[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21336-21340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference 
report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2311) making appropriations for energy and water development 
     for fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 30, 2001.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report to accompany H.R. 2311.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am entitled 10 minutes under the unanimous 
consent agreement, as is the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, the 
two managers of this appropriations conference report. I am not going 
to take that time.
  When the bill came before the Senate, it passed overwhelmingly. I 
believe it was 92-2. Two people voted against it. By the time we got to 
conference, there were two or three open items. We settled those in one 
evening.
  It is a good bill. As with all pieces of legislation, it is probably 
imperfect, but it is the best we can do.
  I see my friend from Montana in the Chamber. There is a provision in 
the bill about which he and I have spoken dealing with drilling for oil 
in New York near the Finger Lakes. The Senator is absolutely right that 
the matter in our bill is under the jurisdiction of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee and not within the jurisdiction of matters 
of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. That was done in 
this Chamber.
  Certainly, we did not try to hide anything. It was in the bill before 
it went to conference.
  It is for 1 year. Originally the amendment given to us would have 
done it permanently. It is basically for 1 year during the 
appropriations cycle.
  So I say to my friend from Montana publicly, as I said privately, I 
am sorry he was not aware of this. It certainly was nothing that was 
done by either

[[Page 21337]]

Senator Domenici or me. We would be happy to work with him next year if 
there is a problem in this regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in responding to the Democratic whip's 
remarks, I brought this to his attention this afternoon as it was 
brought to my attention. Section 316 of the Senate bill that was 
included in the conference agreement with a slight modification says as 
to prohibition of oil and gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National 
Forest of New York: no Federal permit or lease shall be issued for oil 
or gas drilling in Finger Lakes National Forest of New York during 
fiscal year 2002.
  Basically, that is legislating on an appropriations bill. It was put 
into a managers' package and, of course, with the jurisdiction being 
over in Interior appropriations, if any action was taken at all. Now, 
this rider blocks, without further consideration, oil and gas permits 
within that national forest. It looks like not only a jurisdictional 
issue, and I respect the desire of the Senators from New York to work 
on issues in their State, but in this time of an economic downturn and 
trying to make some sense of an energy policy in this country, it seems 
ludicrous to me that a nongermane amendment would be allowed on this 
legislation, especially in a time when we are trying to find energy for 
this country and wean us off this foreign dependence on oil.
  It is especially questionable to allow a rider at this time when New 
York is searching for economic opportunities, asking the Congress to 
provide thousands and millions and billions of dollars in their time of 
need, and yet take away from the State an economic base, a base from 
which to grow. It makes no sense to me at all, especially when there is 
the potential for jobs and economic growth and then that is taken away 
sort of in a dark-of-the-night rider.
  I do not presume to change Medicare policy in an Interior bill. I do 
not attempt to change the nuclear storage policy on an Interior bill 
because the jurisdiction lies elsewhere. From my position on the 
Interior Subcommittee, I would like to consult with the leadership of 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee, the Bureau of Reclamation or the 
Department of Energy on issues where we have overlapping jurisdiction. 
And we do. We exchange that information freely.
  Now I realize it is too late to change this in this conference 
report, and I want to pass this conference report with basically the 
chairman of that subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee.
  The chairman and the ranking member have done a great job of putting 
together this bill. I support it wholeheartedly. I thank them for all 
they put into this, especially those relating to the State of Montana.
  The inclusion of section 316 is an exception rather than the rule. I 
expect in the future we will have closer consultation on the matters 
that cross subcommittee jurisdiction. I also believe the fate of 316 
may change as soon as we have better information as to its actual 
impact on oil and gas operations.
  I would think the Senators contemplating their economic base in their 
State would know this is ill-advised at this time.
  Again, I applaud the managers of this legislation and wholeheartedly 
support it, with the exception of this.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of my friend 
from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, I say to him we worked very hard 
Wednesday night to complete this conference report. I want to 
compliment the Senator because I have just briefly been chairman of 
this subcommittee but, as I said at that conference, the way we have 
worked together, it really does not matter who is chairman and who is 
the ranking member. We understand the jurisdiction in the subcommittee 
and have worked closely together for many years.
