[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12577-12583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1186, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1186) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
     and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all first-
degree amendments in order to S. 1186 must be filed at the desk by 5 
this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: What is 
the subject matter before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 1186.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is the energy and water appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I understand--is this correct--Senator Reid has 
procured a unanimous consent agreement that all amendments will be 
filed to this bill by 5 this afternoon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Let me thank Senator Reid very much for doing that. We have all been 
working to try to make sure that as this week fills up with other kinds 
of votes, on everything from Y2K to the lockbox and other things, we be 
given ample opportunity to get this bill passed.
  We worked very hard under the leadership and direction of our 
chairman, Senator Ted Stevens, chairman of the full committee, to get 
this bill ready and to get it out here as soon as possible. This will 
be the second full Appropriations Committee bill that will be before 
the Senate. If it passes in the next few days, we will be on some kind 
of a record in terms of our ability to get a large number of the 
appropriation bills done in a very timely manner.
  For that, I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member of the 
full committee for the amount of resources that were given to this 
committee. I will begin with an explanation of how we tried to respond 
to the allocation of resources.
  First of all, this is an interesting bill, interesting in the sense 
that it is not very rational in that you have two things mixed that are 
about as far apart in the spectrum of prioritizing and need as you 
could get. All of the nuclear weapons research and development for all 
of our bombs and all of our safeguards and all of our great research is 
in this bill. That has been and is still defense work. It is work for 
the defense of our country. We get money for this because it is a 
defense function. When we had the walls up wherein you could not spend 
defense money for anything else, the money that came into this bill for 
that purpose came right out of the defense total.
  There is another piece of this bill that has to do with water and 
water resources, not as they relate to anything nuclear, just water and 
water resources, various inland waterways, various dams, various dikes, 
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, those kinds of activities, 
and a myriad of flood protection projects, because the Federal 
Government, over time, has been a major player with the States in a 
matching program with reference to flood protection.
  Then sitting kind of in the middle but aligned with those water 
projects are things that the Department of Energy does that are not 
defense oriented. We call those the nondefense energy projects, 
research of various types that is not necessarily or even required to 
be related to the defense activities I have just described.
  So in a very real sense, it is kind of comprehensive and a mix of 
various funding requirements of our country that do not mesh.
  We started from the beginning saying there are certain resources that 
come to this committee from the full Appropriations Committee that are 
clearly for the purposes of the defense of our Nation. We have taken 
those resources and said that all of the resources we are getting from 
the Appropriations Committee which have historically been for defense 
will be used for defense only. To the best of our ability, we have not 
used any defense money; that is, defense nuclear money, and defense 
having safe weapons, the nuclear stockpile, the stewardship stockpile--
we have used defense money for that--we have not in any case taken some 
of that money or any of that money and used it for water projects or 
used it for nondefense Department of Energy work.
  I would like to keep it that way. I have no power of the Budget 
Committee or points of order to keep it that way, because we, in 
compromising, when we put the 5-year Balanced Budget Act together, 
bipartisan, and executive branch with the President, had walls between 
defense and nondefense for 3 years, and then it was discretionary for 
the last 2. We are in the last 2 now.
  I have, nonetheless, with the assistance of my ranking member, kept 
defense money for defense programs and not put it into nondefense 
domestic energy programs or in water projects.
  On nondefense energy projects--I will just mention one--there is an 
amendment pending to do more with solar and renewable energy. That is 
not a defense activity. We have done the best we could, but we have not 
used any defense money for that. I hope when we see the amendment, 
since one is going to be forthcoming, that they followed that pattern 
and have not taken it out of the defense activities, because with what 
we know about the world, with what we know about Russia and the hard 
feelings that exist, what we know about the Chinese and their moving as 
quickly as they can toward a nuclear empire of their own with reference 
to weapons--and we have agreed that we are not going to do any 
underground testing whether or not we pass the treaty on nuclear 
testing or not; we have agreed not to do any--it is absolutely 
important and imperative we prove we can maintain our nuclear stockpile 
with adequate safeguards and that it is standing the test of time.
  What we need to do that with is the new program called science-based 
stockpile stewardship. The occupant of the Chair is an expert in some 
of these areas and has worked long and hard in the House. I thank him 
for a lot of the help he gave in trying to reorganize the Department of 
Energy, which will continue to come up even after the Rudman report 
today. I am sure it will be before us again. I believe the occupant of 
the Chair, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, has constantly 
raised the question, Will stockpile stewardship work? Will science-
based stockpile

[[Page 12578]]

stewardship work? Will substituting computers and new kinds of systems 
that can take x ray-type pictures of what is going on inside one of our 
nuclear weapons, even far more sophisticated than that, that knows what 
is going on--that is the substitute for testing in an underground mode 
that we have done for many decades in getting our weapons to be the 
best and most safe in the world--if that isn't working, then obviously 
everybody has to rethink where we are with reference to underground 
testing.
