[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21341-21344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will move on to the conference report 
for the fiscal year 2002 energy and water appropriations. Now that one 
of the Members, anyway, of the appropriations bill is here, the Senator 
from New Mexico, I hope he will note, I will not approve moving forward 
until I have seen the managers' amendment on this bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no managers' amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. If there is one on every appropriations bill, I want to 
see it. Last Thursday night, in case the Senator from New Mexico missed 
it, he voted for a package of amendments, also for $35 million, without 
seeing it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The managers' amendment is, in fact, the conference 
report.
  Mr. McCAIN. Good. I thank the Senator.
  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.
  This conference report finalizes funding recommendations 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 need for heightened security around the nation. Such Federal 
facilities, including Federal weapons infrastructure, deserve the most 
vigilant protection. Unfortunately, my colleagues have determined that 
their ability to increase energy spending is just another opportunity 
to increase porkbarrel spending. Millions of dollars are diverted away 
from national security interests and doled out to parochial projects.
  In this conference report, a total of 796 earmarks are included which 
adds up to $1.2 billion in porkbarrel spending. These are earmarks for 
locale-specific projects that are either unrequested or unauthorized, 
and that have not been considered in the appropriate merit-based review 
process.
  The $1.2 billion in porkbarrel spending in this bill is nearly $500 
million and 441 earmarks more than the amount in the Senate-passed 
bill, and $266 million more than last year's bill.
  We have increased unauthorized spending by $266 million more than 
last year's bill.
  In total, nearly $9 billion in taxpayer dollars will pay for 
porkbarrel spending in appropriations bill passed so far this year.
  I'm sure that many of my colleagues will assert the need to use these 
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.
  Let me share a few examples of what the appropriators are earmarking 
this year:
  An earmark of $300,000 for the removal of aquatic weeds in the Lavaca 
and Navidad Rivers in Texas.
  I am sure there are no other rivers that are beset by aquatic weeds. 
So we have earmarked $300,000 for removal of the aquatic weeds in those 
two rivers.
  There is an additional $8 million for the Denali Commission, a 
regional commission serving only the needs of Alaska.
  That is a surprise.
  There is $200,000 to study individual ditch systems in the State of 
Hawaii.
  I would like to have someone come and study the ditch systems in my 
State. We have a few. But we are going to spend $200,000 to study 
individual ditch systems in the State of Hawaii.
  Three hundred thousand dollars for Aunt Lydia's Cove in 
Massachusetts.
  I don't know what the problem is up in Aunt Lydia's Cove, but I am 
sure it is revered, and it certainly deserves a $300,000 earmark. I am 
sure that Aunt Lydia--wherever she is--is very pleased to know that 
$300,000 is going to her cove;
  An additional $1 million for the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District's 
fish screen project--$1 million, my friends, which we have not 
scrutinized.
  I tell my colleagues, I do not know where Banta-Carbona Irrigation 
District is. But we are going to give them $1 million of taxpayers' 
money. Does anyone know anything about it? No, I don't think so.
  Three million dollars for a South Dakota integrated ethanol complex.
  I was under the impression for a long time that ethanol was developed 
by private enterprise. I didn't know we needed to contribute $3 million 
to develop an ethanol project in South Dakota.
  Two million dollars for the Seaalaska ethanol project.
  So far we have $5 million earmarked for specific ethanol projects.
  Two separate earmarks totaling $4.5 million for gasification of Iowa 
Switch Grass.
  I am sure we could have a lot of fun with that one--$4.5 million for 
gasification of Iowa Switch Grass. What could be the problem?
  An earmark of $1.65 million for a new library center at Spring Hill 
College.
  I again plead ignorance. I do not know where Spring Hill College is. 
But they certainly deserve a new library