  I would like to send a message to this administration, and I say 
``this administration'' because it does not matter who we have in the 
White House. It seems whether it is a Democrat or Republican, we get 
treated the same. I am speaking about the Corps of Engineers. The Corps 
is always underfunded, recognizing that we in Congress will bail them 
out.
  It reminds me of when I was chairman of the Military Construction 
Subcommittee. They did the same with the Guard and Reserve units at 
home. The administration simply would not fund those appropriately. As 
a result, Congress had to come every year and bail out the 
administration. That is what we have done in this bill. We have bailed 
out the administration, just as we did the 8 years that Clinton was 
President and the 4 years before that when Bush was President. I do not 
know why they do not recognize the importance of the Corps of 
Engineers.
  I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the 
Corps has been a salvation to the State of Nevada, not only in rural 
Nevada but in urban Nevada. Las Vegas could not have the growth it has 
but for the Corps of Engineers, which has been magnificent in projects 
to stop flooding and flood control projects.
  So I say to my friend, I hope somehow we can get the message to this 
administration that they should look at what the Corps does, and maybe 
this administration will do the right thing and set an example for 
other administrations to follow because, as I say for the second time, 
I am not going after President George Bush and his administration. I am 
going after all administrations for how they neglect and ignore the 
Corps of Engineers and, frankly, the Bureau of Reclamation which does 
such good things for our country.
  Will the Senator from New Mexico agree with my statement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I say to my friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Nevada, I believe we have a very good 
bill. When one has water projects that everybody in the country 
believes they need, they are Members of the Senate and House and they 
indicate that there is a flood protection project, it meets the 
standard that the Corps has set up, and that means they are going to 
pay their portion of it required by law, and it fits every standard. It 
is pretty difficult for us to say we are not going to do it this year 
because, once again, the administration has underfunded water 
projects--that is, the Corps of Engineers--and so the request is going 
to have to be taken somewhere else. There is no somewhere else. If 
there is a major flood protection project, it meets the standards in 
terms of cost-benefit. Clearly, we have to ask the U.S. Government, as 
part of its Corps of Engineers, to work to fund it. There is a split in 
the cost. The local unit has to pay its share.
  The Senator asked a good question. I can answer it because I was 
chairman of this subcommittee for almost 6\1/2\ years, and the Senator 
from Nevada was ranking member. We saw a number of budgets. We only saw 
one budget from President Bush. The remaining were from Bill Clinton. 
Never in any year in my 6\1/2\ years or the Senator who is wrapping up 
his first year--never have we had a realistic assessment of the Corps 
of Engineers' work to be done, needed in these United States for 
various water projects. It started back perhaps as far as President 
Ronald Reagan, perhaps as far back as Richard Nixon.
  Think how difficult water projects were. The OMB, which is the 
technical group that puts together a budget, always finds it easy to 
recommend to a President a reduction, a cut, or not enough money for 
the Corps of Engineers to do its work. The Office of Management and 
Budget is not interested in water projects or flood protection as a 
major endeavor of the United States. They think it is secondary. They 
go

[[Page 21338]]

through their work and are delighted they are meeting a budget that 
reduces expenditures. An easy item for them to cut includes water 
projects and the Corps of Engineers. That will save a lot of money.
  They find in Congress a Senator, a Representative, or a Governor who 
has requests of the subcommittee and looks seriously at a project not 
taken care of in that process I just described. That happens every 
year. Every year we find very good projects, needed by the local 
community, which fit the Corps of Engineers' requirements already 
evaluated in terms of the cost-benefit ratio. If it does not have a 
good cost-benefit ratio, we are not supposed to pay for it. Even if it 
does, somebody decides anyway they will not do it. That usually is the 
Office of Management and Budget representing the President.
  We now have a good bill. We had to go over the President and the 
Corps of Engineers, but most Members of Congress think this is a good 
deal. The Corps, in my opinion, continues to be maligned regardless of 
how well it does its work. Somebody on some issue puts forth facts and 
somebody decides it is time to attack the Corps of Engineers.
  I have been here long enough to see a cycle. In part of my Senate 
life, the Corps of Engineers was valued; it was very important. The 
recommendations they made were good and everybody knew they were 
technically sound. Then we had a cycle when the White House was joined 
by Senators and Representatives and the Corps of Engineers was to be 
maligned: It was not a very good institution of our Government. There 
are still people who do not want the projects to be built, who think 
the Corps of Engineers is not good. Very few will say their projects 
are not well done, well defined and well engineered.
