin to implement the so-called National 
Security Administration, I will be open to reviewing all costs 
necessary to ensure our nuclear weapons complex is safe. I am not going 
to try to resolve this problem solely by putting huge amounts of new 
money in before we have the new agency beginning to streamline itself 
pursuant to the new bill which will soon be signed by the President 
when he puts his signature on the defense authorization.
  Regarding wetlands provisions contained in the House version, I will 
summarize the conference agreement which I think is acceptable to the 
administration. It is a very difficult issue, and it is very dear to 
many House Members. The legislation contains $5 million for the Corps 
to fully implement an administrative appeals process for their 
regulatory reform. This is the so-called 404 permitting of the Corps: 
The process shall provide for a single level of appeal for 
jurisdictional determination.
  The conferees dropped the language proposed by the House which would 
have made the determinations the final agency action under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, thus permitting early appeal to the 
Federal court system.
  The conference agreement also includes language proposed by the House 
requiring the Corps to prepare a report regarding the impacts of 
proposed replacement permits for the nationwide permit of 25 on the 
regulatory branch workload and compliance costs.
  The conference dropped language that would require the report be 
submitted to Congress by December 30, 1999, and dropped language that 
would hold matters in abeyance until the report was forthcoming. This 
part of the bill was worked out carefully with representatives of the 
executive branch, and I believe it is acceptable to them.
  I had one other issue I wanted to state here for the Record because 
my colleagues from the State of Arkansas, Senators Hutchinson and 
Lincoln, wanted to have explained a project called Grande Prairie in 
the State of Arkansas which is not funded in this bill.
  The Grande Prairie project in Arkansas, which has an overall long-
term Federal cost of perhaps as much as $245 million, will provide 
ground water protection for agricultural water supply and environmental 
restoration in rural areas of Arkansas. Funding at $8 million was 
provided in 1999 to initiate construction. Since the appropriation, the 
Corps of Engineers has used only $3.8 million, with $5 million being 
reprogrammed from the project for use in other activities. This leaves 
about $1.2 million for use in the year 2000.
  The Corps has been having problems with local sponsors finalizing 
their cost-sharing agreement which is reviewed before construction can 
begin. Some local interests believe it is cheaper for them to find 
other options rather than to come up with their cost share. For the 
project to proceed, the cost share agreements must be entered into. The 
attitude of some is, this is complicating efforts to execute a local 
cost-sharing agreement.
  We have clearly indicated that the Corps of Engineers has not been 
able to use the $8 million appropriated and it is unlikely significant 
funds can be used in 2000. The conference agreement leaves an estimated 
$1.2 million as carryover funding, and the managers' statement states 
that the conferees' expectation is that if issues surrounding the 
project are resolved, conferees expect the Corps to reprogram funding 
back to the project for construction.
  I hope that is satisfactory. I have indicated the same in a letter to 
Senator Hutchinson, who inquired about this.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record.
                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 1999.
     Senator Tim Hutchinson,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Tim: I want to assure you of my personal commitment to 
     the success of the Grand Prairie project in Arkansas.

[[Page 22942]]

       This year's Energy and Water Development Act was especially 
     hard to craft. In short, we simply did not have sufficient 
     resources to fund all deserving water projects at the optimum 
     level. In the case of Grand Prairie, it is my understanding 
     that additional funds will not be needed in the coming year 
     because of the availability of funds appropriated last year 
     that have not been spent due to problems negotiating a 
     project cost-sharing agreement.
       I've attached the language from the conference report that 
     clearly indicates the conferees' action was taken without 
     prejudice. If additional funds are needed in the coming year, 
     the Corps has authority to reprogram funds into the project.
           Sincerely,

