[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25839-25850]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The hour of 4:30 having arrived, 
the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 2419, which the clerk will report.
  The legislation 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. 
     2419, making appropriations for energy and water development 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by all of the conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record of November 7, 2005.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided between the bill managers, with 15 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and 
15 minutes under the control of the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.


                         Defense Authorization

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think we indicated last week that while 
the time is limited, as it had been prior to this point in terms of 
debate on the Iraq amendments, there would be time either on the 
amendments themselves or in morning business tonight after the vote. 
There is a very limited period of time under the unanimous consent 
agreement for tomorrow. We had hoped that could have been expended, but 
apparently there is no agreement to that.
  I remind colleagues who have not had a chance to speak on the Iraq 
amendments which are pending that the best time to do that, given the 
very limited time remaining on tomorrow on these amendments, would be 
after the vote on the appropriations bill tonight.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes 
of my time be reserved intact prior to the vote at 5:30, and I object 
for the other side.
  How much time remains, and how is it allotted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side has 10 minutes at this time, and 
there are four Senators to equally divide the 10 minutes. Each of the 
four Senators has 10 minutes. The vote will be 40 minutes from now.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't understand. Do we know the names of the 
Senators? Reed, Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And Senators McCain and Coburn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
  I ask consent to call up conference authority to accompany H.R. 2419 
and ask it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The report is before the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President it is my pleasure to bring the Energy and 
Water conference report for fiscal year 2006 to the floor for 
consideration.
  The bill provides $30.495 billion, consistent with the conference 
allocation and $748 million above the request and the House level and 
budget request and $750 million below the Senate allocation. This bill 
is a product of extensive compromise on both sides.
  U.S. Army Corps; $5.38 billion: +$636 million above the House, $84 
million above the Senate and $57 million below fiscal year 2005 levels 
and +$1.05 billion above the request.
  In the wake the hurricanes, this budget rejects the direction of the 
President's proposed budget. It is clear that we need to invest more in 
critical water infrastructure, not less.
  This also funds an $8 million study to investigate various storm 
protection needs for New Orleans and vicinity, as well as $10 million 
for the Louisiana coastal area.
  The report does not provide for the supplemental needs of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Texas or Florida, nor does it repay any of the projects 
that have

[[Page 25840]]

been tapped to support the Corps' post hurricane operations. The 
Congress will address this as part of the emergency supplemental.
  Bureau of Reclamation $1.06 billion. This is: +$53.5 million above 
the House, -$16 million below the Senate, +$114 million above the 
request.
  Mr. President--$24.29 billion is provided to the Department. This is 
$76 million above the request and consistent with fiscal year 2005 
levels. NNSA received $9.196 billion. This is $217 above fiscal year 
2005 levels and $200 million below the request, $348 million above the 
House and -$250 below the Senate.
  The Conferees have agreed to increase funding for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead Program. This innovative approach is intended to 
challenge weapons designers to enhance the existing warheads to improve 
the safety, surety and manufacturability.
  The conference agreement provides no funding for a modern pit 
facility. I do not believe the administration has made the case that 
this costly new project is necessary at this point. The Department must 
focus on improving the manufacturing capability of pits at Los Alamos 
rather than experimental activities.
  Lab Directed Research and Development, LDRD. The bill increases the 
LDRD amount to 8 percent. As an experiment, it applies overhead costs, 
but also ensures that overall LDRD funding does not fall below the 6 
percent overall.
  NNSA's Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation is provided $1.63 billion. 
This is a slight decrease below the President's request. However, the 
conferees were able to provide needed funding for key nonproliferation 
programs.
  Mr. President, $220 million is provided to initiate construction of 
the mixed oxide conversion plant at Savannah River Site in South 
Carolina this fiscal year. This level of funding will permit the 
Department to move ahead with construction in fiscal year 2006.
  The conference report provides $309 million, an increase of $42 
million above the request and $85 million above fiscal year 2005, for 
the Nuclear Detection Research and Development account. This is 
critical funding provided to the labs to stay a step ahead of 
terrorists and other threats.
  The conferees provide $427 million, an increase of $83 million, to 
protect nuclear materials in Russia that was negotiated as part of the 
Bratislava Summit in February 2005 between President's Bush and Putin.
  This will allow the administration to secure several new Russian 
weapons sites that have previously not been open to the U.S. to make 
critical security upgrades to protect Russian nuclear warheads. Russian 
sites have traditionally been poorly protected despite the fact that 
the sites store nuclear warheads.
  The conferees provide the Office of Science $3.63 billion, an 
increase of $170 million above the request. The conferees provide an 
additional $30 million for advanced computing at Oak Ridge.
  Fossil Energy R&D will receive $597 million, up $26 million from 
fiscal year 2005 and $106 million above the request. The conferees 
defer the use of $257 million to be used to support the construction of 
the FutureGen coal plant.
  The conference report provides $1.8 billion for Energy Supply and 
Conservation research and development. This is $24 million above fiscal 
year 2005 and $81 million above the request.
  For fiscal year 2006, the conferees have provided $240 million for 
weatherization assistance. This is a $15 million increase above the 
request and will provide important funding to offset rising energy 
costs this winter.
  In fiscal year 2006, the conferees provide $7 billion in funding for 
environmental management activities. Within this amount the defense 
cleanup activities receive $6.19 billion, an increase of $177 million 
above the request.
  Yucca Mountain is facing serious delays regarding the filing of the 
license application and the EPA established radiation standard. In 
addition, this facility will be too small to address all our Nation's 
spent fuel and defense waste needs.
  We need to find ways to reduce the amount of spent fuel to be sent to 
the repository and encourage the Department to find ways to do more 
through spent fuel recycling.
  Recently, the Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman outlined his vision for 
the future of nuclear power, which includes investment in commercial 
spent fuel recycling and to minimize the proliferation threats.
  The conference agreement provides $50 million for the Denali 
Commission, an increase of $47 million over the President's request.
  The conference agreement provides $65 million for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, consistent with the President's request.
  The conference agreement provides $12 million for the Delta Regional 
Authority.
  The conference agreement provides a total budget of $734 million for 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same as the Senate bill and is 
$41 million above the request. NRC is charged with new security 
investigations, as well as supporting the filing of new reactor license 
requests.
  The conference report provides $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of 
Engineers. This is approximately $57 million less than enacted in 
fiscal year 2005.
  The conference report provides $1.05 billion more for the Corps than 
was proposed by the budget request. It also includes $636 million more 
than the House Bill and $85 million more than the Senate bill.
  This significant increase signifies a congressional commitment to 
restore our aging water resources infrastructure.
  For too long we have not provided sufficient resources for our water 
infrastructure and we are now paying the price.
  Navigation channels are not being dredged, which limits commerce.
  Preventive maintenance is not being performed, resulting in 
unscheduled outages of projects.
  Construction of new infrastructure is being delayed and constructed 
inefficiently due to funding constraints.
  Studies of water resource needs are being delayed or deferred due to 
funding constraints.
  This conference report attempts to set us on the right path to 
recapitalize our water resources infrastructure by providing $2.4 
billion for construction projects and $2 billion for Operations and 
Maintenance of existing projects.
  Some of the construction highlights of the bill include: All of the 
Dam Safety projects are funded at the Corps' full capability; $90 
million for continued construction of the Olmsted Lock and Dam; $101 
million for continued construction of the New York-New Jersey Harbor; 
$70 million for continued construction of the McAlpine Lock and Dam, on 
the Ohio River; $28 million for continued construction of the West Bank 
and Vicinity, New Orleans, Louisiana flood control project; and $137 
million for continuation of the Everglades Restoration Projects in 
Florida.
  Some of the operation and maintenance items include: $24 million for 
the maintenance of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway; $62.4 million for 
operations and maintenance of the Upper River navigation system; $55 
million for operation and maintenance of the Ohio River navigation 
system; $17 million for maintenance of the Columbia River jetties; and 
dredging funds were included for most of our smaller ports and 
waterways as well.
  The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project was funded at $400 
million. This project provides for comprehensive navigation and flood 
control improvements on the Mississippi River and its tributaries below 
St. Louis, MO.
  The conference report includes $10 million for continued studies of 
how to restore Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands. Additional funding and 
authorization for wetland recovery work is included in the 
administration's emergency supplemental proposal.
  The conference bill contains a proviso concerning a comprehensive 
hurricane protection study for south Louisiana that would afford 
protection from a category 5 storm surge and would exclude the normal 
policy considerations in determining the benefits of this protection 
level.