  So I don't want to shortchange science-based stockpile stewardship. 
There are three or four aspects of it that are very expensive--the 
development of certain buildings and certain technology. We are not 
finished with them yet. We are maybe halfway finished. We have about 
half more to go, including the gigantic, new process we are building at 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has the initials NIF, 
National Ignition Facility.
  The Senate is now considering Calendar No. 128, the Energy and Water 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000. As we begin, there is a technical error in 
the bill as reported by the committee. I will send to the desk, with 
the full understanding of my ranking member, a correction to that 
error. It has been cleared by both sides. I ask unanimous consent that, 
after I send it to the desk for reading, it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 625

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 625.

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

       On page 28, line 5, strike $39,549,000 and insert: 
     ``$28,000,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 625) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on June 2 the Committee on 
Appropriations reported Senate bill 1186, the Energy and Water 
Development Act for the year 2000.
  As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the recommendation would 
provide $21.2 billion in new budget authority, $12.6 billion within 
defense, and $8.6 billion within nondefense. In the defense accounts, 
that amounts to a $220 million increase over the request; in the 
nondefense accounts--that is including the water project--it amounts to 
a $608 million reduction from the request.
  For the first time in memory, the recommendation before us provides 
less money for water projects than was requested. We have reduced some 
energy research, nondefense environment management, science, and the 
Department of Energy's administration accounts.
  In fact, in order to accommodate some serious shortfalls in the 
President's request and some very legitimate requests from Members, we 
have cut a significant amount more than $608 million that we are short 
from that request. For example, the recommendation before us restores 
the $81 million for the Power Marketing Administration to provide power 
to their customers. That was left out of the President's request, and 
we had to cut other programs, above the $608 million, to provide these 
funds.
  As we have made these reductions, we have tried to follow certain 
criteria. In the water accounts, for example:
  Where the President fully funded or provided advance appropriations 
for special projects, such as the Everglades, Columbia River Fish 
Migration, and the CALFED project, we have brought those programs back 
down in line with other accounts, but we have funded them.
  Second, projects included in the budget at the capability level, in 
this year when we will not be able to fund projects at their full 
capability, have been reduced to no more than 85 percent of capability.
  Third, items where the budget request was significantly increased 
over the current year's level of funding have been reduced to bring 
them back in line with the fiscal year 1999 levels.
  We have not included unauthorized projects or projects contained in 
the water resources development bill, called WRDA 99, which is still in 
conference.
  Finally, a significant amount of previously appropriated and unused 
funding has been used to finance the fiscal year 2000 program or 
recommended for rescission in order to save outlays.
  Having said that, the recommendation for the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers is still at $3.723 billion. That is $182.6 million below the 
budget request and $374.1 million below the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
level.
  Moving on to the Bureau of Reclamation, the recommendation before the 
committee totals $756.2 million. This is $100 million below the budget 
request and $24 million below the current year level. Within this 
account, the largest single reduction is from the request for the bay 
delta restoration Program, and we can go into more details on other 
projects.
  From the Department of Energy's nondefense accounts, we have 
proposed--because we don't have sufficient money--some substantial 
reductions from the President's request.
  For example, the recommendation for solar and renewable energy is 
$348.9 million. That is $3.4 million over the level the committee 
recommended a year ago, but it is less than the President asked for.
  We have also gone through all of the DOE accounts and found $41 
million in unobligated balances from old projects and programs, and we 
have gone so far as to rescind $1,000 from an old program that hasn't 
been around in years, to make those funds available for this act.
  Within the defense allocation, we have been able to add some funds, 
because we were given a slight increase by the Appropriations Committee 
from that account. To the extent possible, we have tried to recognize 
the needs of Members with environmental management sites. We have 
provided increases at Savannah River and the Hanford site as well as 
Rocky Flats where DOE is on track to complete this cleanup by 2006. 
Let's hope we can stay on track and celebrate that event soon. I am 
well aware that more funds could be justified to increase the pace of 
cleanup at those sites, but we simply don't have the necessary 
resources.
  Within weapons activities, we have begun a major realignment among 
the defense laboratories. As we have taken some nuclear weapons designs 
out of the stockpile, an imbalance has been created between Livermore 
and Los Alamos in my State. To ensure that balance is retained between 
them, we have transferred responsibility for one warhead design from 
Los Alamos to Lawrence Livermore. We have also expanded certain 
operations at the Nevada Test Site and initiated a microelectronics 
capability, a new technology which will make our weapons safer in the 
future, and at the same time may make some breakthroughs for American 
industry and for future uses that may bring microengineering and 
microelectronics into our everyday lives in a very big way.
  The Defense Authorization Act was recently passed by the Senate, and 
the Intelligence Authorization Act will come to the floor next week, 
perhaps. It is my hope that is where issues related to the Cox 
Commission report and allegations of espionage at our laboratories will 
be addressed. The recommendation before you does not include any broad 
effort in that regard. It is an appropriations bill, not an authorizing 
bill.
