[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17343-17375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 6:15 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration 
of H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50 
or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few 
contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we 
intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we 
will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language 
together.
  Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will 
speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to 
use a couple minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point 
for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. 
Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 3021 are located in 
today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint 
Resolutions.'')
  Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  Might I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that 
correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for 
termination of debate on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority 
leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a 
very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We 
have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to 
accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish 
debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator 
Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But 
we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's 
amendment before we finish this bill.
  We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's 
concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and 
I have

[[Page 17344]]

agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after that to 
debate Senator Durbin's amendment.
  I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment 
will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is 
satisfactory to Senator Bond.
  Can we do that right now?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. REID. I underline what the Senator from New Mexico has said. My 
friend from Illinois has three amendments he has filed. It is my 
understanding that he is going to offer one of those; and if there 
would be an up-or-down vote on that, he would withdraw two of the 
amendments--and not only an up-or-down vote but no second-degree 
amendments.
  So the Senator from Illinois would agree--if I could have the 
attention of the Senator from New Mexico for just a minute. The Senator 
from Illinois would agree to 30 minutes equally divided, with a vote, 
with no second-degree amendments. That is my understanding, that we 
would have a vote on that at some time before final passage later 
tonight.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20 
minutes equally divided?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be prepared to withdraw two of the three 
amendments. I will be prepared to limit my debate to no more than 10 
minutes on my side, if we can agree also that it be an up-or-down vote 
on the amendment, as offered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with 
the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So 
when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the 
Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and 
proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we 
have seen?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator would let me have a minute?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Durbin--I just got word--I hear 
Senator Bond is en route and that he did not say that he would agree to 
no amendments. I think he will when he gets to the floor, but I just 
want to make clear I probably overspoke. I thought he had said that.
  Can we just wait for him to arrive?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend, we will revisit it when he is on the 
floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want on his amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. If I may have 15 minutes, that would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
  The clerk has yet to report the amendment. The amendment at the desk 
is not the same as the one filed. It will require unanimous consent to 
substitute.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4101, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
I sent to the desk be substituted for the earlier amendment I had on 
file.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4101, as modified.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To limit to $74,100,000 the total amount of funds that may be 
      expended for construction of the National Ignition Facility)

       On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 320. (a) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction of 
     National Ignition Facility.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the total amount that may be expended for 
     purposes of construction of the National Ignition Facility, 
     including conceptual and construction design associated with 
     the Facility, may not exceed $74,100,000.
       (b) Independent Review of National Ignition Facility.--(1) 
     The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration shall provide for an independent review of the 
     National Ignition Facility and the Inertial Confinement 
     Fusion Program. The review shall be conducted by the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       (2) The review under paragraph (1) shall address the 
     following:
       (A) Whether or not the National Ignition Facility is 
     required in order to maintain the safety and reliability of 
     the current nuclear weapons stockpile.
       (B) Whether or not alternatives to the National Ignition 
     Facility could achieve the objective of maintaining the 
     safety and reliability of the current nuclear weapons 
     stockpile.
       (C) Any current technical problems with the National 
     Ignition Facility, including the effects of such problems on 
     the cost, schedule, or likely success of the National 
     Ignition Facility project.
       (D) The likely cost of the construction of the National 
     Ignition facility, including any conceptual and construction 
     design and manufacture associated with construction of the 
     Facility.
       (E) The potential effects of cost overruns in the 
     construction of the National Ignition Facility on the 
     stockpile stewardship program.
       (F) The cost and advisability of scaling back the number of 
     proposed beamlines at the National Ignition Facility.
       (3) Not later than September 1, 2001, the Administrator 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the review conducted 
     under this subsection. The report shall include the results 
     of the review and such comments and recommendations regarding 
     the results of the review as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the so-
called NIF. I will use that acronym.
  The National Ignition Facility is a massive research facility being 
built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Labs in 
California. NIF supposedly--I use that word ``supposedly''--was a part 
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is supposed to maintain the 
safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal without exploding any 
nuclear weapons.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, this is a deeply troubled 
program. The General Accounting Office recently issued a report that 
detailed management turmoil, cost overruns, slipping schedules, and 
unsolved technical problems. I am deeply concerned that we will pour 
more and more money into NIF, money that could be used for other 
scientific purposes. NIF appears to be mostly a jobs program for 
nuclear weapons scientists. That is the point.
  Let me review the history of the cost projections for the National 
Ignition Facility. In 1990, a National Academy of Sciences panel 
estimated we could achieve ignition with a $400 million facility. They 
called it a reasonable cost. Then it went up to $677 million in 1993. 
Then it went up to $2.1 billion this past June for construction costs 
and another $1.1 billion for operation before it is completed. Then in 
August, the GAO found that the Department of Energy has still neglected 
to include the cost of targets and other parts of the program. They 
have now suggested a total cost of close to $4 billion. It is going up 
all the time. We were up to $4 billion in August. Outside experts, 
adding in operation costs for another 25 years, the uncertainties 
because research and development are underway, estimate the life-cycle 
costs are now somewhere upwards of about $10 billion and counting. This 
is not a reasonable cost; it is a massive public boondoggle.
  I will say that at this point--and I will say it again and again 
until we finally resolve this issue of the National Ignition Facility--
if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor that we debated here 
almost 20 years ago, that we poured billions of dollars into before we 
finally got rid of it, if you liked the Clinch River breeder reactor, 
you

[[Page 17345]]

will love this program. If you liked the Superconducting Super 
Collider, you would like this program.
  Under Clinch River, we spent $1.5 billion before we finally killed 
it. It was projected to cost $3.5 billion. We thought that was 
outlandish. On the Superconducting Super Collider, we spent $2.2 
billion. It was estimated to cost over $11 billion. We heard all the 
arguments; I remember them well. I was involved in both debates on 
Clinch River and on the Superconducting Super Collider: We have spent 
all that money; we are just going to let it go to waste.
  We heard those arguments over and over again: Once we put that money 
in, we have to complete it.
  I ask you, are we worse off as a country now because we did not build 
the Clinch River breeder reactor; we came to our senses in time? Are we 
worse off as a country because we came to our senses in time and did 
not complete the Superconducting Super Collider? Not at all. We are 
better off because we saved the money. Now we are down to the National 
Ignition Facility, another one of the big boondoggles of all time.
  We have spent about $800 million, give or take a few. It is estimated 
to cost about $4 billion--slightly more than the Clinch River breeder 
reactor--and counting, as I said. Four billion is just one of the most 
recent estimates. It is going to be more than that. Yet we are hearing: 
Well, we have spent the $800 million; we ought to keep spending the 
money.
  As this National Ignition Facility continues, keep in mind the Clinch 
River breeder reactor, keep in mind the Superconducting Super Collider. 
Ask yourselves if we didn't do the right thing by stopping those at the 
time and saving our taxpayers money.
  We have had a lot of problems with NIF. They have repeatedly tried to 
hide the true costs of the project. In fact, DOE and lab officials told 
GAO that they deliberately set an unrealistically low initial budget 
because they feared Congress would not fund a realistic one.
  This is directly from the GAO report:

       DOE and Laboratory officials associated with NIF told us 
     that they recognized it would cost more than planned, but 
     that they accepted this unrealistic budget in the belief that 
     Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost. . . .

  They lied to us. They simply lied to us. They admitted it to GAO. Now 
they want more money. Is this what we reward? Is this the kind of good 
stewardship we reward?
  We had an independent review last year that was supposed to come to 
Congress. The lab and DOE officials edited it before we got it. They 
have hidden problems from DOE. When Secretary Richardson praised the 
project out at Livermore last year, he proclaimed it on cost and on 
schedule. But the lab officials knew it was actually over budget and 
far behind. They had known it for months. They simply just did not tell 
the Secretary of Energy.
  So what is this NIF? Why is it necessary? NIF is a stadium-sized 
building in which they plan to place 192 lasers all pointed at one very 
small BB-sized, even smaller pellet. When all these lasers fire at one 
time, it is going to create a lot of heat, a lot of pressure, 
hopefully, as they say, to create nuclear fusion. These weapons 
scientists hope they will achieve ignition; that is, to get more energy 
from the fusion than they put in with the lasers.
  The stated purposes of NIF: One, to simulate conditions in exploding 
nuclear weapons; two, to maintain a pool of nuclear weapon scientists 
at Livermore; and three, to conduct basic research towards fusion 
energy.
  Let me take the last one first. In the House I was on the Science and 
Technology Committee for 10 years. We had a lot of dealings with 
Lawrence Livermore at that time on something called Shiva, a big laser 
project. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. They were going to 
prove they could develop inertial confinement laser fusion energy. We 
spent a lot of money on it. It is now on the scrap heap someplace. We 
wasted a lot of money on that project, too.
  Again, let me talk about the stockpile stewardship. It may be true 
that NIF would provide useful data for simulating nuclear weapons 
explosions. But we don't need that data to maintain the nuclear arsenal 
we have today. For decades, we have assured the safety and reliability 
of our nuclear weapons with a careful engineering program.
  First of all, all the weapons we have in our stockpile were tested in 
more than 1,000 nuclear tests prior to the ban on nuclear explosions--
1,000 of them. Secondly, in addition, every year, 11 weapons of each 
type are removed from the stockpile, taken apart, disassembled, and the 
components are carefully examined and tested for any signs of aging or 
other problems. All of the components can be tested, short of creating 
an actual nuclear explosion. If any problems are found, components can 
be remanufactured to original specifications.
  So far, the evidence indicates that the weapons are not noticeably 
aging. These activities we have underway right now are low cost. Yet 
they provide a secure and tested way of maintaining our present nuclear 
stockpile. We don't need a $4 billion facility at Lawrence Livermore to 
do what we are doing right now. We can and will continue these 
surveillance activities of our stockpile.
  The kind of detailed information on nuclear explosions that NIF could 
provide is needed only to modify weapons or design new ones. But we 
don't need to design any new nuclear weapons. Indeed, the more changes 
we make, the further we will move from the nuclear tests we have 
conducted and the less confident we can be that our nuclear weapons 
will work as intended.
  In short, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear explosions and tests. 
We have designed, redesigned, compacted, made smaller specifically 
designed nuclear weapons. We don't need the NIF for any more design, 
but that is what they intend to do with it. That is why scientists of 
widely divergent views on other issues agree we do not need NIF for 
stockpile stewardship.
  Edward Teller, known as the father of the hydrogen bomb, when asked 
what role NIF would have in maintaining the nuclear stockpile, replied, 
``None whatsoever.''
  Robert Puerifoy, former vice president of Sandia Lab, said, ``NIF is 
worthless . . . it can't be used to maintain the stockpile, period.''
  Seymour Sack, a former weapons scientist at Livermore, called NIF 
``worse than worthless'' for stockpile stewardship.
  Again, the NIF facility also cannot be justified for basic science or 
fusion energy research. About 85 percent of the planned experiments are 
for nuclear weapons physics. Most of the remainder are on nuclear 
weapons effects. So there is precious little left for any kind of basic 
or applied sciences.
  What we are left with is a $4 billion full employment program for a 
few nuclear weapons scientists. We can do better than that. We 
certainly do need to maintain some nuclear weapons expertise as long as 
we maintain nuclear weapons. As I have said, there is a better way and 
a cheaper way than spending billions of dollars on construction 
contracts. It makes absolutely no sense to spend these billions when we 
have a well-settled, time-tested, proven way of making sure our nuclear 
stockpile is safe and is workable.
  So not only is NIF not needed for this stockpile stewardship, but as 
the cost of this facility continues to escalate, it is going to steal 
funding from other stockpile stewardship activities. Just as we found 
that the Superconducting Super Collider was going to steal from other 
basic physics research, and as we found the Clinch River breeder 
reactor would take other needed energy programs, NIF is going to do the 
same thing.
  The administration has requested an additional $135 million for 
construction of NIF this year, and that is going to be taken from other 
stockpile stewardship activities, in addition to the $74 million that 
is in this bill. So if you think we are only spending $74 million on 
NIF, forget it. They have already requested to transfer another $135 
million from other activities.
  The administration has requested an even larger increase for fiscal 
year 2002,

[[Page 17346]]

$180 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in future years. 
Again, I submit that we will be starving basic science programs and 
physics programs in order to get the money to build this project at 
Lawrence Livermore.
  Even Sandia Lab has publicly expressed concern. They said in a 
statement earlier this year:

       The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the 
     NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed 
     to be made at the other laboratories, and perhaps at the 
     production plants, by several years. This causes us to 
     question what is a reasonable additional investment in the 
     National Ignition Facility.

  Lastly--and I will end on this note--even if it is built, the 
National Ignition Facility may never achieve ignition. Even Lawrence 
Livermore's NIF project manager, Ed Moses, suggested, ``The goal of 
achieving ignition is a long shot.'' Physicist Leo Mascheroni is quoted 
in the August 18 issue of Science magazine as saying, ``From my point 
of view, the chance that this reaches ignition is zero. Not 1 percent. 
Those who say 5 percent are just being generous to be polite.'' Well, 
there you have it.
  If it does work, the NIF may itself be a nuclear proliferation 
threat. The Lawrence Livermore Institutional Plan describes the main 
purpose of NIF:

       To play an essential role in assessing physics regimes of 
     interest in nuclear weapons design and to provide nuclear 
     weapon-related physics data, particularly in the area of 
     secondary design.

  So that is what it is for--designing new nuclear weapons. But we 
don't need to. It is of dubious value in maintaining the stockpile when 
we already have, as I said, a time-tested, proven way of doing so.
  Well, Mr. President, the amendment I offered basically leaves the 
$74.1 million that is in the bill. But it only says that was all they 
could use right now. My amendment says the administrators of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration shall provide for an 
independent review of the NIF and the Inertia Confinement Review 
Program. This review shall be conducted by the National Academy of 
Sciences.
  I have asked that the review address the following: whether it is 
required in order to maintain the reliability and safety of the 
stockpile; whether or not the alternatives could achieve the same 
objective; any current technical problems that we have; the likely cost 
of the construction; the potential effects of cost overruns; lastly, 
the cost and availability of scaling back the number of proposed beam 
lines at the NIF.
  Basically, what I am saying is let's put the money in that we have 
now, but let's have the National Academy of Sciences do an independent 
study that would not be reviewed and edited by Lawrence Livermore, and 
this report would be submitted by September of 2001. That is really 
what this amendment does. I am grateful to the manager and the chairman 
of the committee for accepting the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from New Mexico speaks, I 
want to tell my friend from Iowa how appreciative I am of him bringing 
this to the floor. With his statement tonight, he has made it so the 
National Ignition Facility will be given a much closer look. It needs 
to be looked at much more closely. I already have a statement in the 
Record, and I don't need to repeat how I feel about this whole project. 
I want to acknowledge to my friend what a great service he has rendered 
to the country by his statement tonight.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada that we 
really started questioning this because of some of the information the 
Senator from Nevada was given by officials from the DOE in Lawrence 
Livermore. That raised a lot of questions about where we were headed.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a 
few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I 
can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both 
sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at 
8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided 
prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to 
the vote.
  Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin 
amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he 
has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that 
time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate; 
that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has 
used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side.
  I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to 
the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the 
cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get 
cleared;
  And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third 
reading, the Senate proceed to passage of H.R. 4733, following the 
passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire 
subcommittee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to make sure it is clear that the Senator from Illinois will have an 
up-or-down vote on his amendment and that there will be no motion to 
table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have 
the clarification.
  Mr. REID. Also, even though this isn't part of the unanimous consent 
request, because we have so much, I wonder if we could have some 
general idea about how long the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak.
  Mr. KYL. Five minutes.
  Mr. REID. Could we make that part of the unanimous consent agreement?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I did not hear what the Senator from New 
Mexico said about my amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given 
it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for 
asking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Domenici yielding some 
time to me.
  I think, while we have accepted this amendment, it is important that 
the Record be corrected because Senator Harkin said some things that I 
believe not to be correct.
  I also think that we need to be careful about how we act around here.
  The fact that some people made some estimates as to how much it was 
going to cost to construct the National Ignition Facility and in fact 
were greatly underestimating the cost of the facility should not be a 
reason for us to suggest that this facility is unnecessary. They 
suggest that it is a ``boondoggle,'' to use the word of the Senator 
from Iowa. They suggest that it is in the same category of some other 
discretionary projects which we end up not funding in Congress. In 
fact, the Senator from Iowa and others recognized its importance in 
their support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when they argued 
that we didn't need testing any more because we were going to have this 
wonderful Stockpile Stewardship Program, a part of which is the 
ignition facility, and, therefore, they were willing to rely upon the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program and the National Ignition Facility in 
lieu of testing forevermore. We are going to give up testing 
forevermore, Senator Harkin and others who supported the test ban 
treaty said.
  Now they are saying: Well, actually we don't need the National 
Ignition Facility, in our opinion. We are willing to submit the 
question of whether it is needed to some extraneous body.
  But I will tell you that I visited with the head of the Lawrence 
Livermore Lab yesterday, and I talked to any number of Department of 
Defense and

[[Page 17347]]

Department of Energy officials, as well as lab people, and every one of 
them will confirm that the National Ignition Facility is a critical 
component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Without it, eventually 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program provides you nothing in terms of 
data. And, indeed, our National Laboratories would probably not be able 
to certificate the stockpile of the United States, which, of course, 
would require advertising--something I know the Senator from Iowa would 
not want.
  The National Ignition Facility is a key component of the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program because it will actually allow an event to occur 
that simulates a nuclear explosion. Calculations can then occur based 
upon that event to either confirm or deny the theory that the 
scientists have developed that they plugged into the computers.
  But there is a point at which you can run all the calculations you 
want. Unless you have something to compare them to, some real event, 
they are worthless or meaningless.
  That is why the ignition facility is so important. Even though it is 
a little miniature thing--it is not like a big nuclear explosion--it 
can provide them with the data they need to then validate the theories 
of the Stockpile Stewardship Program which they have run on their 
computers.
  The argument of the Senator from Iowa, it seems to me, is a little 
bit like this: He loans the family car out to his son for a date. He 
says: Be careful, son. Be in by midnight. The son comes back at 
midnight: Gee, dad. I am sorry, I wrecked the car. The dad says: It is 
such a horrible thing you did that we are not going to repair the car. 
You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  It is true that the cost of this program has gone up. I believe it 
has gone up because of mistakes that were made on the part of the 
laboratory in deciding how much this was going to cost.
  It is easy for us to stand up and criticize it and say you all made a 
mistake. That is easy to do. I will join my colleague in that 
criticism. But what do you do about it? Do you decide you are not going 
to go ahead with the facility that all of the experts say is critical 
because it is going to cost more? That is true. But it is still 
critical. You can't just say because it is going to cost more than we 
thought that we are just going to give up on the whole project. At 
least you can't advocate the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as I know 
my colleague from Iowa is.
  I want to make this point, even though this amendment is going to be 
accepted. I am hopeful and I presume that it will not be a part of the 
final legislation that goes to the President for his signature. It 
would be wrong to cap the funding on this, and it would be wrong to 
assume that the National Ignition Facility is not a critical part of 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
  I want to be able to correct the record so we don't leave any 
misimpression that somehow this is a discretionary program, that we may 
not need it, and because it is going to cost somewhat more than we 
thought, therefore we should be willing to jettison it.
  It is a critical component to ensure the viability, the reliability, 
and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. I assume every one of us in 
this room is very firmly committed to the proposition that the nuclear 
stockpile of the United States must be safe and reliable, and if it 
takes this National Ignition Facility to ensure that, then we ought to 
be willing to support it even if it is going to cost a little bit more 
than we originally anticipated.
  I appreciate the strong work of the Senator from New Mexico on this, 
and his willingness to yield me this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is 
the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple 
of minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Another minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. I think 
what Senator Kyl has said indicates why we need a little bit more 
robust debate on this issue than what we are having tonight. I know it 
is late. We are moving on. But I really think we need to have a pretty 
involved discussion and debate on this issue. Obviously, we have a 
disagreement on this issue. Again, I agree with the Senator from 
Arizona that we want our stockpiles to be safe and reliable. The 
question is, What is the best methodology to accomplish that at the 
cheapest cost to the taxpayers and that perhaps will not open the door 
to other problems down the road while we might agree upon the basis of 
how we get there? That is why I think we really need a more robust 
debate on this issue of the National Ignition Facility than what we 
have had in the past.
  Businesses disagree on this. Scientists disagree on it. Obviously, 
politicians are disagreeing on it. That is why on this one, which is 
going to cost a lot of money, I hope that next year--we will not this 
year, but I hope next year--we can keep this study. I hope we do have 
the study, as the Senator from Arizona said, by some outside body. The 
amendment calls for the National Academy of Sciences to do it. I can't 
think of a more appropriate body to do an independent analysis of the 
study than the National Academy of Sciences, where they can call on a 
broad variety of different disciplines to have input.
  I hope we at least have that and come back next year. Let's have a 
more robust and more involved debate on whether or not we really want 
to continue with the National Ignition Facility.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document 
entitled ``National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the 
Stockpile Stewardship Program'' be printed in the Record to make the 
point that the Clinton administration and five laboratory directors 
believe this is a critical project and that at least $95 million is 
necessary in fiscal year 2001 for the NIF projects.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  National Ignition Facility (NIF)--An Integral Part of the Stockpile 
                          Stewardship Program

       The NNSA is currently in the process of developing its 
     long-term plan for the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). 
     This plan will address all elements needed to maintain the 
     safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear 
     weapons stockpile now and into the future, including science, 
     infrastructure, and people.
       NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in 
     three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of 
     aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code 
     development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional 
     scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP 
     over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP 
     providing unique experimental capabilities that complement 
     other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and 
     advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant 
     science of materials that cannot be reached in other 
     facilities.
       We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability 
     within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP, 
     its long-term role must be integrated within the overall 
     requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed 
     or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further 
     development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in 
     order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program an 
     additional $95 million is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF 
     Project.
     Madelyn R. Creedon, NNSA.
     C. Bruce Tarter, LLNL.
     John C. Browne, LANL.
     C. Paul Robinson, SNL.
     Date: September 6, 2000.

                    ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS


                       national ignition facility

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a 
major part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is a set of 
programs and facilities that are designed to allow the United States to 
maintain the safety and reliability of our nation's vital nuclear 
deterrent.
  It is hoped that at some point in 10 to 20 years that the stockpile 
Stewardship Program can be a replacement for actual nuclear testing. 
The jury is still out on whether it can in fact eventually accomplish 
this goal. I support the

[[Page 17348]]

Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will improve our knowledge 
about our nuclear weapons. The fact is that, despite our technical 
expertise, there is much we still do not understand about our own 
nuclear weapons. As C. Paul Robinson, Director of the Sandia National 
Laboratory has said, ``Some aspects of nuclear explosive design are 
still not understood at the level of physical principles.''
  America's nuclear weapons are the most sophisticated in the world. 
Each one typically has thousands of parts, and over time the nuclear 
materials and high explosive triggers in our weapons deteriorate and we 
lack experience predicting the effects of these changes. Some of the 
materials used in our weapons, like plutonium, enriched uranium, and 
tritium, are radioactive materials that decay, and as they decay they 
also change the properties of other materials within the weapon. We 
lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and 
reliability of our weapons. We did not design our weapons to last 
forever. The shelf life of our weapons was expected to be about 20 
years. In the past, we did not encounter problems with aging weapons, 
because we were fielding new designs and older designs were retired.
  As the Department of Energy said in its review of the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program completed on November 23, 1999, ``The NIF is one of 
the most vital facilities in the stockpile stewardship program.'' This 
facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is 
roughly the same size as a stadium, and is designed to produce the 
intense pressures and temperatures needed to simulate in a laboratory 
the thermonuclear conditions achieved in nuclear explosions. The NIF 
will accomplish this goal by focusing 192 laser beams on a ``dime-
sized'' piece of plutonium. When completed, the NIF will be the world's 
most powerful laser facility, about 60 times more powerful than the 
next largest DOE laser facility, the NOVA laser.
  As a review conducted in 1994 by the so-called, JASON panel, a 
Defense Department panel of nuclear experts said ``The NIF is without 
question the most scientifically valuable of the programs proposed for 
the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program, particularly in regard 
to research and `proof-of-principle' for ignition, but also more 
generally for fundamental science. As such, it will promote the goal of 
sustaining a high-quality group of scientists with expertise related to 
the nuclear weapons program.''
  There is a consensus among the three national laboratories and at the 
National Nuclear Security Administration that additional funding above 
the level in the current version of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill for the NIF program needs to be increased. In a joint statement 
dated September 6, 2000, Dr. Bruce Tarter, the Director of the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. John Browne, the Director of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Paul Robinson, the Director of Sandia 
National Laboratory, and Madelyn Creedon, the Deputy Administrator for 
Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration 
stated:

       NIF supports the SSP, and is a vital element of the SSP in 
     three important ways: (1) the experimental study of issues of 
     aging or refurbishment; (2) weapons science and code 
     development; and (3) attracting and training the exceptional 
     scientific and technical talent required to sustain the SSP 
     over the long term. NIF is an integral part of the SSP 
     providing unique experimental capabilities that complement 
     other SSP facilities including hydrotests, pulsed power, and 
     advanced radiography. NIF addresses aspects of the relevant 
     science of materials that cannot be reached in other 
     facilities.
       We concur that the NIF offers a unique, critical capability 
     within a ``balanced'' SSP. As with other elements of the SSP, 
     its long-term role must be integrated within the overall 
     requirements of the Program. Options should not be foreclosed 
     or limited but should be maintained to allow for its further 
     development. At this critical juncture, we agree that in 
     order to maintain the NIF within a balanced program, an 
     additional $95 million [above the President's original budget 
     request] is necessary in FY 2001 for the NIF Project.