  The White House, one after another, continued to propose reductions. 
We get blamed for spending too much because they did not spend enough. 
When we do the responsible thing and add funding, we are spending too 
much on water projects or funding your favorite or my favorite or some 
Senator's favorite water project.
  The balance in this bill is pretty good. In the future, water 
projects will go up, not down. That is how I see it. I hope we can 
complete our bill and have a vote tonight. It is a good bill.
  I am pleased to join Chairman Reid to present the conference report 
for the fiscal year 2002 energy and water appropriations before the 
Senate today. This has been a tough process and I want to thank all of 
the members involved for their patience in working through the issues.
  Chairman Reid has done a good job under very difficult circumstances 
to put together a fair agreement that accommodates, to the extent 
possible, all of the competing desires. The situation was particularly 
difficult for the Senate, as the conference allocation for defense 
funding was $550 million below the Senate passed bill.
  Despite the difficulties involved, we were still able to put together 
a conference agreement that funds nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship 
at $5.7 billion. Although that is a $350 million reduction from the 
Senate passed level, it still represents a $700 million (14 percent) 
increase over last year's conference level, and is $400 million over 
the budget request. This significant increase will allow us to get many 
programs back on track, including the pit production effort. It also 
allows us to begin a major infrastructure rebuilding program this year 
with a $200 million appropriation.
  The bill is not perfect. In fact, I remain concerned that the Senate 
was not able to hold all of the increased funding we provided for 
nonproliferation work at the NNSA. In particular, we had provided a 
significant increase of $55 million to nonproliferation research and 
development. Before September 11, I was a strong believer in the 
important work our laboratories do in research, development and 
deployment of technologies we need to detect and respond to the growing 
threat of chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism. As such, we added 
a significant sum of money in the Senate bill.
  The importance of this work is obvious to everyone today, as we have 
seen the NNSA labs play key roles in our government's response and 
clean-up of the anthrax attacks. Furthermore, the labs are now playing 
much greater roles in providing technical advice and technologies to 
many other government agencies--from advising the postal service on how 
to protect the mail, to developing the most advanced chem/bio detectors 
for deployment in Washington and other areas. The nonproliferation R&D 
account funds these and many other activities. As the Congress moves 
forward this year, we must find other resources in the $20 billion 
supplemental to fund these needs. In fact, I have suggested to the 
President and others, that we should spend an additional $255 million 
specifically for counter-terrorism R&D and nuclear nonproliferation 
activities beyond what the President requested in the supplemental.
  I look forward to working with all Senators to further address this 
issue before we adjourn this year.
  As for the water portion of the bill, my colleagues may recall that 
the administration proposed a $600 million reduction to the Corps of 
Engineers, or a 13 percent reduction from last year's level. Given the 
state of the country's aging infrastructure, we all felt that this was 
an irresponsible budget to propose. Therefore, the conference worked to 
restore the majority of the cuts, by restoring $500 million of the 
reduction. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues that the 
requests for additional projects and funding far outweighed the 
resources of this bill. However, the conference has tried to balance 
critical needs across the country.
  Before I end my statement, I would be remiss if I did not mention and 
commend the outstanding staff involved in this process for the Senate. 
Senator Reid's staff of Drew Willison and Roger Cockerell, for they 
have been professional and very open with me and my staff throughout 
this whole process. In addition, I would like to thank my own staff, 
Clay Sell, Tammy Perrin, Jim Crum, and Lashawnda Smith. They have all 
served us well and we appreciate their fine work.
  Mr. President, I will now briefly state my best analysis of this 
bill. I will talk about two items. First, everybody should know that in 
the next 30 or 40 minutes we will vote on the bill. The title of the 
bill ``energy and water,'' seems as though it doesn't have anything 
serious in terms of America's future: We are just spending the money 
needed to pay for things. This doesn't have oil production, utility 
lines. It has nothing to do with enhancing America's production of 
energy by changing tax laws.
  It is energy and water tied together. In that piece called ``energy'' 
is all of the money needed and to be appropriated by the Congress for 
the nuclear weapons safety and maintenance. All the weapons we own are 
under the control and jurisdiction, by happenstance, of the Department 
of Energy. Money is transferred from the Department of Defense to this 
subcommittee to pay for all of the activities with reference to nuclear 
weaponry.