  Now, obviously, I am hopeful that nobody will offer broad changes to 
the structure of DOE and moving toward better security within DOE. As I 
say, it is not an authorizing bill; it is an appropriations bill. The 
extent to which we can predict the action taken on the authorizing bill 
so far will necessitate

[[Page 12579]]

funding in this regard. We have made some adjustments.
  We have increased funding for security investigations from $30 
million to $45 million. We have increased funding for counter-
intelligence from the requested level of $31 million to $39 million--we 
are proposing to more than double the funding of $15.6 million the 
Committee provided last year. Finally, because some have raised 
concerns about materials security, the recommendation provides an 
increase of $10 million for physical security.
  In summary, the recommendation before you is for $21.2 billion, a 
reduction of $380.8 million from the request.
  It is our intention to work, if we have to, late tonight, but with 
the unanimous consent agreement that was entered into, obviously we 
will know by 5 o'clock the extent to which we will be working on the 
floor handling various amendments. We will be here all afternoon.
  I personally urge colleagues on my side--I hope that Senator Reid 
will urge his on his side--to bring any amendments they may have to the 
floor so we can consider them today.
  It is my intention to shortly--after all amendments have been filed--
act on a package of managers' amendments. We will not do that 
immediately. We will wait a while.
  I yield the floor and turn the podium over to my distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Reid. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the State of California has 35 million 
people. It is a State of great contrast. It is an agricultural 
producer, to say the least. It produces more agricultural products than 
any State in the Union. Yet it is also heavy into tourism. It is heavy 
into recreational endeavors, and also has these huge cities--Los 
Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Jose. It is very difficult to 
develop a balance between these various competing interests.
  One of the things in this legislation that we have been asked to do 
is to step into this delicate balance. The California Bay Delta--or 
CALFED, as it is called--is a project that is going to have a 
tremendous impact on these competing interests in the State of 
California.
  This program, as I have indicated, has environmental interests, urban 
interests, agricultural interests, and tourism interests. We have been 
asked as a subcommittee to provide hundreds of millions of dollars for 
the bay delta system, which provides potable water for two-thirds of 
this huge State.
  I don't know the latest numbers, but California as a country would be 
the eighth largest country in the world. I think that is the number.
  We have been asked in this subcommittee to step in and provide huge 
amounts of money for this bay delta project, which, as I have 
indicated, provides water for two-thirds of California's homes, 
businesses, and irrigation for more than 7 million acres of farmland.
  Additionally, this system provides habitat for at least 120 different 
species of fish and wildlife. Some are already listed as threatened or 
endangered.
  CALFED has been tasked with the development of long-term solutions 
for the complex system that we call bay delta, including certain water 
supplies, aging levies, and threatened water quality. Our bill has $50 
million for this project. This isn't enough. It needs more.
  Those are some of the responsibilities that we have.
  I say to my friend, the chairman of the full Budget Committee, and 
chairman of this subcommittee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, that 
we have worked hard on this bill. I appreciate his consideration on the 
issues that have been developed.
  The problem is that with all 13 appropriations bills we simply just 
do not have enough money. This has been a very tough year. But we have 
worked within the constraints of what we have been given to come up 
with the best possible bill that we could.
  I mentioned the California Bay Delta project as an example of how 
important this subcommittee is.
  There are 13 subcommittees. We have already passed the defense 
appropriations bill. This will be the second bill, leaving 11 bills. I 
don't know what is going to happen in the future with all of the bills. 
Some of them are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get passed.
  The HUD-independent agencies is really a difficult bill with the 
302(b) allocations that they have. The bill dealing with Health and 
Human Services is a very difficult bill dealing with issues that affect 
the health and safety of this country.
  We, the senior Senator from New Mexico and I, cannot be prospective 
in nature about other subcommittees. We can only do the best we can 
with our subcommittee. We have done the very best we could with our 
subcommittee.
  I support this bill. I have already indicated that we don't have 
enough money. But I would like to see anyone do a better job than we 
have done. It has taken tremendous amounts of our time, and, of course, 
the staff has worked day and night for many weeks. If you look at the 
responsibilities that we have with this subcommittee, they are really 
significant.
  The manager of the bill has talked about the Army Corps of Engineers. 
It is very important. It does things that only the Corps of Engineers 
can do.
  Take the State of Nevada. The Corps of Engineers used to be very 
important for water projects. Now the Corps of Engineers, with the 
rapidly growing Las Vegas area, is extremely integral to developing a 
system so people do not drown, so they don't lose personal property 
when these floods hit this metropolitan area.
  The Bureau of Reclamation in the early years in Nevada--it was the 
same all over the western part of the United States--was concerned 
about Boulder Dam and Hoover Dam. Now the Bureau of Reclamation has 
other responsibilities that are just as important.