[[Page 21342]]

center. Unlike other colleges, they don't have to get the money from 
their alumni, or from other sources, as colleges in my State have to 
do.
  One million dollars to install exhibits at the Atomic Testing History 
Institute. I think I know where the Atomic Testing History Institute 
is.
  And $500,000 for the Rural Montana Project, and $8 million for the 
Rural Nevada Project.
  I respect the work of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. 
I do not believe 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.
  At this critical time in our history, we should be doing everything 
we can to instill the confidence of the American people in the Federal 
Government. Unfortunately, this increasing dilemma of flagrant 
porkbarrel spending is indefensible.
  I point out that in every single appropriations bill there has been 
an increase in unauthorized projects--many of them put in at the last 
minute. I just discussed how 15 amendments were stuffed into a so-
called managers' amendment which none of us except perhaps the two 
managers of the bill had ever seen. This process has to come to a halt 
at some time. It is out of control. It has to be stopped.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no mystery about the managers' 
amendments. The fact of the matter is these are amendments that are 
reviewed very closely by both sides. A lot of times we simply don't 
have a vote on them.


                          small wind programs

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, thank Chairman Reid for including 
funding in this bill for small wind programs being developed in the 
State of Vermont.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate Senator Jefford's leadership on the issue of 
renewable energy resources and his specific initiatives in Congress to 
promote wind energy. I am pleased to confirm that this bill includes 
$500,000 to be set aside for the Vermont Department of Public Service 
for its wind energy program.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman for his leadership and support of 
this program. Vermont has been a leader in wind energy development, 
with some of our Nation's most prominent wind energy manufacturers 
being located in my home State. In cooperation with the wind energy 
industry and the Vermont utilities, the Vermont Department of Public 
Service has conducted a statewide inventory of potential wind sites to 
determine the best sites in terms of natural wind currents. The results 
are quite impressive and encouraging.
  As the chairman knows, we have many ski areas operating on the scenic 
mountains of Vermont, and the research confirms that these ski areas, 
which are also significant electricity users, also have great potential 
for wind energy production. Indeed, the Vermont Ski Areas Association, 
in cooperation with several of its member resorts, is determined to be 
a national leader in the development of efficient, environmentally 
friendly alternative energy resources, including wind energy.
  While there have been discussions for a couple years now of potential 
opportunities for distributed generation at Vermont ski areas, we have 
yet to analyze the full scope of the issues involved. We know, for 
example, that there are economic thresholds to be identified, but 
specific profiles of energy use at Vermont ski areas have not been 
established. We know there are permitting issues, some procedural and 
some a matter of policy, and these need further definition. We know 
that there are energy regulatory issues, such as interconnection and 
metering rules, and these need to be identified in a full and 
comprehensive manner.
  While I am speaking in terms of wind energy projects being considered 
by Vermont ski areas, many of the issues would pertain to other 
alternative energy projects and other distributive generation projects 
in Vermont.
  If I can indulge the chairman further, is it your intention that a 
portion of these funds be used to help identify potential barriers to 
wind energy development, including but not limited to the economic and 
regulatory issues I have mentioned here?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, yes, that is the committee's 
intention.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chairman. Is it also the committee's 
intention that the Vermont Department of Public Service, as recipient 
of this funding, would work in cooperation with other State agencies, 
such as the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources?
  Mr. REID. Yes, that is the committee's intention.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Does the chairman envision that the Department will 
work cooperatively with the Vermont Ski Areas Association to define a 
specific scope of work supported by a portion of these funds and to 
identify the most efficient and expedient methods for conducting such 
work, including the selection of consultants to assist in this process?
  Mr. REID. Yes, that is the committee's intention.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, I know the Chairman is familiar with other 
initiatives underway in the State of Vermont with the support of the 
Department of Energy. I know the people of Vermont appreciate the 
Department's assistance as well as the chairman's leadership in 
encouraging that support.
  Given the Department's prior experience with related studies, such as 
the remote generation grant, is it the committee's expectation that the 
funds appropriated by this act be available to build upon the findings 
and recommendations of previous, related efforts?
  Moreover, is it the committee's expectation that the work products 
include an analysis of the economics of wind and alternative energy 
opportunities at Vermont ski areas, an analysis of the environmental 
permitting issues, and an analysis of the energy regulatory issues?
  Mr. REID. The Senator is correct in identifying some of the 
committee's expectations for this appropriation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman and reiterate my appreciation for 
his longstanding interests in national energy issues, including his 
support of Federal renewable energy programs to increase domestic 
energy security.
  Mr. President, I would like to also mention my appreciation for Gov. 
Howard Dean's leadership on Vermont energy initiatives. Governor Dean 
and his agencies have been involved in discussions with the Vermont ski 
areas on the opportunities presented by the initiative outlined here. 
It is my expectation that these parties, along with other leaders in 
the wind energy industry and with the Vermont utility companies, are 
prepared to work cooperatively to generate useful results in a prompt 
and efficient manner.