  The NIF program has recently experienced delays and cost overruns. 
But new management for the program is in place. The facility has 
undergone and passed intensive scientific and programmatic reviews that 
were recently conducted. And the management problems and lack of 
oversight that led to the earlier delays and cost overruns are 
understood and should therefore be preventable.
  We are well along toward completion of the NIF facility. Construction 
of the facility to house the laser beams, a $260 million project 
itself, is about 90% complete. 80% of the large components for the 
infrastructure for the laser beams has been procured and is either on 
site or on the way. The NIF program at Lawrence Livermore Lab has 800 
scientists and technicians on the project. Delaying the program, which 
would result in a standing army of technicians, or canceling it, which 
would prevent the achievement of the goals of the Stockpile Stewardship 
Program simply makes no sense.
  There is bipartisan support for this program and the Administration 
supports the program. Undersecretary of State John Holum said in a 
letter on June 12, 2000 that, ``I strongly support this essential 
national security program. We must avoid the complacency of not doing 
enough in stewardship. We need to make a long-term commitment to use 
our scientific prowess to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile of 
nuclear weapons. . . . The problems with NIF are not scientific. . . . 
I urge you to support the program.''
  The NIF is essential to our Stockpile Stewardship Program, which 
itself is an essential to maintain our nuclear weapons.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Harkin for 
modifying his amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 
The original amendment would have eliminated construction money for the 
National Ignition Facility (NIF) which is an essential component to our 
Stockpile Stewardship Program. Any elimination of funding for the 
program would negate the nearly $1 billion Congress has spent on this 
project thus far, and would cripple our nation's arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. Still, the amendment agreed to does limit the 
amount of funding for Fiscal Year 2001 which will make it increasingly 
difficult to meet the goals of the project.
  The United States has made a strong commitment against underground 
nuclear testing. In order to meet this goal and maintain the nuclear 
deterrent of the United States, we must have a safe, reliable, and 
effective science based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).
  As a key element to the SSP, NIF will be the only facility able to 
achieve conditions of temperature and pressure in a laboratory setting 
that have only been reached in explosions of thermonuclear weapons and 
in the stars. It is expected to provide important contributions to the 
goals of stockpile stewardship in the absence of nuclear testing and to 
contribute to the advancement of inertial fusion energy and other 
scientific research efforts.
  I am proud that institutions and contractors throughout New York 
State have provided valuable services and tools for this project that 
are essential to its completion. Because New York companies and 
research institutions provide laser, optics, and other tools, 
underground nuclear testing will no longer be necessary. That would be 
a huge benefit to the entire world.
  I understand that DOE has recognized that there are some problems 
with NIF, but DOE is working hard to take the necessary steps to 
correct these issues. Project management has been restructured and has 
demonstrated over the last six months that it is capable of managing a 
project of this scope. It has already been determined that the 
underlying science associated with NIF is sound.
  Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding 
for this program. The cost increases should not override the importance 
of this project in our goal to ensure the safety and reliability of our 
nuclear weapons.
  Any repeal of this funding will cripple the valuable science and 
knowledge that is coming together from around the world in our effort 
to maintain the United States nuclear deterrent.

[[Page 17349]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4101) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057, 
4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 
      4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered 
a large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can 
agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have 
numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to 
review them.
  I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be 
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 
     4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 
     4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, and 
     4100, 4102, and 4103, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 4024

(Purpose: To authorize the Corps of Engineers to include an evaluation 
  of flood damage reduction measures in the study of Southwest Valley 
               Flood Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico)

       On page 47, line 18 before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That in conducting the Southwest 
     Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
     the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage 
     reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the 
     feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the 
     frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of 
     runoff''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4032

       Starting on page 64, line 24, strike all through page 66, 
     line 7.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4033

(Purpose: To establish a Presidential Energy Commission to expore long- 
  and short-term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and 
                    severe spikes in energy prices)

       On page 93, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 4__. PRESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMISSION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) crude oil and natural gas account for two-thirds of 
     America's energy consumption;
       (2) in May 2000, United States natural gas stocks totaled 
     1,450 billion cubic feet, 36 percent below the normal natural 
     gas inventory of 2,281 billion cubic feet;
       (3) in July 2000, United States crude oil inventories 
     totaled 298,000,000 barrels, 11 percent below the 24-year 
     average of 334,000,000 barrels;
       (4) in June 2000, distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel 
     fuel) inventories totaled 103,700,000 barrels, 26 percent 
     below the 24-year average of 140,000,000 barrels;
       (5) combined shortages in inventories of natural gas, crude 
     oil, and distillate stocks, coupled with steady or increased 
     demand, could cause supply and price shocks that would likely 
     have a severe impact on consumers and the economy; and
       (6) energy supply is a critical national security issue.
       (b) Presidential Energy Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall establish, from among 
     a group of not fewer than 30 persons recommended jointly by 
     the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader 
     of the Senate, a Presidential Energy Commission (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Commission''), which shall consist 
     of between 15 and 21 representatives from among the following 
     categories:
       (i) Oil and natural gas producing States.
       (ii) States with no oil or natural gas production.
       (iii) Oil and natural gas industries.
       (iv) Consumer groups focused on energy issues.
       (v) Environmental groups.
       (vi) Experts and analysts familiar with the supply and 
     demand characteristics of all energy sectors.
       (vii) The Energy Information Administration.
       (B) Timing.--The appointments of the members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (C) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for 
     the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission 
     shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original appointment.
       (D) Chairperson.--The members of the Commission shall 
     appoint 1 of the members to serve as Chairperson of the 
     Commission.
       (E)  Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which all members of the Commission have been 
     appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (F) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (2) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall--
       (i) conduct a study, focusing primarily on the oil and 
     natural gas industries, of--

       (I) the status of inventories of natural gas, crude oil, 
     and distillate fuel in the United States, including trends 
     and projections for those inventories;
       (II) the causes for and consequences of energy supply 
     disruptions and energy product shortages nationwide and in 
     particular regions;
       (III) ways in which the United States can become less 
     dependent on foreign oil supplies;
       (IV) ways in which the United States can better manage and 
     utilize its domestic energy resources;
       (V) ways in which alternative energy supplies can be used 
     to reduce demand on traditional energy sectors;
       (VI) ways in which the United States can reduce energy 
     consumption;
       (VII) the status of, problems with, and ways to improve--

       (aa) transportation and delivery systems of energy 
     resources to locations throughout the United States;
       (bb) refinery capacity and utilization in the United 
     States; and
       (cc) natural gas, crude oil, distillate fuel, and other 
     energy-related petroleum product storage in the United 
     States; and

       (VIII) any other energy-related topic that the Commission 
     considers pertinent; and

       (ii) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to the President and Congress a report that 
     contains--

       (I) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 
     the Commission; and
       (II) the recommendations of the Commission for such 
     legislation and administrative actions as the Commission 
     considers appropriate.

       (B) Time period.--The findings made, analyses conducted, 
     conclusions reached, and recommendations developed by the 
     Commission in connection with the study under subparagraph 
     (A) shall cover a period extending 10 years beyond the date 
     of the report.
       (c) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall use 
     $500,000 of funds appropriated to the Department of Energy to 
     fund the Commission.
       (d) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall 
     terminate on the date that is 90 days after the date on which 
     the Commission submits its report under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(ii).
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4039

(Purpose: To provide for funding of innovative projects in small rural 
     communities in the Mississippi Delta to demonstrate advanced 
                    alternative energy technologies)

       On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, of 
     which an appropriate amount shall be available for innovative 
     projects in small rural communities in the Mississippi Delta, 
     such as Morgan City, Mississippi, to demonstrate advanced 
     alternative energy technologies, concerning which projects 
     the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report not 
     later than March 31, 2001:''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4040

 (Purpose: To require an evaluation by the Department of Energy of the 
                             Adams process)

       On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 320. (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Department 
     of Energy is seeking innovative technologies for the 
     demilitarization of weapons components and the treatment of 
     mixed waste resulting from the demilitarization of such 
     components.
       (b) Evaluation of Adams Process.--The Secretary of Energy 
     shall conduct an evaluation of the so-called ``Adams 
     process'' currently being tested by the Department of Energy 
     at its Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory 
     using funds of the Department of Defense.
       (c) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     evaluation conducted under subsection (b).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4042

    (Purpose: To provide funding for a topo/bathy study of coastal 
                               Louisiana)

       Insert the following at the end of line 18, page 47 before 
     the period. ``:Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to 
     use $200,000, of funds appropriated herein for Research and 
     Development, for a topographic/bathymetric mapping project 
     for Coastal Louisiana in cooperation with the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the interagency 
     federal laboratory in Lafayette, Louisiana.''

[[Page 17350]]

     
                                  ____
                           amendment no. 4046

       On page 67, line 9, after ``activities'' insert the 
     following: ``, and Provided Further, That, of the amounts 
     made available for energy supply $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Arctic Energy.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4047

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a 
                   report on national energy policy)

       On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 3__. REPORT ON NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) since July 1999--
       (A) diesel prices have increased nearly 40 percent;
       (B) liquid petroleum prices have increased approximately 55 
     percent; and
       (C) gasoline prices have increased approximately 50 
     percent;
       (2)(A) natural gas is the heating fuel for most homes and 
     commercial buildings; and
       (B) the price of natural gas increased 7.8 percent during 
     June 2000 and has doubled since 1999;
       (3) strong demand for gasoline and diesel fuel has resulted 
     in inventories of home heating oil that are down 39 percent 
     from a year ago;
       (4) rising oil and natural gas prices are a significant 
     factor in the 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price 
     Index for June 2000 and the 3.7 percent increase over the 
     past 12 months;
       (5) demand for diesel fuel, liquid petroleum, and gasoline 
     has continued to increase while supplies have decreased;
       (6) the current energy crisis facing the United States has 
     had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on the 
     economy;
       (7) the price of energy greatly affects the input costs of 
     farmers, truckers, and small businesses; and
       (8) on July 21, 2000, in testimony before the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the 
     Secretary of Energy stated that the Administration had 
     developed and was in the process of finalizing a plan to 
     address potential home heating oil and natural gas shortages.
       (b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report 
     detailing the Department of Energy's plan to address the high 
     cost of home heating oil and natural gas.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4057

          (Purpose: Concentrating Solar Demonstration Project)

       Insert at the end of line 9, page 67 of the bill ``; 
     Provided, further, That $1,000,000 is provided to initiate 
     planning of a one MW dish engine field validation power 
     project at UNLV in Nevada''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4062

(Purpose: To provide $4,000,000 for the demonstration of an underground 
  mining locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada)

       On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That $4,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the demonstration of an underground mining 
     locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen at 
     existing mining facilities within the State of Nevada. The 
     demonstration is subject to a private sector industry cost-
     share of not less than equal amount, and a portion of these 
     funds may also be used to acquire a prototype hydrogen 
     fueling appliance to provide on-site hydrogen in the 
     demonstration.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4063

 (Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to demonstrate a commercial facility 
             employing thermo-depolymerization technology)

       On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That, $5,000,000 shall be made 
     available to support a project to demonstrate a commercial 
     facility employing thermo-depolymerization technology at a 
     site adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. The project shall 
     proceed on a cost-share basis where Federal funding shall be 
     matched in at least an equal amount with non-federal 
     funding.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4067

  (Purpose: To provide that the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not 
 proceed with a sale of mineral rights in land within the Daniel Boone 
 National Forest, Kentucky, until after the Tennessee Valley Authority 
              completes an environmental impact statement)

       On page 97, after line 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 7  . SALE OF MINERAL RIGHTS BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not proceed with the 
     proposed sale of approximately 40,000 acres of mineral rights 
     in land within the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky, 
     until after the Tennessee Valley Authority completes an 
     environmental impact statement under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4068

       On page 47, line 18 after the phrase ``to remain available 
     until expended'' insert the following:``; Provided, That 
     $50,000 provided herein shall be for erosion control studies 
     in the Harding Lake watershed in Alaska.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4069

   (Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for equipment acquisition for the 
   Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL 
                           Instrument Center)

       At the appropriate place in the bill providing funding for 
     Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be provided for 
     equipment acquisition for the Incorporated Research 
     Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) PASSCAL Instrument 
     Center.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4070

   (Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 to support a program to apply and 
    demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams that 
threaten public health and environmental security along the U.S.-Mexico 
     border; and to provide $2,000,000 for the Materials Corridor 
                        Partnership Initiative)

       On page 73, line 22, after the word ``expended'', insert 
     the following: ``Provided, That, $3,000,000 shall be made 
     available from within the funds provided for Science and 
     Technology to support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad 
     office of the Department of Energy, in coordination with the 
     U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, to apply and 
     demonstrate technologies to reduce hazardous waste streams 
     that threaten public health and environmental security in 
     order to advance the potential for commercialization of 
     technologies relevant to the Department's clean-up mission. 
     Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be made available 
     from within the funds provided for Science and Technology to 
     support a program to be managed by the Carlsbad office of the 
     Department of Energy to implement a program to support the 
     Materials Corridor Partnership Initiative.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4071

       On page 61, line 25, add the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided further, That $2,300,000 of the funding provided 
     herein shall be for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water 
     Reclamation and Reuse project authorized by Title XVI of 
     Public Law 102-575 to undertake phase II of the project''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4072

     (Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project)

       On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That, $1,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the Kotzebue wind project.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4073

 (Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for the design and construction of a 
 demonstration facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in 
                           Southeast Alaska)

       On page 67, line 4 after the word ``Fund:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That, $2,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the design and construction of a demonstration 
     facility for regional biomass ethanol manufacturing in 
     Southeast Alaska.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4074

(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioreactor landfill project to be 
administered by the Environmental Education and Research Foundation and 
                       Michigan State University)

       On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided, That, $500,000 shall be made available 
     for the bioreactor landfill project to be administered by the 
     Environmental Education and Research Foundation and Michigan 
     State University.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4076

(Purpose: To exempt travel within the LDRD program from the Department-
                            wide travel cap)

       On page 83, before line 20, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     reimbursement of management and operating contractor travel 
     expenses within the Laboratory Directed Research and 
     Development program.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4077

 (Purpose: To provide erosion and sediment control measures resulting 
  from increased flows related to the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico)

       On page 93, line 18, strike ``enactment'' and insert: 
     ``enactment, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available to 
     the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake immediate 
     measures to provide erosion control and sediment protection 
     to sewage lines, trails, and bridges in Pueblo and Los Alamos 
     Canyons downstream of Diamond Drive in New Mexico''.

[[Page 17351]]

     
                                  ____
                           amendment no. 4078

  (Purpose: To provide that up to 8 percent of the funds provided to 
 government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories shall be available 
      to be used for Laboratory Directed Research and Development)

       On page 82, line 24, strike ``6'' and replace with ``8''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4083

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to 
   carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of the St. 
   Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware)

       On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     ``SEC. __. ST. GEORGES BRIDGE, DELAWARE.

       ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used 
     to carry out any activity relating to closure or removal of 
     the St. Georges Bridge across the Chesapeake and Delaware 
     Canal, Delaware, including a hearing or any other activity 
     relating to preparation of an environmental impact statement 
     concerning the closure or removal.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4085

   (Purpose: To provide for an additonal payment from the surplus to 
                        reduce the public debt)

       On page ___, after line ___, insert the following:

                      ``DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


                      ``bureau of the public debt

           ``supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001

      gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt

       ``For deposit of an additonal amount for fiscal year 2001 
     into the account established under section 3113(d) of title 
     31, United States Code, to reduce the public debt, 
     $5,000,000,000.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4088

 (Purpose: To provide sums to the Secretary of the Interior to refund 
certain collections received pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of 
                                 1982)

       On page 66, between lines 11 and 12 insert:
       ``Sec. __. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and 
     directed to use not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under title II to refund amounts received by the 
     United States as payments for charges assessed by the 
     Secretary prior to January 1, 1994 for failure to file 
     certain certification or reporting forms prior to the receipt 
     of irrigation water, pursuant to sections 206 and 224(c) of 
     the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1226, 1272; 43 
     U.S.C. 390ff, 390ww(c)), including the amount of associated 
     interest assessed by the Secretary and paid to the United 
     States pursuant to section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform 
     Act of 1982 (101 Stat. 1330-268; 43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)).''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4093

(Purpose: To set aside funds for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet 
           Harbor breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island)

       On page 53, line 8, strike `'facilities:'' and insert the 
     following: ``facilities, and of which $500,000 shall be 
     available for maintenance and repair of the Sakonnet Harbor 
     breakwater in Little Compton, Rhode Island:''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4100

(Purpose: To direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit 
 to Congress a report on electricity prices in the State of California)

       On page 97, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 7__. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ELECTRICITY PRICES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) California is currently experiencing an energy crisis;
       (2) rolling power outages are a serious possibility;
       (3) wholesale electricity prices have soared, resulting in 
     electrical bills that have increased as much as 300 percent 
     in the San Diego area;
       (4) small business owners and people on small or fixed 
     incomes, especially senior citizens, are particularly 
     suffering;
       (5) the crisis is so severe that the County of San Diego 
     recently declared a financial state of emergency; and
       (6) the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'') is 
     currently investigating the crisis and is compiling a report 
     to be presented to the Commission not later than November 1, 
     2000.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall--
       (A) continue the investigation into the cause of the summer 
     price spike described in subsection (a); and
       (B) not later than December 1, 2000, submit to Congress a 
     report on the results of the investigation.
       (2) Contents.--The report shall include--
       (A) data obtained from a hearing held by the Commission in 
     San Diego;
       (B) identification of the causes of the San Diego price 
     increases;
       (C) a determination whether California wholesale 
     electricity markets are competitive;
       (D) a recommendation whether a regional price cap should be 
     set in the Western States;
       (E) a determination whether manipulation of prices has 
     occurred at the wholesale level; and
       (F) a determination of the remedies, including legislation 
     or regulations, that are necessary to correct the problem and 
     prevent similar incidents in California or anywhere else in 
     the United States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4102

     (Purpose: To provide a greater level of recreation management 
activities on reclamation project land and water areas within the State 
               of Montana east of the Continental Divide)

       On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. RECREATION DEVELOPMENT, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 
                   MONTANA PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--To provide a greater level of recreation 
     management activities on reclamation project land and water 
     areas within the State of Montana east of the Continental 
     Divide (including the portion of the Yellowtail Unit of the 
     Pick-Sloan Project located in Wyoming) necessary to meet the 
     changing needs and expectations of the public, the Secretary 
     of the Interior may--
       (1) investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain 
     public recreational facilities on land withdrawn or acquired 
     for the projects;
       (2) conserve the scenery, the natural, historic, 
     paleontologic, and archaeologic objects, and the wildlife on 
     the land;
       (3) provide for public use and enjoyment of the land and of 
     the water areas created by a project by such means as are 
     consistent with but subordinate to the purposes of the 
     project; and
       (4) investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain 
     facilities for the conservation of fish and wildlife 
     resources.
       (b) Costs.--The costs (including operation and maintenance 
     costs) of carrying out subsection (a) shall be 
     nonreimbursable and nonreturnable under Federal reclamation 
     law.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4103

    (Purpose: To modify the law relating to Canyon Ferry Reservior, 
                                Montana)

       On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. CANYON FERRY RESERVOIR, MONTANA.

       (a) Appraisals.--Section 1004(c)(2)(B) of title X of 
     division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-713; 
     113 Stat. 1501A-307) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``be based on'' and 
     inserting ``use'';
       (2) in clause (vi), by striking ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law,'' and inserting ``To the extent consistent 
     with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) Applicability.--This subparagraph shall apply to 
     the extent that its application is practicable and consistent 
     with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisition.''.
       (b) Timing.--Section 1004(f)(2) of title X of division C of 
     the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-714; 113 Stat. 
     1501A-308) is amended by inserting after ``Act,'' the 
     following: ``in accordance with all applicable law,''.
       (c) Interest.--Section 1008(b) of title X of division C of 
     the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-717; 113 Stat. 
     1501A-310) is amended by striking paragraph (4).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 
4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 
4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103) were agreed 
to.


  FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION IN THE SOUTHWEST VALLEY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW 
                                 MEXICO

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes 
about my amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill now 
before the Senate. My amendment is needed to allow the Army Corps of 
Engineers to continue to work on a feasibility study to alleviate the 
chronic flooding in the Southwest Valley of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  First, I want to thank the chairman, Senator Domenici, the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Reid, and their fine staffs for 
all their good work on this Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This 
bill provides vital funding for a number of programs that are

[[Page 17352]]

important to my state of New Mexico and to the nation, and I thank them 
for their efforts.
  For a number of years the Southwest Valley area of Albuquerque in my 
state of New Mexico has been prone to flooding after major rainstorms. 
The flooding has caused damage to irrigation and drainage structures, 
erosion of roadways, pavement, telephone and electrical transmission 
conduits, contaminated water and soil due to overflowing septic tanks, 
damaged homes, businesses, and farms, and presented hazards to 
automobile traffic. In 1997, Bernalillo County approached the Army 
Corps Engineers to request a reconnaissance study of the chronic 
flooding problems
  The study area encompassed 17.8 square miles of mostly residential 
neighborhoods along the banks of the Rio Grande in the Southwest Valley 
and the 50 square miles on the West Mesa, including the Isleta Pueblo, 
that drain into the valley. The reconnaissance study began in March 
1998 and is now completed.
  The conclusions of the reconnaissance study define the magnitude of 
the continuing flooding problem in the Southwest Valley. The study also 
established a clear federal interest in the drainage project, found a 
positive cost to benefit ratio for the project, and identified work 
items necessary to begin designing a range of solutions to alleviate 
the chronic flooding problems in the valley.
  In 1999, based on the positive findings of the reconnaissance study, 
the Environment and Public Works Committee authorized the Army Corps of 
Engineers to conduct a full study to determine the feasibility of a 
project for flood damage reduction in Albuquerque's Southwest Valley. 
The authorization is contained in section 433 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999--P.L. 106-53. I want to thank the EPW committee 
for authorizing this much needed feasibility study. The study began in 
March 1999 and is expected to be completed in February 2002.
  Currently, Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo 
Flood Control Authority and the Corps are working cooperatively on the 
feasibility study. Last year, the administration requested, and the 
Congress appropriated $250,000 in federal funding for the feasibility 
study. This year, the request was for $330,000. I want to thank the 
committee for again providing the full amount requested.
  Last July I had an opportunity to meet with the engineers from the 
Corps, the County, and AMAFCA to get an update on the study and to tour 
the areas in the Southwest Valley that are subject to chronic flooding. 
At the end of the tour, the Corps indicated to me that based on the 
initial results of the feasibility study, the flooding there was quite 
severe but the project did not seem to meet the Corps' required flow 
criterion of 1800 cubic feet per second for the 100-year flood. These 
flow criteria are outlined in the Engineering Regulations established 
for Corps. Because of the obvious severity of the flooding, the 
engineers requested a legislative waiver of the regulations. Without a 
waiver, the Corps could not continue as a partner in the project. They 
also indicated the Corps' regulations do not contain any provision to 
waive the peak discharge criterion.
  I would like to take a few moments to describe briefly the unique 
situation in the Southwest Valley that necessitates a waiver of the 
Corps' standard regulations. The land along the west side of the Rio 
Grande is essentially flat. The river is contained by large earthen 
levees, which were built for flood control. When a river is contained 
this way by levees, the sediment accumulates in the river bed, slowly 
raising the level of the river. Of course, if there were no levees, 
when sediment builds up, the river would simply change course to a 
lower level. However, over the years, as the sediment has continued to 
accumulate in the Rio Grande, the level of the river within the levees 
is now higher than the surrounding land. Thus, when there are heavy 
rains during the monsoon season, the runoff has nowhere to go--it 
simply flows into large pools on the valley floor, flooding homes and 
farms. The water can't flow uphill into the river, so it stays there 
until it either evaporates or is pumped up and hauled away.
  If the flood water sits in large pools and isn't flowing, it clearly 
can't meet any criterion based on the flow rate of water. Indeed, given 
the unique nature of the flooding in the Southwest Valley, most areas 
subject to chronic flood damage do not meet the Corps' peak discharge 
criterion.
  During my visit in July, the three partners in the feasibility study 
specifically asked me for help in obtaining a waiver of the Corps' 
technical requirements to deal with this special situation. My 
amendment provides the necessary waiver the Corps needs to continue to 
work in partnership with the county and AMAFCA on this project. This is 
not a new authorization; Congress authorized this study last year. My 
amendment is a simple technical fix to the existing authorization. 
Similar language is already in the House companion to this Energy and 
Water appropriations bill. I do believe the unique situation in 
Bernalillo County warrants a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations, 
and I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the amendments en bloc, I move to 
reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Grassley from Iowa 
for 2 minutes with reference to explaining an amendment in which he 
procured a number of cosponsors, which was just accepted. He would like 
to talk about it.
  Heretofore, Senator Kyl was referring to the Senator from Iowa, and 
there were two Senators from Iowa on the floor. I believe it should be 
reflected that he was speaking of Senator Harkin from Iowa, not Senator 
Grassley.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. In the first place, I ask unanimous consent, to the 
amendment I have had filed at the desk that was just accepted, that the 
additional cosponsors be added of Senators DeWine, Lugar, and Kerrey. I 
thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for accepting the amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a 
critically important amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill, and I would like to thank Senators Grams, Voinovich, DeWine, 
Lugar, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Snowe for joining me in this effort.
  This amendment would require the administration to provide Congress 
their plan to address the increasing costs in home heating fuels by 
September 30. Quite frankly, this plan is long overdue.
  Mr. President, on July 3 of this year, I wrote President Clinton and 
Energy Secretary Richardson to bring their attention to the ever-
increasing price of natural gas. I also shared my concern regarding the 
inadequacy of natural gas supplies to meet demand through the summer 
and into this winter. I requested that the President inform me of the 
actions he planned to take to address the higher-than-normal heating 
bills my constituents will surely face this winter.
  Jack Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget responded 
to my letter on July 31. Regrettably, Mr. Lew thanked me for expressing 
my concerns regarding the increase in fuel costs this past winter.
  Let me repeat that. In response to my letter about the inadequacy of 
home heating fuel for the upcoming winter to the President, I received 
a letter thanking me for my concerns about the increase in fuel costs 
last winter. Mr. President, it is this type of irresponsible behavior 
that has led this country into the next energy crisis.
  Today, natural gas is at a record high near $5.00 per million BTU's, 
while supplies hover below the five-year average. This 50 percent 
increase will certainly impact the more than 80 percent of

[[Page 17353]]

Iowa households which use natural gas to heat their homes.
  Furthermore, home heating oil is near a 10-year high, at 98 cents per 
gallon, already 41 percent above the average price last fall and 
winter. And crude oil remains near a 10-year high.
  While testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee on July 20, 
Secretary Richardson stated that the administration had developed a 
plan and was in the process of finalizing a plan to address potential 
home heating oil and natural gas shortages. Mr. Secretary, I have not 
seen your plan. I want to see the plan.
  I won't allow the Department of Energy to sit idly by as home heating 
fuels double. For this reason, I am offering this amendment to require 
the Department of Energy to provide a report to Congress by September 
30, 2000, detailing their plan to address the high cost of home heating 
oil and natural gas.
  I believe this amendment will force the administration to take a much 
more active role in remedying the home heating fuel crisis.


 Amendments Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055, 4056, 4058, 
    4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and 4112, En Bloc, as 
                                Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of myself and Senator Reid, I have a series 
of amendments, again, offered by number, which are filed, which anybody 
can read, which have been carefully reviewed and can be agreed to with 
certain modifications. In each instance, the modification is before the 
Senator from New Mexico and has been reviewed by the Senator from 
Nevada and with the proponents of the amendment and the authorizing 
committee that might be interested. I send to the desk this list of 
modified amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc, 
as modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055, 
     4056, 4058, 4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and 
     4112, en bloc, as modified.

  The amendments, as modified, are as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4034, as modified

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding limitations on the 
 capacity of the Department of Energy to augment funds for worker and 
community assistance grants in response to the closure or downsizing of 
                    Department of Energy facilities)

       On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 320. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The closure or downsizing of a Department of Energy 
     facility can have serious economic impacts on communities 
     that have been built around and in support of the facility.
       (2) To mitigate the devastating impacts of the closure of 
     Department of Energy facilities on surrounding communities, 
     section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h) provides a mechanism for 
     the provision of financial assistance to such communities for 
     redevelopment and to assist employees of such facilities in 
     transferring to other employment.
       (4) Limitations on the capacity of the Department of Energy 
     to seek reprogramming of funds for worker and community 
     assistance programs in response to the closure or downsizing 
     of Department facilities undermines the capability of the 
     Department to respond appropriately to unforeseen 
     contingencies.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that, 
     in agreeing to the conference report to accompany the bill 
     H.R.4733 of the 106th Congress, the conferees on the part of 
     the Senate should not recede to provisions or language 
     proposed by the House of Representatives that would limit the 
     capacity of the Department of Energy to augment funds 
     available for worker and community assistance grants under 
     section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal 
     Year 1993 or under the provisions of the USEC Privatization 
     Act (subchapter A of chapter 1 of title III of Public Law 
     104-134; 42 U.S.C. 2297h et seq.).
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 4035, as modified

  (Purpose: To set aside funds to carry out activities under the John 
                    Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program)

       On page 47, strike line 18 and insert the following: 
     ``$139,219,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $100,000 shall be made available to carry out activities 
     under the John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program established 
     under section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-21).''
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4036, as modified

 (Purpose: To appropriate $10,400,000 in Title I, Corps of Engineers--
   Operation and Maintenance for Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi, to 
                continue critical improvement projects)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated in Title I, Operations 
     and Maintenance, General, $10,400,000 is available for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Pascagoula Harbor, 
     Mississippi.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4037, as modified

   (Purpose: To appropriate $200,000 in Title I, Corps of Engineers, 
 Construction, General for Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi channel width 
                               dredging)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated in Title I, Construction 
     General, $200,000 is available for the Gulfport Harbor, 
     Mississippi project for the Corps of Engineers to prepare a 
     project study plan and to initiate a general reevaluation 
     report for the remaining authorized channel width dredging.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4043, as modified

      (Purpose: To set aside funds for implementation of certain 
                environmental restoration requirements)

       On page 53, line 14, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That $1,700,000 shall be 
     used to implement environmental restoration requirements as 
     specified under the certification issued by the State of 
     Florida under section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341), dated October 1999 (permit 
     number 0129424-001-DF), including $1,200,000 for increased 
     environmental dredging and $500,000 for related environmental 
     studies required by the water quality certification.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4051, as modified

 (Purpose: To set aside funds to develop the Detroit River Masterplan)

       On page 47, strike line 18 and insert the following: 
     $139,219,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $100,000 may be made available to develop the Detroit River 
     Masterplan under section 568 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368).
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4055, as modified

      (Purpose: To include additional studies and analyses in the 
      Reconnaissance Report for the Kihei Area Erosion, HI study)

       Insert the following after line 13, page 58.
       Sec.   . Studies for Kihei Area Erosion, HI, shall include 
     an analysis of the extent and causes of the shoreline 
     erosion. Further, studies shall include an analysis of the 
     total recreation and any other economic benefits accruing to 
     the public to be derived from restoration of the shoreline. 
     The results of this analysis shall be displayed in study 
     documents along with the traditional benefit-cost analysis.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4056, as modified

      (Purpose: To include additional studies and analyses in the 
 Reconnaissance Report for the Waikiki Area Erosion Control, HI study)

       Insert the following after line 13, page 58.
       Sec.   . Studies for Waikiki Erosion Control, HI, shall 
     include an analysis of the environmental resources that have 
     been, or may be, threatened by erosion of the shoreline. 
     Further, studies shall include an analysis of the total 
     recreation and any other economic benefits accruing to the 
     public to be derived from restoration of the shoreline. The 
     results of this analysis shall be displayed in study 
     documents along with the traditional benefit-cost analysis.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4058, as modified

                 (Purpose: Newlands Water Rights Fund)

       On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert:
       Sec.   . Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, any 
     amounts provided for the Newlands Water Rights Fund for 
     purchasing and retiring water rights in the Newlands 
     Reclamation Project shall be non-reimbursable.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 4061, As Modified

(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 for small wind projects, including not 
  less than $2 million for the small wind turbine development project)

       On page 67, line 4, after the word ``Fund:'' insert the 
     following ``Provided, That of the amount available for wind 
     energy systems, not less than $5,000,000 shall be made 
     available for small wind, including not less than $2,000,000 
     for the small wind turbine development project:''

[[Page 17354]]

     
                                  ____
                    AMENDMENT NO. 4064, AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To provide $2,000,000 for a linear accelerator at the 
             University Medical Center of Southern Nevada)

       On line 15, page 68, after the word ``expended:'' Insert 
     the following: ``Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be made 
     available for high temperature super conductor research at 
     Boston College:''
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 4079, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To make a technical correction in language relating to the 
                      Waste Isolation Pilot Plant)

       On page 73, line 22, strike everything beginning with the 
     word ``Provided'' through page 74, line 3.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 4080, as Modified

 (Purpose: To make funds available for a study by the Secretary of the 
  Army to determine the feasibility of providing additional crossing 
          capacity across the Chesaspeake and Delaware Canal)

       On page 53, line 8, before the colon, insert the following: 
     ``; and of which $50,000 shall be used to carry out the 
     feasibility study described in section 1__''.

       On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND 
                   MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army, in cooperation 
     with the Department of Transportation of the State of 
     Delaware, shall conduct a study to determine the need for 
     providing additional crossing capacity across the Chesapeake 
     and Delaware Canal.
       (b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) analyze the need for providing additional crossing 
     capacity;
       (2) analyze the timing, and establish a timeframe, for 
     satisfying any need for additional crossing capacity 
     determined under paragraph (1);
       (3) analyze the feasibility, taking into account the rate 
     of development around the canal, of developing 1 or more 
     crossing corridors to satisfy, within the timeframe 
     established under paragraph (2), the need for additional 
     crossing capacity with minimal environmental impact;
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 4082, As Modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the dredging of 
                the main channel of the Delaware River)

       On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE DREDGING OF THE 
                   MAIN CHANNEL OF THE DELAWARE RIVER.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Corps of Engineers should continue to negotiate in 
     good faith with the State of Delaware to address outstanding 
     environmental permitting concerns relating to the project for 
     navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, 
     Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 
     101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 4802) and modified by section 308 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 300); and
       (2) the Corps of Engineers and the State of Delaware should 
     resolve their differences through the normal State water 
     quality permitting process.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 4092, as Modified

(Purpose: To set aside funds for activities related to the selection of 
 a permanent disposal site for environmentally sound dredged material 
   from navigational dredging projects in the State of Rhode Island)

       On page 47, line 18, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for the conduct of activities related to the 
     selection, by the Secretary of the Army in cooperation with 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, of a permanent disposal 
     site for environmentally sound dredged material from 
     navigational dredging projects in the State of Rhode 
     Island''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4096, as modified

       On page 52, line 10, strike ``$324,450,000'' and insert 
     ``$334,450,000''.
       On page 52, line 15, before the period insert ``: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts made available under this 
     heading for construction, there shall be provided $375,000 
     for Tributaries in the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi, and 
     $45,000,000 for the Mississippi River levees: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts made available under this 
     heading for operation and maintenance, there shall be 
     provided $6,747,000 for Arkabutla Lake, $4,376,000 for Enid 
     Lake, $5,280,000 for Grenada Lake, and $7,680,000 for Sardis 
     Lake''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4112, as modified

 (Purpose: To set aside funds for a feasibility study of the Niobrara 
River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point 
                Dam on the Missouri River, South Dakota)

       On page 47, line 18, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``, of which $100,000 shall be made available to 
     carry out a reconnaissance study provided for by section 447 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     329)''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc, as modified.
  The amendments (Nos. 4034, 4035, 4036, 4037, 4043, 4051, 4055, 4056, 
4058, 4061, 4064, 4079, 4080, 4082, 4092, 4096, and 4112), as modified, 
were agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have additional cosponsors who were 
not included in the first en bloc acceptance. They are: Senator Kyl on 
4076, Senator Kyl on 4078, Senator Bingaman on 4070, Senator Reid on 
4085, Senator Domenici on 4024, and Senator Bingaman on 4071. I ask 
unanimous consent that these Senators be shown as cosponsors 
appropriately on those amendments to which I have referred.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I had an opportunity to speak to my friend from New Mexico 
that Senator Torricelli has called and ask for 5 minutes to speak 
before the vote at 8 o'clock. I ask that in the form of a unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We accommodate that.
  Mr. President, we have additional amendments we are working on with 
various staff on both sides of the aisle that are not ready, that are 
still being worked on. We will continue with the hope we will have them 
finished before the time comes for final passage of this bill.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4105

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make final revisions to the 
                     Missouri River Master Manual)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4105 that I offered 
last evening, that Senator Durbin is now going to debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4105.

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

       On page 58, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 103. MISSOURI RIVER MASTER MANUAL.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     make final revisions to the Missouri River Master Water 
     Control Manual.

  Mr. DURBIN. If I understand correctly, we have 20 minutes equally 
divided on this amendment. I will try to be brief.
  I had a conversation with Senator Bond. We are perilously close to 
being in an agreement. I don't know if we will reach that point; 
perhaps we will. Let me suggest to him and to those who are following 
the course of this debate, I think the debate last night between 
Senator Daschle and Senator Bond was a good one because it laid out, I 
think, very clearly, both sides of this issue.
  I come to this debate trying to find some common ground, if there is, 
and I don't know how much common ground one can find on a river. In 
this situation, we are dealing with the question of the future of the 
Missouri River. It is not a parochial interest; it is an interest which 
affects the Mississippi River and many who have States bordering the 
Mississippi River, and agricultural and commercial interests that are 
involved in the future of that river.
  I listened to the debate yesterday and tried to follow it. I came to 
the conclusion that the Senator from Missouri was arguing that he, with 
his section 103, did not want to see the so-called spring rise occur 
next year, in the year 2001, and that was the purpose of his amendment.
  It is my understanding that if we did nothing, the spring rise would 
not

[[Page 17355]]

occur anyway because there is no intention to change the manual for the 
river that would result in that as of next year.
  The purpose of my amendment is to say that there would be no final 
revisions to the manual that would take place in the upcoming fiscal 
year, October 1, 2000, to October 1, 2001, but we would allow all of 
the agencies that are currently studying the future of the river and 
amending the 1960 manual the opportunity to consider all of the 
options, to have public comment, to invite in the experts.
  I went through the debate, read through the Congressional Record. My 
colleague from Missouri, yesterday, I think, said something along these 
lines because he said:

       Contrary to what you just heard, [referring to Senator 
     Daschle's debate] any other aspect of the process to review 
     and amend the operation of the Missouri River, to change the 
     Missouri River manual, to consider opinions, to discuss, to 
     debate, to continue the vitally important research that is 
     going on now in the river and how it can improve its habitat 
     will continue.

  The purpose of my amendment is to say let us protect that. Let us 
protect that study and that option. No final revision can be made to 
the manual that would effect the change that I think is a concern of 
the Senator from Missouri and others during the course of the next 
fiscal year. So we are preserving the right and opportunity to study 
the future of the river, but we are saying you cannot make a change in 
the manual that will change the policies on the river during that 
period of time.
  I think that will give us an opportunity for better information and a 
full opportunity for public comment. We will learn more in the process 
from the experts and the experts include not only the 
environmentalists, who are very important to this discussion, but also 
many, many others, including those in the agricultural community and in 
the navigation community. All of them should have an opportunity to be 
part of this debate about what the manual change will be. That is what 
I am trying to preserve with this amendment, to try to find, if you 
will, a middle ground between 103 and where Senator Daschle was 
yesterday.
  Let me also say that under my amendment the spring rise or low summer 
flows proposal would not be implemented next year. We have discussed 
this with the Fish and Wildlife, as well as the Corps of Engineers. It 
is our understanding that if you prohibit a final revision in the 
manual that you are not going to be able to change the manual as of 
next year, and there is no proposal on the table that would suggest 
anything is going to occur before the year 2003.
  I will concede to my friend from Missouri the letter from the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and one particular sentence or two in it, leaves 
some question. But our followup contact with the Corps of Engineers 
suggests they are not going to authorize a spring flow next year.
  I don't know if what I am suggesting by way of an amendment will win 
the support of the administration. I don't know the answer to that. 
What I am offering is a good faith attempt to continue the study, 
continue the survey, and not make any changes in the policy as of the 
next fiscal year; but to then be prepared to look at the results, 
consider the public comments, and try to come up with a policy that is 
sound.
  The Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Illinois both 
represent agricultural interests. We are constantly being asked to try 
to balance this, the commercial needs and environmental needs. 
Certainly the same thing applies to this debate on the history. We are 
trying to balance the commercial needs for navigation and the needs for 
environment. I think we can do it.
  I think if we are open and honest and have the public comment, which 
the Senator from Missouri has invited, that it will occur. I will 
listen carefully. As the Senator from Missouri said last night during 
the course of the debate: Let the debates go on. We would like to see 
sound science. We would like to see the best information available. 
Fish and Wildlife has not shown it to us. I concede during the next 
year allowing that information to come forward.
  Given the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently supports the 
spring rise and low summer flows profile, taking it off the table for 
discussion is a recipe for stalemate. Let us at least have the 
discussion about the spring flow. I think section 103 precludes even 
that discussion. Let us not change the policy as to the spring flow in 
the next year, but let us debate it. Let's try to find what the best 
outcome would be for the future of the river and those who depend on 
it.
  Proposed revisions to the manual would continue to be developed under 
my amendment. Studies would continue. Talks about alternatives to river 
management among all the river's stakeholders could continue.
  In addition, we want to get the best science we can from the National 
Academy of Sciences, which is in the process of completing an important 
study on the future of the Missouri. We should not make any decisions 
about the future of the river until that study is released, and I think 
my amendment protects that possibility and gives you the opportunity 
during this next year to listen to the National Academy of Sciences and 
to try to resolve that as well as to invite public input.
  The Corps is working on a lot of alternatives to managing the 
Missouri River. I think it is fair for us to keep these proposals, 
developed by farm and navigation interests and proposals developed by 
recreation and environmental interests, all on the table and all open 
to debate.
  This is important to my colleague from Missouri. It is really 
important in Illinois as well. The Missouri River feeds into the 
Mississippi, and we have some 550 miles of Illinois border on that 
river. A lot of people depend on it. I want to make certain we do the 
right thing for our farmers but also for this important piece of 
America's natural heritage, the Missouri River and Mississippi River.
  I am not here to argue about the management of the Missouri River. I 
am not competent to do it. But I think we have to bring the information 
together and make the most sound judgment we can about the future of 
the river, and it is that particular approach I have offered in this 
amendment. I hope the Senator from Missouri will consider it as a 
friendly amendment, a positive and constructive alternative in the 
debate between him and the Senator from South Dakota. I yield the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois has said he did not want to see a spring rise in 
2001. That basically was what my amendment did.
  When I looked at his amendment, I was very much concerned that it 
only deals with a final revision of the master manual. What we have 
requested--and as he has already pointed out, it has been proposed by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service in a letter that I believe has already 
been submitted for the Record. If not, I will submit it again for the 
Record.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                        Denver, Co, July 12, 2000.
     Brig. Gen. Carl A. Strock,
     Commander, Northwest Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
         Portland, OR.
       Dear General Strock: This letter is a result of our July 
     10, 2000, meeting in Washington, D.C. regarding the Missouri 
     River Biological Opinion attended by Assistant Secretary 
     Westphal and Director Clark. The following is a summary of 
     the discussions related to the framework of conservation 
     measures needed to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence 
     of listed species on the Missouri River.
       The Service will recommend in our draft biological opinion 
     a spring pulse starting point of 49.5 kcfs (+17.5 above full 
     navigation service) during the first available water year and 
     an annual summer low of 21 kcfs from Gavin's Point Dam. As an 
     interim step, a spring pulse of 49.5 kcfs from Gavins Point 
     during the first available water year and a summer low of 25 
     kcfs would be in effect each year, starting in 2001, until 
     the new Master

[[Page 17356]]

     Manual is in place or other appropriate NEPA documentation. 
     We would view this as an adaptive management step that, in 
     conjunction with robust monitoring of the biological 
     response, could help us refine a final set of recommendations 
     for implementation. A robust monitoring program will be 
     necessary to identify the desired beneficial biological 
     responses to listed species from these interim measures and 
     to provide a basis for any adjustments that may be necessary. 
     Corps representatives stated during the July 10th meeting 
     that the Corps has significant discretion regarding 
     navigation and that there is flexibility in the 8 month 
     navigation season. They also stated that the length of the 
     navigation season and the flows provided during the 
     navigation season was an ``expectation'' rather than a 
     guarantee.
       The Corps will provide a spring pulse from Fort Peck Dam as 
     discussed in our recent Portland meetings approximately one 
     year out of three beginning in 2002. As a test of the 
     spillway infrastructure, the Corps will perform a ``mini-
     test'' in 2001. The parameters of the test will be described 
     by the Corps in your response to this letter and will 
     incorporate the direction agreed to from recent discussions 
     held in Portland.
       The Service will identify acres of habitat (sandbar and 
     shallow/slow water) necessary to avoid jeopardy in the 
     biological opinion. We believe the Corps can use existing 
     programs and the likely expanded mitigation program to result 
     in the creation of at least one-third of these acres 
     necessary in the lower river system. The rest will need to be 
     restored through additional physical modification of existing 
     river training structures and through hydrological 
     modification. The Service believes that a majority of the 
     habitat can be created through hydrological modification.
       The monitoring needs relative to piping plovers and least 
     terns are currently being adequately addressed by the 
     existing Corps program. The short-term monitoring needs 
     relative to the Fort Peck test for pallid sturgeon have been 
     outlined in a letter sent to the Corps on April 7, 2000. The 
     Corps is currently assisting the Service relative to these 
     short-term needs below Fort Peck. There is a need for a 
     comprehensive short-term monitoring of the response of 
     pallids to the interim flows recommended from Gavins Point. 
     The long-term needs for pallid sturgeon monitoring throughout 
     the system will be addressed in the draft biological opinion.
       The Service has outlined the short-term propagation needs 
     (which could efficiently be fulfilled at Garrison Dam and 
     Gavins Point National Fish Hatcheries) necessary to reach 
     stocking objectives in a letter dated April 25, 2000. While 
     the Corps has indicated that they may not have authority to 
     assist in meeting these needs at Service facilities, the 
     Service believes that the Endangered Species Act would 
     provide the basis for such authority. The Service has also 
     sent a letter dated June 27, 2000, to the Corps outlining our 
     concern that a new facility at Fort Peck Dam would not meet 
     these short term needs.
       There is agreement in principle regarding using the 
     adaptive management approach in implementing the actions and 
     goals identified in the opinion. There is also agreement 
     regarding the unbalanced intra-system regulation issues. The 
     final discussion of these two topics will be outlined in the 
     draft biological opinion which is expected to be delivered to 
     the Corps on or bout July 31, 2000.
       The Service needs to know by July 19, 2000, if you accept 
     the six elements discussed in this letter as being reasonable 
     and prudent. We also need to know if you want to revise the 
     project description to incorporate these elements or if you 
     prefer to have them presented in the form of a RPA in a draft 
     biological opinion.
           Sincerely,
                                                    ------ ------.
                                                Regional Director.