  The Department of Energy, the atomic energy defense activities, the 
Power Marketing Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority--these are 
the responsibilities that the senior Senator from New Mexico and I have 
with this bill.
  Every one of these issues for the States in which the facilities are 
found will be most important as we deal with this bill this year.
  We recognize how important this legislation is. There is no secret 
that the budget caps have a devastating effect on the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. But that is the way it is. 
Water projects have an impact on communities around the United States.
  The point I want to make is that with this bill people start to talk 
about pork. Try to explain to the people of the State of California, 
with 35 million people, where pork is involved in this CALFED project. 
Remember, it deals with competing interests, all of which support our 
bill.
  The question is, Can we provide them with enough money to make sure 
this project stays on line?
  This bill affects individuals and projects--people and States. It is 
important for their lives and for the safety and health of communities. 
The decisions that we have made have been extremely difficult 
decisions, because we realize that the decisions we make put people out 
of work, put people to work, and change priorities in different 
communities.
  I have mentioned briefly the CALFED project. The State of Nevada is 
not much into dredging ports and harbors. The fact of the matter is 
that the two managers from the State of New Mexico and the State of 
Nevada have responsibilities to make sure there is appropriate money 
for dredging ports and harbors along both the Atlantic and Pacific 
coastlines as well as the Gulf of Mexico. This is the project for the 
Corps of Engineers.
  It is important on an annual basis for U.S. ports and harbors to 
handle hundreds of billions of dollars--approaching $1 trillion--in 
international cargo, generating to this country and local

[[Page 12580]]

and State entities over $150 billion in tax revenues every year.
  Even though the State of Nevada is basically a desert State, the 
State of New Mexico, while not as much desert as Nevada, is also a 
State that has its share of desert. This is important for us; it is 
important for the Senate; it is important for the country that we do 
what is right regarding dredging ports and harbors.
  Navigational improvements in New York and New Jersey include things 
called the Arthur Kill Channel and the Howland Hook Marine Terminal 
project. This project includes deepening, widening, and selective 
realignments of the channel to allow deep draft container vessels 
access to this marine terminal.
  This is an ongoing problem. Once you dredge a port, it doesn't mean 
you are not going to have to dredge it again. This is an ongoing 
problem, and this subcommittee is responsible for making sure that 
these ports can compete with the rest of the world.
  The New Jersey and New York ports account for 34 percent of the 
Nation's trade in petroleum, automobiles, many food products, and 
import goods bound for all of the Northeast and upper Midwest, 
supporting nearly 170,000 jobs. When we cut back, when these ports are 
not dredged properly, when we do not do the things that need to be done 
to make sure these ports are capable of handling this cargo, people 
lose their jobs.
  The ports of the Northeast are not alone. There are 25 ports around 
the coast of the United States that take in over 26 million tons of 
cargo annually. Fourteen of these ports have total trades of over $50 
million in cargo. That says a lot.
  Continuing to maintain the ports and harbors requires a long-term 
commitment in the budget process, as does shoreline protection on which 
so many communities around the country rely. In the city of Virginia 
Beach, VA--I have never been to Virginia Beach, VA--this year we are 
attempting to fund a program at $17 million because a hurricane hit 
Virginia Beach and almost destroyed the beach. The construction of 
Virginia Beach began 3 years ago. Benefits have already been realized 
because the damage from Hurricane Bonnie was minimal to the unfinished 
portions of the project. The project was not in the budget request sent 
to Congress, but a $247 million project needs to be completed in a city 
that has invested over $100 million in infrastructure over the last 5 
years, and that has been matched by $100 million in private investment. 
The Federal Government doesn't do all this all alone, but it should do 
its share.
  Additionally, the U.S. Navy megaport, Naval Air Station Oceana, 
directly benefits from the project at Virginia Beach with its personnel 
increased by as many as 6,000 sailors and family members recently being 
transferred to the base.
  I personally recently voted for the base closure amendment before 
this body. I did it because I think if we are going to save money, we 
are going to have to do some of the things the military says need to be 
done. The military has stated a large amount of money can be saved by 
eliminating bases around the world and certainly in the United States. 
One way we can do this is to make sure we take care of those businesses 
that we know are lasting in nature. Naval Air Station Oceana is one of 
those. As a result of the additional work there, which we participated 
in, we have had 6,000 additional sailors and family members transferred 
to that base.
  Who would think that the Corps of Engineers would be involved in 
anything in Nebraska? There are a number of important projects in 
Nebraska. I could point to every State in the Union, although I have 
been somewhat selective. The Corps of Engineers has been given the 
responsibility of environmental restoration in various parts of the 
country, not the least of which is Nebraska.
  One of the projects I want to discuss today is the Ponca State Park 
in Nebraska. This park lies on a 59-mile stretch of the Missouri River. 
We are spending a relatively small amount on Ponca, $1 million, but it 
is very important. Education is a primary component of gaining support 
for additional environmental activities that people believe need to be 
done. Through efforts of Ponca State Park, the public will be able to 
understand the environmental and water management problems of the 
Missouri River basin and potential solutions to its problems.