                                             Pete V. Domenici,

                                  Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
                                            and Water Development.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with that, I am ready to answer any 
questions. I think it is a good bill. We are within the budget. There 
is no significant increase over last year, for those who were 
wondering, in the total cost. So I think we have a bill that ought to 
get very strong support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am very fortunate to be the ranking member 
on this subcommittee because I always have a hole card and that hole 
card is the chairman of the subcommittee. I say that because not only 
does he serve on this very important subcommittee as chairman, he is 
also chairman of the Budget Committee, which helps when we run into 
money problems--No. 1, for understanding the budget issues in their 
entirety, since he has been in the process over the many years of 
setting the budget, the process that we have here, but the chairman of 
the Budget Committee also is able to work with the Office of Management 
and Budget, able to work with the Congressional Budget Office, and 
other people who make this bill one that has been able to move through 
the process. It is a very difficult process.
  So I say to my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the chairman 
of the full Budget Committee, I appreciate very much his including me 
in matters when I would not have to have been included. The chairman of 
the subcommittee, the manager of this bill, and this Member, can be 
about as partisan as anybody can be or needs to be. We do what we need 
to do to protect our two parties. But when it comes to matters where 
you have to set aside your partisan differences and move forward for 
the good of the country, I think we have set a pretty good example. We 
have been able to work through a very difficult process. This is an 
important bill--$22 billion. I understand the awesome responsibility I 
have to satisfy the needs of my State, the needs of the respective 
Democratic Senators who come to me for assistance, and Republican 
Senators who come to me for assistance; and I understand the importance 
of this bill to the country. This is a very important bill. I repeat, I 
express my appreciation to the chairman of this subcommittee for 
working with the minority in coming up with this bill.
  This is a tough bill because there are so many very good projects, 
good measures we were unable to take care of; there simply was not 
enough money. It is hard to go to a Member and say: We couldn't do 
this.
  Why?
  We had a formula set up and you didn't fall within the formula.
  Why couldn't you do this for me?
  If we did it for him, we would have to keep doing it for some other 
people. We set up some standards, we kept to those standards as best we 
could, and we came up with what we think is a very good bill.
  This bill deals with many important matters. I believe, as does 
Senator Simon, who served in this body and has since leaving here 
written a book on water, that future wars are not going to be fought 
over territory. They are going to be fought over water. In this country 
of ours, we have a lot of water problems developing. This subcommittee 
has a tremendous responsibility to handle those water problems.
  We do not have much in this bill dealing with the water problems of 
the southern part of the United States, but we are going to get them. 
As a result of Hurricane Floyd, North Carolina has been devastated. 
North Carolina has water problems they never dreamed of having. There 
is talk that their different aquifers are being polluted as a result of 
the tremendous discharge of human and animal waste as a result of this 