[[Page 25841]]

  It is my understanding that previous studies undertaken by the Corps 
of Engineers balanced the level of protection with the benefits that 
established policies allowed.
  None of the existing studies provide detailed analysis of what is 
necessary to provide Category 5 protection for south Louisiana.
  This study would provide that analysis. In order to expedite the 
work, the Corps is directed to provide a plan for short term protection 
within 6 months of enactment, a plan for interim protection within 12 
months of enactment and long term comprehensive protection within 24 
months of enactment.
  This study would rely heavily on existing studies with projections of 
necessary actions to achieve Category 5 protection. The study would 
also integrate flood, coastal and hurricane protection measures into a 
seamless line of protection for south Louisiana.
  On August 29, Hurricane Katrina came ashore on the Louisiana and 
Mississippi Gulf coast. This storm devastated the region.
  The conference report does not include funding that has been 
requested by the administration for hurricane recovery efforts along 
the gulf coast; rather, these efforts will continue to be funded 
through emergency supplemental appropriations.
  The administration has proposed spending $1.6 billion to restore the 
levees to prehurricane strength and make repairs to existing Corps 
infrastructure located in the hurricane's path.
  The conference report provides $1.065 billion for the Bureau of 
Reclamation. This is approximately $47 million more than was enacted in 
fiscal year 2005.
  The conference report provides $114 million more for Reclamation than 
was proposed by the budget request. It also includes $53.5 million more 
than the House bill and $16 million less than the Senate bill.
  The conference report provides sufficient funding to allow 
Reclamation to continue their mission of providing water and power to 
the West.
  Some of the major highlights include: $129.4 million for the various 
divisions of the Central Valley Project in California; $52.2 million 
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund; $34.4 million for the 
Central Utah Project; $56 million to continue construction of the 
Animas-La Plata Project; $16 million for the Ft. Peck-Dry Prairie Rural 
Water System in Montana; $21 million for the Klamath Project, $37 
million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program.
  These ongoing water resource projects provide benefits to our 
citizens by making large parts of the western United States habitable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
use 5 minutes of Senator McCain's allotted time under the UC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for just a few moments, I rise to recognize 
the work that has been done on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act of 2006.
  For a good number of years, some of us who work on the physical 
sciences in the Senate--by that I mean on committees that recognize the 
kind of research dollars that are applied to new technologies beyond 
health care, but more in the physical sciences--have been increasingly 
concerned that we have dedicated almost exclusively all research money 
to health care, medical science, biological sciences, and not to the 
physical sciences.
  We had once invested heavily in the space program, and for decades it 
advanced our country beyond all other countries in technology, in all 
of the high-tech that has led our economy today and is now leading the 
world economy. Much of that was a spinoff from the early days of the 
investment in the space program. When few saw the opportunities or the 
benefits, some in Congress did, and it was well funded.
  While I am not standing on the floor in any way to criticize our 
investment in the biological sciences or health care--and clearly that 
has advanced technology today well beyond where we thought we could go, 
and in a much more rapid way to look at cancer and diabetes and other 
of our chronic illnesses in this country that are causing tremendous 
problems and death loss-- the one thing that has been obvious in tight 
budget years is that we have not been willing to commit the kind of 
investment dollars to the physical sciences this bill begins to speak 
to clearly today. For example, we are spending more money than ever 
before on nuclear energy, pushing the technology curve once again to 
become leaders in the world on a technology that we once led on but we 
let move away. Now for a variety of reasons, most importantly because 
of a need for clean energy, we are recognizing once again we have to 
put the hard dollars back into the technology that takes us beyond the 
lightwater reactor to the high temperature gas reactor and even beyond 
that some day, out there 40 or 50 or 60 years to technologies such as 
fission. That is in part what this budget and this appropriations bill 
speaks to.
  Certainly I come to the floor to thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee, Pete Domenici, for his vision, his 
farsightedness in recognizing and fighting for some of the new money 
that advances us at our national laboratories that are tremendous 
treasures to advance these types of technologies. Once weapons 
laboratories during the Cold War, they are transforming themselves into 
lead research facilities well beyond what they were a decade or two 
ago. Clearly, that is true, whether it is in my State of Idaho or in 
New Mexico or California or in the other States that have the privilege 
of housing these laboratories and the quality of work they do.
  While this conference did not come about easily, while there are many 
more dollars that could be spent productively to advance our country 
and our leadership in the world of science, this is a major step in the 
right direction under tight budget constraints.
  I am proud to be a conservative. I believe in balanced budgets. I 
believe in bringing down deficits. I believe that all parts of the 
appropriating process have to share in that responsibility. Clearly, we 
have shared in it in the Energy and Water Development appropriations 
legislation. At the same time we have worked cooperatively with the 
House and, in a common cause, advanced a variety of the technologies 
that are embodied within this appropriations bill that is critically 
important.
  I thank the chairman for the work he has done to advance a variety of 
the technologies I have spoken to, and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. Let me reciprocate. He, too, is a 
very significant part and plays a very important role in not only the 
matters he discussed but many others in this bill. I commend him for 
it. His State has a magnificent laboratory. They are performing some 
great activity in terms of the future generation of civilian nuclear 
power. That is important for our and the world's future.
  I take a moment to thank the staff and recognize their hard work, 
long hours, many discussions: From the majority staff, Scott O'Malia, 
Roger Cockrell, and Emily Brunini; on the minority staff, Drew Willison 
and Nancy Olkewicz. Everybody should understand that these 
appropriations bills are put together by a small, excellent, and 
professional staff. Some people think that more oversight should occur. 
I hope the authorizers will do that. We can't do it in detail. We do 
our best.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a couple of points that I think are 
worth making on this most important bill. First, I express my 
appreciation to

