[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13898-13909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

[[Page 13899]]


  Mr. REID. Madam President, with respect to rule XXII, I ask unanimous 
consent that Members with amendments on the finite list of amendments 
to the energy and water appropriations bill have until 2 p.m. today to 
file first-degree amendments, except for the managers' package, which 
has been agreed to by both managers and by both leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to briefly speak 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reid are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.

                          ____________________

                           Amendment No. 1024

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send the managers' amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1024.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment is to 
address the very serious problem of shoreline erosion and sedimentation 
which are adversely impacting the health of the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed. There are approximately 7,325 miles of tidal shoreline along 
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In an average year, it is 
estimated that 4.7 million cubic yards of shoreline material are 
deposited in the bay due to shoreline erosion. The results not only in 
serious property damage, but also contributes millions of cubic yards 
of sediment annually to the bay. This sediment adversely affects the 
bay's water quality, destroys valuable wetlands and habitat and clogs 
the bay's navigational channels.
  The Army Corps of Engineers operates thirteen reservoirs on the upper 
Susquehanna River and regulates the river's low and high water flows. 
There are also four hydroelectric projects on the lower Susquehanna. 
Under normal conditions, these reservoirs and dams serve as traps for 
the harmful sediments which flow into the River. During major storms 
however, they suddenly discharge tremendous amounts of built-up 
sediments, severely degrading the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, 
destroying valuable habitat and killing fish and other living 
resources. Scientists estimate that Tropical Storm Agnes in 1982 
``aged'' the bay by more than a decade in a matter of days because of 
the slug of sediments discharged from the Susquehanna River reservoirs. 
There is a real danger that another major storm in the basin could 
scour the sediment that has been accumulating behind these dams and 
present a major set-back to our efforts to clean up the bay.
  Chesapeake 2000, the new interstate Chesapeake Bay Agreement, has 
identified control of sediment loads as a top priority for improving 
the water quality of the bay. The agreement specifically calls for load 
reductions from sediment in each major tributary by 2001 and for 
implementing strategies that prevent the loss of the sediment retention 
capabilities on the lower Susquehanna River dams by 2003.
  Unfortunately, our understanding of the sediment processes and 
sources of sediments which feed the bay system is still very limited 
and, to date, few efforts have been undertaken to address the 
environmental impacts of shoreline erosion and sedimentation on the 
bay. In 1990, the Army Corps of Engineers completed a study on the 
feasibility of shoreline erosion protection measures which could 
protect both the land and water resources of the Chesapeake Bay from 
the adverse effects of continued erosion but, due to limited 
authorities, no Federal construction action was recommended at the 
time. However, the report recommended that the Corps pursue further 
studies including developing and refining ecosystem models to provide a 
better understanding of the environmental impacts of sedimentation and 
sediment transport mechanisms and identifying priority deposition-
prevention areas which could lead to structural and non-structural 
environmental enhancement initiatives.
  On May 23, 2001, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
approved a resolution which I sponsored together with Senators Warner 
and Mikulski, directing the Secretary of the Army to review the 
recommendations of the Army Corps of Engineers' 1990 Chesapeake Bay 
Shoreline Erosion Study and other related reports and to conduct a 
comprehensive study of shoreline erosion and related sediment 
management measures which could be undertaken to protect the water and 
land resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and achieve the water 
quality conditions necessary to protect the bay's living resources.
  The resolution called for the study to be conducted in cooperation 
with other Federal agencies, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, their political 
subdivisions and the Chesapeake Bay Program. It also directed the Corps 
to evaluate structural and non-structural environmental enhancement 
opportunities and other innovative protection measures in the interest 
of environmental restoration, ecosystem protection, and other allied 
purposes for the Chesapeake Bay.
  The funding which my amendment would make available, would enable the 
Corps of Engineers to initiate this study and begin to assess 
alternative strategies for addressing the shoreline erosion/
sedimentation problem in the bay. As the lead Federal agency in water 
resource management, the Army Corps of Engineers has an important role 
to play in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The results of this 
study could benefit not only the overall environmental quality of the 
Chesapeake Bay, but improve the Corps' dredging management program in 
the bay.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in favor of an amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Allen relating to the ongoing 
effort by the Corps of Engineers, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the 
State of Maryland to give new life to the Chesapeake Bay oyster.
  Since 1996, the Corps of Engineers has joined with Maryland and 
Virginia to provide oyster habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. This 
partnership has stimulated significant financial support from Virginia 
and Maryland, dollars from the non-profit Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 
and many individuals.
  The oyster, once plentiful in the Bay, has been ravaged by disease, 
over-harvesting and pollution. Oyster populations in the Bay are nearly 
non-existent at 99 percent of its traditional stock. In 1999, watermen 
landed about 420,000 bushels--approximately 2 percent of the historic 
levels.
  Since the beginning of the joint federal-state Chesapeake Bay 
Restoration program in 1983, we have learned that restoring healthy 
oyster populations in the Bay is critical to improving water quality 
and supporting other finfish and shellfish populations. According to 
scientists, when oyster populations were at its height, they could 
filter all of the water in the Bay in three to four days. Today, with 
the depleted oyster stocks, it takes over one year.
  Although it took a long time to develop, there is now consensus in 
the scientific community, and among watermen and the Bay partners that 
increasing oyster populations by tenfold over the next decade is a key 
factor in restoring the living resources of the Bay. Using historic 
oyster bed locations, owned by the Commonwealth,

[[Page 13900]]

this federal-state effort has built three-dimensional reefs, stocked 
them with oyster spat and designated these areas as permanent 
sanctuaries. These protected areas, off limits to harvesting, have 
shown great promise in producing oysters that are ``disease tolerant'' 
which are reproducing and building up adjacent oyster beds.
  The new Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, between the federal government 
and the Bay states, calls for increasing oyster stocks tenfold by 2010, 
using the 1994 baseline. This goal calls for constructing 20 to 25 
reefs per year at dimensions where the reefs rise about the Bay bottom 
so that young oysters survive and grow faster than silt can cover them.
  Mr. President, with the funding provided last year to the Corps and 
the additional state funds, there is now an active oyster reef 
construction program underway in both Virginia and Maryland.
  My amendment today recognizes the significant allocation of state 
scientists and state programs that devote their time and resources to 
the oysters restoration partnership. Integral to the entire project is 
the state effort to map the large oyster ground areas to determine 
those sites most suitable for restoration, and to provide suitable 
shell stock.
  For example, in Virginia the focus of the next oyster reef 
construction area is on the large grounds in Tangier and Pocomoke 
Sounds. State Conservation and Replenishment Department staff created 
maps that were gridded and more than 3,000 acres were sampled and 
evaluated. Eight sanctuary reef sites and more than 190 acres of 
restorable harvest areas were identified during the oyster ground stock 
assessment in this area earlier this year.
  In preparation for reef construction this summer, Virginia contracted 
with local watermen to clean the harvest areas and reef sites. In June 
of this year, four areas were planted with 86,788 bushels of oyster 
shells at a cost of $139,000 in state funds.
  The State of Maryland has been equally committed to providing 
resources to the Corps for the construction of reef sites in the 
Maryland waters of the Bay.
  Consistent with other Corps programs, my amendment permits the Corps 
to recognize the strong partnership by the states to restore oyster 
populations and provide credit toward the non-federal cost share for in 
kind work performed by the states.
  This federal-state sanctuary program is essential to restoring the 
Chesapeake Bay oyster. The oyster is a national asset because it has 
the capability to purify the water by filtering algae, sediments and 
pollutants. Sanctuary oyster reefs also provide critical habitat to 
other shellfish, finfish and migratory waterfowl.
  It has been my privilege to see the construction of these sanctuary 
reefs last April and I am encouraged by the success of the initial 
reefs built in Virginia. I am confident that this program is the only 
way to replenish--and to save--the Chesapeake Bay oyster. I 
respectfully urge its adoption.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senators Reid and Domenici 
for including the Snowe-Collins amendment in the Fiscal Year 2002 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations today to help the Town of 
Ft. Fairfield, ME. My amendment should resolve a serious design problem 
that has arisen in connection with the construction of a small flood 
control levy project in Ft. Fairfield, which is located above the 46th 
parallel in Northern Maine, where the river freezes every fall and 
stays frozen well into spring.
  The proper functioning of the levy is vital to the town's economic 
viability and for protection against future flooding of the downtown 
area. My amendment should allow the Army Corp of Engineers to assume 
financial responsibility for a design deficiency in the project 
relating to the interference of ice with pump operation so that there 
will be no further and inappropriate cost to the Town.
  My amendment calls for the Secretary of the Army to investigate the 
flood control project and formally determine whether the Secretary is 
responsible. Since the Corps has already assumed responsibility for the 
design deficiency, the Secretary will then order the design deficiency 
to be corrected at 100 percent federal expense.
  Once again, I thank the Chairs for their continued support for the 
levy project in Ft. Fairfield over the years, and I am pleased that the 
town will now have the assurance that their flooding problems are 
behind them and can go forward with their economic development plans 
for their downtown area.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
submitted by Senators Reid and Domenici be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1024) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. 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. SARBANES. 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. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Sarbanes are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I seek permission to speak for up to 10 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names: Mr. Domenici, 
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present. The clerk will call 
the names of absent Senators.
  The assistant legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
  Mr. REID. Therefore, Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant 
at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators. I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer

[[Page 13901]]


     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Collins
     Crapo
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lott
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Ensign
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). A quorum is present.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
are now prepared to go to third reading on the energy and water 
appropriations bill. Senator Lott and I and Senator Domenici and others 
have been working on what we will do following the completion of our 
work on energy and water. Unless there is an objection, I think this 
would be an appropriate time to complete our work on that bill. Senator 
Lott and I will have further announcements as soon as we complete our 
work on this particular bill.
  At this time, it would be my suggestion we go to third reading and 
final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 1024

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' 
amendment be modified with the language I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 7, line 6, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That within the fund's 
     provision herein, $250,000 may be used for the Horseshoe 
     Lake, AR, feasibility study.''
       At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``Provided 
     further, That the project for the ACF authorized by section 2 
     of the Rivers and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (Public Law 79-
     14; 59 Stat. 10) and modified by the first section of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 635, Chapter 595), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary, as part of navigation 
     maintenance activities to develop and implement a plan to be 
     integrated into the long term dredged material management 
     plan being developed for the Corley Slough reach as required 
     by conditions of the State of Florida water quality 
     certification, for periodically removing sandy dredged 
     material from the disposal area known as Site 40, located at 
     mile 36.5 of the Apalachicola River, and from other disposal 
     sites that the Secretary may determine to be needed, for the 
     purpose of reuse of the disposal areas, by transporting and 
     depositing the sand for environmentally acceptable beneficial 
     uses in coastal areas of northwest Florida to be determined 
     in coordination with the State of Florida: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary is authorized to acquire all lands, 
     easements, and rights of way that may be determined by the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the affected state, to be 
     required for dredged material disposal areas to implement a 
     long term dredge material management plan: Provided further, 
     That the long term management plan shall be developed in 
     coordination with the State of Florida no later than 2 years 
     from the date of enactment of this legislation: Provided 
     further, That, $5,000,000 shall be made available for these 
     purposes and $8,173,000 shall be made available for the 
     Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers Navigation.''


                funding for beach replenishment projects

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the distinguished 
managers of the bill if they would consider a request that I and my 
colleague from New Jersey have concerning the conference.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to accommodate my colleagues from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Mr. President, I am 
very pleased to see that the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill makes appropriations for many important water 
resources projects throughout the country. In particular, the Army 
Corps of Engineers budget includes $1.57 billion in construction 
funding for important dredging, flood control, and beach replenishment 
projects, many of which are in my State.
  We are extremely grateful that the subcommittee has provided New 
Jersey with sorely needed funds. And while we understand that the 
committee has appropriated projects with limited funds, we ask that 
should funds be made available during conference, that they would 
consider funding beach replenishment new construction starts. There are 
several new start projects in my State which are in desperate need of 
funding, and I would like to draw your attention to several of these 
projects, and ask that the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee consider funding for these projects. I cannot stress how 
vital these projects are to the economies of my State, the region, and 
our Nation.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, New Jersey's 127 miles of beaches are 
wide and inviting, dotted with sand dunes and boardwalks offset by a 
rollicking blue surf and white, warm sand. From Sandy Hook to Cape May 
Point, one hundred and sixty million people visit New Jersey beaches 
per year. These visitors generate the bulk of the tourism industry in 
New Jersey, which is the backbone of my State's economy. Spending by 
tourists totaled $26.1 billion in New Jersey in 1998, a 2 percent 
increase from $25.6 billion in 1997. Clearly, our beaches are our 
lifeblood, and their health is paramount.
  This year, there are five new start beach replenishment projects that 
are in critical need for Federal funding. These projects: the Lower 
Cape May Meadows, the Brigantine Inlet to Great Delaware Bay 
Coastline--Oakwood Beach, the Delaware Bay Coastline--Villas and 
Vicinity, are vital to fighting beach erosion and protecting the 
tourist economy for South Jersey. My fear is that if Federal funds are 
not immediately directed to protect these beaches, they will literally 
disappear in the future.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. While we recognize the difficulties involved in 
providing funding for new starts, we cannot stress how important the 
construction phase for these projects begin as soon as possible. I 
would like to note that all of these projects have been authorized by 
the Water Resources Development Act.
  The economy of the region depends directly upon the health of its 
beaches. Unless construction begins in fiscal year 2002, I am concerned 
that the economies of the beach-towns within the scope of these 
projects will be seriously damaged.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senators from New Jersey and assure them that 
the committee recognizes the importance of protecting our beaches 
throughout the country.


                     jennings randolph lake project

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to clarify that it is the 
committee's intent that the additional $100,000 provided in the Army 
Corps of Engineers' operations and maintenance account for the Jennings 
Randolph Lake project will be used to develop access to the Big Bend 
Recreation area on the Maryland side of the Jennings Randolph Lake 
immediately downstream from the dam.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is correct. The committee has provided an 
additional $100,000 for planning and design work for access to the Big 
Bend Recreation Area located immediately downstream of the Jennings 
Randolph dam.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for these assurances. There is 
great demand for additional camping, fishing, and white water rafting 
opportunities particularly in the area just below the dam, known as Big 
Bend, and these funds will be very helpful in developing access to this 
area.


                       great lakes drilling study

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada knows, the 
Senate adopted the Stabenow-Fitzgerald-Levin-Durbin amendment which

[[Page 13902]]

would require an Army Corps of Engineers study on drilling in the Great 
Lakes and place a moratorium on any new drilling until Congress lifts 
it in the future.
  It is clear that Congress has jurisdiction over Great Lakes drilling 
because it constitutes interstate commerce under the commerce clause of 
the Constitution. This constitutes interstate commerce under the 
Commerce clause of the Constitution for several reasons. One reason is 
that an environmental accident such as the release of crude oil into 
the waters of one or more of the Great Lakes would negatively affect 
the water quality, tourism and fishing industries and shorelines of 
multiple Great Lakes states. Another reason is that oil and gas 
extracted from one Great Lakes states would be transported and sold in 
other states in the form of many products. It would also increase the 
national supply of oil and gas.
  For these reasons, there is not doubt that Congress has Federal 
jurisdiction over drilling in the Great Lakes and can put a stop to it.
  Would the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, and the author of this bill, agree with this 
interpretation of the Commerce clause?
  Mr. REID. I totally agree that Congress has jurisdiction over 
drilling in the Great Lakes because it constitutes interstate commerce 
under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.