hurricane. We are going to get some of those problems in this bill next 
year.
  I could go through this bill, and it is printed in the Record, and go 
to any place you wanted in this bill and pick projects that we have 
funded that are extremely important: Llagas Creek, CA; San Joaquin, CA; 
Caliente Creek, CA; Buffalo--Small Boat Harbor--NY; city of Buffalo, 
and on and on.
  I just recounted a couple of these in alphabetical order. But there 
are many projects we could talk about and we could spend our full time, 
our allocated hour, talking about one of these projects, how good it is 
for the region, how good it is for the country. We are not going to do 
that. But I repeat, we could also take considerable time talking about 
projects that were not funded that are also good for this country and 
good for the region that we simply did not have the dollars to fund.
  The Corps of Engineers was founded by our Founding Fathers. It is an 
old institution within the military that is so essential to this 
country. In the State of Nevada, we have survived, certainly the growth 
in Las Vegas Valley has been able to go forward, as a result of the 
work of the Corps of Engineers handling floods.
  We only get 4 inches of rain a year in Las Vegas. I hear on the radio 
and when I watch television I see in Eastern States you get 10, 12 
inches a day in some places. One of these storms comes through dumping 
all kinds of water, but we do not get that in Nevada. But because of 
the Corps of Engineers handling flood control in Las Vegas--we may not 
get a lot of rain but we do not have places for it to drain. That is 
the way the desert is. So the Corps of Engineers has worked with us and 
we have been able to divert a lot of floodwater. We have detention 
basins. We have huge diversion tunnels. The Corps of Engineers has 
worked very hard to make Las Vegas safe.
  I can remember, going back to the late 1960's, when we had a flood 
come through that washed hundreds of cars away at Caesar's Palace--it 
washed cars away. Anyway, we are doing much better.
  The Corps of Engineers does a good job. They could do much better if 
we would fund them with more money. It is difficult to do all they are 
required to do.
  The Bureau of Reclamation--I talked about water--this little, tiny 
agency does so much. It does so much for the arid West. The first 
Bureau of Reclamation project in the history of the country took place 
in Nevada. It was called the New Lands Project, started in 1902. There 
is good and bad coming from that New Lands Project. That is the way 
these projects have been, all the way, all over the western part of the 
United States. The Bureau of Reclamation was doing a good job, and they 
still are, but with limited resources. We would like to give them more 
money but we don't have it. We would like to keep the budget 
constraints that we have and we should have.
  The defense part of this bill is extremely important. The safety and 
reliability of our nuclear arsenal is all within this bill--the safety 
and reliability. We have huge nuclear weapons. They are stored around 
the country. You cannot just leave them there and hope everything is 
going to be OK. You have to test them for safety and reliability. We 
cannot do the testing the way we used to do it. We cannot do it in the 
underground tunnels and shafts all over the Nevada Test Site. Over 
1,000 tests have been conducted in the Nevada Test Site. Now we have to 
do it in a more scientific manner.
  This bill does more for science than any bill we have. Computers, we 
hear all that is going on in the private sector with computers, and I 
pat them on the back. I am glad we are moving forward the way we are. 
But this bill is accelerating the development of computers. Very 
powerful computers now