[[Page 25842]]

Senator Domenici. He and I have worked on this bill for a long time. 
When I say ``this bill,'' year after year we work hard to put a bill 
together. Some years are easier than others. This was not an easy year. 
It was a very difficult year. We have a lot of Senators who are not 
happy with what we have been able to do, but we have done the best we 
can under very trying circumstances.
  Our conference allocation is $750 million above the President's 
request. Of that amount, $600 million went to the Corps of Engineers 
for flood control and navigation projects. This is in relation to the 
post-Katrina world in which it is certainly obvious why we needed to do 
this. This is a wise investment of our Nation's resources. The scrutiny 
of the Corps' activities is only going to increase in coming years. So 
it is imperative that they conduct themselves in a completely open and 
transparent manner moving forward.
  Unfortunately, the result of placing such a high priority on flood 
control is that important programs of the Department of Energy are 
essentially flat. This will not be an easy year for renewable and 
energy-efficient programs, the Office of Science, or the critically 
important environmental cleanups at nuclear weapons sites nationwide. 
We must do better in future years. In fact, we have to find more 
resources for these important activities.
  Secondly, this conference report is the product of thousands of 
compromises, not hundreds. None of the four principal subcommittee 
conferees agrees with every provision contained in this conference 
report, and that is an understatement. For example, as far as I am 
concerned, we are carrying a small amount of funding and some report 
language directing the Department to set a nationwide competition to 
see if there is a State out there willing to voluntarily accept a spent 
fuel reprocessing facility. While I have always supported processing 
research as a prudent investment, I have never supported moving forward 
in any way on an actual reprocessing facility for many of the same 
reasons that I oppose centralized storage--the danger of transportation 
outweighs the benefits.
  However, I completely respect the desire of Chairman Hobson, Chairman 
Domenici, and Ranking Member Visclosky to do something--I appreciate 
and congratulate and applaud each of them--to change the dynamics 
surrounding what I believe is the failed Yucca Mountain project. I have 
worked with Senator Domenici for many years. He is my friend. It goes 
without saying that we have difficulties in this bill, but it is never 
anything personal. We have communication that is as good as any two 
Senators in this Congress. It is a good give-and-take process. Senator 
Domenici understands that legislation is the art of compromise. We are 
both realists. I have been the chairman of this subcommittee on a 
number of occasions, and he has been the ranking member. We have always 
worked well together.
  I thank both the House and the Senate staff for doing a tremendous 
job under the most trying circumstances. A lot of times we are at home, 
in the safety and security of our homes and we have staff members 
working well into the night, into the morning, trying to come up with a 
product they can submit to us that we can get through this body. This 
has been a long, difficult road this year. My hat is off to all the 
House and Senate staff for sticking with it and bringing forward the 
recommendations that will be accepted this evening.
  On the House side, thanks to Kevin Cook, Scott Burnison, John Blazey, 
Terry Tyborowski, Tracy LaTurner, Tanya Berquam, Dixon Butler, Peder 
Morebeer, and Felicia Kirksey.
  On the Senate side, thanks to Scott O'Malia, Emily Brunini, Roger 
Cockrell, and Nancy Olkewicz. I probably shouldn't spend too much time 
on Drew Willison, but I couldn't spend too much time. What he has done 
in working to craft this legislation, not for me, not for Senator 
Domenici, not for the Senate, but for the people of this country, words 
cannot express adequately my appreciation for his good work. No one--I 
say that without qualification or reservation--knows this bill better 
than he does. His work is something the American people should 
understand they have gotten their money's worth from the work he has 
done. It was a tough year. It is a product we can all be proud of.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. REID. I yield back all of the time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I know there is 
another Senator, but if he doesn't come by 5:30, I understand we are 
going to vote; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the vote will 
occur at 5:30.
  Mr. REID. I have yielded back my time. How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico reserved 5 minutes 
prior to the vote and has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I must say, if the Senator from Oklahoma isn't here by 
5:30, we can't yield back his time, but we are supposed to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not trying to take his time. I am going to speak 
because I have time. If he comes, I will give him whatever I have.
  Senator Reid talked about renewables. While we weren't able to do 
everything in each of the R&D programs, we are over the budget with 
reference to conservation, wind, biomass, solar, and hydrogen. We are 
higher than the budget request in each of those. We are pleased about 
that.
  Move over to the nonproliferation budget, which everybody says is 
terrifically important for our country. That is up. An area which the 
occupant of the Chair is familiar with, that is the MOX, the mixed 
oxide, which is a part of nonproliferation but is America's first 
significant effort in moving ahead with reprocessing. It starts by a 
giant step at converting plutonium that comes from thousands of nuclear 
weapons that have been reduced, eliminated, and the plutonium remains. 
We are trying to convert it. The Savannah River Project has accepted 
it. While the House had zeroed it out--a big mistake, in my opinion--we 
were able to fund it by long and hard negotiations. It was one of the 
items that held this bill up. It is funded not as much as it should be 
but sufficient to keep this valuable, almost necessary, project going. 
That is good.
  Likewise, there should be no doubt, harkening back to 
nonproliferation, that the President was right in his budget. He asked 
for a big increase, while the rest was either zeroed out, slightly 
reduced. There was an 11 or 12-percent increase. We retained that, and 
it will now see us make a very major effort in the detection, the 
cleanup, the safety of items that could proliferate in all the areas, 
but predominantly in the area of nuclear.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.