                        kootenai river sturgeon

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern 
over the control of water levels of the Kootenai River in and around 
Bonners Ferry, ID, related to the Kootenai Sturgeon. The Kootenai River 
is directly influenced by the operations of the Libby Dam as operated 
by the Army Corps of Engineers. This area has also been defined as 
critical habitat for the Kootenai Sturgeon.
  Will the distinguished Senators from Nevada and New Mexico engage in 
a colloquy with me concerning the Kootenai River Sturgeon?
  Mr. REID. I will be pleased to engage in such a colloquy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As am I.
  Mr. CRAIG. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the final stages 
of the biological opinion reporting on the Kootenai Sturgeon. I feel 
this document is severely flawed. In the assessment, the economic 
impact is determined to have ``no effect'' because the area of study is 
11 miles of river bottom. As there is no economic activity on the river 
bottom, I understand the conclusion of the biological opinion. However, 
I believe the area studied by the economic impact should be the 
communities affected by any changes in the operations of the Kootenai 
River.
  The biological opinion states that the river should be operated above 
1,758 feet to support increased flows for Kootenai Sturgeon. Various 
studies exist that dispute this number as being correct. When the river 
is operated above an elevation of 1,758 feet, the water table in the 
surrounding area rises. As a result, farmers in the area lose crops. I 
argue this action is a significant economic impact.
  I feel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should examine a realistic 
area as part of their economic impact analysis--that is the area in 
which an economic impact occurs. Before decisions are made that 
drastically affect communities, all of the factors should be 
considered.
  Mr. REID. I feel that the issues the Senator from Idaho raises are of 
a concern, and I want to work with him to see that a solution is found.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Endangered Species Act has also significantly 
affected areas of my State. I want to work with the Senator from Idaho 
to find a solution to this issue and provide help for the affected 
communities.


             funding for the green brook sub-basin project

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2002 energy and water 
appropriations bill provides appropriations for many important water 
resources projects for the state of New Jersey. I understand that these 
appropriations were made with limited funds and I am deeply grateful 
for the support the Committee has provided to many of my requests. 
However, there is an important New Jersey project that was not fully 
appropriated and we respectfully ask the managers that if funds should 
be made available during conference, that they consider fully funding 
the President's budget request for the Green Brook Sub-Basin.
  As you may know, flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd in 1999 caused 
tremendous damage to the state of New Jersey--especially to the town of 
Green Brook and the surrounding region. It is estimated that the 
flooding caused $6 million of damage to the region alone. 
Unfortunately, the floods from Hurricane Floyd were not the first to 
have struck the area. Records have shown that floods have continuously 
struck this area as early 1903. Disastrous flooding to the basin in the 
summer of 1971 and in the summer of 1973--in which six people were 
killed.
  The Green Brook Sub-Basic project, which is located in north-central 
New Jersey and spans throughout three counties, began in 2000. The 
project will construct flood levees and flood walls, bridge raisings, 
closure structures, individual flood proofings, and buyouts. As you can 
imagine, the completion of this project will provide needed relief and 
bring economic revitalization to the region.
  The House of Representatives has already fully funded the project for 
fiscal year 1002.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I support my colleague from New Jersey's 
request and on our behalf, we would like to raise an additional issue 
with the project. We also urge that the Committee Report language that 
directs the Secretary of the Army to implement the locally requested 
plan in the western portion of Middlesex County with regards to the 
Green Brook Sub-Basin projects to be included in the Energy and Water 
conference report. Many of the local residents that are affected by the 
Green Brook Sub-Basin project have expressed their interest in changing 
the project to include buyouts for this area. The report language will 
implement the change as well as provide lands for badly needed 
recreation and as well as fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. We are 
support this language and the House has included similar language in 
their committee report.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I understand the difficulty the 
managers will have in providing additional funds for the Green Brook 
Sub-Basin project. However, the full funding of this project will 
provide stability and economic revitalization to this very important 
region in the state of New Jersey.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senators from New Jersey and assure him that 
the committee will closely review his request.


               SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING FOR MICHIGAN

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 
2002 appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development I wonder if 
the distinguished Senator from Nevada would answer a question regarding 
funding for environmental infrastructure.
  I would like to know if the Senator would be willing to consider in 
conference sewer infrastructure funding for Michigan projects. The need 
to invest in sewer infrastructure is an urgent one facing the people of 
Michigan and the Army Corps of Engineers is in a position to address 
that need. The Army Corps has had many success stories throughout the 
country in assisting communities in upgrading their sewer 
infrastructure. I would greatly appreciate the Committee's assistance 
in protecting water quality in Michigan by addressing this problem.
  Mr. REID. We recognize the need to upgrade our aging infrastructure 
to protect water quality throughout the Nation. I can assure my friend 
that we will carefully consider his request in conference if indeed the 
Conference committee is able to fund construction new starts and 
environmental infrastructure projects at conference, as we have done in 
the past.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Nevada and the committee for their

[[Page 13903]]

hard work in putting together this important legislation.


                      south dakota water projects

  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership and 
cooperation in providing funding in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill for key South Dakota rural water projects and 
priorities. As chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, he has 
provided funding above the President's request and the House approved 
level for the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project and the Mid-Dakota Rural 
Water Project. Moreover, the Senator funded other important water 
projects in South Dakota such as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water 
System. Indeed, his commitment will benefit many South Dakotans.
  Mr. REID. I say to my colleague from South Dakota that I appreciate 
his efforts to work with me on this bill. As a new member of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, I know the Senator is a leader in advocating 
increased investments for rural water projects in your State. I also 
understand the importance of rural water projects to the citizens of 
South Dakota and I look forward to continued cooperation on these and 
other priorities.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his assistance and 
recognition of South Dakota's rural water needs. Despite the high 
priority given to provide funding for these South Dakota water 
projects, two critical items remain important to me as the Senate works 
to complete action on the FY02 Energy and Water Appropriations bill in 
its upcoming conference with the House of Representatives.
  First, the Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project is in need of an increase 
in funding to ensure the timely delivery of safe, clean, and affordable 
water to citizens and communities served by that project. Second, the 
James River Water Development District--a subdivision of State 
government in South Dakota--requires funding to complete an 
Environmental Impact Statement on authorized projects along the James 
River watershed before the JRWDD can commence continued channel 
restoration and improvements authorized by section 401(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128).
  I respectfully request the Chairman's committing to review 
opportunities in conference committee negotiations on the FY02 Energy 
and Water Appropriations bill to consider additional funding for the 
Mid-Dakota Rural Water System and to consider funding for the JRWDD to 
complete an EIS.
  Mr. REID. I express to Senator Johnson my desire to consider 
opportunities in conference committee negotiations on the FY02 Energy 
and Water Appropriations bill to increase funding for the Mid-Dakota 
Rural Water Project and to fund the James River Water Development 
District in South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator.


                        ESTUARY RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the managers of the 
fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill on 
the issue of funding for the Estuary Restoration Act. Along with 
Senators Warner, Lieberman, and Smith of New Hampshire, I have offered 
an amendment that would provide $2 million in funding for the 
implementation of the Estuary Act. Enacted last year, this bipartisan 
law establishes the Estuary Habitat Restoration Program with the goal 
of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat. We understand the 
budgetary constraints that the Appropriations Committee is operating 
under as this bill is being considered by the Senate. It is my hope 
that the managers can identify funding for the implementation of the 
Estuary Restoration Act during the conference with the House.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I commend Senators Chafee, Warner, Lieberman, and Smith 
of New Hampshire for their dedication to the issue. I will work with my 
colleagues during the conference with the House to identify potential 
sources of funding for the Estuary Restoration Act.
  Mr. REID. I concur with Senator Domenici. There is no objection on 
this side of the aisle to the Senator from Rhode Island's request.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators and look forward to working with the 
committee to provide funding for the restoration of our Nation's 
important estuary environments.