[[Page 22943]]

exist, but they are going to pale in significance compared to the 
computers we will build as a result of the computer research we are 
funding in this bill. Why are we doing it? Because we want to be able 
to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile, and we are going to 
do that.
  We are so scientifically correct now that we do not do testing the 
way we used to do it. To make sure our weapons are safe and reliable, 
we will start a nuclear reaction and we stop it before it becomes 
critical. But through the work we can do with computers, we can tell 
what would have happened had the test gone critical. That is how 
sophisticated we have become. We have to become more sophisticated. Our 
scientists tell us they need more computerization, and we are working 
on that in this bill.
  This bill is important. The chairman of the committee, the manager of 
this bill, has talked about the wetlands rider. We worked very hard on 
that. We worked very hard on that to come up with something that is 
acceptable, and we have the assurance of the administration that they 
will sign this bill. I say to the chairman of the committee, we spent a 
lot of time Friday making sure the administration--Jack Lew was there 
and they indicated they would sign this bill. Is that not correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I think that is important. Everyone should know this bill 
meets the very stringent standards, as far as the wetlands rider and 
some other funding matters the administration set.
  I also say to my friend, the manager of this bill, there was some 
question about the new structure that has been set up within the 
Department of Energy and whether they needed more money to comply with 
the strictures that we have set under the new legislation. I think 
everyone agreed, this conference, if it takes more money, then they can 
come back. We will have a supplemental down the road early next 
Congress. They can come back to us and make a case that, because of the 
new legislation, they have been required to do new things that they 
were unable to pay for out of the budget that they have, and we will 
look to that with favor. I think that is a fair way to go.
  The path to this year's bill was rocky. It certainly was through no 
fault of the chairman. We spent a lot of time trying to understand what 
the House wanted. We were able to work that out.
  I also say to my friend from New Mexico, I came to Congress with the 
chairman of the House subcommittee in 1982. He is a very fine man. He 
is a good subcommittee Chair. He is going to be even better. I can see 
the progress since we did our supplemental to this bill. He is a fine 
man and is trying to do the right thing. That is Congressman Ron 
Packard from the San Diego area.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I have to leave 
the floor for a few minutes. He is probably going to be finished soon. 
There is nobody else seeking time.
  Mr. REID. I ask the chairman to join with me in asking that as soon 
as I finish my remarks, all time be yielded back and the two leaders 
set a time to vote this afternoon.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has that time been agreed on?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 2:15 p.m.
  Mr. REID. That is fine. All time will be yielded back when I finish 
my remarks, and we will vote at 2:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back all remaining time I have.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated, this was a rocky road. I am 
surprised we are where we are. Ten days ago I did not think this was 
possible. The House and Senate were apart by $1 billion. We have worked 
that out. We have gotten more money in the bill. In fact, we have about 
$1 billion which has made this possible.
  The final conference report is very balanced among the needs of water 
projects. I indicated how important they are for the corps and the 
Bureau of Reclamation, as well as the very important science and 
national security responsibilities of the Department of Energy. These 
responsibilities, the water projects and the Department of Energy, 
could stand alone, but they do not stand alone. We have to balance 
them.
  I have spoken a lot about the importance of this bill. I did that 
earlier. I do believe it is important. Year after year, I am amazed at 
what this bill does to meet the needs of this very complex country in 
which we live, with the natural resources that are different from one 
coast to the next.
  Earlier this year, Congress passed the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999. We call it WRDA. We have not been able to fund a single 
project that we authorized in that. That is unfortunate, but that is 
one of the rules we set. The bill passed after this bill started, and 
if we are going to have some limitations, this is a good place to 
start. Next year, we are going to receive a number of requests from 
this bill, as well we should. We need to look for a way to fund them.
  On the energy side, this bill is a solid compromise. It has sizable 
gaps both technologically and fundingwise, but we are going to make 
progress. We have battles on the Senate floor every year this bill is 
before us with solar and renewable energy. We have to do better than we 
have. We were funded well below last year's request. We have made 
progress, and I think we can continue to make progress.
  The conference compromise was the best we could do, given the 
available funds. It was not enough, but it was the best we could do.
  This is a good bill. It is a bill that will next year, I hope, be 
even better. It is balanced. There are good things in it. We have 
hurricane protection for Virginia, funds for the Everglades in Florida, 
Chicago shoreline funding which will help keep the Great Lakes out of 
downtown Chicago, healthy funding for our National Labs, and dozens of 
other examples throughout this conference report that do help this 
country. My frustration is merely that there is so much more to be done 
that we cannot do.
  Each year this bill is the product of hundreds and hundreds of hours 
of staff work on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers. The 
staff worked very well together and produced the best possible result 
for the American people. That is what it is all about.
  As I indicated, there comes a time--and we should do it much more 
often--when we must set aside our partisan differences and move forward 
with positive results. This bill is good for the country. We could have 
chosen to be partisan and neither of us budge and wind up with nothing, 
and that is what the American people would have gotten--nothing. We 
think setting aside our partisan differences has been a positive 
accomplishment.
  The staff set the example. They worked to produce the best possible 
result for the American people, and I am very grateful to all our 
staff. I thank some of the key members of the Senate staff who made 
this bill possible: Gregory Daines, my energy and water clerk; Sue Fry, 
an Army Corps of Engineers detailee to the Appropriations Committee; 
Bob Perret, a fellow on my personal staff; Liz Blevins, an 
Appropriations Committee staff member; and Andrew Willison, who is on 
my personal staff who has worked very hard on this bill; and Alex 
Flint, David Gwaltney, and Lashawnda Leftwich of the majority staff who 
have been very helpful to us on this bill.
  As always, as I have indicated, it is a pleasure to work with my 
counterpart, the chairman of this subcommittee, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee. I hope we are able to work on this bill for many 
years to come.
  I yield back my time.


                   doe environmental management funds

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee, in a colloquy to discuss the importance