  Mr. BOND. Their July 10 letter said to the Corps--I used the term 
``diktat'' as an authoritarian governmental directive. They tell the 
Corps of Engineers in the letter of July 12:

       As an interim step, a spring pulse of 49.5 kcfs from Gavins 
     Point during the first available water year and a summer low 
     of 25 kcfs would be in effect each year, starting in 2001, 
     until the new Master Manual is in place or other appropriate 
     NEPA documentation.

  Basically what Fish and Wildlife is saying is: Forget about the 
process. You, Corps of Engineers, start a spring rise in 2001.
  That is what we are here about. We pointed out all the problems that 
the spring rise would provide, the fact that there are very good, 
scientific judgments coming out of the Missouri Department of 
Conservation, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and others, 
saying that a spring rise would have a harmful effect, not only on 
people along the river, on river transportation, but on endangered 
species. We have asked the Missouri Department of Natural Resources of 
the State of Missouri how they view the proposal by the Senator from 
Illinois. The director of the Department of Natural Resources has just 
faxed me a letter saying, in pertinent part:

       Our conclusion is that the proposed Durbin amendment is not 
     protective of Missouri's interests. Nor is it protective of 
     Mississippi River states' interests. The amendment would 
     allow the spring rise and ``split season'' proposal to 
     proceed to the penultimate point of implementation--too late 
     to be stopped or even amended.

  Basically, the view of the attorney general's office and the State 
department of natural resources in Missouri is that striking section 
103 would open up to the dangers that I laid out last night and this 
morning of the spring rise and the low summer flow.
  If the Senator from Illinois agrees that we don't want to have that 
spring rise and the low summer flows next year, I suggest that we could 
reach a simple accommodation. Keep section 103. If he wishes to say 
that studies should go forward on the Missouri River, which is what I 
firmly believe section 103 does anyhow, we would have no objection to 
that. But we need to keep that underlying protection that says that you 
shall not, during 2001, implement the spring rise. That is the purpose 
of the amendment. That amendment has been in the energy and water bills 
4 of the last 5 years, signed by the President.
  There is no intent for us to stop the discussions. However, the 
National Academy of Sciences has a very narrow study on the spring rise 
itself. The studies that are going forward are studies which should 
include the proposal of the Missouri Department of Conservation which 
is a 41,000-cubic-feet-per-second flow of the Missouri River which they 
think will protect the pallid sturgeon and other endangered species and 
not subject the people of downstream States--Kansas, Missouri, States 
along the Mississippi, Illinois, down through Louisiana--from spring 
flooding and will not end the river transportation on the Mississippi 
and the Missouri.
  If the only question the Senator from Illinois has is whether or not 
we cut off studies, I will be happy if he asks unanimous consent to 
change his amendment so it does not repeal section 103 and states that 
studies of the Missouri River master manual, all of the studies, shall 
continue but there will be no spring rise in 2001 as provided in 
section 103; then I think we can reach agreement.
  The question has been raised as to whether, even with that 
modification, that will be acceptable to Members of this body. There 
are some who appeared to say that would not be acceptable to them.
  The question has been raised whether the President might veto the 
entire appropriations bill over section 103 after having signed it for 
4 years in a row. We have already shown there is strong bipartisan 
support in States affected by the Missouri River manual, that a spring 
rise would be very hazardous to the human life along the river, as well 
as to farmers who farm in the productive bottom lands, as well as to 
the water supply, as well as to river transportation.
  I do not think the President will ignore the strong voices of the 
flood control associations, the bipartisan, strong opposition of the 
Democratic government of Missouri, the Democratic Governor and mayors 
of Kansas City and St. Louis who would be subjected to the dangers of 
flooding from a spring rise.
  The President will have to look at the concerns of the people 
downstream. I think he will realize the scheme is too risky as a result 
of the action we took today. If the President realizes we are not going 
to accept the risky scheme of a controlled flood, then maybe we can 
avoid the need for a vote.
  If the distinguished Senator from Illinois wants to leave section 103 
and work with us to craft an amendment which says that investigations 
can continue, which is what I believe section 103 will do, if we can 
muster even greater support, then we will have much less a danger of 
having this bill vetoed.
  With that in mind, I am happy to work with the Senator from Illinois 
because his State is at risk of flooding. A

[[Page 17357]]

spring rise on the Missouri can threaten flooding in Illinois. A low 
flow on the Missouri River in the summer and in the fall in navigation 
season not only threatens and ends barge transportation on the Missouri 
River, but it puts at risk the river transportation on the Mississippi 
which carries a very significant bulk of the grain going to the export 
market.
  If that is what we are talking about, if we can assure that studies 
will continue--and I am concerned about the language of his amendment 
saying we cannot have a final master manual development--that master 
manual could be implemented so long as it does not include the spring 
rise--if he is willing to do that, then I say we are on the same page. 
But I cannot accept and certainly our State governments, the agencies 
directly involved in the Missouri, cannot accept striking 103.
  We went through that battle. We spoke, I thought, with a majority 
vote, saying there shall be no implementation of a spring rise during 
the year covered by the bill, which is 2001. If we keep that in place, 
then I will be happy to work with the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois to fashion a new section 104 which at least makes clear the 
agreement we may have reached.
  However, if the Senator still feels the need to strike 103, I have to 
say that is what we voted on; we have been through this. That is the 
risky scheme of a controlled flood that we cannot accept, and I do not 
believe, nor do people in the State of Missouri believe, that his 
amendment standing alone, unmodified, will do that.
  I hope, having voted on this and having had the opportunity to tell 
our colleagues a whole lot more about the Missouri River manual than 
they ever wanted to know, we might be able to avoid having them vote 
again. If they vote again, I say to those who supported us, I wish them 
to continue to support section 103.
  If the Senator from Illinois will accept keeping section 103 and work 
with us to craft a section 104 that further clarifies it, I will be 
happy to do so. Otherwise, I will just ask all the people who voted 
with us this morning to vote with us again in opposition to the Durbin 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  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.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand where we are, and we will 
be ready with the remaining amendments very soon. Since there is time 
remaining, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are about to adopt a bill tonight 
commonly known as the energy and water appropriations bill, but 
everybody should know that, at a minimum, it is an interesting set of 
words--``energy and water.'' On the other hand, it is even more than an 
interesting set of words. There is a great irony with reference to this 
bill.
  First of all, believe it or not, by precedent, this bill contains all 
of the nuclear weapons research and development, preservation, and 
manufacturing, and along with it are all the water projects--the Corps 
of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and all the waterways--and a 
whole group of nondefense-related science research projects.
  What has happened over the years, it seems to this Senator, is that 
piling these kinds of programs together and then limiting the amount of 
money has, over time, yielded more attention to the water projects 
because there are hundreds of House Members concerned, and rightly so, 
and scores of Senators concerned, and here is our great nuclear weapons 
program. We have stood before the world and thanked our great 
scientists because they do not belong to the military. These are free-
minded Americans, some who have worked for 40 years and are still at 
Los Alamos as the nucleus of scientists who understand the nuclear 
weapons.
  What I tried to do in the last few years is build a wall in the bill 
between the defense money and the nondefense money so we can move ahead 
with some of the things that are so desperately needed for the nuclear 
activities of this country, especially since we continue to say we have 
to compete in that area in the world until we have no more nuclear 
weapons, which we hope will occur sometime.
  In spite of this wall, and trying to hold the defense money harmless 
from domestic spending, what has happened this year in the House 
allocations just beats anything you could imagine. For the House 
decided to underfund both, believe it or not. They decided to underfund 
the President's defense requirements and underfund his nonnuclear, 
nondefense projects. We cannot expect to get a bill based on those 
numbers.
  I submit the Senate would have a lot of difficulty accepting that 
bill that would come from those kinds of numbers. Thanks to Senator 
Stevens and Senator Byrd, they have allocated $600 million more on the 
defense nuclear side than the House. And we are still short somewhere 
between $300 and $400 million for the water projects. So many of you 
Senators know that your water projects could not be accepted.
  We understand there are some new projects that have been new for 5 
years, maybe some for 7. It is awful to still call them new, but they 
have not been started, so we call them new, and we cannot fund them. We 
are going to try to get some additional resources because every 
subcommittee is being helped along. If we can, we can do better when we 
come back.
  But I want to just share a couple things that I think everybody 
should know.
  There are two huge problems that exist with reference to our nuclear 
weapons activities and personnel and physical plant--where they live 
and work and do the kinds of things that keep us up there, where we can 
certify to the President of the United States, from these three nuclear 
labs, that our weapons are safe and will do what they are supposed to 
do. These lab directors--civilians--certify that based on what they 
have in their laboratories.
  To give you an example of how bad off we are on physical plant, I 
just want to cite to you a situation that you would find unbelievable 
at Y-12 over at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, part of that is nondefense, as you 
well know. But part of it is defense and related to nuclear weapons. If 
you went there tomorrow and said: The subcommittee that funds this 
asked me to come and take a look at one of the big buildings in Y-12 
that has some roofing problems, the first thing they would do to you, 
Mr. President--especially considering the condition of your scalp, 
where you have no protection from hair--they would put a helmet on you 
as soon as you walked in this building. Did you know that? A helmet. 
And you would say: What's that for? And they would say: Well, 
distinguished Senator, it is because if you walk around this building, 
the roof falls in on you in pieces. So we don't want to hurt you. Even 
though you're not doing anything that is harmful down here in your job, 
the roof falls in on you in pieces.
  This is a building, owned by the Department of Energy, which does 
nuclear deterrent work for the U.S. Government. It is a shame. We are 
repairing it. We are putting the money in this year. But just as we do 
that, there are 40- and 50- and 60-year-old buildings that are part of 
the complex that we still have alive in some of our laboratories, from 
the very first Manhattan Project, whenever that was. We have not 
rebuilt them.
  So scientists are finding it difficult, in today's America, to 
continue working at some of our labs. We need a major new program if we 
are going to maintain this situation of safe and reliable nuclear 
weapons, with whatever number of warheads. We need a program to start 
replacing these buildings. Either we are serious about this--

[[Page 17358]]

we want the very best for our best scientists--or we do not.
  The second thing is there is a huge morale problem among the very 
best scientists, who have been with us a long time and know everything 
one could know about our nuclear weapons. There is a serious problem 
that is objectively recorded that says the young brilliant scientists 
coming out of our schools with Ph.D.s and post-docs are coming to the 
laboratories in smaller and smaller numbers per year when we go out to 
try to encourage them to come. In fact, it is tremendously off this 
year.
  The morale problem is so bad that the superscientists are beginning 
to quit. They are being offered an enhanced retirement program by the 
University of California. The professors and the university want this 
program because the University has too many senior professors. They 
need to tenure more new professors. But when this University program 
comes along it applies to the great scientists, too, at our 
laboratories.
  There is a morale problem built around the FBI and Justice Department 
from this last episode at Los Alamos, making a whole group of 
scientists in one of the most secret, most sophisticated, most 
important operations in nuclear weaponry in America feel as though they 
are criminals. They just do not appreciate this. They do not like that. 
Some of them have been there 35 years. They just do not like the FBI 
treating them all like criminals or even suggesting that, as patriotic 
scientists, they ought to take their lie detectors and be treated as if 
there is some criminal in their midst. Frankly, some have decided they 
are just not going to do that.
  I do not know where that ends up, but I submit it ought to end up 
soon for those who are threatened by prosecution from that last episode 
of a hard drive being found behind some kind of a multipurpose machine. 
If there is no evidence of spying and no evidence of distributing 
information, they ought to get on with this. They ought to get on with 
it. They ought to even talk to some of these scientists, who have been 
working for us 30, 40 years, about their attorney's fees, because every 
one of them has been looked at, and told: You might be the one we're 
looking for. It couldn't be all of them.
  When you put that kind of thing out, it labels everybody in a 
national laboratory. It includes our most patriotic nuclear physicist, 
who is one of the greatest design people in all of nuclear history. You 
are telling him: We are not quite sure about all this, but you may be 
the one, you could go to jail for 24 months--or whatever number is 
used. There is no spying. So why don't we get on with it? I have not 
said this publicly, but I thought I would use this opportunity tonight.
  It is serious business. Did you know that we keep saying the only 
thing the Soviet Union is doing well, in spite of their economic 
depression and all the rest, is to maintain a pretty adequate and 
sophisticated nuclear delivery system? I could spend the evening 
telling you about the difference between the two.
  They can maintain their weapons much easier than we can keep ours, 
because they make nuclear weapons differently. We make them 
sophisticated, complicated, and that is part of their greatness. They 
make them simple, robust, and re-make them very often, like every 10 
years. They are not as worried about us. We keep them for many years, 
and then we try to prove they will last longer with this new program we 
are funding called the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
  That is my little summary. There is much more to talk about. I 
thought it would be good tonight to put in perspective the significance 
of this bill. It is not just for the harbors of America. It is for 
those laboratories and plants that harbor the scientists, the manpower, 
and the equipment to keep our nuclear weapons on the right path. That 
is pretty important stuff, it seems to me.
  My job is to make sure everybody at least understands part of it, so 
they will help us get out of the dilemma we are in and have a much more 
robust, much more positive atmosphere around these laboratories soon.
  In conclusion, there is a new man in charge. We ought to be hopeful. 
General Gordon has been put in charge of this under the new law which 
you helped us with, I say to the Presiding Officer--and many did--which 
put one person in charge of the nuclear weapons aspects at the DOE. We 
are so fortunate we got a four-star general, CIA oriented, Sandia Lab-
trained individual who in retirement took this job. If it is going to 
be fixed, he will fix it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 4105, withdrawn

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
2 minutes and at the end of that time to withdraw my amendment, if 
there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond, as well as Senator Reid and representatives from 
Senator Daschle's staff.
  We just had a floor conversation about section 103, which has been 
the subject of great debate over the last several days. We are, as I 
said, close to at least common ground on the floor, but I do not 
believe we are at a point where we can put language in the bill to 
solve the problem between the administration and the committee. It is 
my heartfelt intention to work with Senator Bond, Senator Domenici, and 
Senator Reid to try to do that.
  This is an important bill. We don't want to go through and veto, have 
a return of the bill, if we can work it out. I hope we can. But I don't 
believe my amendment, in and of itself, is going to solve that problem 
this evening. Instead, I would like to, at the end of my remarks, ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and pledge between now and 
the conference and thereafter to work with all of the principals 
involved to see if we can work out the important question about the 
future of the Missouri River and the debate that took place both 
yesterday and today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 
4105.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Illinois and my 
friend from Missouri, I appreciate very much, as I am sure Senator 
Domenici does, resolving this temporarily at this time. Hopefully, the 
temporary delay will allow us, by the time we get to conference, to 
have a solution to the problem which will allow all parties to be 
satisfied. I appreciate very much Senator Bond, who is a veteran in 
State and national politics, understanding the quandary we are in 
tonight. I say the same to the Senator from Illinois, who is the 
epitome of a good legislator.
  Senator Domenici and I will do everything we can, before conference 
and in conference, to try to resolve this matter finally. We recognize 
there is a veto threat on this bill, so it is in our interest to try to 
work something out also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might say to both Senators, I very 
much appreciate their efforts. I think while they were talking, I was 
expressing to anyone who wanted to listen my heartfelt concerns about 
this bill in terms of the future of our nuclear weapons.
  It would not be good if we wasted a year operating under last year's 
levels or operating under some kind of a veto. I join in not knowing 
what the veto threat really means. Nonetheless, it would be marvelous 
if we could work it out to their satisfaction so in some way the issue 
were resolved.
  There is going to be a year hiatus, one way or another, when nothing 
is going to happen. I don't think the President is going to be able to 
deny us that. But I think if we worked it out where everybody 
understood and maybe we could convince him that that is a good idea--
that means his council on environmental quality and others--it would be 
a very good thing for the United States. I hope it works out.

[[Page 17359]]

  I compliment Senator Bond this evening and earlier on this bill. I 
think he made a very strong case. It is pretty obvious this is a 
difficult issue. As he knows, I have been on his side. I have similar 
problems with endangered species and other things out in the West. We 
don't have enough water. All our rivers combined don't equal the 
Missouri River. I think that is a pretty fair statement--maybe even 
half the flow for all of ours that we have. We don't quite understand 
how the Missouri River is a problem. We see it as something fantastic. 
One time we tried to get a little bit of it, take it west, and Scoop 
Jackson stood in the way, I guess, from the State of Washington.
  Anyway, I thank the Senator for what he has done. There is not going 
to be a vote tonight on that issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator 
from Illinois, with whom I think we have reached an agreement that 
there should not be a spring rise in 2001.
  I believe there are some areas that go beyond the existing section 
103 on which we might be able to satisfy some of the legitimate 
concerns raised by the minority leader. He was concerned about the 
possibility of cutting off debate, cutting off all consideration of 
other issues relating to the Missouri River manual. That was not our 
intent. If we can add language that will clarify that, maybe it will at 
least satisfy some of these problems.
  Also, we have a Governor and we have other congressional Members from 
States affected who might want to communicate with the White House 
about the workability of this.
  To the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nevada, I 
appreciate the difficulties they faced. They have both been most 
accommodating on these issues. We don't want to make life more 
difficult for them. The Senator from New Mexico may not have river 
problems, but he has had controlled burn problems. We want to make sure 
we don't have a controlled flood problem.
  I am delighted we don't have to ask our colleagues to vote again on 
this issue tonight. I think there may be further clarification that 
might satisfy some of the concerns that were raised, certainly by the 
minority leader. I will be happy to work with them.
  On behalf of the State of Missouri and the people of the State of 
Missouri, I express my appreciation to this body for making it clear 
that there will not be a controlled flood on the Missouri River or 
abnormally low flows during the summer of 2001, the year to which this 
appropriations bill applies.
  As always, we are more than happy to work with the committee leaders 
in trying to resolve these problems in the future. I thank my 
colleagues for their understanding of the importance of this issue to 
the people I represent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe I have a unanimous consent 
request pending to withdraw amendment No. 4105.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 4109, As Modified

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 4109, filed 
with the clerk. It is my understanding that will be in the manager's 
package. I do not, therefore, call it to the floor of the Senate at 
this time.
  I do wish for a moment to discuss with my colleagues the merits of 
this legislation and to thank the Senator from New Mexico and the 
Senator from Nevada for their cooperation and their assistance.
  Within this legislation is $27 million to deepen and widen the main 
channel of the Delaware River. To the city of Philadelphia, the city of 
Camden, and the States of New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, this 
is of some considerable importance. The Delaware River is a major 
artery of maritime commerce. I have always supported, and I will always 
support that river being efficient and available to maritime traffic, 
but there are serious problems.
  When this legislation was considered in the House, my colleague, 
Representative Andrews from southern New Jersey, with the support of 
Congressman Kasich, offered an amendment to strike this funding. I will 
not do that tonight because I believe, first, the votes are not 
available and, second, I still hope the general problems with this 
dredging can be solved.
  The problems are relatively simple. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
has proposed to dredge 33 million yards of material from the Delaware 
River. Three States will benefit by this dredging. Primarily the 
benefits will go to Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania, simply 
based on the size of the economic activity in the region by these 
States comparatively. Ten million of these 33 million yards will be 
used to replenish beaches in the State of Delaware. Twenty-three 
million yards will be placed on prime waterfront property in the State 
of New Jersey. Ten million goes to Delaware; 23 million occupies prime 
real estate in the State of New Jersey. And although the principal 
economic benefits of the dredging are for the city of Philadelphia, 
none--I repeat, not an ounce--of the material goes to the State of 
Pennsylvania.
  Now I recognize we all have to share the burden, and we may not share 
the burden equally; it may not be shared proportionally to the economic 
benefit. But certainly accepting nothing, while the State of New Jersey 
takes the overwhelming majority of the material, cannot be right and it 
cannot be fair. Let me make clear that Senator Specter and Senator 
Santorum have been remarkably helpful in this matter. They have 
understood the inequity. They want the three States to work 
cooperatively. I am very grateful to both of them that, while 
protecting the interests of their State first and foremost, they have 
been good neighbors and have been cooperative.
  I believe there are solutions to this problem: Primarily, ironically, 
that while this material is being dumped on the shorelines of New 
Jersey to our disadvantage, there is an enormous desire by construction 
companies and others in land development to have this material 
available.
  It is a strange and ironic, even tragic, situation. I hope by this 
experience, which is also happening in the Port of New York, the Army 
Corps of Engineers will begin to understand and learn from the 
situation. Contracting companies, land development companies, major 
corporations, and communities want this material. Market it, sell it, 
use it, but no longer use it as if it is a waste material to be dumped 
on valuable real estate, on the unwanted.
  Because of that, in my amendment, we reserve $200,000 for the Army 
Corps of Engineers to begin actively marketing this material for 
private and public projects--from road projects in south Jersey, to the 
future expansion of the Philadelphia Airport, to new construction in 
Atlantic City, there are willing users, even buyers. This $200,000 can 
go a long way to solving this problem. Particularly, I thank Senators 
Specter and Santorum for their help and cooperation. Of course, to 
Senator Biden, the Senator from New Mexico, and the Senator from 
Nevada, I am grateful that this is being put in the managers' 
amendment. I thank them for this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will withhold that. We are within a 
few minutes of having the last amendments ready that we have been 
working on collectively and collaboratively. Then we will be ready for 
final passage very soon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 17360]]




 Amendments Nos. 4017, 4044, 4059, 4089, 4099, 4110, and 4111, En Bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to add to the list of managers' 
agreed-to amendments, all of which are filed and at the desk, starting 
with Nos. 4017, 4044, 4059, 4089, 4099, 4110, and 4111.
  I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and agreed to 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 4017, 4044, 4059, 4089, 4099, 4110, and 4111) 
were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4017

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 
  contracts with the city of Loveland, Colorado, to use Colorado-Big 
 Thompson Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage 
  of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other 
                          beneficial purposes)

       On page 66, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. USE OF COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT FACILITIES FOR 
                   NONPROJECT WATER.

       The Secretary of the Interior may enter into contracts with 
     the city of Loveland, Colorado, or its Water and Power 
     Department or any other agency, public utility, or enterprise 
     of the city, providing for the use of facilities of the 
     Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado, under the Act of 
     February 21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 523), for--
       (1) the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject 
     water originating on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains 
     for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial 
     purposes; and
       (2) the exchange of water originating on the eastern slope 
     of the Rocky Mountains for the purposes specified in 
     paragraph (1), using facilities associated with the Colorado-
     Big Thompson Project, Colorado.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4044

     SECTION 1. FUNDING OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, 
                   PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT.

       Section 4(a) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 
     777c(a)), is amended in the second sentence by striking 
     ``2000'' and inserting ``2009''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4059

    (Purpose: To provide $3,000,000 for technology development and 
demonstration program in Combined Cooling, Heating and Power Technology 
 Development for Thermal Load Management, District Energy Systems, and 
                        Distributed Generation)

       On line 4, page 67, after the word ``Fund:'' Insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be made available for 
     technology development and demonstration program in Combined 
     Cooling, Heating and Power Technology Development for Thermal 
     Load Management, District Energy Systems, and Distributed 
     Generation, based upon natural gas, hydrogen, and renewable 
     energy technologies. Further, the program is to be carried 
     out by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory through its Building 
     Equipment Technology Program.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4089

(Purpose: To set aside funding for participation by the Idaho National 
  Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in the Greater Yellowstone 
                Energy and Transportation Systems Study)

       On page 68, line 15, strike ``expended:'' and insert 
     ``expended, of which $500,000 shall be available for 
     participation by the Idaho National Engineering and 
     Environmental Laboratory in the Greater Yellowstone Energy 
     and Transportation Systems Study:''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4099

(Purpose: To extend the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
  to collect fees through 2005 and improve the administration of the 
                       Atomic Energy Act of 1954)

       On page 97, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

                TITLE __--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                          Subtitle A--Funding

     SEC. __01. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ANNUAL CHARGES.

       Section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``September 30, 
     1999'' and inserting ``September 20, 2005''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or certificate 
     holder'' after ``licensee''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Aggregate amount of charges.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of the annual 
     charges collected from all licensees and certificate holders 
     in a fiscal year shall equal an amount that approximates the 
     percentages of the budget authority of the Commission for the 
     fiscal year stated in subparagraph (B), less--
       ``(i) amounts collected under subsection (b) during the 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) amounts appropriated to the Commission from the 
     Nuclear Waste Fund for the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Percentages.--The percentages referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are--
       ``(i) 98 percent for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(ii) 96 percent for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(iii) 94 percent for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(iv) 92 percent for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(v) 88 percent for fiscal year 2006.''.