             Protecting the Treaty Fishing Rights of Tribes

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address some lingering 
concerns about certain report language in the fiscal year 2006 Energy 
and Water Appropriations Conference Report and to seek clarification. 
During my many years as chairman and vice chairman of the Indian 
Affairs Committee, I became acutely aware of the importance of 
protecting the treaty fishing rights of tribes in the Northwest and 
spent much time discussing this issue with many of the Northwest tribal 
leaders. I know that without independent technical data and analyses on 
the status of salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia Basin, it will 
be difficult for them to act professionally as comanagers of the 
resource. The final conference report contains language directing the 
Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, to cease funding an important 
independent scientific research center based in the Pacific Northwest, 
known as the Fish Passage Center, FPC. The language directs BPA and the 
Northwest Power and Conservation

[[Page 25843]]

Council, NPCC, to transfer the functions of the Fish Passage Center in 
a way that ensures ``seamless continuity of activities'' without giving 
direction about how this transfer should take place.
  The Northwest Power Act called for the NPCC to establish a fish and 
wildlife program. That program has called for BPA to fund the Fish 
Passage Center for the past 20 years. The data and analyses the center 
has provided has been invaluable to the States and tribal fishery 
managers of the Columbia Basin. Can the distinguished chairman of the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee tell me if this language was in any way 
intended to supersede the NW Power Act or the specific provisions in 
the NPCC's present fish and wildlife program calling for a number of 
key functions to be performed and whether the state and tribal fishery 
managers will have input into how the center is reconstituted?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The premise of the longtime member of the Indian 
Affairs Committee is correct. We do not intend this language to 
supersede the Northwest Power Act or the Council's fish and wildlife 
program. Certainly both the Bonneville Power Administration and the 
NPCC are expected to work closely with the State and tribal fishery 
managers in determining a suitable entity that could take over these 
functions so that the fishery managers, including the tribes, continue 
to receive independent analyses as they have in the past.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the attention of my colleagues 
to this regional issue regarding the Fish Passage Center and would like 
to make a few comments to clarify the intent of the language.
  This language is not about treaty rights; this issue is about 
ensuring accurate data is used in recovering the species. Removal of 
funding to the FPC does not mean the current functions will disappear. 
It is my understanding that other institutions in the region now 
perform most of the data collection and dissemination that is performed 
by the FPC. Reduced redundan-
cies mean increased efficiency and effectiveness in the regional fish 
and wildlife program. The end result is a more focused program and the 
region moves forward toward recovery of the species.
  While BPA has contracted the FPC for the last 20 years, many 
questions have arisen regarding the reliability of the technical data. 
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Independent Scientific 
Advisory Board, ISAB, issued a report in 2003 in which it raised 
serious questions about the FPC's analyses. The ISAB said FPC's ``basic 
model and methods of presentation are now inadequate to make confident 
predictions for management, and other interpretations of the 
accumulated data are needed.'' Clearly, I am not alone in questioning 
FPC's reliability. Data cloaked in advocacy create confusion. False 
science leads people to false choices. We do not have to choose dams or 
salmon. They can, and should, continue to coexist.
  I am confident the BPA and NPCC will work with the region, both 
States and tribes, to ensure a seamless transition of functions. I 
thank the chairman for allowing me to speak on this matter.


                        mixed oxide fuel project

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern 
regarding the Mixed Oxide fuel project. This project is vital to reduce 
the threat of terrorists or rogue nations obtaining nuclear weapon 
materials. By resulting in the disposal of 34 metric tons--64 tons in 
total--of surplus weapon-grade plutonium, enough for thousands of 
nuclear weapons, the MOX program helps accomplish one of our most 
important nonproliferation goals. This plutonium, once converted into 
fuel for commercial nuclear power plants, is a real ``swords into 
plowshares'' program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have been a forceful advocate of the permanent 
disposal of the 34 tons of excess weapons-grade plutonium from the U.S. 
and Russian stockpiles. This material equals the same amount of 
plutonium as contained in 8,000 warheads. This is the largest non-
proliferation effort undertaken by the U.S. and G-8 partners. In the 
Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water bill, I included $200 million in 
emergency/funding to provide the initial investment in the Plutonium 
Disposition program. Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a 
clear and present danger. For that reason, the committee considers the 
Department's material disposition program of utmost importance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Despite this importance, the Department of Energy has not 
requested full funding for this project in the President's Fiscal Year 
2004, Fiscal Year 2005 and Fiscal Year 2006 budget request as 
originally proposed in the report to Congress entitled ``Disposition of 
Surplus Defense Plutonium at Savannah River Site, February 2002.'' The 
funding shortfalls will add to the existing 3-year delay caused by the 
negotiations between the Russian and U.S. Governments regarding 
liability for the project. However, with agreement between the U.S. and 
Russia on liability, the administration has no reason not to request 
full funding in next year's budget. It is vital that in the next budget 
the administration proposes fully funding the MOX program at a level 
that will bring this project closer to its original schedule.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina that the 
administration needs to fully fund this project in fiscal year 2007 and 
thereafter. Without a viable disposal solution, the cleanup of the 
Hanford Site and arrangements for decreasing inventories of plutonium 
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Pantex Plant will 
cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually for storage and 
related security costs.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Never hesitant to support missions in support of our 
national defense, the residents of South Carolina took considerable 
risk by allowing shipments of defense plutonium to be sent to the 
Savannah River Site from Rocky Flats and other DOE sites in advance of 
the construction of the MOX plant. In addition to supporting DOE's 
efforts to consolidate plutonium and accomplish the goals of the 
plutonium disposition program, this agreement greatly assisted DOE's 
efforts to expeditiously close Rocky Flats, resulting in considerable 
cost savings for DOE.
  In a sign of good faith to the State of South Carolina, language was 
negotiated between the State of South Carolina and the Federal 
Government that required the Department of Energy to convert one metric 
ton of defense plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors by 
2011 or face penalties of $1 million per day up to $100 million per 
year until the plutonium is either converted into the fuel or removed 
from the State. It has never been the intention of South Carolina to 
receive penalty payments; the residents of the State simply sought 
reassurances that weapons-grade plutonium would not remain at SRS 
indefinitely. South Carolina would not have accepted plutonium without 
this statute. However, until the plant is operational, it is critical 
to maintain the protections provided in Section 4306 of the Atomic 
Energy Defense Act, 50 USC 2566. This is the reassurance the Federal 
Government gives to South Carolina that it is DOE's intention to see 
this project through.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the importance of that language. The 
appropriations bill includes a 3-year delay in the penalty payment 
language to reflect the delays caused by the Russians in negotiating a 
liability agreement. This delay does not allow DOE to withdraw support 
for the program. Any effort to eliminate funding for this project will 
likely foreclose a disposal pathway for plutonium stored at Savannah 
River causing the Department to pay the State of South Carolina up to 
$100,000,000 per year in fines starting in 2014.
  Mr. GRAHAM. It is also my intention to make a technical correction, 
in the future, to language contained in the conference report to the 
Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. This conference 
report contains a change to important authorizing language that would 
make these penalty payments ``subject to the availability of 
appropriations.'' I appreciate the

[[Page 25844]]

willingness of the Senator from New Mexico to see that this is 
resolved.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the concerns of the Senator from South 
Carolina. I will work with the Senator to find a fair solution that 
does not impact existing Department of Energy programs, and in the 
event that the Department is unable to meet the statutory requirements 
for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Conversion facility, the solution ensures that 
South Carolina does not become the permanent storage site for defense 
plutonium.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from New Mexico and look forward to 
working with him to continue to fully support the construction and 
operation of the MOX facility.