[[Page 22944]]

of research as it relates to Environmental Management (EM) in the 
Department of Energy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be glad to engage in such a colloquy with my 
colleague, the Senator from Idaho and a member of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is very important there be research conducted at the 
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) that 
supports the EM mission of the Lab. I would point out that the INEEL 
has been designated as the lead Environmental Lab in the DOE Lab 
complex. If INEEL is to lead, there must be funds available to exert 
such leadership.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with my colleague on the importance that such 
funding be available.
  Mr. CRAIG. With that need in mind, I ask my colleague if he would be 
supportive of increased funding in the EM-50 account to assure that 
such research can be conducted?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my colleague from Idaho that I would support 
such funding in the EM-50 account and encourage the DOE to make such 
funding available.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to support the energy and water 
development appropriations conference report. Within this bill is 
funding for a critical effort that is essential to the long-term future 
for citizens of the Northwest: the cleanup and restoration of the 
Hanford site in the State of Washington.
  The citizens near the Hanford area played a major role in the 
Nation's successful effort to win the cold war. Now it is the 
responsibility of our Federal Government to conduct environmental 
remediation so that the site will not threaten the health of future 
generations. This bill appears to fully fund the cleanup effort based 
on the priorities presented in the administration's February budget 
request.
  One unresolved Hanford-related concern pertains to the Fast Flux Text 
Facility (FFTF). This is one of the world's premier research reactors, 
and last month the Secretary of Energy made the right decision to 
proceed with an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) on future missions 
for this facility. The FFTF holds the potential to create a sufficient 
and dependable source of medical isotopes used to cure cancer; it can 
also meet the needs of a variety of other missions, including the 
production of needed material for deep space missions.
  In the administration's budget request, an inadequate amount of 
funding was requested for the FFTF. Subsequently the Secretary's 
decision to proceed with an EIS will require additional funds to 
complete this necessary analysis. I call on the Secretary to address 
this situation immediately so that the necessary reprogramming of funds 
can be approved expeditiously, something he has not yet done.
  This conference report also wisely deletes or fixes several 
provisions that were attacks on the Power Marketing Agencies generally 
and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) specifically. Report 
language asks BPA to report on fish and wildlife costs that will be 
incorporated within the upcoming BPA rate case. The timing of this 
request is awkward as it calls for a report prior to the end of the 
rate case; I request that BPA only make this report if it has no 
negative consequences on the rate case process.
  Another area of concern pertains to the solar and renewable energy 
portion of this report. Due to budget restrictions, the amount of 
funding available for this program is less than ideal. Not only has 
this area of energy development seen recent dramatic breakthroughs in 
cost-effectiveness, it holds great promise for developing nations and 
emerging economies. My State of Washington is home to many of the 
Nation's leading solar and renewable energy companies and projects. I 
hope we will be able to give greater emphasis to this program next 
year.
  On this subject, the conference report also references a specific 
appropriation to develop a materials center pertaining to photovoltaic 
energy systems. I hope the Department of Energy is aware that 
Washington State University has been leading an effort--along with 14 
other top-tier universities and the National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory--specific to this area of research. DOE should proceed with 
these efforts in a competitive process, allowing the WSU-led consortium 
to remain under serious consideration for leading this area of 
research.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am forced to vote against the Energy 
and Water conference report. Not to do so would be to break a 
commitment to small businesses across America, to hurt farmers and 
ranchers and rural communities, and to threaten the energy security of 
the United States.
  The people across the United States demand increased funding for 
renewable energy. Poll after poll shows that our citizens believe we 
should spend more on renewable energy.
  A majority of the United States Senate--54 Senators--believe we 
should increase funding for renewable energy.
  This bill defies the will of the American people and a majority of 
U.S. Senators. It does not provide more money for renewable energy. It 
provides less money. It provides 130 million dollars less than the 
administration's request. It cuts funding for renewable energy by 30%.
  Mr. President, by decreasing funding for renewable energy, we 
jeopardize the security of our Nation, we hurt small businesses, 
ranchers, farmers, and rural communities, we hurt our ability to 
compete internationally, and we hurt the environment.
  Mr. President, our Nation needs to increase domestic energy 
production--not cut funding for developing an unlimited source of 
energy made in America. Our Nation needs a lower balance of payments--
not an increased trade deficit. We need to help farmers, ranchers, and 
rural communities develop affordable, reliable, locally produced 
energy--not cut it off. We need to stand up for U.S. companies selling 
U.S. manufactured energy technologies in overseas markets--not leave 
them dangling in the wind while the Japanese and Europeans grossly 
outspend us. We need to spur job markets in every state in the Nation--
not send our good jobs overseas.
  Apparently there are still some who fail to realize that clean, 
domestic energy production is important. Perhaps they have not noticed 
that the U.S. has a trade deficit larger than any other nation, ever. 
Or maybe they have forgotten that imported foreign oil is the number 
one contributor to our trade deficit. Or maybe they just do not realize 
what the rest of the nation has long ago realized--that clean, made in 
America renewable energy can give us the energy security, jobs, and 
healthy environment that our people demand.
  I am deeply disappointed in the severe cuts to renewable energy in 
this bill. I vow to fight even harder next year to give renewable 
energy the funding it deserves.