  Part of that is a new concept and a new carve-out with a new boss. 
General Gordon, who used to be with the CIA and was a general in the 
military before that, has accepted a job to head up the agency that has 
been carved out. He has jurisdiction over two things. They are 
gigantic. One is the science-based stockpile stewardship. Interesting 
words. The other is nonproliferation. They are very important programs.
  The part that has to do with the science-based stockpile stewardship 
came into being when Congress, the year before last, was filled to the 
gills over the dysfunctional nature of the management of this part of 
the U.S. Government's business by the Department of Energy. People were 
allegedly stealing important secrets, and the contentions were flying 
as to whether the Department of Energy or the laboratories could keep 
secrets and keep important items from getting into the hands of our 
enemies.
  It was decided, and I was one who helped write the bill, and was 
joined by a number of other chairmen at that

[[Page 21339]]

point, and we passed a bill; the National Nuclear Security 
Administration was created. General Gordon heads it. Ultimately, when 
it has everything in shape, the nuclear activity that has to do with 
the science-based stockpile stewardship and all of the activities 
regarding nuclear weaponry will be in charge of that carve-out within 
the Department.
  While putting that together, some Senators did not think it was a 
good idea, including my friend, the chairman, who was then the ranking 
member. He has iterated his position recently, saying he wasn't for it 
then but he thinks it is a good idea and he supports it wholeheartedly 
now and, in particular, the general who heads it.
  The reason it is in existence is that America has made a commitment 
in a very dangerous world. We made a commitment on our own that we 
would do no more nuclear testing. It was voluntary by the United 
States. We are still living with it.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use the time 
allocated to me under the energy and water appropriations conference 
report at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise at this time to support the 
conference committee on the energy and water appropriations bill. I 
want to indicate how extremely pleased I am that this bill includes an 
absolutely critical provision to protect the Great Lakes from oil and 
gas drilling. This provision, which I offered, along with Senator 
Fitzgerald and numerous others, including the occupant of the chair, as 
an amendment to the Senate bill, protecting the waters of the Great 
Lakes by asking, first, for a complete study of the impact of oil and 
gas drilling in the Great Lakes to be done by the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and it places an immediate 2-year ban on new oil and gas 
drilling during the process of this study. It is my hope that this is 
the first step to a permanent ban on any oil and gas drilling in the 
Great Lakes.
  I first thank the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Reid, for his support of this important Great Lakes amendment. I thank 
him very much. I thank the ranking member of Energy and Water, Senator 
Domenici, who was equally as supportive. I very much appreciate both 
having that amendment adopted in the Senate and their willingness to 
make sure that it remained in the conference report.
  I also thank House Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Visclosky for 
their willingness to support this provision and include it in the 
conference report, as well as all of the House and Senate conferees.
  Mr. President, I emphasize that preventing drilling in the Great 
Lakes is an issue about which we all care on both sides of the aisle. 
As I indicated earlier, Senator Peter Fitzgerald was the lead 
Republican cosponsor of my amendment. I am extremely pleased and 
grateful to him for stepping forward. He and Senator Durbin of Illinois 
have both stepped forward in strong leadership to protect the Great 
Lakes.
  I also thank these distinguished Senators who joined me in this 
effort, in lending their name and their leadership: My senior Senator 
from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin; as I mentioned, Senator Durbin; 
Senator Voinovich; Senator Dayton, who is in the chair; Senator 
Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Kohl, Senator Wellstone, Senator 
Clinton, Senator Bayh, and Senator DeWine. This was a Great Lakes 
effort of Senators on both sides of the aisle.
  Finally, I thank my colleagues in the House, Congressmen Dave Bonior 
and Bart Stupak, and the Michigan House delegation that worked together 
on a bipartisan basis to support this effort--particularly Bart Stupak 
who has been a real pioneer in the effort of protecting the Great 
Lakes. When it was time in the conference committee to call on critical 
support to explain what we were doing, I am very grateful to 
Congressman Dave Camp for his willingness to be intimately involved in 
this effort, as well as Congressmen Fred Upton, Pete Hoekstra, and Vern 
Ehlers for their wonderful support.