  The Corps is also playing an integral role in the multiagency effort 
to restore segments of the Missouri River to something resembling what 
Lewis and Clark saw as they searched for the Northwest River Passage, 
the Pacific Ocean.
  Working with Senators, particularly Bob Kerrey, the Corps expects to 
propose a plan this fall for managing the Missouri River with more 
emphasis in protecting native wildlife and their habitat and 
facilitating outdoor recreation, while not compromising traditional 
downstream uses of the river.
  We need to also talk about Nevada. We have had Law Review articles 
written about this project in Nevada. There have been seminars held 
using the model we used in Nevada for how to solve water problems in 
the western part of the United States. President Bush signed a bill of 
his Presidency where we put to rest a 100-year water war between the 
States of California and Nevada in the Truckee and Carson Rivers. We 
settled problems that had been outstanding for many years, including 
problems between two Indian tribes, and there were two endangered 
species involved--a wetlands had gone from 100,000 very nice acres of 
marshlands with all kinds of birds, fish, and other animals to about 
1,000 very toxic acres where fish were all but dead and birds could no 
longer nest there.
  We solved problems in the agricultural area, also, in the cities of 
Reno and Sparks. The reason I mention this, money for solving this 
problem for so many years came from the Bureau of Reclamation, the 
Corps of Engineers. We have put money in this project over the years 
and have generally resolved these issues that have been so difficult.
  Remember, the Federal Government is not the only one involved. The 
State legislature this year appropriated $4 million to help with some 
projects along the river; the private sector agreed to come up with $3 
million.
  As I have indicated with the situation in Nevada, Nebraska, 
California, the port areas in New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, they 
are essential to the well-being--commercial well-being, the financial 
well-being, and the economic well-being--of this country. These are not 
projects in the sense that somebody is getting something for nothing. 
These projects are vital to the interests of the communities they 
serve.
  I am very gratified with the work we have been able to do in this 
bill with so little money. There is much more that needs to be done and 
should be done. We don't have the money. However, we are doing so much 
good for the country in this legislation that it is important Members 
of the Senate and the American public understand how important this 
relatively small subcommittee is.
  As the manager of the bill indicated, we not only deal with these 
programs which I have talked about that are nondefense in nature, but 
there are other nondefense programs that deal with our energy supply. 
We have been cut here. We are not going to be able to supply these 
programs, these alternate energy programs that I am such a strong 
believer in, unless money comes from the defense programs, which it 
should not. I think that would not be the right thing to do.
  We have to have priorities and make decisions. Energy supply programs 
are reduced by $12 million from the current year, and from within this 
program we fund science, such as fusion research which is conducted at 
universities and labs around the country. Also funded in energy supply 
are solar and renewable technologies, which I believe are a key to the 
future energy sources in our society.
  For Members who say we should spend more on solar and renewable 
energies, what will we offset? It has to be offset. Finding an offset 
will be very difficult to do.

[[Page 12581]]

  We all know how important it is to provide for a secure and cheap 
supply of acceptable energy. For continued economic growth, the 
maintenance of our current business climate and global environment 
depend on cheap energy. The research and development investments in 
this bill are certainly far more meager than they should be but still 
focus on providing affordable and enduring energy supply. This bill 
provides funds to maintain our known and existing energy resources 
while aggressively investing in new technology options for future 
resource development.
  I repeat for at least the third time that we were unable to do as 
much as we would have liked to do. We did the best we could under the 
allocation we were given.
  I counsel my colleagues that with the allocation mandated, the 
framework which we determined for these funding levels, any amendments 
need to be reasonable in their approach to emphasizing one program over 
another. It is very tough to choose.
  As to atomic energy defense activities, my friend, the manager of 
this bill, I think, did a very good job in pointing out why these 
programs today are so important. We know what is going on in the world 
is so important. We have a very fractured situation in the land that 
separates India and Pakistan--Kashmir. Two nuclear powers are looking 
at each other, threatening each other with war.
  We had the situation with the Soviet Union, which has disintegrated, 
but Russia still has huge numbers of nuclear devices. We have to make 
sure our nuclear weapons are safe and reliable and that we have the 
ability to help the rest of the world with its nuclear weapons.
  The atomic energy defense activities include, among other things, a 
number of very important national security programs. Maintenance of a 
safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile; support for and 
verification of global nonproliferation of nuclear weapons; support for 
and verification of nuclear international arms control agreements and 
domestic and foreign nuclear safeguards and security; technical 
analysis of nuclear intelligence information; and domestic 
environmental restoration and defense of nuclear waste management are 
all activities that are necessary in our conduct of the cold war and 
for other reasons. These activities are important because they are 
essential elements of our comprehensive national security strategy 
whereby we will deter any actual or possible adversary from relying on 
nuclear threats to our security interests.