                         Clarification on Funds

  Mr. DORGAN. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, 
for clarification on funding that was included in the fiscal year 2006 
Energy and Water appropriations conference report. Under the fossil 
energy research and development section, the report provided $6,000,000 
for the Energy and Environmental Research Center for cooperative 
research and development. Was it not the intent of the conference 
committee that the funding identified for the Energy and Environmental 
Research Center be split with their partners in the fossil fuel 
research, the Western Research Institute, WRI, in Wyoming?
  Mr. REID. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Was it also the case that the $1,000,000 in funding for 
the Energy and Environmental Research Center under the fuels & powers 
account was meant to be exclusively for the Energy and Environmental 
Research Center in North Dakota as described in the report?
  Mr. REID. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.


             Department of Energy National User Facilities

  Ms. CLINTON. First, I want to compliment the chairman and ranking 
member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their hard and 
successful work in leading the development of the Energy and Water bill 
that is before the body today. I know it is especially difficult to 
fund all of the important programs under the jurisdiction of this 
subcommittee, particularly in light of the significant needs of the 
Army Corps of Engineers to respond to the calamitous impact of 
Hurricane Katrina on the lives of so many Americans.
  However, it seems to me that the funding pressures faced by the 
subcommittee resulted in the programs of the Office of Science being 
funded at a level significantly below the value of these programs to 
the future security and economic health of the Nation.
  When the Senate passed the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, an 
appropriation of $419,741,000 was included for the Department of 
Energy's nuclear physics program, an increase of $49 million over the 
President's budget request, according to the Committee on 
Appropriations' report, to ensure full utilization of experimental 
facilities. The House-passed bill included an amount of $408,341,000, 
also including adequate funds to restore operation time of the 
facilities in the nuclear physics program.
  The conference report accompanying the bill before the Senate 
provides $370,741,000, the amount of the President's budget request. 
Due to severe budget constraints, the conferees were unable to retain 
the increases provided in the House and Senate bills for national user 
facilities, including the increase for the Relativistic Heavy Ion 
Collider, RHIC, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York and 
the Jefferson Laboratory in Virginia. I understand the allocation for 
the conference bill reduced the total amount available. I also 
understand the Senate-passed bill was about $1.5 billion above the 
House bill and that the conference bill allocation provided for a split 
of that additional amount leaving an increase of $750 million over the 
House-passed bill. I further understand that the vast majority of the 
$750 million in new funding was provided to the Army Corps of Engineers 
for flood control and navigation projects in the wake of Hurricanes 
Katrina, Ophelia, Wilma and others. Under the circumstances, this was a 
wise investment of our Nation's resources.
  However, an unintended consequence of these cutbacks is a negative 
impact on the Brookhaven National Laboratory in my State of New York, 
where the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, known as RHIC, is a key 
nuclear physics facility with many user groups in our region and 
elsewhere. I am told that this amazing major facility will be severely 
impacted by the amount approved by the conference agreement for nuclear 
physics. We had urged the Committee to approve additional funds above 
the President's budget request to ensure the continued operations of 
this facility at last year's level. The budget request was inadequate 
to begin with, principally because of the increased power costs that 
have occurred in our area to operate the facility for experiments for 
approximately 30 weeks operating time. Unfortunately, the situation 
with the power costs has worsened.
  Mr. WARNER. We are facing similar problems at the Jefferson 
Laboratory in Virginia. As the chairman knows, the Jefferson Lab in 
Newport News, VA, is one of our basic research labs that would be 
negatively impacted by this funding level.
  Specifically, as a result of this cut the Jefferson Lab will have to 
reduce the physics output of this world-leading laboratory by 25 
percent. Just last month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 
report titled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report 
underscored that the Nation's economic health is seriously at risk 
without a sustained investment in science. The report noted that in 
Germany, 36 percent of undergraduates receive their degrees in science 
and engineering. In China the figure is 59 percent, and in Japan 66 
percent. In the United States the corresponding figure is 32 percent.
  It seems to me that this is a time when the Nation needs to invest in 
science, not cut science programs. At the Jefferson Lab we need to 
invest in the 12GeV upgrade necessary to sustain the pace of scientific 
discovery, not cut programs.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My understanding is that the conference amount for 
nuclear physics may not provide sufficient funds for the RHIC facility. 
Because of the increased power costs and other factors, I am advised 
that without an increase in funding it is possible that there will not 
be any experimental operations in this fiscal year. I think we can all 
agree that is a bad and unintended outcome.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Reid, the ranking member, 
have long been strong supporters of our national labs and specifically 
the work done at the Jefferson Lab and Brookhaven National Lab. The 
questions that we collectively pose relate to how we can repair the 
unintended damage done by this funding level. It is my understanding 
that the actual bill only provides funding for the Office of Science 
and that the Department has wide discretion to reallocate those funds 
among the various programs. Does the Department of Energy have the 
flexibility and authority to move funds around or to reprogram funding 
to help to alleviate situations such as this?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Department does, indeed, have broad reprogramming 
authority.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I understand that these reallocations or reprogramming 
usually require approval by the subcommittee. Will both the chairman 
and ranking member join us, in writing, in an effort to urge the 
Department to reprogram funds to ensure reasonable operating times for 
these vital national user facilities during fiscal year 2006?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you for highlighting this matter. Senator Reid 
and I agree that the programs of the Office of Science, including 
nuclear physics, merit appropriate consideration for additional funding 
under the circumstances. I appreciate the efforts of the Senators to 
provide examples of the impacts on one of our basic research 
laboratories of the funding levels provided by this conference 
agreement. I pledge my efforts to work with

[[Page 25845]]

the Department and other Congressional leaders to help resolve this 
issue.
  Mr. REID. I also pledge to work with the Department and affected 
Members of this body to reach an acceptable outcome.