                burbank hospital regional cancer center

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's willingness to 
engage in a colloquy regarding the FY00 Energy and Water conference 
report. The conference report, which passed the House last night and is 
being considered in the Senate Chamber this morning, includes $1 
million in Department of Energy's Biological and Environmental Research 
(BER) account for cancer research at the Burbank Hospital Regional 
Cancer Center. It is important that the word ``research'' be addressed 
in the Record, since the original request by my Massachusetts colleague 
in the House, Representative John Olver, asks that funds be made 
available for the Burbank Hospital Regional Cancer Center in Fitchburg, 
MA.
  Since this is a small hospital serving a rural area, I and my 
colleague in the House want to stress the importance of the $1 
million's being dedicated to the hospital for the underserved 
population, rather than for research purposes. If the chairman could 
clarify to the Department that the $1 million should be made available 
to the Burbank Hospital in Fitchburg, MA, without its being contingent 
on ``research,'' it would be greatly appreciated. I thank the gentleman 
very much for his time and effort.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator's interest and wish to clarify 
to

[[Page 22945]]

the Department of Energy that the $1 million should be made available 
to the Burbank Hospital in Fitchburg, MA, for the under-served 
population.


    Budgetary Impact of H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water Development 
                 Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the official 
Budget Committee scoring of the pending bill--H.R. 2605, the energy and 
water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
  The conference agreement provides $21.3 billion in new budget 
authority (BA) and $13.3 billion in new outlays to support the programs 
of the Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 
Bureau of Reclamation, and related Federal agencies. The bill provides 
the bulk of funding for the Department of Energy, including Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities and civilian energy research and development 
(R&D) other than fossil energy R&D and energy conservation programs.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the conference report totals $21.3 
billion in BA and $20.8 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The conference 
report is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for BA, and $29 
million below the 302(b) allocation for outlays.
  The conference report is $0.1 billion in BA and $0.5 billion in 
outlays above the 1999 level. The conference report is $0.3 billion in 
both BA and outlays below the President's budget request for FY 2000.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the FY 2000 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill conference report be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 2605, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 2000, SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                            CONFERENCE REPORT
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    General
                                    purpose   Crime  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget authority...............    21,280  ......  .........    21,280
  Outlays........................    20,839  ......  .........    20,839
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............    21,280  ......  .........    21,800
  Outlays........................    20,868  ......  .........    20,868
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............    21,177  ......  .........    21,177
  Outlays........................    20,366  ......  .........    20,366
President's request:
  Budget authority...............    21,557  ......  .........    21,557
  Outlays........................    21,172  ......  .........    21,172
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............    20,190  ......  .........    20,190
  Outlays........................    19,674  ......  .........    19,674
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............    21,277  ......  .........    21,277
  Outlays........................    20,868  ......  .........    20,868
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............  ........  ......  .........  ........
  Outlays........................       -29  ......  .........       -29
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............       103  ......  .........       103
  Outlays........................       473  ......  .........       473
President's request:
  Budget authority...............      -277  ......  .........      -277
  Outlays........................      -333  ......  .........      -333
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............     1,090  ......  .........     1,090
  Outlays........................     1,165  ......  .........     1,165