  national center for neurogenetic research and computational genomics

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a short colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development--the distinguished Senator from Nevada, 
Mr. Reid. It is my desire to clarify the intent of the language 
included in the conference agreement of the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. I am glad to discuss this matter with my colleague.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to clarify that the Human Genome Project at the 
University of Southern California listed in title III Department of 
Energy, under the science biological and environmental research account 
should have been noted as the National Center for Neurogenetic Research 
and Computational Genomics at the University of Southern California. 
This project is clearly worthy of Federal support, and I wanted to 
ensure that the intent of Congress with respect to this language is 
clear.
  Mr. REID. This is an excellent project. I assure the Senator from 
California that I concur with her remarks and that this correction will 
be noted in the Record.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a question for the manager of the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill. We

[[Page 21343]]

will soon need to reprogram funds within the Corps of Engineers to 
bring the Hopper Dredge ESSAYONS to Cook Inlet to remove sediments from 
the recently completed channel. We performed a similar reprogramming 2 
years ago because we did not know how the sedimentation pattern would 
develop in the area. The channel was completed during the summer of 
2000. At that time the corps estimated maintenance dredging would have 
to be performed every 5 to 6 years.
  Recent surveys show that Knik Arm and the North Point Shoals have 
shifted and a large deposit has settled into the southern approach to 
the Cook Inlet Navigation Channel. However, the corps believes that 
vast majority of the material is located``outside the project limits.'' 
It starts just inside the western limit then continues for 
approximately 1000 meters beyond the limit. The authorized limit for 
the channel is 310 meters wide at a depth of minus 11 meters for 
approximately 2000 meters.
  The shippers in our area have expressed concern about the condition 
of the navigation channel. I am told the corps will require a post 
authorization change evaluation report before they can proceed to 
address this problem. My question to the Senator is, when Congress 
first authorized this project, was the area I just described supposed 
to be within the scope of the original project, thus allowing the corps 
to proceed with the required dredging and maintenance?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his question. I 
have been made aware of the problem in the Cook Inlet Navigation 
Channel, and I am concerned about its current condition. I am also 
aware that the channel is the lifeline for products to the State of 
Alaska. The area described by the Senator from Alaska should be 
considered within the scope of the original authorization and I urge 
the corps to address this issue soon as possible.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senator.


                     JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE PROJECT

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman in a colloquy regarding two provisions in the conference 
report to accompany the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. REID. I would be pleased to discuss these matters with the senior 
Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to clarify that it was the conference 
committee's intent that a portion of the additional funding 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 $1 million in this account for the Jennings Randolph Lake 
project to be used for recreational facility improvements as well as 
for planning and design work for access to the Big Bend Recreation Area 
located immediately downstream of the Jennings Randolph Dam.
  Mr. SARBANES. I would also like to clarify that it was the conference 
committee's intent that the funding provided for the Chesapeake Bay 
shoreline erosion study will also include an examination of management 
measures to address the sediments behind the dams on the lower 
Susquehanna River.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is again correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for these assurances and commend 
him and the staff for the terrific work in crafting this conference 
agreement.