                               auburn dam

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address a provision in the 
Energy and Water appropriations conference report, which requires the 
Bureau of Reclamation to produce a special report analyzing costs and 
benefits associated with constructing an Auburn Dam.
  As part of that report, I believe it is critical that the Secretary 
of the Interior should utilize the expertise of U.S. Geological Survey 
to produce an up-to-date assessment of the seismic hazards associated 
with Auburn Dam.
  I would also like to make it clear that this Auburn study cannot 
become a distraction from the vital work that needs to be done right 
away to protect Sacramento from a tragic flood.
  I am deeply concerned with the lack of adequate flood protection for 
Sacramento. Sacramento is the only major United States city without 
100-year flood protection.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed six other major flood-prone 
cities: New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha, and Tacoma. 
All of these cities have at least 200-year flood protection.
  Our top priority has to be to quickly shore up levees and improve 
Folsom Dam to protect Sacramento from a 200-year flood. Until this is 
complete, 300,000 people are at risk from catastrophic flood.
  With respect to the conference provision, there are other issues 
involved with Auburn Dam, such as who would pay for the project, and 
the potential environmental effects of flooding 50 miles of the 
American River. But today I would like to focus on the seismic risk 
issue.
  This is not the first time that building an Auburn Dam has been 
proposed. In the late 1960s construction began on an Auburn Dam. 
Construction continued, and $200 million was spent, until 1975, when an 
earthquake occurred nearby on a previously unknown fault. This 
earthquake forced a reexamination of the risks involved.
  According to a 1980 Bureau of Reclamation report, if an earthquake 
caused the Auburn Dam to fail, Folsom Dam would be overtopped by a 
water surge only minutes later.
  Most of the Sacramento area, an area inhabited by 750,000 people, 
would be flooded in a matter of hours, making evacuation difficult. 
Floodwater would be fast-moving and as deep as 40 feet, destroying 
houses and lowering chances of rooftop survival.
  The risk of earthquake and its effects, which stopped construction 
back then, has not gone away. That's why it is so critical that 
Congress know what the risks are, and take this into consideration when 
deciding whether to go forward with this dam.
  It has now been 30 years since work at the proposed site was halted, 
and as a result, the seismic risk assessments are out-of-date.
  The most recent comprehensive study of seismic hazard issues 
associated with the dam project was produced by the U.S. Geological 
Survey in 1996, nearly 10 years ago. Even when this report was written, 
the science of seismic hazard assessment had already progressed 
considerably since most of the data on the dam project were collected 
in the 1970s.
  The report called for additional study and analysis, much of which 
was never undertaken. This need for study and analysis still exists.
  The Auburn Dam, if constructed, would sit on part of the Foothills 
fault system. The faults in the area of the proposed dam site are 
currently considered inactive, but were active in the past. The U.S. 
Geological Survey should use the best science available to evaluate 
past earthquakes, as well as the potential for future earthquakes, in 
the vicinity of the proposed dam.
  One potential risk comes from a ``reservoir triggered earthquake.'' 
Filling a reservoir is well-established as a potential trigger for 
seismic activity. Even inactive faults may experience seismic events 
after reservoirs are built on top of them.
  The weight and pressure of the water in the reservoir increases 
stress and weakens the effective strength of the rock. Water seeps into 
fissures and pores in the rock, and may lubricate faults, allowing 
movement even in some cases where friction would have held dry rock in 
place.
  It has been suggested that the Oroville earthquake, a Richter scale 
magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred in 1975, may have been caused by 
filling the reservoir behind the Oroville Dam. The Auburn Dam, if 
constructed, would be built along the same fault system as the Oroville 
Dam.
  Many other instances of these ``reservoir triggered earthquakes'' 
have been studied around the world. Recent global reviews list nearly 
100 sites where filling reservoirs may have triggered seismic activity.
  These studies show that the increased risk of earthquakes may last 
for years after a reservoir is filled. Both flood-control-only and 
permanent-waterstorage dams entail some risk.
  The 1996 U.S. Geological Survey report for Auburn took this 
possibility very seriously. The report devoted a lengthy section to its 
consideration, and called for additional study.
  The new report must address this issue. This is essential information 
that will influence Congress's decision on whether to proceed beyond 
preliminary feasibility studies. Do my colleagues agree?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the 1996 U.S. Geological Survey report 
called for a reevaluation of the dam design based on seismic data. A 
reevaluation should be performed using the best available science and 
the U.S. Geological Survey should produce an analysis integrating new 
data.
  Mr. REID. I also concur. The potential consequences in this region 
are enormous. In California, assessing earthquake risks for a major 
project like this is an important part of the process. Concern about 
the possibility of earthquakes contributed to putting the project on 
hold in the first place. This concern remains important and should be 
addressed before deciding whether to proceed. The best way to do this 
is for the U.S. Geological Survey to produce an updated analysis on the 
risks involved.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues.


                   Lake Sakakawea Recreation Upgrades

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, for 
their work in completing the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water 
appropriations bill and conference report. I am aware of the very 
difficult choices they had to make in order to fall within their tight 
spending allocation. I appreciate their leadership on this important 
piece of legislation.
  If I could, I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada a question 
regarding an activity at Lake Sakakawea, a Federal lake in North Dakota 
operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. For the past couple of years, 
Congress has asked the Corps of Engineers to extend docks and boat 
ramps around Lake Sakakawea as a result of the low lake levels.
  Is it not the expectation of the conference committee that the Army 
Corps of Engineers continue its work on these recreation upgrades 
within the Corps' fiscal year 2006 operation and maintenance budget for 
Lake Sakakawea?
  Mr. REID. It is true that while we were unable to provide funding 
above the President's request for this activity, the intent of the 
conference committee was that this activity would continue within its 
regular operation and maintenance allocation.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                           FutureGen Funding

 Mr. BYRD. Senator Reid, I want to thank you for your support 
and assistance in shepherding this conference report to this point 
today. I plan to support this bill, but I have a specific

[[Page 25846]]