  The key ingredient of our strategy is to ensure the safety and 
reliability of our nuclear stockpile. The so-called science-based 
stockpile stewardship program has been developed and is supposed to 
provide that assurance. It is important that this new program is active 
and is making progress. But the critically needed facilities and 
capabilities are still being developed. Some of them are still 
concepts. So it is critically important we stay the course and maintain 
the necessary funding to allow this program to succeed.
  We have no choice, literally. To not allow this to happen would set 
us back significantly. Let's assume we found a problem with one of our 
nuclear warheads. How are we going to test this? What are we going to 
do? We can no longer take it to the underground caverns in Nevada, the 
underground tunnels or shafts in Nevada, and set it off. We need the 
greatest minds in the world to be able to tell us what we can do to 
make sure these weapons systems are safe and reliable. At the same 
time, we must continue making investments directed at containing and 
reducing the international threat of nuclear proliferation. Success 
here, also, is vital.
  It is just as important to reduce the expense, the burden, and risk 
of maintaining a stockpile of weapons that is far larger than 
necessary. I am convinced all the elements of the Department of 
Energy's defense activities will provide for our security, now and in 
the future, more effectively and with less cost than will be the case 
if any one of these activities is reduced. By reducing moneys here, the 
costs in the outyears will increase tremendously. So I recommend this 
bill to my colleagues.
  This bill provides for national needs and addresses regional, 
interstate, and local concerns as well, ranging from nondefense energy 
and water interests to the highest priority maintenance of 
international peace and security.
  So I hope, as we proceed through this bill, we keep our eye on the 
prize, what this subcommittee is all about. It is about making sure the 
ports and harbors of this country are able to handle the goods and 
commerce that come here. It is making sure urban areas are now safe 
from flooding. It is making sure the Bureau of Reclamation is allowed 
to continue its projects so water supplies are good--good in the sense 
of being plentiful, and good in the sense of being pure.
  I end this statement where I started. Using the State of California 
as an example, 35 million people are depending on this bill. They are 
depending on it because two-thirds of their water comes from a project 
we have in this bill. It meets the inconsistent but very vital demands 
of the agricultural interests, the recreational interests, 
environmental interests, and urban interests of this huge State.
  I hope we can move through here without a lot of mischievous 
amendments, move to the merits of this legislation, and complete it as 
quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend Senator Reid for his 
comprehensive statement. I tell him and the Senate how pleased I am 
that I have a ranking member who understands the importance of the work 
of the Department of Energy in our nuclear weapons development, 
maintenance, and safekeeping, because sometimes it is rather lonely.
  Many people fail to understand the relationship between not having 
any more underground testing and the decision to have a new science-
based stockpile stewardship of nuclear weapons. Without underground 
testing, with various scientific approaches and new kinds of scientific 
instrumentation, we are going to produce the atmosphere and environment 
surrounding what would have taken place in a real underground test, and 
we will be able to say what is happening to our nuclear weapons--their 
safety, well-being, maintenance, and reliability.
  That is a big undertaking. For those who come to the floor regularly 
and eloquently urge we put plenty of money in our defenses, it is high 
time they understand we have to put plenty of money into this area 
because, although the regular military of our primary military 
adversary in the world is getting depleted and its strength is being 
greatly diminished, the country remains a huge owner and developer of 
nuclear weapons. They do not build their weapons as we build our 
weapons. They are far less sophisticated. That is their choice. We 
chose another approach. Our approach requires we regularly understand 
what is going on in the wear and tear and longevity of our nuclear 
weapons as they stand ready, continuing to be the great deterrent they 
are. That has a fancy name. My good friend from Nevada explained it 
very well. It is tied inextricably to our decision not to do any 
underground testing.
  Frankly, there are some in this body, including the occupant of the 
Chair, who are not quite sure we should have abandoned underground 
testing, and there are some who maintain we ought to do science-based 
stockpile stewardship and nuclear testing. I heard Dr. Schlesinger 
testify about that at a committee hearing. Perhaps Senator Kyl has 
heard them say that. The policy of our country is not to do that. It is 
to substitute for nuclear testing, scientific knowledge, and scientific 
technology, first simulating and then acquiring information regarding 
the reliability of nuclear weapons--a huge undertaking.
  Our scientists approached it with great trepidation. There are still 
some great nuclear scientists who are not sure it is sufficient and who 
are not sure at some point we will not have to go back and think it all 
through again. But for now, three basic laboratories

[[Page 12582]]

are doing this. One of the lead laboratories is Lawrence Livermore, 
with reference to a great big project called the National Ignition 
Facility. Los Alamos has a piece of it, both in computer technology and 
in a new building and new instrumentation called the DARP program. And 
Sandia, the engineering part of our laboratory structure, is heavily 
engaged in developing the kind of computer capacity to do the 
simulating and make sure we are getting the right answers in these new, 
sophisticated tests of the validity and consistence and well-being of 
nuclear weapons.