                          Small Wind Projects

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, 
Senator Reid, for recognizing the important role small wind projects 
play in our energy future. As my colleague knows, the State of Vermont 
has been looking at the use of small wind projects. I appreciate the 
efforts of my colleague to provide $500,000 for a small wind project in 
Vermont.
  Mr. REID. Small wind projects are an important source of energy for 
rural areas that often are not connected to the electricity grid. Both 
Vermont and Nevada have a number of these areas that benefit from this 
reliable, sustainable, clean source of energy.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. To ensure that these systems, which have power 
capacities of less than 100 kilowatts, continue to play an important 
role, the committee recognized the need for a set aside for small wind 
programs. It is correct that the committee believes that not less than 
$10 million shall be made available for new and ongoing small wind 
programs?
  Mr. REID. This is correct. The committee believes this research is 
important, and the Department of Energy should set aside no less than 
$10 million for these programs.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my colleague for his support of these important 
small wind energy projects, and I thank him for has continued 
leadership in making sure that renewable energy will be a large part of 
our energy mix.


                        TRANSMISSION RELIABILITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the electric energy systems and storage program that funds transmission 
reliability. Improving the reliability of our Nation's transmission 
system is absolutely critical. I note that while the President's budget 
request substantially cuts funding for this critical program, the 
Senate has increased the funding from approximately $52 million last 
year to $71 million this year. Transmission reliability is critical to 
ensure that our nation's electricity supply actually reaches states 
and, ultimately, the homes and businesses where it is needed. We have 
seen in California, New York, and elsewhere, that when we don't have 
sufficient supply and transmission capacity, we experience blackouts 
and brownouts that have significant detrimental impacts on our economy.
  We need to use this money to test new technologies--specifically 
Composite Conductor wire--that have the ability to dramatically 
increase the efficiency of existing transmission wires. This type of 
wire eliminates the need for new wires, new rights-of-way, and new 
construction, which eliminates siting and permitting problems and 
related potential environmental impacts. We need to actually test this 
wire in different climatic and weather conditions to determine the 
efficacy of using this technology on a larger scale. To this end, I 
would suggest to the Subcommittee that it provide funds to actually 
conduct field tests to achieve these objectives.
  Mr. REID. I agree that we need to conduct such field tests. I know 
that the Senator from North Dakota would like a field test in North 
Dakota, which would be extremely valuable, with the State's cold and 
wind conditions, to help determine the effectiveness of this 
technology. I will work with the Senator in conference to address his 
request to test this technology in the field.


                       Renewable Energy Research

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I 
commend him for his efforts to promote the advancement and progress of 
renewable energy sources that will help to address our energy 
challenges. He has been a leader of these efforts, which are bearing 
real fruit.
  This bill actually increases renewable energy research, development 
and deployment programs for fiscal year 2002 by $60 million over last 
year.

[[Page 13904]]

These increases will help speed the deployment of these cutting-edge 
technologies.
  But because the House had not fully funded certain solar R&D 
programs, the committee put its emphasis for solar programs on those 
programs that had not fared as well in the other Chamber. These 
programs, the Concentrating Solar Power program, and the Solar 
Buildings program with its innovative Zero Energy Buildings initiative, 
are now on solid footing. But the photovoltaics program, the program 
that has led to dramatic advances in those solar electric panels that 
we see popping up on the roofs of homes and businesses across the 
country--this program was not fully funded by the Committee. Much of 
this funding goes to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, 
Colorado.
  I understand the committee hopes to accept the House number for PV 
programs in conference, and I just want to give the Senator from Nevada 
an opportunity to speak to this issue.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Colorado. Yes, it is our intention 
to seek the House funding level for photovoltaics in conference, and 
push for our funding level for CSP and solar buildings. All three solar 
programs deserve increases from the current fiscal year, and we intend 
to see this through in conference. I thank the Senator for his work on 
this issue and for being a friend of clean, renewable energy programs.


           Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District

  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his 
leadership on the Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee. I would 
like to ask the Senator from Nevada whether I am correct in my 
understanding that the reason the Metropolitan North Georgia Water 
Planning District, a project that was one of my highest priorities 
because of its importance to the people of my State and its priority 
with the Governor of Georgia, was not included in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee report was because of the subcommittee's 
policy made pursuant to budgetary constraints that new start 
construction and/or environmental infrastructure water projects will 
not be addressed until the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act is considered in conference committee?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. Am I also correct in my understanding that when the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act is considered by the 
conference committee that the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning 
District Project will be considered for inclusion in the conference 
report?
  Mr. REID. The Senator is correct that the Metropolitan North Georgia 
Water Planning District project will be considered for inclusion in the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act conference report. I 
will make every effort to accommodate my colleague.


              Consortium for plant biotechnology research

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, is the senator from Nevada aware of an 
entity called the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a 
national consortium of industries, universities and federal 
laboratories that together support research and technology transfers?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I am aware of the consortium and am familiar with the 
good work and significant achievements that the consortium has produced 
for the Department of Energy in the past.
  Mr. CLELAND. I understand that the committee was unable to include it 
in the Solar Renewable Account during its consideration of the energy 
and water development appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. Yes, I believe that is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. As the energy and water development bill moves into 
conference, I hope the Senate can identify additional funds in the 
Solar and Renewable Account or another appropriate research account for 
the consortium so that it can continue its important work.
  Mr. REID. The Senate will do all it can to find these funds for the 
consortium as we work with the House conferees on the bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Senator Cleland, for 
his work on behalf of the consortium and state my support for the 
allocation of funding for the consortium in the energy and water 
development appropriations bill in conference. The consortium, of which 
the university of Colorado is a member, has an astounding record of 
obtaining private sector matching support for its research activities 
and has done an amazing job of commercializing its research product. 
For every dollar invested in the consortium, $2.20 worth of research 
has been conducted with private sector matching funds--an impressive 
120 percent private sector match. Additionally, the consortium has 
managed to commercialize its research within an average of three years, 
compared to an industry average of about 10 years. Again, I would like 
to state my support for funding for this unique and efficient national 
research institution.
  Mr. REID. The committee is aware of the good work the consortium has 
produced with department of Energy funding over the past decade. The 
Senate will do its best to try and identify funding for the consortium 
while in conference with the House.


                       gas cooled reactor systems

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as some Members may be aware, I have 
supported the development of gas cooled reactor systems, both small and 
large, for the provision of electric power and useful heat for our 
cities. As currently envisioned, gas cooled reactors will be meltdown 
proof, create substantially less radioactive waste and will be more 
efficient than our current generation of reactors.
  Currently, the Department of Energy is funding a joint U.S.-Russian 
effort to develop the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor for the 
purpose of burning up surplus Russian weapons plutonium. This 
tremendously successful swords to plowshares project is making great 
technical progress and employs more than 500 Russian weapons scientists 
and nuclear engineers.
  Although the GT-MHR unit built in Russia will be primarily for 
burning plutonium, that same meltdown proof reactor type can be easily 
converted into a uranium burning commercial reactor for use around the 
globe. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee's report notes that ``the 
United States must take full advantage of the development of this 
attractive technology for a possible next generation nuclear power 
reactor for United States and foreign markets''.
  However, the committee's bill does not explicitly provide any dollars 
for the commercialization of the GT-MHR design.
  The senior Senator from New Mexico is a leader in nuclear energy and 
research. I want to ask my good friend, the Ranking Member of the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee, the following question regarding the 
commercialization of the GT-MHR: the ``Nuclear Energy Technologies'' 
account in the bill provides $7 million for Generation IV reactor 
development and for further research on small, modular nuclear 
reactors. Given that the federal government is already making a 
substantial investment on the GT-MHR for non-proliferation purposes, 
and given the near-term promise of this reactor, doesn't it make sense 
that at least one-half of the $7 million provided be used by the 
Department of Energy for GT-MHR commercialization efforts?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my friend from Alaska for his observations and 
for his question. As the Senator knows, I too am a great fan of the 
development of the GT-MHR in Russia and indeed, I was the Senator that 
initiated the first Federal funding for this program. The question is a 
fair one and I will have to say that his observations and the 
conclusion he draws from them are correct. I agree that a substantial 
portion of the $7 million in funding should indeed be put to good use 
in commercializing the GT-MHR which is being designed with great cost-
effectiveness and success in Russia.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my good friend from New Mexico for his response. 
Small modular reactors which

[[Page 13905]]

are of great potential importance to rural areas and hence of great 
interest to me. Last year, at my request, Congress provided $1 million 
for the Department of Energy to study the feasibility of small modular 
nuclear reactors for deployment in remote locations. That report is now 
done and in brief, the Department of Energy has concluded that such 
reactors are not only feasible, but may eventually be a very desirable 
alternative for many remote communities without access to clean, 
affordable power sources.
  Importantly, one of the most desirable remote reactor types the 
Department examined was a reduced sized version of the GT-MHR called 
the Remote Site Modular Helium Reactor. Given the outstanding 
characteristics of this remote reactor as identified in the 
Department's report and given that the Department is already developing 
the basic technology via the Russian program, I believe the Department 
of Energy should focus on further developing the RS-MHR in the upcoming 
year.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico.