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............         3  ......  .........         3
  Outlays........................       -29  ......  .........       -29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to express my personal appreciation 
to all the conferees who participated in the fiscal year 2000 energy 
and water development appropriations conference for including funding 
and language for Louisiana projects.
  Flood control, hurricane protection and navigation are all vital to 
the safety and well-being of our citizens. These water-related 
infrastructure projects are of major economic importance to the state. 
A number of them are of major importance to the nation.
  Of the Louisiana projects in the fiscal year 2000 report and the 
Statement of Managers, there are two Louisiana projects which I would 
like to discuss further at this time: the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal 
Lock Project and the Bayou Darrow Floodgate, Aloha-Rigolette Flood 
Control, Red River Project.
  I appreciate all that the conferees have done for these projects. I 
am taking this opportunity to express my views to the Senate on some 
key issues affecting them. Resolution of these issues is critical to 
the two projects being built in a timely manner to provide the 
protection and service for which they have been authorized.
  With regard to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, I am most 
appreciative of the funding which the conferees have included for it 
and its mitigation. On the related key project issue, it is of the 
highest importance that the Corps of Engineers use the full replacement 
cost to value the real estate and facilities which it acquires from the 
Port of New Orleans as part of the project.
  The Port of New Orleans had expected the Corps to use full 
replacement value when it acquires the Port's properties. I am told 
that full replacement cost is the value which the Corps is using to 
acquire other similarly-situated property and facilities for the lock 
project.
  Senator Landrieu and I contacted the conferees about this full 
replacement cost issue.
  As I understand and which I appreciate very much, the conferees noted 
that there are significant differences in the estimates used by the 
Corps and the Port to value the Port's properties to be acquired. As I 
also understand, conferees expect the Corps to work in good faith to 
arrive at an equitable solution to this issue in accordance with 
current law, which I also appreciate very much.
  If, indeed, the Corps is using, in accordance with current law, full 
replacement cost for other similarly-situated properties which it will 
acquire for the lock project, then it is only equitable and fair that, 
in accordance with current law, it use full replacement cost to acquire 
the Port's properties for the project.
  With regard to the Bayou Darrow Floodgate, Aloha-Rigolette Flood 
Control, Red River Project, I am most appreciative that the conferees 
have provided FY 2000 funding for the project. I also appreciate their 
consideration of the request by Senator Landrieu and I which was not 
able to be included as part of the conference agreement, that is, to 
authorize full federal responsibility for project costs which are in 
excess of those anticipated in the 1994 Project Cooperation Agreement.
  The excess costs have arisen due to extenuating circumstances which 
included, as I understand, project-related contract negotiations, but 
about which the Town of Colfax, the non-federal sponsor, says it was 
not consulted. The Town, which is a very small rural community, says it 
is unable to pay the share of the excess costs assigned to it by the 
Corps.
  I am most concerned about this situation. I hope that the Corps of 
Engineers will work very closely with the Town of Colfax to resolve the 
excess cost issue soon and that this much-needed flood control project 
will be able to be completed in a timely manner.
  This concludes my statement, Mr. President.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Chairman 
Domenici, Senator Reid, and the other Conferees for addressing vitally 
important issues for Louisiana in this bill. As you know, Mr. 
President, the annual Energy and Water Appropriations Bill provides 
funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect our citizens 
from flooding and to facilitate the flow of maritime commerce through 
our many waterways. Both of these endeavors are very important to 
Louisiana and our nation.
  The FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report (H. 
Rept. 106-336) addresses the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal (IHNC) 
Lock Replacement Project in New Orleans which is very important to 
maritime commerce. I thank the Conferees for providing $15.9 million 
for this project. I also thank the Conferees for including report 
language that would expedite the community mitigation plan and ensure 
that the Corps work in good faith to arrive at an equitable solution