  That is all in this bill. So Senators who are worried about defense 
should know a big portion of this bill is defense, unless they perceive 
we now live in a world when we can have defense all in the defense 
appropriation bill, all those subjects, and not have a nuclear 
deterrent and a nuclear maintenance function within our Nation's 
priorities.
  If some feel that, then this is not defense. But who would dare say 
that to the American people? Who would even suggest we ought to be 
underfunding this kind of activity?
  Frankly, the Senator from New Mexico was greatly concerned upon 
hearing, in the last 3, 4, 5 months, so much about the lack of security 
because clearly I do not want, nor should the Senate, that fear and 
that concern to have an impact on the maintenance of the scientific 
effort that we all know we have to do so long as we will not and do not 
intend to test any of our weapons, either old or new.
  This is a good bipartisan bill. This is a bill that has had a lot of 
input from Senator Harry Reid. Of that I am proud. He has listened to 
our concerns; we have listened to his. There are many Senators' States 
that have projects in this bill that are very important to them on that 
side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle.
  I believe we are going to have less money to spend, and I say this to 
all the Senators. We are going to have less money for this bill. Even 
if we wait around until the end of the year and think we can make some 
kind of deal with the President, we are going to have less money in 
this bill than we had last year. That is just the way it has to be 
under the Balanced Budget Act. I think we have done a good job in 
allocating that money, which is short, to the various functions of 
Government within this bill. We have not shortchanged our defense 
preparedness, as it pertains to nuclear weapons, in the process.
  I understand that my friend, Senator Reid, concurs with this 
unanimous consent request I will propound.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives 
from the House the companion bill to S. 1186, the Senate immediately 
proceed to consideration thereof; that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken and the text of S. 1186, as passed, be inserted in lieu 
thereof; that the House bill, as amended, be read for a third time and 
passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference 
with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the 
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; and 
that the foregoing occur without any intervening action or debate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 1186, not be 
engrossed and it remain at the desk pending receipt of the House 
companion bill; and that upon passage of the House bill, as amended, 
the passage of S. 1186 be vitiated and the bill be indefinitely 
postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 628

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a technical amendment to the 
desk. It is clearly technical, and I ask it be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 628.
       On page 12, line 24, insert the following after the figure 
     ``204'':
       ``of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as 
     amended (Public Law 99-662); section 206''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside, and that we move on to other business, leaving 
it pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss with 
the managers of this bill a matter relating to the 1992 Water Resources 
Development Act which authorizes the construction of flood protection 
facilities along the Lackawanna River in Olyphant and Scranton.
  I can personally attest to the serious situation, because when the 
flooding occurred, I went there one Saturday night late to see the 
ravage of that water problem and have been there on quite a number of 
occasions, to know firsthand the very severe problem which is involved 
there.
  The appropriated account has $42 million, and this bill removes some 
$25 million from that account. I know that the $17 million remaining 
will be sufficient to take care of the expenditures for the next fiscal 
year which amount to some $6 million, leaving $11 million in the 
account.
  I want to discuss with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
a couple of factors.
  One is if my representation is correct that the $17 million left in 
the account will be more than enough to take care of the expenditure 
line for the next fiscal year.
  The second question I want to be sure about is that there will be 
adequate funding to complete this project so that when the schedule 
arises that we need all of the $42 million, or whatever the amount is, 
that we will have the cooperation of the Appropriations Subcommittee, 
the distinguished chairman, and the distinguished ranking member in 
providing that funding, up to $42 million, which it has now. I 
understand the plight the chairman is under because 302(b) allocations 
are not sufficient. I have seen that firsthand. I chair the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and we 
are unable to go to a markup with the figure we have because of the 
very tight restrictions.
  The second aspect is, I am looking for the assurance that the 
remainder of the $42 million will be appropriated when the need arises 
to meet the ensuing fiscal year requirements of the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  The third factor that I want to be sure about on the record is that 
there could be an analysis which will segregate this flood control into 
three projects.
  There you start, again, to get into the complexities of the cost-
benefit ratio. But as it has been structured very carefully, the 
arrangement, in its present form, as a unit, satisfies the cost-benefit 
relationship. There are a lot of concerns and a lot of battles about 
that. But we are, as a unit, covered under that cost-benefit ratio.
  I want to be cooperative, obviously, with the chairman as he is 
moving through this bill. I understand, as I say, the need for taking 
some of these funds for other projects, but if the chairman would 
respond to those three inquiries to be sure my constituents will have 
the adequacy of the funding. I know Senator Santorum, who could not be 
here at the moment, has a similar concern. Congressman Sherwood has a 
similar concern. We have all been very close to this issue and the very 
important constituent interest involved here.