point of clarification that I would like to discuss with you regarding 
the provisions related to the fiscal year 2006 FutureGen funding.
  I have not opposed the FutureGen program and have supported the 
administration's requests for this project over the last 3 years. 
However, I have and will continue to raise concerns about how this 
administration is going to fund the FutureGen program when it has not 
been able to provide adequate and sustained funding for core key fossil 
research and development programs. This situation appears only more 
ominous as our budgetary constraints worsen by the year and, adding to 
that, are new energy programs that were authorized in the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 which will further heighten and constrain funding 
pressures.
  The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides the 
$18 million for FutureGen that the administration has requested. 
However, even larger funding requests are going to be required if this 
initiative is to move forward according to its schedule. It is my 
understanding that the Congress has deferred $237 million of clean coal 
technology funding until fiscal year 2007 and will give full 
consideration to the administration's funding requests for the 
FutureGen initiative utilizing these funds. Would it be your 
expectation that the Congress will only consider the administration's 
FutureGen requests from the deferred amount contingent upon the 
administration providing full funding requests for the clean coal and 
other fossil energy research, development, and demonstration programs, 
especially the Clean Coal Power Initiative that was woefully 
underfunded in fiscal year 2006?
  Mr. REID. Senator, that would be my understanding and expectation.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for that clarification. When there are 
so many other unmet fossil energy funding needs, as I have and will 
continue to reiterate, I cannot and will not support such a transfer 
from deferred funds, in whole or in part, to the FutureGen initiative 
until all other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded to the 
satisfaction of the Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2007 and 
future years. I will certainly consider new moneys requested in the 
administration's budget request, but I will first prioritize other key 
fossil energy programs and other needs as a priority above the 
FutureGen program from deferred funds. This administration has been 
playing shell games with FutureGen. They have been attempting to rob 
Peter to pay Paul which is simply masking the underlying problem of 
continued inadequate funding commitments for other core fossil energy 
programs.
  Would it also be the Senator's understanding that other fossil energy 
programs have equal, if not greater, funding needs and that there is no 
guarantee that any portion of the $237 million in the deferred clean 
coal technology fund will be transferred to the FutureGen program in 
fiscal year 2007 or future years. Should the administration or other 
interested parties expect that the deferred amount will be set aside, 
in whole or in part, for FutureGen in fiscal year 2007 or beyond?
  Mr. REID. Senator, I agree that the administration needs to provide 
more adequate funding to the fossil energy research, development, and 
demonstration accounts. I also agree with you that there should be no 
assumption by the administration, Members of Congress, State 
governments, or any other parties that there is a guarantee that any 
funding, including the administration's future budget request for 
FutureGen will be provided by the Congress, given the austere budget 
environment that we are in. It is my understanding that $237 million is 
deferred and is available in fiscal year 2007 and beyond for a number 
of pressing fossil energy funding needs. The FutureGen program will 
only be given consideration for such deferred amounts if and only if 
all other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded, especially 
the Clean Coal Power Initiative.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the second storm surge from Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita--high energy prices--threatens to overwhelm working 
families and senior citizens. The Energy Information Administration 
forecasted that households heating with natural gas will spend $306, or 
41 percent, more for fuel this winter than last winter; households 
primarily using heating oil can expect to pay $325, or 27 percent, 
more; and households heating primarily with propane can expect to pay 
$230, or 21 percent, more.
  Low-income families and seniors need assistance from the Federal 
Government in order to guarantee energy security in this high price 
environment. To provide immediate help this winter, I am working with 
Senator Collins to secure $5.1 billion in funding for the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program. Over the last 4 weeks, we have offered 
two amendments to increase funding for LIHEAP. While a majority of the 
Senate supported these amendments, we have been unable to reach the 
required 60 vote supermajority needed to waive the budget point of 
order on emergency spending.
  Oil companies reported record profits for the third quarter of this 
year. As oil prices go up, low-income hard working Americans struggle 
to pay their heating bills. That is why fully funding LIHEAP is vital, 
and I believe oil companies should help shoulder the cost through a 
temporary, one-year windfall profit tax on integrated oil companies.
  The President also has been silent, failing to ask for any funding 
for LIHEAP in the supplemental appropriations request he sent to 
Congress. In addition, Energy Secretary Bodman has repeatedly stated 
that the administration is against a windfall profits tax.
  The Administration's National Energy Policy Report, the National 
Petroleum Council's report, Balancing Natural Gas Policy, and the 
National Commission on Energy Policy's report, Ending the Energy 
Stalemate, emphasized that energy efficiency is essential to managing 
the nation's short- and long-term energy challenges. Unfortunately, 
despite all of the agreement, federal funding for energy efficiency is 
not keeping pace.
  In September, Senator Snowe and I wrote a bipartisan letter signed by 
33 of our colleagues urging the Administration to request $500 million 
for the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and $100 million for 
the State Energy Program, SEP, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. President Bush and Secretary Bodman called on the American people 
to conserve energy and invest in energy efficiency, and the American 
people are responding. I am disappointed that the administration did 
not seek additional funding for these key programs in their 
supplemental appropriations request.
  Indeed, SEP helps states implement energy efficiency and energy 
emergency preparedness programs in all sectors of the economy, thereby, 
reducing energy consumption for residential consumers, schools, 
hospitals, the agricultural sector, commercial enterprises, and 
industry. For every Federal dollar invested in SEP, over $7 is saved in 
energy costs. SEP funds would immediately be directed to energy 
efficiency projects to bring energy usage down. Instead of our 
bipartisan request of $100 million, the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Conference Report provides only $36 million for the program in FY2006. 
This is almost a 20-percent cut from this year's funding level. This 
cut means States will not be able to provide rebates to homeowners for 
energy conservation, schools and hospitals will be ill-equipped to 
reduce energy usage, and small business will not receive needed energy 
efficiency upgrades. Basically, every sector of the economy will be 
harmed in the midst of an energy crisis.
  I hope that the Senate will provide more funding for LIHEAP, SEP, and 
the weatherization program before the worst of the winter season hits.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today we are voting on the conference 
report for the 2006 Energy and Water Development appropriations Act. On 
the whole, the conference report contains many items well worth 
supporting, including funding for a number of important water and 
energy projects in New Mexico.

[[Page 25847]]