[[Page 22946]]

in determining the value of property to be transferred by the Port of 
New Orleans to the Corps to complete the project. Notably, I understand 
that the Corps is also acquiring nearby property from another landowner 
for this project and that the Corps is employing a replacement cost 
methodology to determine the value of this nearby property. Therefore, 
I believe that an equitable solution to determining the value of the 
Port's property requires a valuation in the same manner as that 
employed for the nearby property.
  Additionally, the Conference Report addresses the Aloha-Rigolette 
Project. I thank the Conferees for providing $581,000 for this project. 
Although not included, I also thank the Conferees for considering my 
request for bill and report language that would authorize full federal 
responsibility for project costs in excess of what was anticipated in 
the Project Cooperation Agreement issued in 1994 in connection with the 
Bayou Darrow Floodgate portion of the project. I sought this language 
at the request of the local project sponsor, the Town of Colfax. Mayor 
Connie Youngblood of Colfax informed me that the Corps negotiated a no-
cost termination with the project contractor without consulting the 
Town and is now expecting the Town to cost-share the additional costs 
that have resulted. Because the Town of Colfax is a very small rural 
community and unable to pay the unanticipated additional costs which it 
did not consent to, I remain very concerned about this matter. 
Accordingly, I ask the Corps to work with the Town of Colfax to resolve 
this matter so that the project can be completed in a timely manner.
  In closing, I again thank the Conferees for their work on the FY 2000 
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill and the attached Conference 
Report.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate my respective 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for successfully completing work 
on this important spending bill. I regret that I was not able to be 
here to vote on the final Energy and Water conference report for fiscal 
year 2000.
  The conferees deserve credit for their notable efforts in forging 
this conference agreement and continuing funding for the Department of 
Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and 
other critical energy programs important to our nation. I am 
disappointed to say that, just as this final report ensures that 
necessary functions and programs of the Federal Government are funded, 
the practice of pork-barrel spending also continues.
  When the Senate passed its version of the energy and water 
appropriation bill just 2 months ago, I found $531 million in low-
priority, unnecessary, and wasteful spending. While a half a billion 
dollars is an incredible amount of pork, it is remarkable that this 
final conference report has been fattened up with an additional $200 
million in pork barrel projects.
  A lot of this pork is concentrated in sections of the bill detailing 
projects to be funded by the Army Corps of Engineers. While I am 
certainly supportive of our water infrastructure and civil works 
programs, I am appalled at the process by which the conferees have 
directed money in these accounts. A majority of the projects do not 
appear to be funded based on a competitive or merit-based review, but 
instead funding is clearly directed toward projects which are not 
requested in the budget and more closely resemble special interest 
projects.
  We sought to curb Federal spending and reduce our tremendous deficit 
by passing the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. However, because we now enjoy 
a robust economy and balanced budget, we have detracted from our 
important goal of spending tax-payer's hard-earned dollars prudently.
  A clear example of this fiscal irresponsibility is exemplified by the 
``emergency spending'' bills we have enacted over the past two years. 
Why did we have to pass these supplemental appropriations bills? 
Because those areas of the country which are not the recipients of 
these special interest earmarks are suffering because there is not a 
realistic chance to compete for federal funding through established 
normal procedures and guidelines when budgetary spending is based more 
on parochial actions.
  Over the years, I have reported to the American taxpayers the pork-
barrel spending that continues through our annual appropriations 
process. I believe we owe it to the American public to report how we 
spend their taxpayer dollars. Sadly, the taxpayers will have to 
shoulder the burden of financing pork barrel projects to the tune of 
$759 million included in this energy and water spending measure.
  I will not waste the time of the Senate going over each and every 
earmark. I have compiled a list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and 
special exemptions in this conference report. Due to its length, the 
list I compiled of objectionable provisions included in this conference 
report cannot be printed in the Record. This list will be available on 
my Senate webpage.

                          ____________________