  I direct those questions to my colleague from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, may I suggest the absence of a 
quorum for a moment and make an inquiry of my staff, and then I will 
return and answer all these questions.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 12583]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in discussing the issue related to the 
1992 Water Resources Development Act on the Lackawanna River in 
Olyphant and Scranton, it is obvious that my first preference, the 
delegation's first preference, is to have the $25 million restored.
  We have a second program in south-central Pennsylvania, the 
Environmental Improvements Program, where $20 million has been 
rescinded. This is in line with a large sequence of rescissions which 
have been put into effect by the subcommittee under the same problem 
where there is simply insufficient money on 302(b) allocations. Again, 
I understand that, because I have the problem on the appropriations 
subcommittee which I chair.
  I am advised that the $20 million rescission as to south-central 
Pennsylvania can be worked out in the House, and all of this is subject 
to compromise in the House, where we may have a larger figure for this 
subcommittee. So it is possible that the $25 million for the Scranton-
Olyphant projects may be restored fully as well as the $20 million for 
south-central Pennsylvania.
  Before this bill is closed out, I want to be absolutely sure that we 
are protecting these projects so that whatever funding they need for 
the next fiscal year will be provided. That is the context in which I 
have made the request to the distinguished manager.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I thank Senator Specter for raising this issue 
and suggest to him that the same issue has been raised by his 
distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Santorum. Senator Specter and I have been speaking about that the last 
few minutes.
  Let me say, in answer to the questions that the Senator asked with 
reference to the Lackawanna project, I will answer them as best I can, 
maybe not in the same order in which they were asked, but I believe I 
will answer all of them.
  First, we have had to go through this bill and where we found 
unfunded obligations that were not going to be needed for a substantial 
period of time, in some instances well beyond a year, and that the 
project or projects would continue at full pace exactly as planned, we 
have decided, since we have some desperate projects that are not going 
to get any money, to move the money around, but that does not mean we 
do not intend to fully fund the project. If you will note in my 
remarks, I said we are not funding any unauthorized projects. The 
projects in Pennsylvania, including the one I just mentioned, are 
authorized and proceeding. They do not need any work by any other 
committee. They are ongoing.
  All I can do is give you assurance that there is no intention to take 
these projects off of their natural course of completion. That is what 
the Corps says we need each year and can spend each year, and there 
will be $17 million left in this account, only $6 million of which is 
needed for the year 2000. Nobody should be concerned about that project 
not proceeding at full speed ahead.
  I can assure you that is what I have been informed. I believe that is 
what you would have in a letter from the Corps, if you wanted it. I can 
further commit to you that we continue each year with these water 
projects, and clearly we always have substantial amounts of money.
  Last year, the President very much underfunded projects. We had to 
find money to fund them. This year, because the nondefense portion of 
this bill is squeezed some and because the President cut some things we 
can't cut, we have had to squeeze some of these other accounts, some in 
the manner we are discussing. But there is no reason to be concerned 
about the projects getting funded. As a matter of fact, we may find 
ourselves in conference with the House, which would make available more 
money for the water projects because of the way they will fund things. 
It may very well be that they won't want to do it this way, that they 
want to save money some other way. We will work on that.
  If, before we are finished here on the floor, this was unsatisfactory 
for any reason that you or Senator Santorum or you together find, I 
will be willing to discuss it again and see what we could do to assure 
you that these projects are going to be fully funded.
  In reference to the fact that last year three projects were put 
together in a technical manner but in a manner that is acceptable in 
terms of analyzing the benefits versus the costs, sometimes called a 
cost-benefit ratio, that has been done. There is no change in this 
bill. They fit together, and they are evaluated together, and they meet 
the criteria. There is no effort on the part of the Appropriations 
Committee I chair that I am aware of that would want to change that so 
as to demean in priority and effectiveness one versus the other two or 
two versus one or the like.
  I do not know if we can do anything more to be sure of that than what 
I am telling you now and what is in the law as it is now. Somebody 
would have to change it, not just come along and say we are not going 
to do it. They would have to change something. You would know; I would 
know. Everybody in Pennsylvania would know. It would not be easy to do.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague for those assurances. 
I am glad to hear, with respect to these three projects joined 
together, that they are being viewed as one integrated whole so that 
they do satisfy the requirements of the cost-benefit ratio, and 
further, that the rescissions on the two Pennsylvania projects, as to 
the Lackawanna River in Olyphant and Scranton and also the south-
central Pennsylvania rescission, that those projects will move forward 
with sufficient funding, as Senator Domenici has pointed out, $17 
million being left in the Lackawanna River project for Olyphant and 
Scranton and only $6 million needed in the next fiscal year. If it is 
possible, as Senator Domenici and Senator Reid work through the bill, 
to increase the funding, to eliminate the rescissions, that certainly 
would be appreciated.
  I think on this state of the record, these projects are protected. I 
will await further developments as we move through the bill to see if 
some of those funds might be restored and even the $25 million not 
rescinded.
  I thank Senator Domenici and I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague 
from Massachusetts for waiting until we finish this item of business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________