                 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR NAVIGATION

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, there are currently three major federally 
authorized and sponsored navigation projects under construction in the 
Port of New York and New Jersey and a fourth in the preconstruction, 
engineering, and design phase. The projects that would deepen the 
Arthur Kill Channel to 41 feet, the Kill van Kull Channel to 45 feet, 
the Port Jersey and New York Harbor channels to 41 feet, are being 
built. An overarching project called the New York-New Jersey Harbor 
Navigation project which would take these channels to 50-feet depths is 
in PED.
  These projects are staggered in this fashion only because of the 
order in which they were authorized. I would ask my colleague from New 
Jersey if there is any other reason for this segmentation.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. There certainly is no policy reason. In fact, each 
constituent project has passed a cost-benefit analysis, each has been 
shown to be in the federal interest, and each is subject to the 
appropriate cost-share consistent with Water Resource Development Act 
policy. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will fund the 
non-Federal share of each of these projects.
  Since the Harbor Navigation Project was authorized last year, the 
Army Corps and the Port Authority have been working to formulate a plan 
that would allow these projects to be managed as one in order to 
provide time and cost savings. They have recently concluded that doing 
this could result in as much as $400 million in savings to the Federal 
Treasury.
  But in order to achieve that savings, it is important that we begin 
looking at joint management of these projects as soon as possible. I 
ask the distinguished Chairman, if Senators Corzine, Clinton, Schumer 
and myself can demonstrate that the Army Corps could achieve 
substantial future Federal savings by jointly managing all four of 
these projects, would he assist us in our efforts to secure conference 
report language that would allow the Corps to manage these projects in 
this manner?
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friends, the Senators from New York and 
New Jersey, that I am appreciative of their desire to reduce the cost 
of major Army Corps projects. They know as well as I do that the Corps 
has a $40 plus billion backlog of authorized projects. I am concerned 
about a few aspects of this request, however. I am concerned that this 
request would have effects on the WRDA cost-share policy, which 
requires greater non-federal contributions for navigation projects that 
go deeper than 45 feet. I would not want the Army Corps to conclude 
that it could apply the cost-shares for the Kill van Kull, Arthur Kill, 
or Port Jersey project to the effort to bring about 50-foot channel 
depths, which require a larger non-federal contribution. I hope the 
Senators would understand that, as a member of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee, I could not support appropriations language 
that would undermine the WRDA policy or the committee's jurisdiction.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would respond to my friend, the distinguished 
chairman, that the report language we seek will be consistent with the 
WRDA policy regarding the appropriate cost-share for navigation 
project. I would also say that we intend to secure the Army Corps' 
support as well as that of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee Chairman. We are merely raising this issue tonight because we 
have not been able to settle this matter yet, and need some additional 
time.
  Mr. REID. In the interest of constructing these projects as quickly 
as possible and with the greatest savings to the American taxpayer, I 
would respond to my colleague that we will be happy to consider any 
such conference report language. I urge him to get it to us as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. On behalf myself and the Senator from New York, I 
thank the chairman.


                            mixed oxide fuel

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I drafted an amendment to the FY02 
Energy and Water Subcommittee to delay plutonium shipments to the 
Savannah River Site until the administration solidifies its commitment 
to South Carolina to treat weapons-grade material and move them off-
site. I understand this may be viewed as an extreme measure, but the 
result of budget cuts to Fissile Materials Disposition programs by DOE 
forced the NNSA to abandon a concurrent dual track approach for 
plutonium disposition and to substitute a risky ``layered'' approach. 
Despite administration briefings and testimony before Congress, there 
remain serious concerns about the disposition strategy contemplated by 
DOE and significant risk to South Carolina to store these materials for 
an extended duration, maybe indefinitely, before they are processed.
  I fully understand the DOE-wide implications of delaying the closing 
of Rocky Flats and empathize with my colleague from Colorado's keen 
interest in closing the site. South Carolina, and other DOE-site 
states, have been instrumental in assisting Colorado in meeting DOE 
milestone to close the site ahead of schedule. South Carolina should 
have a definite timetable for treating waste on site and an identified 
pathway out, too, just like Colorado. I am pleased to have the 
commitment of my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee to assist 
in addressing the outstanding issues with the fissile materials 
disposition program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
this issue.
  Mr. THURMOND. I join my colleague, Senator Hollings, and express my 
concern regarding recent developments in the Plutonium Disposition 
Program. I thank him for bringing this discussion to the floor today.
  The Plutonium Disposition Program, particularly the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
Program is of critical importance to our Nation. There are invaluable 
national security aspects, including the counter-proliferation mission. 
In addition, the MOX program can be an important factor in addressing 
our Nation's energy needs.
  I have had many conversations with administration officials on this 
matter. I received personal assurances from the Secretary of Energy, 
who stated MOX is his ``highest nonproliferation priority.'' Yet I am 
still concerned the administration is not fully committed to the 
Plutonium Disposition Program, leaving South Carolina as a dumping 
ground for our Nation's surplus nuclear weapons material.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I would appreciate 
Senator Thurmond's views on MOX as a primary option for plutonium 
disposition. Would you also agree that South Carolina should also be 
provided a concurrent back-up option to MOX?
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator for his question. While MOX should 
be the primary disposition option, I do agree there should be a backup 
plan for disposing surplus plutonium. I will work with my colleagues to 
require the administration to guarantee a back-up plan.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator. I would inquire of my colleague on 
his views on the cost of not proceeding. Would the Senator agree that 
not dealing with the existing stockpiles of nuclear materials and 
oxides found at

[[Page 13906]]