     SEC. __02. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AUTHORITY OVER 
                   FORMER LICENSEES FOR DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING.

       Section 161i. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2201(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (4) to ensure that sufficient funds will 
     be available for the decommissioning of any production or 
     utilization facility licensed under section 103 or 104b., 
     including standards and restrictions governing the control, 
     maintenance, use, and disbursement by any former licensee 
     under this Act that has control over any fund for the 
     decommissioning of the facility''.

     SEC. __03. COST RECOVERY FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

       Section 161w. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2201(w)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``, or which operates any facility 
     regulated or certified under section 1701 or 1702,'';
       (2) by striking ``483a'' and inserting ``9701''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and, commencing October 1, 2000, prescribe and 
     collect from any other Government agency any fee, charge, or 
     price that the Commission may require in accordance with 
     section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, or any other 
     law''.

                      Subtitle B--Other Provisions

     SEC. __11. OFFICE LOCATION.

       Section 23 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2033) is amended by striking ``; however, the Commission 
     shall maintain an office for the service of process and 
     papers within the District of Columbia''.

     SEC. __12. LICENSE PERIOD.

       Section 103c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2133(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``c. Each such'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``c. License Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each such''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Combined licenses.--In the case of a combined 
     construction and operating license issued under section 
     185(b), the initial duration of the license may not exceed 40 
     years from the date on which the Commission finds, before 
     operation of the facility, that the acceptance criteria 
     required by section 185(b) are met.''.

     SEC. __13. ELIMINATION OF NRC ANTITRUST REVIEWS.

       Section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2135) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Applicability.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to an 
     application for a license to construct or operate a 
     utilization facility under section 103 or 104(b) that is 
     pending on or that is filed on or after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.''.

     SEC. __14. GIFT ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 161g. of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201(g)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)'';
       (2) by striking ``this Act;'' and inserting ``this Act; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) accept, hold, utilize, and administer gifts of real 
     and personal property (not including money) for the purpose 
     of aiding or facilitating the work of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission.''.
       (b) Criteria for Acceptance of Gifts.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 170C. CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Commission shall establish written 
     criteria for determining whether to accept gifts under 
     section 161g.(2).
       ``(b) Considerations.--The criteria under subsection (a) 
     shall take into consideration whether the acceptance of the 
     gift would compromise the integrity of, or the appearance of 
     the integrity of, the Commission or any officer or employee 
     of the Commission.''.
       (2) Conforming and technical amendments.--The table of 
     contents of chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``Sec. 170C. Criteria for acceptance of gifts.''.

     SEC. __15. CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) (as amended by section 
     __14(b)(1)) is amended--

[[Page 17361]]

       (1) in section 161, by striking subsection k. and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(k) authorize to carry a firearm in the performance of 
     official duties such of its members, officers, and employees, 
     such of the employees of its contractors and subcontractors 
     (at any tier) engaged in the protection of property under the 
     jurisdiction of the United States located at facilities owned 
     by or contracted to the United States or being transported to 
     or from such facilities, and such of the employees of persons 
     licensed or certified by the Commission (including employees 
     of contractors of licensees or certificate holders) engaged 
     in the protection of facilities owned or operated by a 
     Commission licensee or certificate holder that are designated 
     by the Commission or in the protection of property of 
     significance to the common defense and security located at 
     facilities owned or operated by a Commission licensee or 
     certificate holder or being transported to or from such 
     facilities, as the Commission considers necessary in the 
     interest of the common defense and security;'' and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 170D. CARRYING OF FIREARMS.

       ``(a) Authority To Make Arrest.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person authorized under section 161k. 
     to carry a firearm may, while in the performance of, and in 
     connection with, official duties, arrest an individual 
     without a warrant for any offense against the United States 
     committed in the presence of the person or for any felony 
     under the laws of the United States if the person has a 
     reasonable ground to believe that the individual has 
     committed or is committing such a felony.
       ``(2) Limitation.--An employee of a contractor or 
     subcontractor or of a Commission licensee or certificate 
     holder (or a contractor of a licensee or certificate holder) 
     authorized to make an arrest under paragraph (1) may make an 
     arrest only--
       ``(A) when the individual is within, or is in flight 
     directly from, the area in which the offense was committed; 
     and
       ``(B) in the enforcement of--
       ``(i) a law regarding the property of the United States in 
     the custody of the Department of Energy, the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission, or a contractor of the Department of 
     Energy or Nuclear Regulatory Commission or a licensee or 
     certificate holder of the Commission;
       ``(ii) a law applicable to facilities owned or operated by 
     a Commission licensee or certificate holder that are 
     designated by the Commission under section 161k.;
       ``(iii) a law applicable to property of significance to the 
     common defense and security that is in the custody of a 
     licensee or certificate holder or a contractor of a licensee 
     or certificate holder of the Commission; or
       ``(iv) any provision of this Act that subjects an offender 
     to a fine, imprisonment, or both.
       ``(3) Other authority.--The arrest authority conferred by 
     this section is in addition to any arrest authority under 
     other law.
       ``(4) Guidelines.--The Secretary and the Commission, with 
     the approval of the Attorney General, shall issue guidelines 
     to implement section 161k. and this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming and Technical Amendments.--The table of 
     contents of chapter 14 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. prec. 2011) (as amended by section 
     __14(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 170D. Carrying of firearms.''.

     SEC. __16. UNAUTHORIZED INTRODUCTION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS.

       Section 229a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2278a(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or 
     subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or to 
     certification by the Commission under this Act or any other 
     Act'' before the period at the end.

     SEC. __17. SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL.

       Section 236a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2284(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``storage facility'' and 
     inserting ``storage, treatment, or disposal facility'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``such a utilization facility'' and 
     inserting ``a utilization facility licensed under this Act''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``facility licensed'' and inserting ``or 
     nuclear fuel fabrication facility licensed or certified''; 
     and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) any production, utilization, waste storage, waste 
     treatment, waste disposal, uranium enrichment, or nuclear 
     fuel fabrication facility subject to licensing or 
     certification under this Act during construction of the 
     facility, if the person knows or reasonably should know that 
     there is a significant possibility that the destruction or 
     damage caused or attempted to be caused could adversely 
     affect public health and safety during the operation of the 
     facility.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4110

 (Purpose: To redesignate the Interstate Sanitation Commission as the 
      Interstate Environmental Commission, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION 
                   AND DISTRICT.

       (a) Interstate Sanitation Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The district known as the ``Interstate 
     Sanitation Commission'', established by article III of the 
     Tri-State Compact described in the Resolution entitled, ``A 
     Joint Resolution granting the consent of Congress to the 
     States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to enter into 
     a compact for the creation of the Interstate Sanitation 
     District and the establishment of the Interstate Sanitation 
     Commission'', approved August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 933), is 
     redesignated as the ``Interstate Environmental Commission''.
       (2) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Interstate Sanitation Commission shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Interstate Environmental Commission.
       (b) Interstate Sanitation District.--
       (1) In general.--The district known as the ``Interstate 
     Sanitation District'', established by article II of the Tri-
     State Compact described in the Resolution entitled, ``A Joint 
     Resolution granting the consent of Congress to the States of 
     New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to enter into a compact 
     for the creation of the Interstate Sanitation District and 
     the establishment of the Interstate Sanitation Commission'', 
     approved August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 932), is redesignated as 
     the ``Interstate Environmental District''.
       (2) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Interstate Sanitation District shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Interstate Environmental District.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4111

       On page 68, line 21 after the word ``program'' insert the 
     following:
       ``; Provided Further, That $12,500,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available for Molecular Nuclear 
     Medicine.''

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4041, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send about four amendments 
that have been modified and agreed to.
  I send amendment No. 4041, as modified, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for Mr. Grams, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4041.

  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:

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a 
  report on impacts of a state-imposed limit on the quantity of spent 
                nuclear fuel that may be stored onsite)

       On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 3__. REPORT ON IMPACTS OF A STATE-IMPOSED LIMIT ON THE 
                   QUANTITY OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL THAT MAY BE 
                   STORED ONSITE.

       (a) Secretary of Energy.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing a description of all 
     alternatives that are available to the Northern States Power 
     Company and the Federal Government to allow the Company to 
     continue to operate the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 
     Plant until the end of the term of the license issued to the 
     Company by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in view of a 
     law of the State of Minnesota that limits the quantity of 
     spent nuclear fuel that may be stored at the Plant, assuming 
     that existing Federal and State laws remain unchanged.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield any time I might have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4041), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


  Amendments Nos. 4060, 4087, 4091, 4108, 4109, and 4113, En Bloc, As 
                                Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send amendments that are at the desk 
that

[[Page 17362]]

have been modified: Amendment No. 4060, as modified; modification of 
amendment No. 4087; modification of amendment No. 4091, all of which 
are printed and at the desk; amendment No. 4108 as modified; amendment 
No. 4109, as modified; and amendment No. 4113, as modified.
  I send them to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be 
considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4060, 4087, 4091, 4108, 4109, and 4113) were 
agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                    amendment no. 4060, as modified

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to promote or advertise any 
   public tour of a facility or project of the Department of Energy)

       On page 90, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 3___. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PROMOTE OR ADVERTISE 
                   PUBLIC TOURS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds made available under this title shall be used 
     to promote or advertise any public tour of Yucca Mountain 
     facility of the Department of Energy.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a 
     public notice that is required by statute or regulation.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4087, as modified

(Purpose: To extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation 
 and irrigation water contractors in Wyoming and Nebraska that receive 
                    water from the Glendo Reservoir)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section and renumber any remaining sections accordingly:

     ``SEC. ___. AMENDMENT TO IRRIGATION PROJECT CONTRACT 
                   EXTENSION ACT OF 1998.

       (a) Section 2(a) of the Irrigation Project Contract 
     Extension Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-293, is amended by 
     striking the date ``December 31, 2000'', and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the date ``December 31, 2003.'';
       (b) Subsection 2(b) of the Irrigation Project Contract 
     Extension Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-293, is amended by:
       (1) striking the phrase ``not to go beyond December 31, 
     2001'', and inserting in lieu thereof the phrase ``not to go 
     beyond December 31, 2003''; and
       (2) striking the phrase ``terminates prior to December 31, 
     2000'', and inserting in lieu thereof ``terminates prior to 
     December 31, 2003.''
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4091, as modified

 (Purpose: To provide funding for a flood control project in Minnesota)

       On page 52, line 2, insert the following before the period:
       ``Provide further, That $500,000 of the funding 
     appropriated herein shall be used to undertake the Hay Creek, 
     Roseau County, Minnesota Flood Control Project under Section 
     206 funding.


                    amendment no. 4108, as modified

 (Purpose: To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
    Agency to develop standards for evaluating dredged material for 
    remediation purposes at, and to provide funding for a nonocean 
alternative remediation demonstration project for dredged material at, 
            the Historic Area Remediation Site, New Jersey)

       On page 58, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1. APPROPRIATION FOR ALTERNATIVE NONOCEAN REMEDIATION 
                   SITES.

       The Secretary of the Army may use up to $1,000,000 of 
     available funds to carry out a nonocean alternative 
     remediation demonstration project for dredged material at the 
     Historic Area Remediation Site.


                    amendment no. 4109, as modified

    (Purpose: To set aside funds to establish a program for direct 
 marketing of certain dredged material to public agencies and private 
                               entities)

       On page 53, line 8, after ``facilities'', insert the 
     following: ``, and of which $150,000 of funds made available 
     for the Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, shall be 
     made available for the Philadelphia District of the Corps of 
     Engineers to establish a program to allow the direct 
     marketing of dredged material from the Delaware River 
     Deepening Project to public agencies and private entities''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 4113, as modified

  (Purpose: To set aside funding for an ethanol demonstration project)

       On page 67, line 4, strike ``Fund:'' and insert ``Fund, and 
     of which $100,000 shall be made available to Western Biomass 
     Energy LLC for an ethanol demonstration project:''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, does Senator Reid have anything further 
to add?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee and to the chairman of this 
subcommittee for the great work he has done. He has been a pleasure to 
work with.
  I also express my appreciation to your very excellent staff. David 
Gwaltney and Lashawnda Smith have been tremendous to work with. My 
staff complimented them through me on many occasions.
  I also want to thank Steve Bell, chief of staff; and Drew Willison 
has done such a brilliant job, assisted by your detailee from the Army 
Corps of Engineers from Vicksburg; and Elizabeth Blevins of the 
subcommittee staff.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have already mentioned today and on 
another occasion the importance of this bill. I thank all Senators for 
cooperating. We did our very best on the numerous amendments, and we 
will do our very best in conference. Everyone knows we are very short 
of money on the nondefense side. If we can get some assistance from the 
appropriations committee, we will be able to help solve many of these 
problems in conference.
  In the meantime, I want to say to Senator Reid that it is always a 
pleasure to work with him. We will go to conference and do the best we 
can.
  I want to thank Drew Willison of Senator Reid's staff. He is a 
tremendous asset, and we very much like working with him.
  I thank the Senator for his thanks to the two members of my staff. 
They are truly professional, and I am very grateful to them.
  Mr. President, we have nothing further. I ask for the yeas and nays 
on final passage of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                     dredging of the delaware river

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with 
the distinguished Senators from our neighboring state of Delaware, 
Senators Roth and Biden. Each of us has communicated with members of 
the Appropriations Committee on a matter of deep concern to us and our 
constituents that has been included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware 
River Deepening Project seeks to deepen over 100 miles of the Delaware 
River channel from the current authorized 40-foot depth to 45 feet. The 
project would dredge 33 million cubic yards of bottom sediments, 
placing some 23 million cubic yards in dredge disposal areas in New 
Jersey, and 10 million cubic yards along Delaware shores.
  This project continues to be highly controversial in our states for a 
number of reasons. First, there remain significant environmental 
concerns regarding the material to be dredged and its ultimate disposal 
and impacts on the environment of the Delaware Bay. The Corps of 
engineers has been criticized for its method of evaluating toxic and 
polluted sediments--using an averaging method, which many believe can 
mask the potential impact of dredging toxic hot spots and more 
concentrated polluted material. Our citizens continue to have strong 
concerns about the impacts of dredging and disposal on water quality, 
on drinking water supplies, on important recovering shellfish areas, 
and on the environment in the vicinity of proposed disposal areas.
  A number of members of the New Jersey and Delaware congressional 
delegations and state agencies have made requests to the Corps of 
engineers to address a number of these issues. Earlier this year, 
Representative Andrews and I made a request to the General Accounting 
Office to conduct a review of the cost-benefit and environmental 
analyses in light of many of the concerns that have been raised about 
this

[[Page 17363]]

project. In addition, Representatives Saxton and LoBiondo also sent a 
similar request to the GAO regarding the economic and environmental 
issues regarding the Delaware Deepening project. The GAO responded that 
it could not conduct and complete the study as quickly as would be 
necessary for conclusions to assist in the consideration of the FY 2001 
Energy and Water Development Appropriation.
  I want to state here that I intend to continue to pursue these issues 
and over the course of the next several months to engage the General 
Accounting Office, the Army Inspector General, the Army Corps of 
engineers, and any other appropriate agencies to get answers to the 
questions that I believe are critical to my constituents. For the 
record, Mr. President, I would like to enter into the record copies of 
study requests made by members of the New Jersey delegation to the 
General Accounting regarding the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening 
project.
  If I may address the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, have 
you not also made known your concerns to the Committee on 
Appropriations and to the Army Corps of Engineers?
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and I would answer 
his question, indeed we have.
  In May of this year, Senator Biden and I wrote to the Chairman of the 
energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, indicating that the response of 
the Corps of Engineers to the list of concerns raised by the State of 
Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 
regarding necessary permitting, environmental studies, and 
environmental protection has been entirely inadequate. In our letter, 
we indicated that this project must not proceed until environmental 
information and permitting concerns raised by Delaware's Department of 
Natural Resources and Environmental Control are satisfactorily 
addressed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  As a strong supporter of the Coastal Zone Management Plan, I am 
concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 
channel deepening. I strongly urge the Corps to continue negotiating in 
good faith with the State of Delaware to resolve outstanding 
informational and permitting issues through a legally enforceable 
agreement that will safeguard Delaware's natural resources. If an 
agreement cannot be reached through good faith negotiations, then the 
State of Delaware should pursue this matter in court.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. Does that 
also describe the concerns and sentiments of the Senator from Delaware, 
Senator Biden?
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the senior Senator 
from Delaware for their remarks, and wish to indicate my concurrence 
with the points that they have made. I have had questions about this 
project, the planning process, its economic justification, and the 
potential for environmental harm for a number of years. I further 
understand that the State of Delaware's capital bond bill committee in 
July indicated in writing its intention to withhold all state money for 
the Deepening project until the State's Department of Natural Resources 
and Environmental Control is satisfied and necessary permits obtained.
  I believe we need to continue to pursue a resolution to these 
environmental issues and that the Corps should not move forward to 
construction unless and until appropriate permits have been issued, and 
the Congress has before it the information needed to determine that the 
project is safe and truly justified.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record, several letters from 
the Delaware DNREC which discuss the State's concerns.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 2000.
     Mr. David Walker,
     Controller General, General Accounting Office, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: We are writing to request that a cost-
     benefit and environmental analysis be conducted as soon as 
     possible on plans by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to 
     bring the depth of the Delaware River to 45 feet. This 
     channel deepening project was authorized as part of the Water 
     Resource Development Acts of 1992 (section 101(6)) and 1999 
     (section 308).
       The Plan is estimated to cost $311 million, two-thirds of 
     which would be provided by the federal government. Proponents 
     of the Plan argue that the channel needs to be deepened to 
     accommodate the next generation of cargo ships and that cost 
     saving benefits will be realized by area oil refineries. 
     However, many of our constituents have called into question 
     these benefits and the necessity of channel deepening in 
     keeping the port competitive. Therefore, we are eager to 
     identify the benefits of this project to the nation, and 
     whether these justify the taxpayer cost.
       In addition to this central and legally mandated issue of 
     national benefit, we would like to request an analysis of 
     three additional issues by the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO).
       First, there is a question as to whether the project 
     sponsors have complied with all of the provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental 
     Impact Statement associated with this project appears to be 
     deficient in five ways: (a) there was no assessment of the 
     ecological issues pertaining to the disposal sites for 
     dredged materials because the sites were not identified when 
     the EIS was done: (b) there was no assessment of the impact 
     of any dredging of the private berths of the oil refinery (if 
     any takes place) which is functionally a part of this 
     project; (c) the habitat assessment part of the EIS may not 
     adequately assess the impact of the project on essential fish 
     and oyster habitats; (d) ``used mean values'' (averages) were 
     improperly used to assess the level of toxins in River 
     sediment and in so doing masked the existence of toxic ``hot 
     spots''; and (e) threats to drinking water supplies and water 
     quality have yet to be adequately analyzed and addressed.
       Second, the Delaware dredging project reportedly will 
     produce 33 million cubic yards of dredged materials. Ten 
     million yards are scheduled to be used for beach restoration 
     in the State of Delaware. The remaining 23 million cubic 
     yards will simply be dumped on the New Jersey side of the 
     river.
       With little effort, the planners of this project were able 
     to find a beneficial use for 10 million cubic yards of this 
     material. We are concerned that insufficient efforts has been 
     made to find more beneficial uses for the remaining 23 
     million cubic yards and that New Jersey has been asked to 
     bear too great a burden in its disposal. Thus, we request 
     that the GAO look at both the environmental and economic 
     impacts of placing 23 million cubic yards of dredged 
     materials on the riverfront of these New Jersey communities.
       Third, we also ask the GAO to investigate why almost no 
     commitments have yet been received from the businesses who 
     stand to benefit from this dredging. The argument has been 
     made that this project is necessary to keep shipping commerce 
     on the Delaware River. Yet few of these businesses have made 
     commitments to dredge their ports on the Delaware River to 
     match the depth of the main channel. If these businesses 
     truly need this project, we are curious as to why they are 
     not also working to make room for the larger ships this 
     project is meant to accommodate.
       As you can see, there are still many questions to be 
     answered regarding this project. Time is of the essence. 
     Congress will consider as part of its FY 2001 Appropriations 
     cycle future funding for this project. It is imperative that 
     this project receive objective scrutiny by the GAO 
     immediately. We offer our assistance in any way possible to 
     facilitate a cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of 
     environmental impacts in a timely manner. Thank you in 
     advance for your efforts and we look forward to your report.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert G. Torricelli,
                                            United States Senator.
                                                Robert E. Andrews,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                     U.S. Environmental Protection


                                             Agency, Region 2,

                                      New York, NY, June 30, 1999.
     Mr. Robert Callegeri,
     Director, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/
         Philadelphia District, Wanamaker Building, Philadelphia 
         PA.
       Dear Mr. Callegeri: I am writing in reference to the 
     proposed Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project. In 
     particular, we have recently become aware of potential issues 
     associated with the project through letters from the Delaware 
     River keeper, and discussions stemming from the April 16, 
     1999 forum facilitated by the Delaware River Basin 
     Commission, as well as the June 11, 1999 meeting convened by 
     Congressman Castle's office.
       We have carefully considered these issues. For the most 
     part, we do not believe that they necessitate revising the 
     conclusions reached in the previous environmental impact 
     statement (EIS) process for the project. However, we believe 
     that the following two

[[Page 17364]]

     issues require further consideration and effort prior to the 
     project proceeding: the project's benefit/cost (B/C) ratio 
     and environmental issues raised which may not have been fully 
     evaluated or resolved during the prior planning process.
       With regard to the project's B/C ratio, the original 
     project scope included six petroleum facilities as project 
     beneficiaries. Consequently, the benefits to these facilities 
     were included in the project's B/C ratio. However, we have 
     seen no documentation that any of these facilities plan to 
     dredge their private channels. To the contrary, the limited 
     documentation we have indicates that one or more of the 
     petroleum companies believe that it is not in their best 
     economic interest to participate. Accordingly, we would like 
     to see additional documentation showing any commitments made 
     by the companies involved and more explanation of how their 
     participation (or lack thereof) affects the B/C ratio 
     calculations. Moreover, if these facilities are not committed 
     to participate, we would argue that the scope of the project 
     would be modified, which would require the Corps' to 
     recalculate the B/C ratio.
       In addition to the economic questions, numerous 
     environmental concerns about the project continue to be 
     raised. While we believe that many of these concerns have 
     been adequately addressed through the prior EIS process, 
     there may be a need for additional environmental analyses for 
     certain issues not fully covered in the prior EIS 
     documentation. For example, impacts related to the dredging 
     of the private facilities discussed above and several port 
     facilities owned or operated by the local sponsors, and 
     potential impacts associated with the development of new 
     sites for dredged material disposal were not fully evaluated 
     in the original EIS. Accordingly, these activities will have 
     to be evaluated under NEPA.
       Our final concern about the project relates to the 
     potential impacts associated with the dredging and disposal 
     operations. EPA, however, believes that these impacts can, 
     and should, be addressed through the development of specific 
     monitoring/management plans for the various dredging and 
     disposal phases of the project. The plans should be developed 
     to address specific goals and objectives designed to detect 
     and prevent adverse impacts from the proposed dredging and 
     disposal operations. At a minimum, monitoring for turbidity 
     changes using in situ recording devices during dredging and 
     disposal operations, bathymetry and sediment profiling 
     imagery at the aquatic disposal locations, and ground water 
     monitoring should be included. Additionally, the monitoring/
     management plans should provide for appropriate contingency 
     actions in the event that unforeseen circumstances (e.g., 
     high levels of contaminants) are encountered during the 
     dredging and disposal operations. We are available to assist 
     as necessary in the development of monitoring/management 
     plans. At the very least, we request the opportunity to 
     review such plans as they are being developed. Furthermore, 
     the monitoring/management plans must be in place prior to the 
     start of any dredging activity.
       We look forward to working with you as this project 
     progresses. Should you have any questions concerning this 
     letter, please contact Mark Westrate of my staff at (212) 
     637-3789.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Robert W. Hargrove,
     Chief, Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2000.
     Mr. David Walker,
     Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting 
         Office, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: On May 2, 2000, Representative Robert 
     Andrews and Senator Robert Torricelli wrote to you requesting 
     the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the cost-benefit 
     and environmental analysis of the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineer's (USACE) project to dredge the Delaware River to 45 
     feet. In addition, they asked you to evaluate whether the 
     Corps of Engineers has complied with all provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act, the environmental and 
     economic impacts of placing 23 million cubic yards of dredged 
     materials on the New Jersey riverfront, and why almost no 
     commitments to deepen their side channels have been received 
     from the oil refineries who are identified as receiving 80% 
     of the projects benefits. We support the request by 
     Representative Andrews and Senator Torricelli, and ask that 
     you address several other critical issues dealing with the 
     accuracy of the USACE's study of this project.
       Throughout this project, oil facilities located along the 
     Delaware have been identified as the major beneficiaries. 
     However, five of the six facilities have made no commitment 
     to invest the funds necessary to deepen their side-channels 
     and have indicated they are unlikely to do so. Therefore, we 
     request the GAO to recalculate the cost-benefit ratio of this 
     project if the oil facilities do not deepen their side-
     channels.
       The USACE has identified other potential beneficiaries of 
     the deepening project to include the Port of Philadelphia and 
     Camden. We ask that the GAO utilize its expertise in port 
     infrastructure and competitiveness and conduct a study 
     focusing on shipping trends in the North Atlantic Region. In 
     particular, we request the GAO to evaluate the viability of 
     the Port of Philadelphia and Camden becoming a major regional 
     hub port for deep draft container ships if the Delaware River 
     were deepened from 40 to 45 feet. There is no guarantee that 
     the new generation of container ships will ever call at the 
     Port of Philadelphia and Camden at a depth of 45 feet.
       In addition, studies prepared by the USACE Waterways 
     Experiment Station (WES) to determine the potential for 
     saltwater flow into the C&D Canal and the Delaware River may 
     have reached inappropriate conclusions to minimize potential 
     environmental impacts of the project. The studies have since 
     been sent back to the WES for reanalysis. We ask that the GAO 
     investigate discrepancies between the studies and determine 
     how they came about. We would also like the GAO to examine 
     all current Corps studies on the Delaware River Deepening 
     Project to determine if similar discrepancies exist.
       This information will be critical in helping Congress 
     determine whether the project's national economic benefits 
     are sufficient enough to invest over $200 million. Since 
     Congress will consider future funding for this project in the 
     FY2001 appropriations cycle, it is essential this project 
     receive objective scrutiny by the GAO immediately. We offer 
     our assistance in any way possible to facilitate a cost-
     benefit analysis, evaluate of environmental impacts, and a 
     review of the accuracy of the USACE studies of this project 
     in a timely manner. Thank you for your efforts and we look 
     forward to your report.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Saxton,
       Member of Congress,
     Frank A. LoBiondo,
       Member of Congress.
                                  ____

         Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
           Control,
                                        Dover, DE, March 31, 2000.
     LTC Debra M. Lewis,
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building, 
         Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Lieutenant Colonel Lewis: I am writing to follow up on 
     our numerous conversations and correspondence regarding the 
     proposed deepening of the Delaware River Main Channel. I 
     appreciate your willingness to address these issues and to 
     work constructively with the State of Delaware to ensure that 
     this project will not go forward unless it complies with our 
     environmental laws and that any environmental impacts from 
     this project will be minimal.
       This letter summarizes the remaining environmental issues 
     that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
     Control (DNREC) believes need resolution. In particular, it 
     is essential that the Corps demonstrate conclusively that the 
     project will comply with State of Delaware Surface Water 
     Quality Standards, the Wetlands Act, and the requirements of 
     the Subaqueous Lands Act. We also are beginning to formulate 
     the requirements for testing and monitoring that would apply 
     before, during, and after completion of the project should it 
     move forward.
       As you are aware, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration regulations (15 CFR 930) require that this 
     project be consistent with the Delaware Coastal Management 
     Program (DCMP) policies. That program issued a conditional 
     Federal Consistency determination to the Corps on 1 May 1997. 
     The extensive scope of this project necessitated that DCMP 
     review the project in phases. Now that the final design and 
     specification phase is underway, it is an appropriate time to 
     address remaining issues regarding the project. The 
     conditional approvals did not obviate the need to meet the 
     substantive requirements of other state permits.
       The outstanding issues include construction of material 
     placement facilities, placement of sandy dredged material on 
     beaches, the wetland creation project at Kelly Island, 
     various monitoring and reporting requirements, fisheries 
     concerns, and future maintenance burdens for the project.


            I. Construction of Confined Disposal Facilities

       Prior to any construction, it will be necessary to identify 
     and describe in detail the functions of all confined disposal 
     facilities (CDFs) to be used for the project--whether located 
     within the land area of the State of Delaware or discharging 
     into Delaware waters. It is our understanding that the only 
     Delaware-land sites slated for use are Reedy Point North and 
     South, both currently in existence. This list identifying the 
     disposal sites must include a description of the current 
     status of each site, expected future capacity, amount of 
     material to be deposited during the initial dredging cycle, 
     and ability to accept material for future maintenance cycles. 
     Additionally, there must be reasonable assurance that the 
     site is designed and operated in a manner which can ensure 
     compliance with Delaware State Water Quality Standards. The 
     rationale and justification supporting this assurance must be 
     provided in detail.
       In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control plan is 
     required from the Division of

[[Page 17365]]

     Soil & Water for any landward disturbance of 5000 square feet 
     or more. Several of the principles regarding erosion and 
     sediment control are included for general reference:
       An approved erosion and sediment control plan must be 
     followed. Any modifications to the plan must be approved as 
     revisions to the approved plan.
       Any site or portion thereof on which a land-disturbing 
     activity is completed or stopped for a period of fourteen 
     days must be stabilized either permanently or temporarily 
     following the specifications and standards in the Erosion and 
     Sediment Control Handbook.
       Unless an exception is approved, not more than 20 acres may 
     be cleared at any one time in order to minimize areas of 
     exposed ground cover and reduce erosion rates.
       A land-disturbing activity shall not cause increased 
     sedimentation or accelerated erosion off-site. Off-site means 
     neighboring properties, drainageways, public facilities, 
     public rights-of-ways or streets, and water courses including 
     streams, lakes, wetlands, etc.
       More specific criteria for vegetation and berm 
     stabilization can be found in the Delaware Erosion and 
     Sediment Control Handbook for Development.
       The Corps must also comply with any additional requirements 
     of the State NPDES program. A permit regulating the discharge 
     of effluent from the CDFs is likely. Additional NPDES Storm 
     Water Regulations apply, since a NPDES certification is 
     required for land disturbing activities. The ``Regulations 
     Governing Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial 
     Activity, Part 2--Special Conditions for Storm Water 
     Associated with Land Disturbing Activities'' (1998) states 
     that ``Land disturbing activities shall not commence and 
     coverage under this Part shall not apply until the Sediment 
     and Stormwater Management Plan for a site has been approved, 
     stamped, signed and dated . . .''.


           2. Placement of sandy dredged material on beaches

       To date, DNREC has not received official word of which 
     beaches have been chosen to receive sand from the southern 
     portion of the project. This information should be made 
     available as soon as it is determined so that we can evaluate 
     the permits and requirements needed. Please be advised that 
     DNREC expects that consideration be given to a number of 
     shoreline locations previously unnourished. A Section 401 
     Water Quality Certification and State Subaqueous Lands permit 
     will be necessary for beach nourishment activities. Our 
     intent is to ensure that state Water Quality Standards are 
     met. DNREC also wants to ensure that beach replenishment 
     activities will not take place during critical horseshoe crab 
     spawning periods (April 15-June 30). Also, sand placement 
     activities should not use barriers (i.e. silt fences, 
     bulkheads, rocks, etc.) that would interfere with spawning.


        3. Wetland creation/enhancement project at Kelly Island

       DNREC anticipates coordinating with the Corps on the final 
     design and monitoring plan for Kelly Island at a meeting on 5 
     April 2000. However, the following describes general 
     principles which would be applicable regardless of the 
     specific design criteria.
       An Erosion and Sediment Control plan is required from the 
     Division of Soil & Water Conservation. The general 
     requirements are listed above under item 1.
       The Corps must also comply with any additional requirements 
     of the State NPDES program. This includes the NPDES Storm 
     Water Regulations as well as the State Sediment and 
     Stormwater Regulations, since a NPDES certification is 
     required for land disturbing activities.
       Because the beneficial use project at Kelly Island will 
     take place in an existing wetland area, a Wetlands Permit 
     will be required from the Division of Water Resources. In 
     addition, a Subaqueous Lands Lease will also be necessary. 
     There are several standard conditions for mitigation projects 
     which should apply to the wetland creation/enhancement taking 
     place at that site. For example, standard mitigation projects 
     must demonstrate 85% survival of the planted vegetation after 
     the second growing season. If 85% is not achieved then a 
     report outlining corrective action must be submitted. Other 
     parameters for stabilization and flow should be developed by 
     Corps engineers and submitted to DNREC for final review and 
     approval.
       The Corps must also commit to maintaining the integrity of 
     the created site at Kelly Island and to do what is necessary 
     to evaluate and ensure the function of the new/enhanced 
     wetland area. In addition, the beach constructed at the 
     perimeter must be able to withstand a significant storm 
     event. The project should be examined and monitored annually 
     in order to ensure berm stability, vegetation viability, 
     flushing, and general ``success'' of revitalizing the wetland 
     habitat at that site. A monitoring report to this effect will 
     be required annually.
       The DNREC, Division of Fish and Wildlife, has concerns 
     about increased silt load and sedimentation of adjacent 
     oyster habitat during construction of the perimeter sand sill 
     at Kelly Island and while the confined disposal area is being 
     filled. Seed beds of concern include ``Drum Bed,'' ``Silver 
     Bed,'' and ``Pleasanton's Rock,'' as these are the closest 
     seed beds to Kelly Island. Should an impact be noted on these 
     beds, it would indicate a need to monitor ``Ridge Bed'' which 
     is farther from the project area but has historically been 
     very productive.
       Monitoring of oyster population conditions and habitat 
     quality should begin prior to construction and continue 
     throughout. Checking for changes in sedimentation patterns 
     should be extensive and focused at broad areas of each bed 
     rather than be limited to discrete sections. In addition, it 
     may be necessary to monitor oyster habitat on leased grounds 
     south of the Mahon River mouth as they may be impacted by 
     sediments moved south by ebb tide currents.


                      4. Monitoring and reporting

     Monitoring at confined disposal facilities
       Monitoring of confined disposal facilities (CDFs) must be 
     performed to determine whether return flows from the CDFs 
     cause or contribute to violations of Delaware Surface Water 
     Quality Standards. This is an issue of concern for the 
     Department because CDFs often discharge return flows into 
     ecologically sensitive, shallow water habitats which have 
     limited dilution and dispersion capacity. To evaluate whether 
     return flows are causing or contributing to violations of the 
     Standards, the Corps will need to collect data on flow rate, 
     duration, concentration, and toxicity of CDF discharges and 
     then determine the resulting concentration and toxicity in 
     the receiving water through a combination of fate and 
     transport modeling and in-stream sampling. Both near-field 
     (i.e., mixing zone) and far-field (i.e., complete mix) 
     concentrations and toxicity resulting from the discharges 
     must be determined and compared to applicable Standards.
       Sampling and analysis for the CDF should follow the general 
     approach taken by the Corps in evaluating the Pedricktown CDF 
     (i.e., ``Pedricktown Confined Disposal Facility Contaminant 
     Loading and Water Quality Analysis,'' June 1999). The Corps 
     will need to submit a sampling plan/scope of work to the 
     Department for review and approval prior to proceeding with 
     this work and prior to discharging from the CDFs. Close out 
     reports detailing the findings of the sampling and analysis 
     will also need to be submitted to the Department for review 
     and approval. If violations of applicable Standards are 
     identified, then the close out report should identify the 
     steps the Corps intends to take in order to eliminate future 
     violations. Based upon the findings of the initial studies, 
     the Department will determine the nature and extent of 
     subsequent testing that will need to be performed at the CDFs 
     in order to assess compliance with Delaware Surface Water 
     Quality Standards.
       In addition to the testing described above, the Corps will 
     also need to collect contaminant data for surface sediments 
     in the CDFs and assess potential impacts to terrestrial and 
     avian species that may use the disposal areas. A plan to 
     accomplish this work should be submitted to the Department 
     for review and approval, as should a close out report. If 
     unacceptable risks are identified as a result of this 
     assessment, then the Corps will need to develop a plan to 
     limit access to the site.
       Finally, the Corps will need to submit an annual letter to 
     the Department which summarizes the operational history and 
     structural integrity of any CDF used over the previous year. 
     The letter should address the following factors:
       Condition of containment berms, dewatering and stormwater 
     weirs, and other structures.
       Summary of disposal operations at the CDF over the past 
     year, including volumes of material placed into the CDF, as 
     well as volumes, mass loading, duration, and timing of return 
     flows.
       Summary of maintenance and management activities conducted 
     at the CDF.
       Summary of any material removed from the site.
       Analysis of available remaining disposal capacity at the 
     site.
       Summary of surface and groundwater monitoring programs not 
     otherwise covered in the study identified above.
     Monitoring during dredging operation
       It will be necessary to monitor during dredging operations 
     in order to ensure that the predictions of ``no significant 
     impacts'' are fulfilled. Therefore, the Corps should submit a 
     sampling plan to the Department for review and approval.
       Measuring the exact position of the dredge at all times is 
     essential to ensuring that the channel and bends are deepened 
     based upon the footprint of the original project. Sampling in 
     the water column surrounding the excavation will require, at 
     a minimum, collection of data on total suspended solids 
     concentrations, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and any 
     contaminants of concern identified in the pre-dredge 
     evaluation. Suspended solids must be maintained between 25 
     and 250 mg/l at the edge of a two-hundred foot regulatory 
     mixing zone in order to meet water quality standards, 
     according to the report Metal Contamination of Sediments in 
     the Delaware River Navigation Channel (Greene, 1999). The 
     results from all sampling data must be compared to applicable 
     Delaware Surface Water Quality Standards, and any exceedances 
     must be reported immediately.
       The Corps must also work with DNREC to develop a protocol 
     that will come into effect

[[Page 17366]]

     if water quality violations are identified. This would 
     include events where total suspended solids are higher than 
     those determined to be sustainable around the point of 
     excavation.
       Additionally, the Corps must follow established protocol if 
     turtles, sturgeon, or other species of concern are identified 
     in the dredge slurry or if there is indication that these 
     species are excessively impacted.
       Standard best management practices should be used to the 
     extent practicable during the dredging operation in order to 
     minimize sediment suspension, impacts to aquatic organisms, 
     and water quality exceedances.
       If the Corps intends to use the practice of economic 
     loading during the Main Channel Deepening project, this must 
     be discussed with the DNREC. Permission must be granted for 
     economic loading and will be limited by geographical location 
     and material characteristics. Additional monitoring will also 
     be required.
     Bi-Annual Reporting
       In addition to the annual reporting information stated 
     above, I request that the Secretary of DNREC receive a bi-
     annual report detailing the progress of the Main Channel 
     Deepening project, including the locations dredged in the 
     previous twelve months, the status and capacity of CDFs, and 
     any unforeseen consequences and their remedies. I would 
     expect members of my staff to be in regular contact with 
     their peers at the Corps in order to ensure that the project 
     satisfies the requirements of the State of Delaware's laws, 
     regulations, and standards.


               5. Fisheries and living resource concerns

       Aquatic species of concern include sea turtles, several 
     species of whales, and shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, along 
     with several others. The Corps must follow the recommended 
     dredging windows as established by the Delaware River Basin 
     Fish and Wildlife Cooperative and as reported in the 1997 
     Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
       In addition, the following concerns from the Division of 
     Fish and Wildlife must be addressed:
       Striped bass spawning is a concern from the Delaware 
     Memorial Bridge to Philadelphia April 15 to June 15. The 
     Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Cooperative May 1997 policy 
     entitled ``Seasonal restrictions for dredging, blasting and 
     overboard disposal in the mainstream of the Delaware River'' 
     should be followed in order to protect anadromous spawners 
     such as striped bass.
       Atlantic sturgeon spawning sites are located over rocky 
     bottom in the deepest portion of the river. Spawning season 
     is April 15 to June 15. Because the eggs adhere to the hard 
     surfaces, rock should not be blasted or removed from the 
     river through the end of June to protect sturgeon eggs and 
     larvae.
       Atlantic sturgeon wintering areas are located from 
     Artificial Island to Chester, Pennsylvania.
       An observer should be placed on hopper dredges to monitor 
     for sturgeon impacts on overwintering fish in the wintering 
     areas.
       The Corps will need an ``incidental take statement'' from 
     NMFS as required under the Endangered Species Act for sea 
     turtles and shortnose sturgeon. The Corps should ensure that 
     their agreement with NMFS reflects the most up-to-date 
     requirements. A copy of this statement should be provided to 
     the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
       In addition, a turtle observer should be on board the 
     dredge during the period of the year when sea turtles are 
     known to be present in our area. The report from this 
     observer, as well as any identified turtle parts, should be 
     forwarded to the Division of Fish and Wildlife as well.


                         6. Future Maintenance

       If the Main Channel is deepened, there will be increased 
     volumes of material removed during each maintenance cycle in 
     order to achieve the project depth. This material will place 
     additional burden on existing disposal areas, causing them to 
     fill at a more rapid rate than with the forty-foot project 
     depth. As a result, new disposal facilities must be sited or 
     beneficial uses must be developed for the material currently 
     contained in the facilities. The Corps must be prepared to 
     address dredged material placement needs in the context of 
     future maintenance related to the proposed deepening.
       We look forward to continuing our dialogue and working to 
     resolve the above issues before any plans for actual 
     construction take place. As the Department of Natural 
     Resources and Environmental Control, it is our mission to 
     ensure that projects are designed to avoid or minimize 
     adverse impacts on air and water quality, habitat, and living 
     resources. The above requests and requirements are in keeping 
     with this charge as it applies to the proposed deepening of 
     the Delaware River Main Channel.
           Sincerely,
                                           Nicholas A. DiPasquale,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

         Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
           Control,
                                         Dover, DE, July 14, 2000.
     LTC Debra M. Lewis,
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wanamaker Building, 
         Philadelphia, PA.
     Re: Delaware River Main Channel Deepening Project
       Dear Lieutenant Colonel Lewis: The Department of Natural 
     Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) has reviewed your 
     letter of June 9, 2000 and the updated matrix entitled 
     ``Assessment of Environmental Issues'' that you provided in 
     response to my March 31, 2000 letter regarding the deepening 
     of the Delaware River Main Channel. This letter also 
     addresses issues raised in your most recent correspondence to 
     me of July 9, 2000. Let me begin by thanking you and your 
     staff for meeting with me and members of my staff, discussing 
     our concerns and providing the organized response. Overall, 
     we appear to be in agreement on the means to resolve many 
     issues. Clarifications of DNREC requirements for specific 
     issues are outlined below. We still have several remaining 
     concerns.
       The following are comments from the Department regarding 
     the matrix ``Assessment of Environmental Issues.'' Comments 
     are organized by section.

     1.0  CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES
           1.1 & 1.2  The Corps will need to follow the 
             requirements for Delaware permit processing, 
             regardless of the eventual enforcement mechanism. 
             DNREC uses EPA Application Form 1--General 
             Information; EPA Application Form 2D--New Sources and 
             New Discharges and EPA Application Form 2E--
             Facilities Which Do Not Discharge Process Wastewater 
             to collect information to control discharges such as 
             those from CDFs. These forms must be filled out and 
             submitted to the Division of Water Resources for all 
             discharges that could impact Delaware waters. Copies 
             are attached.
           1.3  Procedures for effluent monitoring must be 
             submitted to DNREC for review and comment. This 
             should be sent along with the information required 
             for permit processing (above). State of Delaware 
             water quality standards attached.
           1.4  It appears that DNREC's concern for contaminants 
             might be deferred until post project. DNREC's 
             original comment reflected two concerns: potential 
             contaminant discharge during de-watering and 
             potential longer term impacts after de-watering. 
             These concerns need by addressed by the Corps before 
             the project commences.
     2.0  SAND PLACEMENT ON DELAWARE BEACHES
           2.1  See Attachment A for a list of Delaware's 
             preferred locations for sand placement.
           The FEIS does not address the impacts of placing 
             material on Delaware beaches. The EIS will not be 
             complete until it is amended to address this issue.
           2.2  It is unclear from your response whether you 
             intend to apply for Subaqueous Lands permits. Does 
             your acknowledgement of 401 Water Quality 
             Certification requirements include agreement on 
             Subaqueous Lands permits? A Subaqueous Lands permit 
             or its enforceable equivalent is needed.
           2.3  DNREC is satisfied with the agreement regarding 
             horseshoe crab protection measures.
     3.0  WETLAND CREATION/ENHANCEMENT
           3.1  If tidal wetlands are to be impacted during the 
             construction of Kelly Island, the substantive 
             requirements of a State of Delaware wetlands permit 
             must be obtained before any work can commence.
           If the de-watering of Kelly Island necessitates a 
             discharge into surface waters, the Crops will be 
             required to complete the same application forms 
             required for CDFs.
           3.2  DNREC will continue working with the Corps until a 
             final wetland design plan can be approved. Work 
             cannot commence until this plan is finalized. 
             Regardless of what the Kelly Island project is 
             referred to, we are targeting the survival rates 
             outlined in the March 31, 2000 letter as measures of 
             success.
           3.3  A post-construction monitoring plan to ensure 
             protection of water quality standards must be 
             developed by the Corps and submitted to DNREC for 
             review and approval before the project can commence. 
             In addition, the Corps must clarify how long it 
             intends to maintain the beach constructed in front of 
             the wetland area.
           3.4  A Subaqueous Lands permit or its enforceable 
             equivalent is required.
     4.0  OYSTER HABITAT MONITORING
           DNREC is awaiting the final oyster-monitoring plan from 
             the Corps for review and comment. The monitoring plan 
             should include widespread measures of sediment 
             coverage.
     5.0  WATER QUALITY MONITORING
           DNREC requires that a sampling plan at the point of 
             dredging be submitted for review and comment. This 
             plan is to include steps to be taken if TSS exceeds 
             250 mg/l.

[[Page 17367]]


           Corps regulations require that an EIS address water 
             quality impacts in states adjoining areas where side 
             channels and berthing areas are to be dredged. The 
             Corps is to assist the states where this dredging is 
             to occur in obtaining Section 401 Water Quality 
             Certification from the State where there could be 
             adverse impacts on water quality. The Corps has not 
             done this for the dredging that will occur at Marcus 
             Hook.
     6.0  ENDANGERED SPECIES
           6.1  DNREC requires the submission of protocols for 
             monitoring potential impacts to sea turtles and 
             short-nose sturgeon for review and comment before the 
             project commences.
           6.2  DNREC is satisfied with agreements regarding 
             protections of sea turtles.
     7.0  DREDGING
           7.1  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows.
           7.2  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows for striped bass.
           7.3  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows for Atlantic sturgeon.
           7.4  DNREC is satisfied regarding adherence to dredging 
             windows for Atlantic sturgeon.
           7.5  DNREC is satisfied regarding Atlantic sturgeon 
             overwintering monitoring for hopper dredge 
             activities.
           7.6  The extent of economic loading needs to be 
             finalized and approved by DNREC before the project 
             can commence.
           * Please note final comments regarding female 
             overwintering blue crabs.
     8.0 REPORTING
           8.1.  An outline for the CDF Annual Operational Report 
             must be submitted to DNREC for review and comment 
             before the project may commence.
           A description of current CDF site conditions must also 
             be submitted.
           8.2  DNREC is satisfied with agreements for bi-annual 
             progress reporting.
           8.3  DNREC is satisfied with agreements for CDF 
             capacity for maintenance.

             follow the recommended dredging windows as 
       establishedPlease share with us as soon as possible the 
     Corps' proposed dredging schedule and dredging techniques. 
     Over the past years, we have discussed many dredging closure 
     windows and investigated the impacts of economic loading. If 
     the Corps plans to dredge the lower Delaware Bay during the 
     winter, we need to know what measures will be put in place to 
     avoid and reduce impacts to overwintering female blue crabs. 
     During cold winters female blue crabs hibernate in the 
     channel, particularly on the channel sides. They may be 
     torpid and unable to move away from the dredge as stated in 
     the Supplemental EIS. This, combined with the possibility of 
     economic loading depositing a burdensome amount of sediment 
     on top of them, should be accounted for and avoided. This 
     most important fishery must be protected.
       Also, we have gotten conflicting information regarding the 
     final quality of rock available after blasting. As you may be 
     aware, our conditional consistency determination required the 
     Corps to make this rock available to Delaware for habitat 
     improvement. This rock is a resource that belongs to 
     Delaware. Placement of rock in Delaware's eleven permitted 
     reef sites could serve as partial mitigation for unavoidable 
     fisheries impacts sustained during the dredging process.
       Additionally, a preliminary DNREC review of berthing area 
     sediment toxicity data has shown contamination levels of 
     concern. We are just now bringing this issue up because of 
     the length of time it took the Corps to provide the requested 
     data and the time it took our staff to convert the raw data 
     to an electronic format to facilitate analysis. I trust you 
     have shared this information with the state environmental 
     agencies of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is our 
     understanding that Corps regulations and Section 401 of the 
     Clean Water Act require that an EIS address water quality 
     impacts in states adjoining areas where side channel berthing 
     areas are to be dredged and that the Corps is to assist 
     states to obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification from 
     the affected state. DNREC requests that you document 
     potential effects to waters of the State of Delaware from 
     dredging activities in side channel/berthing areas in 
     adjoining states.
       Finally, as previously discussed on numerous occasions and 
     as we have maintained over the past decade, the State of 
     Delaware continues to assert that the Corps is subject to 
     state permitting requirements for this project. We have 
     provided your legal and technical staff with appropriate 
     statutory and regulatory requirements and permit application 
     forms. Before we will entertain any further discussion about 
     alternative mechanisms for satisfying these remaining 
     environmental and regulatory requirements, the U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers must provide to the Delaware Department of 
     Natural Resources and Environmental Control a written legal 
     justification that articulates why the Corps should be exempt 
     from applying for required State of Delaware permits.
           Sincerely,
                                           Nicholas A. DiPasquale,
                                                        Secretary.