  In case my colleagues are not aware, this is a particular issue of 
concern to Michigan, where it was decided they would be interested in 
providing up to 30 new permits for oil and gas leasing in the Great 
Lakes and Lake Huron. At this point in time, this will allow us to 
staff and reevaluate what was being proposed and what, I might add, has 
been overwhelmingly opposed in Michigan, as well as in all of the Great 
Lakes States. There has been overwhelming opposition to doing anything 
that would jeopardize our Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes are one of our Nation's most precious public natural 
resources. And 33 million people rely on the Great Lakes for their 
drinking water. In fact, 10 million of them rely on Lake Michigan 
alone. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy the 
beaches, the great fishing, and boating. The latest estimate shows that 
recreational fishing totals a $1.5 billion boost to Michigan's tourist 
economy alone.
  The Great Lakes coastlines are also home to wetlands, dunes, 
endangered species, and plants, including the rare piping plover, 
Michigan monkey flower, Pitcher's thistle, and the dwarf lake iris. 
Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any 
Great Lake.
  Great Lakes drilling would place the tourism economy, the Great Lakes 
ecosystem, and a vital source of drinking water at great risk for a 
very small amount of oil.
  Last year, Michigan produced about 2 minutes' worth of oil--2 
minutes' worth of oil--from Great Lakes drilling, which has been 
allowed since 1979. That is 2 minutes of usage in a year. From our 
standpoint, this amount of oil is certainly not worth any potential 
risk.
  I can't stress how important tourism is to the Michigan economy and 
how important it is that we are coming together in this way to address 
our important natural resource.
  The Great Lakes are interconnected, and they border eight States: 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, 
and, of course, Michigan.
  This means that an oil spill in Lake Michigan could wash up on the 
shores of not only Michigan, but Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. That 
is why we joined together to put forward this Federal policy to protect 
the Great Lakes.
  The provision in the energy and water appropriations conference 
report is reasonable, prudent. It is an approach to an issue that makes 
sense. It asks the Army Corps of Engineers to study the safety and the 
environmental impact of drilling in the Great Lakes, and it places a 2-
year ban on any new drilling.
  Again, I thank Senator Harry Reid for his outstanding leadership in 
so many ways, as he manages the floor, and certainly in this area of 
energy and water, where my great State of Michigan is in his debt for 
his leadership. He and Senator Domenici together have put forward an 
excellent bill and one that is going to make sure we have put forward a 
policy to protect our Great Lakes.
  I might say one other thing. I hope this is the beginning of an 
effort to look for ways, as the Great Lakes Senators, to work together 
to address a number of threats to the Great Lakes. We have now stopped 
oil and gas drilling. I hope now we will join together on issues of 
invasive species, ballast water dumping from ships that come in from 
outside the Great Lakes Basin and are bringing in zebra mussels and sea 
lamphrey and other invasive species wreaking havoc in the lakes. We 
have a number of threats to this great natural resource, and I think 
the amendment we were successful in achieving here is a wonderful 
example of what we can do together on a bipartisan basis, working 
together with colleagues in the House.
  I thank again everybody who was involved in this effort, including, I 
might add, a wonderful staff of mine, Noushin Jahanian, the person 
working specifically on this issue; my legislative director, Sander 
Lurie; chief of staff,

[[Page 21340]]

Jean Marie Neal, and all of those who worked hard to achieve this very 
important goal for the Great Lakes. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent when Senator McCain completes his 
statement, Senator Kyl be recognized to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to Senator Kyl. Senator Kyl has asked for 30 
minutes, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I have asked that Senator Kyl be recognized when Senator 
McCain completes his statement, for purposes of offering an amendment 
to the Labor-HHS bill. Everyone should be advised when the Senator 
finishes his statement, we are going to enter into a unanimous consent 
agreement on the Kyl amendment. In that way, the Senator will not need 
to be interrupted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And when will we vote on the energy and water bill?
  Mr. REID. We will vote on it--as soon as we finish the statement of 
the Senator from Arizona, we are going to do the Kyl amendment and then 
we will have three votes. One will be on the Treasury-Postal Service 
conference report, the energy and water conference report, and then on 
the Kyl amendment. As we have been advised by our faithful staff, not 
necessarily in that order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________