DOE industrial and research sites will ultimately cost more than the 
construction of the MOX facility and the Plutonium Immobilization 
Plant?
  Mr. THURMOND. The Senator is correct, the status quo simply does not 
make fiscal sense. It is my understanding that the cost of the two 
plants together is less than the cost of current storage requirements, 
over a comparable time period. In fact, according to a November 1996 
DOE report entitled ``Technical Summary for Long Term Storage of 
Weapons-Useable Fissile Materials,'' building and operating the MOX 
plant over a 50-year period, is over $1 billion less than the costs of 
maintaining the current infrastructure.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank my good friend, Senator Hollings, for allowing me 
to speak on matter and for compromising on his amendment regarding 
plutonium disposition. As the Senator knows, I was opposed to his 
original amendment and glad to see that a compromise has been reached 
regarding this very important issue of fissile materials disposition. 
The Senator's original amendment would have prohibited any funding for 
the transportation of surplus U.S. plutonium to the Savannah River Site 
until a final agreement was concluded for primary and secondary 
disposition activities.
  All members with a DOE site located in their State understand how 
sensitive these issues are to our constituents. But we also understand 
the importance of the nationwide integration of sites to ensure that 
DOE can continue to meet all its needs and requirements.
  Representing Colorado and Rocky Flats, I was concerned that this 
amendment could have delayed the shipment of plutonium to SRS by at 
least 1 year, delaying the scheduled 2006 closure date, costing at 
least $300 million a year. As the ranking member of the Strategic 
Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, I was concerned that this 
amendment could have interrupted the delicate balance of integration 
between all the sites by delaying shipments from Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory, Hanford, the Mound Site in Ohio to SRS, possibly 
triggering a chain reaction by other sites to deny SRS waste.
  However, I definitely understand South Carolina's concerns regarding 
the ability of SRS to properly dispose of DOE surplus plutonium. To my 
colleagues from South Carolina, I strongly support the establishment of 
a Mixed Oxide Fuel facility at SRS and will do all I can to assist in 
establishing some form of backup capability at the site as well.
  As one member who is sensitive to these concerns, I pledge to work 
with my South Carolina colleagues on this very important issue, not 
only for South Carolina, but also for the sake of the entire DOE 
complex.
  I admire Senator Hollings' persistence on this matter and for working 
with all of us who had concerns. I pledge to work not only with all 
members who have a DOE site to ensure a smooth and workable integration 
of sites regarding the treatment and disposal of waste. As chairman and 
ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Reed and I will have an opportunity to address the 
plutonium disposition program as part of the FY02 National Defense 
Authorization Bill. I again thank the Senator for this opportunity to 
express my concerns and gratitude.
  Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues from South Carolina for raising this 
very important issue. I also want to commend my colleague from Colorado 
for working with senators from South Carolina on this matter. As the 
chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, 
I am very interested in ensuring that DOE sites are closed in a timely 
manner and that the waste is treated and disposed of properly. I want 
to assure my colleagues that the Strategic Subcommittee will carefully 
examine this issue as the Senate Armed Services Committee considers the 
Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill is important to the Nation's energy resources, 
improving water infrastructure, and ensuring our national security 
interests. Let me first commend the managers of this bill, the 
distinguished Chairman Senator Reid and Ranking Member Senator 
Domenici, for their hard work in completing the Senate bill in order to 
move the appropriations process forward.
  The bill provides funding for critical cleanup activities at various 
sites across the country and continues ongoing water infrastructure 
projects managed by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The bill also increases resources for renewable energy 
research and nuclear energy programs that are critical to ensuring a 
diverse energy supply for this Nation.
  These are all laudable and important activities, particularly given 
the energy problems facing our Nation. While I have great respect for 
the work of my colleagues to complete the committee recommendations for 
the agencies funded in this bill, I am also disappointed that the 
appropriators have once again failed to abide by a fair and responsible 
budget process by inflating this bill with porkbarrel spending. 
Unfortunately, my colleagues have determined that their ability to 
increase energy spending is just another opportunity to increase 
porkbarrel spending.
  This bill is 5.8 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 
2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in discretionary 
spending that the President wanted to adhere to.
  In real dollars, this is $2.4 billion in additional spending above 
the amount requested by the President, and $1.4 billion higher than 
last year. So far this year, with just two appropriations bills 
considered, spending levels have exceeded the President's budget 
request by more than $3 billion.
  A good amount of this increase is in the form of parochial spending 
for unrequested projects. In this bill, I have identified 442 separate 
earmarks totaling $732 million, which is greater than the 328 earmarks, 
or $300 million, in the Senate bill passed last year.
  I have no doubt that many of my colleagues will assert the need to 
expend Federal dollars for their hometown Army Corps projects or to 
fund development of biomass or ethanol projects in their respective 
States. If these projects had been approved through a competitive, 
merit-based prioritization process or if the American public had a 
greater voice in determining if these projects are indeed the wisest 
and best use of their tax dollars, then I would not object.
  The reality is that very few people know how billions of dollars are 
spent in the routine cycle of the appropriations process. No doubt, the 
general public would be appalled that many of the funded projects are, 
at best, questionable--or worse, unauthorized, or singled out for 
special treatment because of politics.
  This is truly a disservice to the American people who rely on the 
Congress to utilize prudent judgement in the budget approval process.
  Let me share a few examples of what the appropriators are earmarking 
this year: additional $10 million for the Denali Commission, a regional 
commission serving only the needs of Alaska; $200,000 to study 
individual ditch systems in the state of Hawaii; earmark of $300,000 
for Aunt Lydia's Cove in Massachusetts; $300,000 to remove aquatic 
weeds in the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in Texas; $3 million for a South 
Dakota integrated ethanol complex; $2 million for the Sealaska ethanol 
project; two separate earmarks, totaling $5 million, for gasification 
of Iowa Switch Grass; additional $2.7 million to pay for electrical 
power systems, bus upgrades and communications in Nevada; $500,000 to 
research brine waste disposal alternatives in Arizona and Nevada; and, 
$9.5 million to pay for demonstrations of erosion control in 
Mississippi.
  These are just a few examples from the 24-page list of objectionable 
provisions I found in this bill and its accompanying report.
  As I learned during the consideration of the Interior appropriations 
bill when my efforts failed to cut wasteful spending for a particular 
special interest

[[Page 13907]]

project, an overwhelming majority of my colleagues accept and embrace 
the practice of porkbarrel spending.
  I respect the work of my colleagues on the appropriations committee. 
However, I do not believe that the Congress should have absolute 
discretion to tell the Army Corps or the Bureau of Reclamation how best 
to spend millions of taxpayer dollars for purely parochial projects.
  I repeat my conviction that our budget process should be free from 
such blatant and rampant porkbarrel spending. Unfortunately, to the 
detriment of American taxpayers, the practice of porkbarrel spending 
has advanced at light-speed in the last decade and shows no sign of 
abating.
  Just look at the numbers.
  We have witnessed an explosion of unrequested projects passed by 
Congress in the last decade. According to the Office of Management and 
Budget, there were 1,724 unrequested projects in 1993; 3,476 in 2000; 
and 6,454 unrequested projects this fiscal year.
  We all know the direction this spending train is going. Come October, 
spending bills will be piled-up, frantic negotiations will ensue, a 
grand deal will be struck, and guess what? Those spending caps we were 
supposed to abide by will just fade away.
  I hope I am wrong.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the 
Material Protection, Control, and Accounting, or MPC&A, program managed 
by the Department of Energy to better secure and protect nuclear 
weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union. I want to strongly 
urge the House-Senate conference committee for this bill to increase 
the funding for this important initiative. I call upon the Senate 
conferees to join with our House colleagues in supporting a $190 
million funding level for fiscal year 2002.
  The MPC&A program is often referred to as the first line of defense 
in safeguarding Russian nuclear materials against potential diversion 
or theft. From the mundane, such as installing barbed wire fences 
around sites, to more sophisticated measures like implementing 
computerized material accounting systems to keep track of nuclear 
materials, the MPC&A program helps ensure that rogue regimes and 
terrorist groups do not have access to the most dangerous byproducts of 
the cold war.
  Let me make clear that this program has been considered an enormous 
success. Various studies and reports have confirmed the cost 
effectiveness of this program. Simply put, it benefits both Russia and 
the United States, as well as all the other former members of the 
Soviet Union.
  But our current efforts may not be enough. A high-level bipartisan 
level headed by former Majority Leader Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler 
declared earlier this year:

       While the security of hundreds of tons of Russian material 
     has been improved under the MPC&A Program, comprehensive 
     security upgrades have covered only a modest fraction of the 
     weapons-usable material. There is no program yet in place to 
     provide incentives, resources, and organizational arrangement 
     for Russia to sustain high levels of security.

  The Baker-Cutler panel goes on to recommend $5 billion in 
improvements and upgrades to the MPC&A program over the next 8 to 10 
years to accomplish these objectives.
  That may be too ambitious an objective given our current budget 
environment. At the very least, the Baker-Cutler report points to the 
need to build upon, not cut back, existing funding for the MPC&A 
program. In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee in March, 
Senator, and now Ambassador, Baker offered a personal concern:

       I am a little short of terrified at some of the storage 
     facilities for nuclear material and nuclear weapons; and 
     relatively small investments can yield enormous improvements 
     in storage and security. So, from my standpoint, that is my 
     first priority.