                 Solar and Renewable Energy Activities

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee for including $43.617 million for Solar and 
Renewable Energy activities, and to discuss briefly a renewable energy 
project in my home state of North Dakota.
  One of the most abundant sources of energy in the Upper Great Plains 
region is wind. My State of North Dakota ranks first in wind power 
production potential, and the Department of Energy has said that North 
Dakota alone could capture enough wind energy to supply 36 percent of 
the power needs of the lower 48 States. Not only does wind offer a 
clean and inexpensive form of energy, it also could provide our rural 
residents with an important source of income. DOE estimates that a 
1,000-acre farm could earn as much as $80,000 per year in wind 
royalties.
  One wind energy initiative of particular interest to me is being 
conducted on the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation by the Center for 
New Growth and Economic Development at the Turtle Mountain Community 
College. I had hoped that the Committee would have designated $1 
million for this project, but the Subcommittee's current allocation was 
not at a level to accommodate funding for new start-up projects in the 
renewable energy accounts.
  I recognize that it is difficult to speculate about what the final 
budget allocation for this bill might allow, but I would ask the 
chairman and the ranking minority member to consider designating $1 
million for this project in conference should additional funds for the 
programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction become available.
  Mr. REID. I recognize the importance of wind energy development not 
only for North Dakota but also for the other states that might benefit 
from North Dakota's ability to harness this great resource. This 
project discussed by the Senator from North Dakota is particularly 
unique since it is being conducted by Native Americans in an effort to 
reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and to become more financially 
self-sufficient. Although we do not know, as the Senator points out, 
what our final allocation may be, the Senator can be assured that I 
will do my best to see that this initiative is funded, should the 
Subcommittee's allocation allow additional projects.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is my understanding that the funds being requested 
by the Senator would be used for a wind turbine and for educational 
purposes such as teaching others on the reservation and in the region 
how to establish and maintain ``wind farms''.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. The Center 
for New Growth and Economic Development will work with Turtle Mountain 
Community College to develop a curriculum on ``windsmithing'' so that 
others can learn the trade of wind energy. The Turtle Mountain Chippewa 
Reservation is located in the middle of a natural wind tunnel so this 
is a natural place to develop expertise relating to wind energy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for this 
explanation, and agree that this Center has potential to provide an 
innovative approach to an old technology--the windmill.


       advanced technologies institute, university of connecticut

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
Senator Reid, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Water 
Appropriations Committee.
  I want to raise an issue and briefly discuss an amendment that I 
filed regarding the University of Connecticut. The amendment requests 
that the Department of Energy release $7.9 million that was originally 
appropriated in 1993 for the construction of an Advanced Technologies 
Institute at the University of Connecticut. Because of initial

[[Page 17368]]

problems with the siting of the facility, the University was granted 
no-cost extensions for the award. The problems have since been resolved 
and the University is ready to break ground. I believe that the 
University of Connecticut, like other institutions, may, without 
Congressional action, lose out on the receipt of money that was already 
set aside for them. It is my understanding that the Senate, in its 
wisdom, has resolved similar situations in recent months. I would ask 
the chairman and ranking member to continue to work with me to try and 
rectify the situation with the University of Connecticut.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from 
Connecticut has said. I would like to work with him on this issue as we 
move to Conference on this bill. Several of our colleagues have had 
similar problems with other projects and I will continue to work with 
the Senator from Connecticut as we move to Conference.


            great lakes sediment tributary transport models

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes 
Task Force, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself want to 
take this opportunity to reiterate our support for a program of great 
interest to our colleagues from the Great Lakes states.
  Section 516(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to construct sediment transport 
models for major tributaries of the Great Lakes. This is a project 
aimed at the prevention end of a complex of sediment-related problems 
in the Great Lakes region--problems which are costing this country 
millions of dollars each year to remediate. The potential benefits of 
these models are such that they will pay for themselves in terms of 
reduced dredging and disposal costs. The benefits of the program are 
well-recognized nationally; the program is being used as a template for 
a similar authorization for the Upper Mississippi river system. In 
addition to their uses to the Corps of Engineers in planning for 
dredging needs of the region and development of cost-effective 
alternatives to dredging, the tributary transport models are made 
available to local, state and federal partners involved in nonpoint 
source pollution control to help target their efforts to prevent 
erosion which results in sedimentation of harbors and channels. A total 
of approximately sixty Great Lakes tributaries qualify under the 
authorization guidelines, 25 of which are considered high priority 
based on their current dredging needs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in each of fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999 the 
Congress was able to provide $500,000 for this project--funds which 
were spent to begin construction of models for six priority 
tributaries. Models of the Nemadji River, and Saginaw River have been 
completed, but lack of funding in fiscal 2000 has delayed completion of 
models of the Maumee River, Menominee River, Buffalo River, and Grand 
Calumet River. Plans to begin development of additional models for 
priority tributaries in Mill & Cascade Creeks, PA and Grand River, MI 
have also been delayed. With the first models just finishing 
completion, we are already seeing the benefits of the program. In the 
case of the Nemadji River model, the county government is starting to 
use the model to explore potential effects of changes to forestry 
practices in the Nemadji River watershed to reduce bank erosion and 
soil loss to Lake Superior. Preliminary analysis carried out on the 
Maumee model indicate that soil conservation can reduce future dredging 
and disposal costs.
  We note that the House Committee has provided $500,000 in fiscal 2001 
funding for the modeling program and ask the distinguished ranking 
member to make funding for this program a high priority in conference 
with the House.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues from the 
Great Lakes states for highlighting the importance of this program and 
its potential for long-term cost. And to the extent that resources are 
available, I will do my best to address the funding needs of this 
program in Conference.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the chairman for his consideration and 
congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee for presenting the Senate with an Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill which addresses so many of this 
nation's water resources infrastructure needs.


                            low lake levels

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to ask my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico and Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Domenici, if he is aware of a serious 
problem facing Ohio and the entire Great Lakes region. For the last 2 
years, water levels in the Great Lakes have been declining rapidly. 
This year, the water level fell below low water datum for the first 
time in nearly 35 years.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am aware of the extreme low water 
level problem and understand the difficulties that the Great Lakes 
region is facing as a result.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, dredging in Great Lakes harbors and 
navigation channels is authorized by reference to low water datum. 
During periods of extremely low water, like those today, lake levels 
drop below low water datum. These low water levels not only threaten to 
cripple Great Lakes industries that depend on waterborne 
transportation, but they also create a serious threat to the safety of 
the thousands of recreational and commercial boaters on the Lakes. 
Would my colleague from New Mexico agree that the Corps should ensure 
minimal operation depths consistent with the original authorized depths 
and current use of the channels and harbors when Great Lakes water 
levels are below the International Great Lakes Datum of 1985?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that the corps should work 
toward this goal recognizing the constrained nature of the operation 
and maintenance budget recommended for fiscal year 2001 and existing 
traffic using the system.


     great lakes remedial action planning assistance and sediment 
                 remediation technology demonstrations

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 
2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, we would like to 
bring to the attention of the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
the critical problem which the Great Lakes region faces in dealing with 
a legacy of sediment contamination.
  In 1987, the International Joint Commission designated 43 Areas of 
Concern on the Great Lakes where human use of the aquatic resources is 
severely impaired. Of the 31 U.S. sites, none have been cleaned up to 
the point of de-listing in the 13 years which have passed since 
listing. In most cases, the remaining recalcitrant problem is sediments 
which are contaminated with persistent toxic substances.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the Army Corps of Engineers plays a key 
role in addressing the contaminated sediments problem in the Great 
Lakes region. Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1990 authorized the Corps of Engineers to provide technical assistance 
to the Remedial Action Planning Committees for each of the Areas of 
Concern. This technical assistance is critical to developing a cost-
effective and scientifically sound approach to cleanup. One of the 
largest obstacles to cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Great 
Lakes region is the lack of availability of alternative technologies 
for remediation of contaminated sediments. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 amended Section 401 allowing technical 
assistance funds to be used for the development and demonstration of 
promising new remediation technologies.
  Since 1990, Congress has provided a total of just $3.25 million for 
the Section 401 program. Funding has never exceeded $500,000 in any 
fiscal year, a level far too low to support even a single technology 
demonstration while maintaining key technical assistance capabilities.
  We note that the House Committee has provided $600,000 in fiscal 2001 
funding for the Section 401 Program. While we welcome the prospect of 
this increase, even at this level funding remains woefully short of the 
amount

[[Page 17369]]

needed for this key component of our regional battle to address the 
problem of sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. We ask the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member to make funding for this 
program a high priority in conference with the House and within any 
additional funding which may become available.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues from the 
Great Lakes States for highlighting the importance of this program. To 
the extent that resources are available, I will do my best to address 
the funding needs of this program in conference.


                       houghton lake in michigan

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development, I wonder if 
the Senator from Nevada would answer a question about funding for a 
serious problem with Houghton Lake in Michigan.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would be pleased to offer any information 
about this bill to my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Is it correct that the Committee has 
provided $6,700,000 for the Corps of Engineers' planning assistance to 
States program and that only $200,000 of this funding is currently 
obligated to a specific project?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would ask if the Senator would be willing to consider in 
conference a request of $75,000 to conduct a comprehensive water 
management study for Houghton Lake, MI. The Eurasian milfoil is a non-
indigenous water plant that floats on the water's surface and forms 
large mats of plants, which lower the oxygen levels in the water below 
them, killing fish and making passage by boat very difficult. A large 
amount of the lake's surface has been infested by the milfoil.
  Mr. REID. I understand that this matter is of great importance to the 
Senator from Michigan and the people he represents. I can assure my 
friend that I will attempt to provide that funding in Conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada.


                   national synchrotron light source

  Mr. SCHUMER. I would first like to thank Senator Reid and Senator 
Domenici for their leadership and continued funding of science and 
research facilities.
  I would like to take a moment to engage my colleague in a colloquy.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator for his kind words and would be happy 
to engage in a colloquy with him.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, due to severe budget constraints in the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations, additional funding 
has not been made available for the National Synchrotron Light Source 
at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The President's FY2001 Budget 
included $3 million for upgrades and enhancements to the NSLS at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory under the Basic Energy Science (BES) 
account. The NSLS facility at Brookhaven, bringing 2,300 scientists 
annually is used for a whole host of issues, ranging from the first 
images of the AIDS virus attaching itself to a human cell; landmark 
progress in understanding the structure of the ribosome, the most 
complex component in each living cell; pivotal work on the Lyme disease 
bacterium, leading to a vaccine; and pioneering studies on hepatitis. 
These additional funds will allow Brookhaven to begin construction of 
two experimental stations and to hire additional staff members, which 
are essential in handling the growing demand of this facility.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada that if additional funds are made 
available for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, that the 
enhancements to the NSLS be added to the current funding for 
Brookhaven.
  Mr. REID. I agree with the Senator from New York that the additional 
funding for the NSLS is a high priority and the enhancements will allow 
more people to research and develop experiments that will effect the 
future of our world. Unfortunately funding constraints have prohibited 
the Committee from including these essential funds. When additional 
resources become available, we will give the NSLS priority 
consideration under additional science funding.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for helping with this 
priority issue.


                       the clinton river spillway

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development.
  I thank the Committee for including an $100,000 appropriation for the 
Clinton River Spillway for an evaluation to determine whether the 
Clinton River Spillway in Michigan has a design deficiency requiring 
remediation.
  During the 1950's, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
constructed a dam on the Clinton River and a spillway to alleviate 
flooding. Since the completion of the project, debris has built up at 
the confluence of the Clinton River and spillway.
  I agree with the Committee that a study must be conducted, however I 
ask that the study include an analysis of the cause of the debris build 
up as well as a determination as to whether or not there is a design 
deficiency. This is a continuing problem in this river basin and the 
Corps needs to examine the cause of the problem in order to devise a 
long term solution.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan is correct. The cause of this 
problem needs to be determined and the Corps needs to include causation 
as a part of this study. I assure the Senator that we will interpret 
the study to include a causation analysis.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.


                 the rouge river in southfield michigan

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development, I wonder if 
the distinguished Senator from Nevada would answer a question regarding 
Emergency streambank and shoreline protection--sec. 14--funds?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would be pleased to offer any information 
about this bill to my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Is it correct that the Committee has 
included $8,000,000 for section 14, Emergency streambank and shoreline 
erosion protection?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would also ask if the 
Senator would be willing to consider in conference a request of $40,000 
for the Rouge River in Southfield, Michigan. A large slope area on the 
banks of the Rouge River has collapsed and is currently threatening 
public infrastructure. This area must be stabilized and restored before 
winter sets in to prevent damage to the sanitary sewer and to eliminate 
the threat of pollution to the Rouge River. This is a very urgent 
project.
  Mr. REID. I understand that this matter is of great importance to the 
Senator from Michigan and the people he represents. I can assure my 
friend that I will carefully consider his request in Conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. As always, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada.


      THE BRUNSWICK HARBOR DEEPENING PROJECT IN BRUNSWICK, GEORGIA

  Mr. CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the 
current situation of Brunswick Harbor, an issue which is very important 
to me. I hope that I can engage the Chairman and the Ranking Member of 
the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee in a floor discussion of this 
key matter.
  The Brunswick Harbor deepening project, which was authorized in the 
1999 Water Resources Develop Act, has received a favorable report from 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has met all required cost-benefit 
and environmental reviews. Preconstruction engineering and design are 
in the final stages. In order to keep this project on schedule, it is 
necessary to complete several administrative requirements before the 
deepening project begins. Namely, the Corps of Engineers and the Non-
Federal sponsor must initiate

[[Page 17370]]

Project Cooperation Agreement discussions, complete the final project 
design, and develop contract award documents. I have requested a modest 
funding level of $255,000 to carry out these tasks. Unfortunately, no 
funds were provided in the House or Senate bills.
  I believe it is important to take action on this issue immediately. 
Navigation channel restrictions in Brunswick have cost shippers and 
consumers a significant amount in lost revenue. The current controlled 
depth of 30 feet subjects 57 percent of the vessels to tidal delays, 
sub-optimal loading and inefficient port rotations. In fact, it is 
estimated that these delays result in an annual loss of $6.65 million 
in revenue. We can avoid incurring these losses another year by 
providing nominal funding to complete the required administrative 
processes.
  I would echo the remarks of the Committee's report language which 
notes the importance of our waterways and harbors to our national 
transportation system. The Port of Brunswick plays an integral role in 
supporting the maritime transportation arm of our national 
infrastructure. Additionally, I would say that the Port of Brunswick is 
very much an intermodal facility. Brunswick is well-connected to our 
nation's system of highways and railroads, providing increased 
opportunities for commercial transportation.
  I will go one step further in stating that the Port of Brunswick is 
not only important to our national transportation system, but it is 
important to our national defense. Located between Savannah and 
Jacksonville, Brunswick is readily accessible to the numerous military 
installations in the region. As a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, and as a former Army Officer, I know very well the need to 
move troops, tanks, and supplies as rapidly as possible. During a war, 
more than 95 percent of all the equipment and supplies needed to 
sustain the U.S. military are carried by sea. The potential for the 
Port of Brunswick to play a major role in the movement of military 
cargo must not be overlooked, nor must it be hindered by administrative 
delays.
  I understand the tight budget restraints the Subcommittee faces this 
year, and I respect the fact that there will be no ``new start'' 
projects appropriated. However, we are not attempting to start dredging 
in Brunswick. We are simply trying to complete the administrative 
requirements which are necessary prior to such action. I appeal to my 
colleagues to help me keep the Brunswick Harbor deepening project on 
schedule through the inclusion of funds in Conference with the House. 
In fact, I believe we can proceed with the Project Cooperation 
Agreement, the final project design, and the development of contract 
awards if the Conference Committee were to simply include favorable 
report language to this effect. I thank my distinguished colleagues, 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MILLER. I, too, would like to offer a few comments relative to 
the Brunswick Harbor deepening project. Although I have been a member 
of the Senate for only a short while, I certainly understand the 
importance of this project and I fully support the inclusion of funds 
to keep it on schedule. Brunswick handles cargoes important to the 
region such as grain, gypsum, limestone, perlite, potash, oats, wood 
pulp, and motor vehicles. As the region has grown, so has the size of 
the vessels calling on the Port. I am very concerned that if we further 
delay the deepening project, we run the risk of hindering economic 
growth. This concern is underscored by the fact that the number of 
operational delays has increased by 36 percent since 1984. I believe 
that it is essential to stay the course and keep the project on 
schedule, and I join my colleague in urging the inclusion of $255,000 
to support the administrative tasks which must be completed this year.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senators from Georgia. I share your concern for 
the funding of this important project, and I assure you that I will 
give this project due consideration in conference with the House. 
Should additional funds become available, as I hope they will, the 
Brunswick Harbor Deepening Project will be one of my chief priorities, 
and I will support the inclusion of the report language sought by the 
Georgia Senators.


                    bonneville power administration

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, on the floor. Our committee report on this 
bill includes language he recommended relative to the particular 
challenges the Bonneville Power Administration status as a Federal 
agency presents to the BPA in its possible participation in a regional 
transmission organization. Our report acknowledges that certain steps 
may need to be taken to mitigate impacts on BPA employees, and that 
legislation may be necessary. I understand that the Senator from 
Washington would like to comment further on this issue.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I appreciate his 
interest in this matter and his willingness to consider legislative 
remedies, should they become necessary. I only want to make clear for 
the record that if administrative remedies are insufficient to protect 
the rights and benefits of BPA employees should they move into a new 
regional transmission organization, then any legislative remedy that 
might be proposed will be developed in full consultation with other 
stakeholders in the region and other participants in the RTO. Since any 
legislation that may be developed may very well be carried as an 
administrative provision in this bill, I wanted to be sure the manager 
knew that this is my intent.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate that elaboration, Mr. President, and look 
forward to working with Senator Gorton on this issue of great interest 
to his constituents.


                fernald environmental management project

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, and floor manager of the pending bill, Senator 
Domenici in a colloquy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to respond to the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator. Senator, last year we discussed the 
tremendous progress being made at the Fernald Site in my home state of 
Ohio. It is in many ways a model of what can be done to safely and 
effectively clean-up a former weapons production site left from the 
cold war. The Fernald site is poised to be the first major DOE site to 
be cleaned-up and in effect `taken off the books.' Wouldn't the Senator 
agree that this effort deserves both our appreciation and support?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely, I concur with the Senator.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chairman. In the event that additional 
resources become available, I ask the chairman to help secure 
additional resources for the Fernald project to ensure that the pace of 
closing the site by 2006 is assured. I further ask the Chairman if he 
would support my call to the DOE to make an expeditious decision 
concerning the site contractor. There is no competition--the site is 
running smoothly--let's give them the resources they need and 
demonstrate that at least one project can be completed on budget and on 
schedule without any further delays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Committee once again recognizes the outstanding 
contributions of the entire effort at the Fernald site-workers, 
community leaders, and regulators. We will try to support the Senators 
request and encourage the DOE to make an expeditious decision 
concerning the pending contract.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly engage Senator 
Domenici, Chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee 
on an important energy issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to oblige the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, I would like to 
thank Senator Domenici for his hard work on this important bill. In 
particular I would like to thank him for his actions in response to 
requests by many, including this Senator, on behalf of renewable 
energy. These funds will go far to help in many areas of science, the 
environment, national security and the economy. On a related

[[Page 17371]]

topic, I wonder if I could briefly discuss the Consortium for Plant 
Biotechnology Research (CPBR) with the Chairman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would inform the Senator from Colorado that I am 
aware of CPBR's work and would be happy to address the Senator on this 
topic.
  Mr. ALLARD. As I'm sure the Chairman knows, research that has been 
undertaken by CPBR's member universities, including the University of 
Colorado, in conjunction with the Department of Energy has led to 
improved biomass energy technologies that help develop a competitive 
biomass-based energy industry and a safer, cleaner environment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the words of the Senator from Colorado and 
would note that New Mexico State University is an important partner in 
the consortium. Unfortunately, due to our subcommittee allocation, 
there was not enough room in the Senate mark to cover many good 
programs and projects.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his time and 
would encourage him to consider the important work of CPBR when this 
bill moves to conference with the other body.


      general investigations activities of the corps of engineers

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee regarding the General Investigations Activities of the 
Corps of Engineers.
  The Corps of Engineers is authorized to repair the Goshen Dam/
Spillway system on Lake Merriweather in Rockbridge, Virginia. This dam 
is classified as a ``high hazard'' dam according to the Federal Dam 
Safety Guidelines because its failure threatens the downstream 
community of Wilson Springs. The Corps has completed a Technical Report 
on the engineering and design specifications for the project's repairs 
and upgrades.
  The House passed bill includes $150,000 for further planning and 
design activities for this important project. I call this situation to 
the attention of the Chairman and respectfully request that he give 
favorable consideration to this matter in conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Warner for bringing this matter to may 
attention. I am aware that this facility is utilized by the National 
Capital Area Boy Scouts organization. It is important that the non-
federal sponsor finance their share of the costs of these safety 
repairs and I am aware that the Commonwealth of Virginia may become the 
non-federal sponsor.
  I know how important this project is to the Senator and I will give 
it full consideration during Conference.