                          alaska's cook inlet

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a short 
colloquy with the distinguished manager of the Energy and Water 
conference report. My question is raised to assure that the managers 
have provided adequate funding and authority for the Department of 
Energy to provide grants for research on tidal power as an alternative 
energy source. As the managers know, this country needs viable 
alternative power sources. One of these could be tidal power.
  In Alaska, nearly 65 percent of our population resides on the shores 
of Cook Inlet which also has the second highest tides in the world. 
These tides rise as high as 46 feet, second only to the Bay of Fundy 
off of Nova Scotia. I have been contacted by Anchorage Municipal Light 
and Power, the municipally owned electric utility of the Municipality 
of Anchorage. The utility believe that it can effectively harness the 
power of the tides at Cook Inlet to supply clean, renewable power to 
its customers. However, it needs a grant for research to adapt current 
technology in use in other parts of the world to Cook Inlet. That grant 
would probably require between $200,000 and $300,000.
  Let me ask the managers if they agree that there is both sufficient 
funding and authority under the existing statutes to permit such a 
renewable research grant to be funded under the Renewable Energy 
accounts in this bill. I also want to clarify that this grant can be 
awarded to an applicant such as Anchorage Municipal Light & Power even 
though past DOE grants have been unsuccessful and DOE has been 
concentrating more recently on other renewable concepts. Do the 
managers agree with me on this?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Alaska and 
ranking Republican on the full committee, that I agree completely with 
his analysis. The DOE is both authorized and adequately funded to 
provide for such a research grant. I join the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska in exploring and providing such a grant to explore the 
tidal energy protection of Alaska's Cook Inlet.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2311, the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
  The conference report provides $24.596 billion in discretionary 
budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $15.973 
billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into 
account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $24.77 
billion in 2002. Of that total, $14.7 billion in budget authority and 
$14.715 billion in outlays is for defense spending. The conference 
report is at the appropriations' subcommittee's section 302(b) 
allocations for both budget authority and outlays. Further, the 
committee has met its target without the use of any emergency 
designations.
  I am relieved that we are moving forward on this and other 
appropriations bills, so that we can meet our obligation to the country 
to enact a spending plan for the government in a reasonably timely 
manner. I commend subcommittee Chairman Reid, Ranking Member Domenici, 
and their House counterparts for their hard work in forging reasonable 
compromises between the House and Senate versions of this bill. This 
report addresses some of our country's most pressing nuclear security 
and water resources needs, as well as important energy issues.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee 
scoring of this report be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 2311, CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                                                CONFERENCE REPORT
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General
                                                                      purpose     Defense   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\---------\1\-------------------------
Conference report:
  Budget Authority................................................       9,896      14,700          0     24,596
  Outlays.........................................................      10,055      14,715          0     24,770
Senate 302(b) allocation: \2\
  Budget Authority................................................       9,896      14,700          0     24,596
  Outlays.........................................................      24,770           0          0     24,770
President's request:
  Budget Authority................................................       9,003      13,514          0     22,517
  Outlays.........................................................       9,389      13,928          0     23,317
House-passed:
  Budget Authority................................................       9,668      14,037          0     23,705
  Outlays.........................................................       9,931      14,287          0     24,218
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority................................................       9,709      15,250          0     24,959
  Outlays.........................................................       9,905      15,073          0     24,978                  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:Senate 302(b) allocation: \2\
  Budget Authority................................................           0           0          0          0
  Outlays.........................................................           0           0          0          0
President's request:
  Budget Authority................................................         893       1,186          0      2,079
  Outlays.........................................................         666         787          0      1,453
House-passed:
  Budget Authority................................................         228         663          0        891

[[Page 21344]]
  Outalys.........................................................         124         428          0        552
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority................................................         187        -550          0       -363
  Outlays.........................................................         150        -358          0       -208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 budget resolution includes a ``firewall'' in the Senate between defense and nondefense spending.
  Because the firewall is for budget authority only, the Senate appropriations committee did not provide a
  separate allocation for defense outlays. This table combines defense and ondefense outlays together as
  ``general purpose'' for purposes of comparing the conference report outlays with the Senate subcommittee's
  allocation.
\2\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the conference report to the Senate 302(b)
  allocation.Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
  conventions.

  Mr. REID. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona yield back time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2311 occur upon 
disposition of the Kyl impact aid amendment and that the previous 
consent regarding the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill remain in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________