  I share his well-grounded fear, and I hope my colleagues in both 
houses will recognize the vital benefits that the MPC&A program 
contributes to our national security.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. I 
believe the Senate has addressed these very complex matters 
appropriately.
  As we all know, this bill funds many significant projects. Of 
particular significance to me is the critical funding this bill 
provides for the clean-up activities at our Nation's Department of 
Energy nuclear weapons sites and more specifically the Savannah River 
Site (SRS) in my hometown of Aiken, SC. I was disappointed by the 
administration's proposed budget for these activities, and have 
indicated so publicly on numerous occasions. At SRS alone, the fiscal 
year 2002 request was almost $160 million less than the previous year. 
This bill provides an additional $181 million for these crucial cleanup 
activities and should ensure that SRS will stay on schedule to meet its 
future regulatory commitments to the State of South Carolina as well as 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  While I am supportive of most elements of this bill there were some 
issues which concerned me. Specifically, the report which accompanies 
this bill included a directive that the Department of Energy transfer 
the Accelerator for the Production of Tritium (APT) project from the 
Office of Defense Programs within the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 
Technology for inclusion in the Advanced Accelerator Applications 
office.
  I disagree with this proposal and will oppose such a move. First and 
foremost, this is an appropriations bill, not an authorization. The APT 
program was authorized in section 3134 of the Defense Authorization Act 
for fiscal year 2000 as a defense program. I wholeheartedly support 
exploring additional scientific, engineering research, development and 
demonstrations with this superb technology and I believe this work may 
yield dramatic advances. However, APT is and should remain a Defense 
Program. Last year, the Department established a new Accelerator 
Development effort. This office is ``Co-Chaired'' by the NNSA's Office 
of Defense Programs and the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear 
Energy, Science and Technology. I have no objections of combining 
efforts at the Department of Energy where appropriate, however, the 
primary mission of the APT is, as defined by law, to serve as a backup 
source of tritium for our nation's strategic arsenal.
  Finally, I would like to discuss the Fissile Materials Disposition 
Programs as discussed in the bill. This bill correctly describes the 
excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia as a ``clear and present 
danger to the security of United States. . . .'' I believe it is in the 
best interest of all Americans to move forward with this program 
expeditiously. I am further pleased that the administration fully 
funded the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility to be constructed at 
the Savannah River Site. Unfortunately, I have recently heard some 
troubling stories regarding the commitment of the White House to this 
important program.
  The New York Times ran a story this Monday, July 16, 2001 entitled 
``U.S. Review on Russia Urges Keeping Most Arms Control,'' which 
greatly concerned me.
  According to the article, while most of the programs initiated in the 
previous Administration will be retained, ``the White House plans to 
overhaul a hugely expensive effort to enable Russia and the United 
States to each destroy 34 tons of stored plutonium. . . .'' Mr. 
President, what the White House is discussing here is the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Program, known as MOX. This facility is planned for the Savannah 
River Site.
  As you likely already know, the MOX program has an invaluable 
counter-proliferation mission. Thanks to an agreement with the Russian 
Government, signed last year, the MOX program will help take weapons 
grade plutonium out of former Soviet stockpiles, and will also divert 
such materials from potentially falling into the hands of rogue 
nations, terrorists, or criminal organizations. In and of itself, this 
clearly makes the MOX program worth every penny. Earlier this year I 
asked Secretary of Energy Abraham where he stands on this program and 
he responded that MOX is his ``highest nonproliferation priority.''

[[Page 13908]]

  Beyond the important national security aspects of this program there 
are many domestic issues which must be considered in evaluating this 
program. From the standpoint of providing a much needed source of 
energy, MOX makes good sense. Presently, there are quite literally tons 
of surplus nuclear weapons materials stored throughout the Department 
of Energy (DOE) industrial complex that could be processed in our MOX 
facility and reintroduced as a fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. 
Here is the beauty of this program, once MOX is burned in selected 
reactors it is gone for good. It cannot be used for weapons ever again 
and there is no more need for storage.
  Furthermore, I am convinced that not dealing with the existing 
stockpiles of nuclear materials and oxides that are found at the six 
DOE industrial and research sites will ultimately cost substantially 
more than the construction of the MOX facility. According to the 
previously mentioned news article, ``the administration insists it is 
still exploring less expensive options.'' According to a November 29, 
1996 DOE report entitled Technical Summary for Long Term Storage of 
Weapons-Useable Fissile Materials, the costs of maintaining the current 
infrastructure far exceeds the costs of building and operating the MOX 
plant according to the current plan. According to the report, the cost 
for storage of plutonium in constant 1996 dollars is estimated to be 
approximately ``$380 million per year and the operating cost for 50 
years of operation at approximately $3.2 billion. The cost is 
insensitive to where the plutonium is stored at any one of the four 
sites.'' The status quo simply does not make fiscal sense.
  Perhaps the most critical domestic consideration regarding the MOX 
program is that it creates a ``path out'' for materials currently being 
stored at SRS and awaiting processing as well as those materials that 
could be shipped to the site and processed there in the future. South 
Carolina agreed to accept nuclear materials shipments into SRS based on 
the understanding that an expeditious ``pathway out'' would exist. 
Canceling the Plutonium Disposition Program eliminates the ``path 
out.'' Neither I nor anyone else who represents South Carolina at the 
Federal or State level is willing to see the Savannah River Site become 
the de facto dumping ground for the nation's nuclear materials. If the 
``path out'' for these materials disappears, then the ``path in'' to 
the Savannah River Site is likely to become muddy. That is bad for 
cleanup nationwide.
  Ambassador Howard Baker and Mr. Lloyd Cutler reached a series of 
conclusions in their recent report from the Russia Task Force, any one 
of which justifies aggressive support for the MOX program. However one 
statement struck me as particularly poignant. Specifically, as stated 
in the report, ``the national security benefits to U.S. citizens from 
securing and/or neutralizing the equivalent of more than 80,000 nuclear 
weapons and potential weapons would constitute the highest return on 
investment in any current U.S. national security and defense program.''
  I am concerned by the signals coming from the White House. I intend 
to ask President Bush to publicly support this initiative and put an 
end to my concerns as well as those of my colleagues and all of the 
states involved.
  In closing, this is a good bill and I am pleased to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the New York Times 
article in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 16, 2001]

         U.S. Review on Russia Urges Keeping Most Arms Controls

               (By Judith Miller with Michael R. Gordon)