                        delta regional authority

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Mississippi River Delta possesses 
many common characteristics and unique problems throughout the 7-state 
alluvial floodplain which it encompasses. The subcommittee report 
includes funding for a new Delta Regional Authority, an economic 
development effort aimed at extending special help to an area of the 
country that I have long considered to be a special part of my state 
and this nation.
  I am concerned that many of the real needs in the region never feel 
the full impact of federal assistance efforts because of the centrally-
planned and bureaucratic delivery systems which accompanied some of 
these initiatives. Because of this history, the people of the region 
have become skeptical about new election year promises of federal 
assistance.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
for clarification of the intent and purpose of this funding. First, how 
is the Delta defined for purpose of extending this proposed federal 
assistance?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The provisions included in the bill do not specifically 
define the Delta.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The historical Delta area is the Mississippi Alluvial 
Valley, which includes only small portions of Tennessee and Kentucky, 
the typically flat and gently-sloping land of eastern Louisiana and 
Arkansas, Northwest Mississippi, the boot-heel of Missouri, and the 
Cache River lowlands of Illinois. Is it the Committee's intent that the 
Delta, for purposes of the federal assistance in this appropriation 
measure, be defined as that land which underlies those communities, 
counties, parishes and part-counties, which are geographically 
delineated by the topography commonly recognized as the Delta alluvial 
floodplain?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. It is my understanding that this is the area 
suffering most in terms of economic distress.
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the distinguished chairman knows, the Delta suffers 
from an acute need for infrastructure development that inhibits 
economic growth.
  In the Report to Congress by the Lower Mississippi Delta Development 
Commission, which was co-chaired by then-Governor Bill Clinton of 
Arkansas, the Commission stressed that the ten-year goal of any plan to 
assist the Delta should emphasize, and I quote from page 92 of this 
report, ``every Delta resident will have access to adequate water and 
sewer, fire protection, flood control, roads, streets, and bridges, to 
improve the quality of life and provide for economic growth and 
development.''
  Although there are many very important needs in the Mississippi River 
Delta region which are unique to that area, better roads, educational 
enhancements, protection from floods, natural resource conservation and 
equipment and instruction support for workforce training ought to be 
the primary focus of this funding.
  There are existing and proven delivery systems for these purpose 
which have the benefit of local planning and priority-setting by the 
people who reside in the Delta.
  Is it the intent of this committee that this founding be utilized in 
this way for these purposes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, Senator, In fact, it is the interest of the 
subcommittee to bring this federal support to the Mississippi River 
Delta region in the most timely and cost-efficient manner. It is my 
understanding that much like in your own State of Mississippi, the 
other six states have similar delivery systems in place through their 
local community colleges, universities, departments of transportation, 
and water resource agencies that should be used as the primary vehicles 
through which these funds are properly administered to provide the 
greatest regional impact.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Chairman's response. Delta communities 
in my state have been unable to provide their local cost-share for 
rural water and sewer projects, road and railroad improvement projects, 
drainage and flood protection projects, and other developments that are 
fundamental to a viable, local economy because they simply cannot 
afford the match. Unlike more affluent areas which can take full 
advantage of the federal cost-sharing programs such as this, the Delta 
typically lags behind even further. Is it the Chairman's view that 
these funds could be used as a local match for other federal programs?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with your view that these funds could utilized 
for the type of infrastructure support you have described. If 
distressed communities in the Mississippi River Delta region are 
struggling to qualify for federal assistance due to their inability to 
provide the local match for infrastructure improvements, I think it 
should be one of the highest priorities for these funds to be applied 
in this way.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my friend from New Mexico and I appreciate your 
support for the use of this funding through existing delivery systems 
to provide needed assistance to the Delta.


   federal power marketing administrations and regional transmission 
                             organizations

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee and the senior Senator from Washington to clarify the 
intent of legislative language in Section 319 of H.R. 4733.

[[Page 17372]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to discuss this 
provision with my friend, the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. GORTON. As would I, Mr. President.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one of the Power Marketing Administrations, 
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is working with other 
transmission-owning electric utilities to file a document with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in October evidencing an intent to 
form a regional transmission organization in the Northwest. It is my 
understanding that this language would give BPA the authority to engage 
in the activities necessary to making that filing. Is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho is correct.
  Mr. GORTON. I concur, Mr. President.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is also my understanding that the Department of Energy 
is currently of the opinion that no further legislation would be needed 
in order for BPA to actually participate in a Northwest regional 
transmission organization. However, issues may arise as a result of the 
October filing, or otherwise, that would necessitate further 
legislation before BPA participates in the Northwest regional 
transmission organization. If such legislation is necessary, would the 
Chairman and the Senator from Washington be willing to work with me to 
enact it expeditiously, so as to not delay the actual operation of the 
Northwest regional transmission organization?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to work with the Senator from Idaho, 
the Senator from Washington, and other members of the Northwest 
delegation to assure expeditious enactment of any such necessary 
legislation.
  Mr. GORTON. I too, am committed to prompt enactment of such 
legislation, if needed. I think it is crucial that Congress facilitate, 
rather than impede or delay, the formation of a regional transmission 
organization for the Northwest.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senators.


                           channel deepening

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the Fiscal Year 
2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill prepared on behalf of myself, 
Senator Moynihan, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Torricelli, that 
would dedicate $53 million and $5 million, respectively, for the Kill 
van Kull and Arthur Kill channel deepening projects in the Port of New 
York and New Jersey. These are the amounts that the President's Budget 
requests for the vital navigation projects. I will withhold from 
offering the amendment at this time.
  I would just like to ask the Chairman and ranking Member, who are 
working hard to stay within their allocations, if they agree that the 
redevelopment of the Port of New York and New Jersey to accommodate 
modern container vessels is in the national interest. I would also like 
to inquire whether they will grant both of these projects priority 
consideration in the event that additional funds become available under 
the Army Corps accounts.
  Mr. REID. I would agree with the Senator from New York that the 
authorized Federal navigation projects for the Port of New York and New 
Jersey are in the national interest, and that both the Kill van Kull 
and Arthur Kill projects should receive priority consideration if 
additional general construction funding for the Army Corps of Engineers 
becomes available.


                    IMPROVEMENTS ON THE MISSISSIPPI

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President. I would like to engage the distinguished 
Chairman of the Subcommittee in a brief colloquy on an extremely 
important public safety project in St. Paul, Minnesota. As the Chairman 
may recall, I have been a strong proponent of $3,000,000 in Federal 
funding for the Mississippi Place project in downtown St. Paul. Not 
surprisingly, I am quite disappointed that the Committee was unable to 
accommodate requests to initiate work on recently authorized projects.
  This project, authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999, entails much needed improvements to the Mississippi River 
shoreline. For the past 100 years, this shoreline was virtually 
inaccessible to residents of St. Paul, cut off by a major parkway, 
industrial property and a main rail line. However, much has changed in 
the last five years, and the community now finds itself with an 
unprecedented opportunity to re-establish a physical connection to the 
Mississippi River. The industrial property has been converted into a 
new Science Museum and parkland, the parkway has been re-aligned and 
the rail lines have been regraded.
  As envisioned by the Corps, the project will consist of a series of 
improvements to a section of river which contains some of the strongest 
currents on the Upper Mississippi. The need to initiate prompt work on 
the project led the Minnesota State Legislature to allocate $3,000,000 
in state matching funds to the 2000 Bonding Bill signed by the 
Governor. An additional $3,000,000 in funding from local and other 
sources will be made available for parklands, trails and other 
amenities. All told, the community has pledged two thirds of the 
funding required for the project, far in excess of what is required by 
law.
  But the most important work of all is the Corps portion along the 
shoreline, work which is critical to keeping the public (including 1.5 
million annual visitors at the new Science Museum of Minnesota) away 
from the fast moving current. Without the funding I have requested from 
the Committee, this project will not be initiated.
  Mr. President, could the distinguished Chairman provide me with his 
views on the upcoming conference with the House on this legislation, 
with particular emphasis on the funding which I am seeking for this 
project?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would be pleased to respond to the 
Senator's question. As my good friend pointed out, the funding 
allocation for the Energy and Water Subcommittee for fiscal year 2001 
did not afford us the luxury of initiating new construction projects. 
However, I am aware of the Senator's strong support and interest in 
this project and, should the subcommittee receive sufficient additional 
budgetary resources, I will assure my colleague that the project 
outlined by the Senator would certainly be considered along with 
numerous other projects which have been brought to the subcommittee's 
attention.


                        objectionable provisions

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the energy and water appropriations bill 
is fundamental to our nation's energy and defense related activities, 
and takes care of vitally important water resources infrastructure 
needs. My colleagues are aware that I am a strong defender of our 
national security which is, in part, funded through this bill. Taking 
care of our national energy needs is also high in priority to our 
taxpaying constituents who are concerned about ever-increasing gas and 
energy prices.
  That is why I am disappointed to report that this year's bill once 
again fails to fulfill our responsibility to American taxpayers to 
expend their tax dollars in a wise and prudent fashion that addresses 
the nation's most critical needs. Instead, included in this year's bill 
and its accompanying Senate report is $508 million in unrequested and 
low-priority earmarks. A number of legislative riders are also added 
which will effectively prevent a fair and deliberative consideration of 
certain issues that should be determined in a legislative review 
through the appropriate Congressional committees.
  I recognize the hard work that the managers of this bill have put 
into moving this measure through the Senate. I thank them for their 
tireless efforts and appreciate that their jobs have not been easy. 
However, I must repeat a criticism I have made many times during 
consideration of appropriations bills and will continue to make as long 
as the practice of earmarking continues--this bill inappropriately 
singles out projects for funding based on criteria other than need and 
national priority.
  This year, earmarks account for more than $508 million in funding for 
local projects contained in the bill and

[[Page 17373]]

the committee report. Yet, we have no way of knowing whether, at best, 
all or part of this $508 million should have been spent on different 
projects with greater national need or, at worst, should not have been 
spent at all.
  Various projects are provided with additional funding at levels 
higher than requested by the administration. The stated reasons include 
the desire to finish some projects in a reasonable time-frame. 
Unfortunately, other projects are put on hold or on a slower track. The 
inconsistency between the administration's request, which is 
responsible for carrying out these projects, and the views of the 
appropriators on just how much funding should be dedicated to a 
project, is troubling. As a result, various other projects that may be 
equally deserving or higher in priority do not receive an appropriate 
amount of funding, or none at all. Many of my objections are based on 
these types of inconsistencies and nebulous spending practices.
  Our current system of earmarking in order to fund national projects 
is fundamentally flawed. I hope that we will soon develop a better 
system, one which allows the projects with the greatest national needs 
to be funded first.
  I remind my colleagues that I object to these earmarks on the basis 
of their circumvention of our established process, which is to properly 
consider, authorize and fund projects based on merit and need.
  Although I was not present to vote on final passage of this bill, I 
wish to state for the record that I would have voted against this bill 
because this is not the honorable way to carry out our fiscal 
responsibilities.
  I reviewed this bill and report very closely and compiled a list of 
objectionable provisions in H.R. 4733 and its accompanying Senate 
report. This list is too lengthy to be included in the Record, but it 
will be available from my Senate office.


                            renewable energy

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier this year I joined many of my 
colleagues in signing a letter supporting increased funding for 
renewable energy. I am pleased today to see that the subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Appropriations has honored our request with an $82 
million increase in renewable energy funding, raising the total from 
$362 million to $444 million. That this substantial 23 percent increase 
occurred under severe budgetary pressures makes it all the more 
commendable. I thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Reid for their 
efforts in producing this bill.
  At no time has investment in renewable energy research and 
development been more important. As we have seen over and over again, 
even a slight imbalance between supply and demand can lead to rapidly 
escalating energy prices. Last winter, disruptions in oil supply caused 
great hardship to Mainers who depend on home heating oil. Mainers are 
also suffering at the pumps from gasoline and diesel prices that hit 
their highest levels in decades. People across the nation are further 
suffering from more and more frequent spikes in the price of natural 
gas and electricity.
  Unless we act to diversify our energy supply, this volatility is only 
likely to grow worse. For example, United States currently imports 
slightly over half of its oil. In less than 20 years, this number is 
expected to grow to 70 percent. Unless we are content to live under the 
perpetual threat of energy disruptions from Middle East energy barons 
or other forces beyond our control, we must diversify our energy 
supply. While renewable energy will not provide the whole answer, it 
holds the potential to help stabilize energy prices and to provide us 
with an increased level of energy security. By investing in renewable 
energy research and development, we enhance fuel and technology 
diversity and help provide the United States with insulation from 
future energy shocks.
  Investments in renewable energy have many other benefits as well. 
These investments increase the U.S. market share of the growing 
domestic and international markets for energy-supply products and 
permit the expansion of high technology jobs within the U.S. economy. 
Research in biomass and biofuels helps farmers and foresters by 
creating valuable new uses for agricultural products. Renewable energy 
has important military applications and is currently used on many 
remote military bases. The funds contained in this bill will also lead 
to improvements in distributed generation, energy storage, and 
reliability of the electric grid. Finally, renewable are bringing extra 
income to many farmers and local communities across the Nation.
  My home State of Maine is a leader in renewable energy production and 
technology. In fact nearly 30 percent of our electricity comes from 
renewable energy generated in Maine. Central Maine Power is selling 
renewable energy from biomass to green markets in other states. And 
just next month, Endless Energy will be putting in a brand new wind 
turbine at a blueberry farm in Orland. This turbine was made possible 
in part by the renewable energy investments that I supported last year.
  I again thank Senators Domenici and Reid for providing the increase 
in renewable energy investments that I and many of my colleagues in the 
U.S. Senate had asked for. This is a down-payment on future energy 
diversity and a sound economy.


                      red lake river flood control

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment that 
would have provided $1 million in funding for the Red Lake River Flood 
Control Project at Crookston, Minnesota. This is a high priority of 
mine, and I regret the Committee's inability to fund new start 
construction projects. I understand there may be more flexibility to 
fund new starts in conference, and I want to continue to work with 
Chairman Domenici at that time to ensure funds are available to begin 
construction of this important project.
  Communities in the Red River Valley in Northwestern Minnesota have 
suffered some of the worst flooding in our nation's history during 
1997. Many Americans watched the television coverage of Grand Forks, 
North Dakota and saw the burning buildings which destroyed a city 
block, all in a sea of water. But just across the Red River, on the 
Minnesota side, is East Grand Forks, a town of nearly 10,000 people 
that had no water, no electricity, and no sewer system.
  This disastrous flooding has severely disrupted the lives of many, 
many Minnesotans. Dreams of enjoying warm, spring weather after a 
brutally long Minnesota winter were replaced with efforts to ensure 
families and communities were safe, and that adequate food, water, and 
shelter was available.
  Just 22 short miles east of East Grand Forks is the community of 
Crookston. Fortunately, through hard work and some luck, Crookston 
escaped major flooding in 1997. But Crookston's luck may not hold. The 
Red Lake River has flooded Crookston in the past, and without improved 
flood protection, it will flood the city again. The city has 
experienced severe flooding as a result of the topography of the land, 
as well as agriculture drainage, loss of wetlands, and the construction 
of county ditch systems. In fact, all of which have altered the flow of 
water adding to the risk of flooding. The threat to life and property 
in Crookston has increased since the 1950 flood when many homes were 
destroyed. The city has constructed levees between 1950 and 1965, but 
these levees are seriously deteriorating.
  Mr. President, there is a plan for flood protection in Crookston. 
City planners have suggested a combination of channel cuts and dikes. 
The channel cuts would allow water to flow more quickly through town. 
The dikes would hold back flood water.
  The city needs federal funding for this project. Already, the State 
of Minnesota has appropriated $3.3 million for Crookston for the dual 
purpose of providing funds to match the pending federal money, and to 
buy out homes in preparation for construction of the project. Local 
contributions, thus far, have exceeded $1.5 million, a third of which 
was used to meet the 50% federal requirement for the feasibility study, 
and the remainder is to be used as a

[[Page 17374]]

part of the local match for the construction of the project that was 
authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The cost 
benefit ratio for the project was determined in the Corps' feasibility 
study to be 1.6, far exceeding the federal requirement of a 1:1 cost 
benefit ratio for flood prevention projects.
  It is my understanding that the city has met every requirement, 
cooperated with the Corps, and done everything asked of them to ensure 
the federal funding they expected after the authorization.
  I want to commend the leadership of Mayor Don Osborne, members of the 
city council and city engineers in working on this important flood 
control project for their community. It is my hope that federal funding 
for this project be achieved so that work can begin to provide 
essential flood protection for the people of Crookston.
  I urge the support of conferees for this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am joined by my colleague from Alaska, 
Senator Murkowski, in thanking the managers of this bill for accepting 
an amendment important to the residents of Kake, Alaska.
  The city of Kake is a predominantly Tlingit Indian community of 850 
located on Kupreanof Island in a remote section of southeast Alaska.
  Since the recent collapse of the timber industry in southeast Alaska, 
Kake's economy has been almost entirely reliant on a local salmon 
hatchery and a seafood processing plant.
  The city water was supplied by the Gunnuk Creek Dam, a wooden dam 
built in 1946 by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) at a cost of 
approximately $1.5 million.
  In late July, after three days of severe storms dumped approximately 
24 inches of rain, several logs swept across Kake's water reservoir and 
gouged an 18-foot by 12-foot hole in the 54 year old dam. The reservoir 
emptied and within minutes Kake's residents, hatchery, fish processing 
plant, general store, city offices, school, and fire department were 
without water. For the next 10 days, residents were forced to boil 
water before they could drink it. On August 10, the governor of Alaska 
issued a disaster declaration for Kake.
  As an interim measure, small pumps have been installed in Gunnuk 
Creek to pump water to the filtration plant. Those pumps are highly 
susceptible to storms, and must be monitored 24 hours per day for 
debris and wear. The city purchased the small pumps with borrowed 
money, which must be repaid. Because of lack of water, the salmon 
hatchery has lost $2 million to date, primarily in loss of fish and egg 
harvests for next year's run. Also because of a lack of water, the cold 
storage plant--the major employer in Kake--laid off its 70 workers and 
has lost $500,000 in business.
  Engineers from the Indian Health Service and a private consulting 
firm have declared the dam a total loss and estimate that $7 million is 
needed for a replacement.
  The amendment included in this bill would provide the needed funding 
to replace the dam and I thank my colleagues for their support.


                               rio grande

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my amendment to strike the language in 
section 204 results from an agreement reached between myself and 
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to delay implementation of a 
solicitor's opinion concerning the ownership of water facilities and 
related use of Rio Grande water, and to work toward a long-term 
solution to these water issues.
  At issue is the relationship between ownership of water facilities 
and the desire to maintain flows in the Rio Grande.
  Secretary Babbitt agreed to refrain from implementing a June 19 
Solicitor's opinion, unless agreed to by the parties in litigation and 
the state engineer, or as permitted by court order.
  I committed to work with him to achieve a long-term solution to these 
complicated water issues, and we agreed the current allocation, 
ownership and use of water in New Mexico have raised some issues of the 
greatest magnitude and at this time the most appropriate forum for 
their resolution is Federal court.
  I have moved to strike this language based on the good faith of 
Secretary Babbitt, and I also note that he agreed to continue to 
resolve water issues related to the Fort Sumner Irrigation District 
(FSID) and the Pecos River, recognizing that the FSID and MRGCD 
facilities have different status.
  However, based on our good faith discussions, I will continue to work 
with him on the Pecos issue, and expect that the Department will not 
take adverse action against that irrigation district in the meantime.


                    the harding lake watershed study

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the bill 
for accepting the amendment on behalf of Senator Murkowski and myself 
to help find a solution to the problem plaguing Harding Lake.
  Harding Lake is the largest road accessible lake in the interior of 
Alaska. It holds significant recreation, fishery, natural resources and 
economic value for interior Alaska.
  In a recent Fairbanks Daily News-Miner article, state officials 
closed Harding Lake to pike fishing due to dried up spawning grounds.
  Harding Lake is suffering from a dramatic drop in water levels.
  This drop in water level has impacted the shoreline--in some areas 
causing a recession of as much as 700 feet.
  This loss of water could cause problems with water quality, land use, 
and fishery harvests.
  Residents of Harding Lake, have asked for help in identifying the 
source of the water loss problem at the lake.
  After discussions with the Corps of Engineers and officials at the 
soil and conservation district, it appears a watershed study and plan 
is needed to protect the lake from further degradation.
  My amendment would provide the necessary funding to begin the 
watershed study and to develop a comprehensive plan to address the 
problem.
  I thank the managers of the bill for their understanding and for 
accepting this provision.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Research into the molecular basis of 
disease using mouse models of human disease and a miniaturized version 
of PET (positron emission tomography) called MicroPET currently being 
conducted at the University of California Los Angeles School of 
Medicine's Division of Nuclear Medicine offers exciting new 
possibilities for development of treatments for human disease based on 
the molecular disorders that cause it.
  Among the diseases for which mouse models have already been developed 
are breast, prostate, lung and colorectal cancers, Parkinson's disease 
and diabetes. New funding will allow for development of mouse models 
for lymphoma cancers and dementia/Alzheimer's disease and will allow 
development of extremely precise molecular diagnostics and molecular 
therapies.
  Added funding will allow development for the next generation of 
MicroPET imaging technology.
  The new technology will combine MicroPET, which measures the 
biological processes of a body, and MicroCT, which measures a body's 
anatomical structure into a single device for simultaneous and precise 
imaging of both biology and structure and will allow for the 
differential screening of biological, genetic and structural changes 
caused by disease in living mice.
  This will allow researchers to see precisely the effect of new 
molecular, targeted treatments including gene therapies for a wide 
range of diseases using human disease genes inserted into mouse models.
  Because the mouse models are developed using human disease genes, the 
added funding for these new technologies and procedures will lead to 
new means of treating and tracking human disease using clinical PET 
technology.
  The research will lead to the ability to both diagnose disease and 
track the effect of targeted molecular/genetic therapies on a broad 
range of serious human diseases.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address briefly the 
issue

[[Page 17375]]

of funding for the fundamental science and engineering research 
supported by the Department of Energy.
  The DOE is the leading source of federal support for the physical 
sciences in the nation. Not many people know that, but it is true. DOE 
and its predecessor agencies developed this broad portfolio of physical 
sciences research in pursuit of the agency's statutory missions. To 
understand energy and its myriad transformations, you have to know a 
lot about the properties of matter, and of energy flows in matter, at a 
very fundamental level. In order to conserve energy by, for example, 
running industrial processes at higher temperatures that have greater 
thermodynamic efficiencies, you have to know a lot about basic 
materials science. These are research needs that other science 
agencies, such as the NSF, cannot meet within their missions and 
funding levels. It's an important reason why we have a Department of 
Energy, to begin with.
  DOE is also a crucial supporter of scientific research in the life 
sciences. In the life sciences, the DOE initiated the Human Genome 
Program and co-manges this enormously important and promising effort 
with the NIH.
  DOE also plays a leading role in supporting other biological 
sciences, environmental sciences, mathematics, computing, and 
engineering. In all these areas, its basic research contributions 
relate to DOE's energy missions.
  As a consequence of these research investments, the DOE is 
responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding to 
scientists and students at our colleges and universities.
  In addition to the overall size of DOE's basic science funding, the 
type of activities that DOE funds has a special character among the 
federal science agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of DOE's 
Office of Science is to support large-scale specialized user facilities 
focussed on national scientific priorities. This particular mission 
makes the Office of Science unique among, and complementary to, the 
scientific programs for other federal science agencies, including the 
NIH and NSF. Each year over 15,000 sponsored scientists and students 
from academe, industry, and government--many funded by agencies other 
than the DOE--conduct cutting-edge experiments at the Department's 
research facilities. Every State in the country has scientists and 
engineers with a stake in DOE's user facilities.
  One of the challenges the Office of Science has faced during the past 
decade is that its funding has been reduced by approximately 13 percent 
in constant dollars. Other science agencies, such as NIH, have been 
growing strongly, while the DOE Office of Science has significantly 
less funding today, in constant dollars, than 10 years ago.
  These reductions have prevented the Office of Science from fully 
participating in new initiatives in exciting technical areas important 
to DOE's statutory missions such as high performance computing and 
nanotech- nology. More troublesome, the declining funding for the 
Office of Science has reduced the number of scientists and students 
able to conduct research suing DOE's national user facilities. In fact, 
DOE's national and university-based laboratories are currently 
operating well below their optimum levels, especially in light of 
growing demand from the scientific community.
  DOE's scientific user communities and DOE's own scientific advisory 
committees have completed a number of reports over the past year to two 
to put a number on what DOE's science budget should look like, in order 
to fully take advantage of the scientific opportunities that are out 
there. They estimated that in FY 2001 alone a funding level of over 
$3.3 billion can easily be justified in order to support research and 
to fully utilize and modernize DOE facilities.
  I am mindful that both the Chairman and the Ranking member of this 
appropriations subcommittee would like to make more money available for 
DOE's science programs. They have made statements yesterday that they 
will seek additional funds for the non-defense side of this bill as it 
moves forward. As they know, Senator Frank Murkowski, and I are 
circulating a letter in the Senate for signature by Senators to 
indicate their support for this goal. It's a letter that I hope 
strengthens their hand in getting a better allocation as we move 
forward. The letter is addressed to the bipartisan leadership of the 
Senate, and is already attracting strong bipartisan support.
  I hope that when the Conference Report on this bill is finally 
written, the FY 2001 funding level for the DOE Office of Science will 
be no less than the President's request level of $3.16 billion. I hope 
that the funding level can be higher, in some areas, if at all 
possible. And I hope that both the President and Congress will provide 
significant increases in funding for the DOE Office of Science in 
future years in order to sustain the Office's steady growth. Such 
funding increases are merited by the important and unique work being 
conducted by the DOE Office of Science. The funding increases would 
also be consistent with the Senate's passage of a bill that both 
Senator Domenici and I were original co-sponsors of the Federal 
Research Investment Act (S. 296) which calls for doubling investment in 
civilian research and development efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Baucus
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Feinstein
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Murkowski
  The bill (H.R. 4733), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate insists upon its amendments, 
requests a conference with the House, and the Chair appoints Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Inouye conferees on the part of 
the Senate.




                          ____________________