       A Bush administration review of American assistance to 
     Russia has concluded that most of the programs aimed at 
     helping Russia stop the spread of nuclear, chemical and 
     biological weapons are vital to American security and should 
     be continued, a senior administration official says. Some may 
     even be expanded.
       But the White House wants to restructure or end two 
     programs: a $2.1 billion effort to dispose of hundreds of 
     tons of military plutonium and a program to shrink Russian 
     cities that were devoted to nuclear weapons development, and 
     to provide alternative jobs for nuclear scientists, the 
     official said in an interview on Friday. Both these programs 
     have been criticized in Congress.
       The review also calls for a shift in philosophy from 
     ``assistance to partnership'' with Russia.
       To do that, the official said, Russia would have to 
     demonstrate a willingness to make a financial and political 
     commitment to stop the spread of advanced conventional 
     weapons and to end its sale of nuclear and other military-
     related expertise and technology to Iran and other nations 
     unfriendly to the United States.
       One administration official said the issue of how to handle 
     Russia's sales of sensitive technology and expertise not only 
     to Iran, Iraq, Libya and others hostile to America was being 
     considered separately by the White House. No decisions have 
     been made yet.
       But on those issues, it would be ``hard to create a 
     partnership if we think that Russia is proliferating,'' this 
     official added. ``It's not a condition; it's a fact of 
     life.''
       Administration officials said the recommendation to extend 
     most Administration officials said the recommendation to 
     extend most nonproliferation programs was not conditioned 
     upon Russian acquiescence to the administration's 
     determination to build a nuclear missile shield.
       The review covered 30 programs with an annual outlay of 
     some $800 million. They are a cornerstone of America's 
     scientific and military relationship with Russia. The 
     programs, involving mostly the Pentagon, the Energy 
     Department and the State Department, pay for the dismantling 
     of weapons facilities and the strengthening of security at 
     sites where nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are 
     stored.
       President Bush is expected to discuss some of these 
     programs when he meets with President Vladimir V. Putin next 
     weekend. That meeting, in Genoa, Italy, is expected to focus 
     on American plans to build the missile shield, which the 
     Americans admit would violate a longstanding treaty between 
     the two nations.
       The administration's endorsement of most of the 
     nonproliferation programs begun by the Clinton administration 
     will not surprise most legislators, given that the 
     administration is now trying to avoid being portrayed as 
     single-minded on national security matters in its pursuit of 
     a missile shield, and as unresponsive to European support for 
     arms control.
       Officials said that although cabinet officials had 
     discussed the review's findings, no final decisions on the 
     recommendations would be made until Congress reacted to the 
     proposals. The administration has begun arranging to brief 
     key legislators on the results of its review, which began in 
     April and was conducted by an expert on Russia on loan from 
     the State Department to the National Security Council office 
     that deals with nonproliferation strategy. That office is 
     headed by Bob Joseph.
       In interviews, administration officials said the White 
     House would not overlook Russian efforts to weaken the 
     programs by restricting access to weapons plants or by 
     erecting obstacles to meeting nonproliferation commitments. 
     ``We have a high standard for Russian behavior,'' one 
     official said.
       The review has concluded that most of the $420 million 
     worth of the Pentagon's programs--called Cooperative Threat 
     Reduction--are ``effectively managed'' and advance American 
     interests.
       The White House also intends to expand State Department 
     programs that help Russian scientists engage in peaceful work 
     through the Moscow-based International Science and Technology 
     Center, which the European Union and Japan also support, and 
     other institutions.
       But some big-ticket programs whose budgets have already 
     been slashed or criticized on Capitol Hill are likely to be 
     shut down or ``refocused,'' the official said.
       Though it is no longer very expensive, another program, the 
     Nuclear Cities Initiative, has already been scaled back by 
     Congress. It was begun in 1998 to help create nonmilitary 
     work for Russia's 122,000 nuclear scientists and to help 
     Russia downsize geographically and economically isolated 
     nuclear cities, where 760,000 people live.
       Unhappy with both the cost and the Russian reluctance to 
     open these cities.
       Unhappy with both the cost and the Russian reluctance to 
     open these cities fully to Western visitors, Congress has 
     repeatedly slashed money for the program. Under the Bush 
     review, the undefined ``positive aspects'' would be merged 
     into other programs, and most of the program closed.
       The Clinton administration had begun the program to provide 
     civilian work for Russia's closed nuclear cities. The aim was 
     to prevent nuclear scientists there from leaving for Iraq, 
     Iran and other aspiring nuclear powers. Under the program, 
     the Russians would also have to expedite the closure of two 
     warhead-assembly plants and their conversion to civilian 
     production.
       ``The administration will be missing an opportunity to shut 
     down two warhead production plants if it abandons the Nuclear 
     Cities Initiative,'' said Rose Gottemoeller, a senior

[[Page 13909]]

     Energy Department official during the Clinton administration. 
     The administration says Russia plans to close those two 
     facilities in any event.
       The White House also intends to overhaul a hugely expensive 
     effort to enable Russia and the United States each to destroy 
     34 tons of stored plutonium by building facilities in Russia 
     and the United States. The program, as currently structured, 
     will cost Russia $2.1 billion and the United States $6.5 
     billion, at a minimum. The administration has pledged $400 
     million and has already appropriated $240 million.
       In February 2000, the Clinton administration wrested a 
     promise from Russia to stop making plutonium out of fuel from 
     its civilian power reactors as part of a research and aid 
     package. While Russia was supposed to stop adding to its 
     estimated stockpile of 160 tons of military plutonium by 
     shutting down three military reactors last December, Moscow 
     was unable to do so because the reactors, near Tomsk and 
     Krasnoyarsk, provide heat and electricity to those cities.
       Critics said the original program was too costly and was 
     not moving forward. But supporters say the Bush 
     administration should try harder to solicit funds from 
     European and other governments before shelving the effort and 
     walking away from the accord.
       The administration insists it is still exploring less 
     expensive options.
       The administration has also deferred a decision on a 
     commitment to help Russia build facilities to destroy 40,000 
     tons of chemical weapons, the world's such stockpile. The 
     first plant has been completed at Gorny, 660 miles southeast 
     of Moscow, but American assistance to build a second plant at 
     Shchuchye, 1,000 miles southeast of Moscow, has been frozen 
     by Congress.
       Many legislators have complained that the Russian have not 
     fully declared the total and type of chemical weapons they 
     made, and that they have put up too little of their own money 
     for the project.
       In February, however, Russia announced that it had 
     increased its annual budget for destroying the weapons 
     sixfold, to $105 million, and presented a plan to begin 
     operating the first of three destruction plants. The 
     administration official said this reflected a ``significant 
     change'' in Russia's attitude towards commitments that 
     ``could have an impact on our thinking'' about the program.
       The Russians hope to destroy their vast chemical stocks by 
     2012, a deadline.
       The Russians hope to destroy their vast chemical stocks by 
     2012, a deadline that will require that they obtain a five-
     year extension. But Moscow will not be able to meet even that 
     deferred deadline unless construction begins soon for a 
     destruction installation at Shchuchye.
       The Clinton administration, after Congress slashed funds 
     for the project, lined up support from several foreign 
     governments.
       Elisa Harris, a research fellow at the University of 
     Maryland and a former specialist on chemical weapons for 
     President Clinton's National Security Council, said the 
     destruction effort could falter unless the Bush 
     administration persuaded Congress to rescind the ban and 
     finally support the program.
       Commenting on the review, Leon Fuerth, a visiting professor 
     of international affairs at George Washington University and 
     the national security adviser to former Vice president Al 
     Gore, said, ``By and large they are going to sustain what 
     they inherited, which is good for the country.''
       But the senior Bush administration official said the review 
     did not endorse the Clinton approach. This administration, he 
     said, is determined to ``establish better and more cost-
     efficient ways'' of achieving its nonproliferation goals and 
     integrating such programs into a comprehensive strategy 
     toward Russia. He said the White House planned to form a 
     White House steering group ``to assure that the programs are 
     well managed and better coordinated.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no further amendments. I thank 
the seven members of the staff on both sides who worked diligently on a 
very complicated bill. On Senator Reid's staff: Drew Willison, Roger 
Cockrell, Nancy Olkewicz; members of my staff: Tammy Perrin, Jim Crum, 
Camille Anderson, and Clay Sell.
  The Senator's staff has been a pleasure to work with, and I hope mine 
has. I thank you for the pleasantries and the way we have been able to 
work this bill out.
  Mr. REID. Not only the staff has been a pleasure to work with, but 
you have been a pleasure to work with.
  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?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     McCain
     Voinovich
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Ensign
       
  The bill (H.R. 2311), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be allowed to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The motion was agreed to and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Corzine) 
appointed Mr. Reid, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McConnell, 
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Craig conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I asked, along with Senator Domenici, the 
Chair to appoint conferees, which the Chair did. We would like to add 
to the conferees Senators Inouye and Stevens. I ask unanimous consent 
that Senators Inouye and Stevens be added to the list of conferees on 
the energy and water appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It is the intention of the majority leader now to move to 
the Graham nomination. The leader indicated there will be a number of 
votes tonight.
  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. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I inquire what the parliamentary 
situation is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no business pending at this time.

                          ____________________