  Regardless of my support for the report as a whole, I would like to 
take this opportunity to express my strong concern with a provision 
inserted into the legislation without any debate, and which I believe 
represents a setback to sound public policy.
  Section 121(b) of the bill is a very short provision addressing 
endangered species issues in the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. It 
amends an existing law enacted in Public Law 108-447 which holds that a 
March 2003 biological opinion addressing water operations in the Middle 
Rio Grande fully satisfies the requirements of the Endangered Species 
Act, ESA. I had supported the original provision because a thorough 
review of that biological opinion indicated that it was based on a 
credible interpretation of the best available science and contained re-
openers that ensured the biological opinion would be amended if it 
failed to meet its objectives.
  Section 121(b) goes much farther and provides legal protection to any 
amendments to the 2003 biological opinion. The result of section 121(b) 
is that Congress will now take the unprecedented step of providing 
legal protection to the environmental analysis and decisions of a 
Federal agency before we know what the analysis looks like, or have a 
chance to assess the impacts of any decisions. The ESA requires that 
any analysis be based on, and reflect the use of, the best available 
scientific and commercial data. Section 121(b) undermines that 
requirement and gives the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service a blank check in 
issuing a modified opinion that can have far-reaching impacts to both 
the environment and the rights of water users in the Middle Rio Grande 
basin.
  There are a variety of scenarios that could develop over the next 
decade necessitating significant changes to the biological opinion. I 
am very uncomfortable with providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, or any Federal agency for that matter, unchecked power when it 
has the potential to significantly impact the rights and interests of 
so many people. Looking at the bigger picture, I am equally disturbed 
that Congress, by disallowing any opportunity to challenge a Federal 
agency, is now effectively casting aside the use of the best available 
science as the standard by which environmental analysis and subsequent 
decisions should be measured. I don't think this represents good public 
policy.
  Finally, over the last few years, there has been a commitment by a 
diverse group of interests in the Middle Rio Grande region to cooperate 
on creative approaches to address endangered species needs. The goal of 
this effort is to balance the need for environmental restoration with a 
recognition of the need to protect the interests of water users who are 
dependent on the limited supply provided by the Rio Grande. This group, 
which includes relevant Federal, State, and local entities, is capable 
of developing workable solutions to any future developments that may 
necessitate amendments to the 2003 biological opinion. I hope that 
section 121(b), by eliminating the ability to hold the Federal agencies 
to an objective standard, does not undermine the efforts of this group 
or its collaboration on these issues.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. While I support this legislation, I do have 
significant reservations about certain provisions of the conference 
report before the Senate today. Most significantly, I am very 
disappointed with the funding level included for Hanford Site cleanup.
  The Federal Government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup 
the Hanford site and its nuclear legacy. The President budget sets the 
tone for the appropriations process. I was very concerned when the 
President's request slashed funds by more than $290 million from last 
year levels, jeopardizing compliance with cleanup milestones and 
putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.
  Among the most important risk reduction projects are the cleanup and 
treatment of waste stored in underground storage tanks near the 
Columbia River. At the Hanford site there are 177 underground storage 
tanks containing more than 53 million gallons of radioactive and toxic 
waste. Sixty-seven of these tanks are known to have leaked, allowing at 
least 1 million gallons of waste to seep into the soil.
  Tank waste cleanup is critical to the overall effort in Hanford. I am 
extremely concerned about a recent report from the Department of Energy 
Inspector General that found significant problems with the 
administration's plan for tank waste cleanup in the C-Tank Farm. The 
audit found that the Department of Energy was overly optimistic and 
failed to account for problems encountered during previous retrieval 
operations.
  The Department has known since January of this year, before the 
presentation of the President's budget, that the scheduled C-Tank 
completion date of September 2006 would likely be missed and project 
costs would more than double. Falling behind on the C-Tank Farm cleanup 
will jeopardize long term tank cleanup commitments.
  Despite those challenges, the Department cut the tank cleanup program 
by $62 million in its fiscal year 2006 request. That request forced 
Congress to work within an incredibly limited budget environment to 
restore at least some of the funding necessary to keep tank cleanup on 
track. Fortunately, we could add $27 million in the conference report.
  I remain concerned, however, that the Department has yet to publicly 
acknowledge that it will miss the C-Tank Farm Tri Party Agreement 
milestone, nor has it committed to adequate funding in fiscal year 
2007. I urge the Department of Energy to quickly respond and propose a 
new appropriate cost estimate and cleanup schedule.
  In order to fully reduce risk we must have the facilities necessary 
to treat the toxic and radioactive waste from Hanford tanks. The timely 
construction of the vitrification plant is critical to reducing risk 
and protecting our citizens. The facility was designed to treat most of 
the waste removed from the 177 underground tanks before its storage at 
the Hanford site or a national depository.
  But in the face of design challenges, the administration's budget cut 
funding for vitrification plant construction--setting it at $58 million 
less than fiscal year 2005 funding levels. The Department said it 
needed to reduce funding in order to address the seismic issues with 
the design of the facility.
  Despite both Houses of Congress supporting funding levels for the 
vitrification plant at least at the President's request level, this 
conference report reduces funding to $100 million below the already-low 
fiscal year 2006 request. This level of funding would be $158 million 
less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriations level.
  Remarkably, the President has proposed a rescission of an additional 
$100 million in previously appropriated vitrification plant 
construction funds to address hurricane recovery efforts. In his letter 
to the Congress, the President labeled plant construction as a lower 
priority Federal program.
  This cut comes at the same time that the administration has noted 
that the cost of the vitrification plant has increased by at least 25 
percent. And language in the underlying report estimates that the cost 
of the plant may rise to $9.3 billion. Yet this administration 
continues to cut funding, jeopardizing long-term cleanup milestones.
  I urge the administration to drop its proposed $100 million 
rescission, set forth a clear cost and schedule for the completion of 
the vitrification plant, and fund the vitrification plant in a way that 
does not jeopardize the health and safety of our region.
  I do not support the funding levels for Hanford cleanup in this year 
conference report and hope that the administration will make a clear 
commitment with its fiscal year 2007 request. The Federal Government 
must keep its commitment. I hope the current administration will back 
its words with clear action.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appreciate the work that went into the 
bill this year, recognizing how difficult it was given the allocation 
and given the level of support by the administration. I am particularly 
concerned about

[[Page 25848]]

some specific levels within the bill, like funding for our Nation's 
environmental management program within the Department of Energy's 
cleanup responsibilities. Specifically, the Waste Treatment Plant, or 
Vitrification Plant, at the Hanford site is one of those nationally 
important projects. The Hanford site played a critical role in support 
of national security efforts in World War II and the Cold War. As a 
result, tens of millions of gallons of radioactive waste was left 
behind. It is the obligation of the U.S. Government to clean up that 
site and the Department of Energy identified the Vit Plant as the 
flagship project in that cleanup effort.
  Officials at DOE claim the administration is 100 percent dedicated to 
the project. Actions speak louder than words. The request for this 
fiscal year was $64 million below necessary funding, according to the 
Department's own out-year projections. On top of that, the supplemental 
package sent to Congress came with rescissions for ``lower-priority'' 
programs including a $100 million cut for the Vit Plant. How can 
cleaning up one of the most polluted sites in our country be deemed a 
lower priority? Given this lack of support from the administration, I 
understand how difficult the project is to defend this year, and 
understand the hesitation on the part of this subcommittee to go beyond 
the official request by this White House.
  And while the cuts to the funding are deep, and while I have deep 
concerns about what they will mean for our Nation's commitment to 
cleaning up this dangerous waste, I do concede that it could have been 
worse.
  I specifically thank Senator Reid and his staff for his last-minute 
assistance in limiting the cuts to the Vit Plant and I thank the 
chairman for being receptive. When I met with Senator Reid last week, 
he shared my concern for this project, and together we were able to 
fight back additional cuts.
  I will continue to support the cleanup efforts at the Hanford site.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations conference report.
  One of the most important things about this conference report is a 
program that it does not fund. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator--
also known as the ``bunker buster''--is not funded in this bill. I am 
proud that Congress--for the second year in a row--has stated clearly 
and unambiguously that we should not spend taxpayer dollars on this 
program. I hope the administration gets the message and does not 
request funding for developing this new generation of nuclear weapons 
next year.
  This conference report includes $327 million for the National 
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This 
funding means that construction of the National Ignition Facility, NIF, 
can continue. When it is completed in a few years, the NIF will help 
keep the United States nuclear weapons stockpile reliable, without 
facing the dangers of underground nuclear testing. A completed NIF is a 
key component of the National Nuclear Security Administration's 
Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the safety, reliability, and 
effectiveness of our Nation's nuclear stockpile. There are also many 
California-specific needs met in this bill. city
  I am pleased that the conference report provides $37 million for the 
Federal-State partnership for California Bay-Delta Restoration, CalFed. 
The CalFed reauthorization took considerable effort on the part of many 
in Congress, but that effort has paid off, in this, the first 
authorized CalFed appropriations in 5 years. I am grateful to Senator 
Domenici and Senator Reid for providing $2 million over the President's 
Budget request for this program in the Senate bill and I am pleased 
that this allocation was maintained in conference with the House.
  These funds will contribute to the much needed improvement of 
California's water supply infrastructure and protection of aquatic 
ecosystems. Among the elements of a balanced CalFed program that are in 
progress are feasibility studies on the enlargement of several 
reservoirs, improved water conveyance, ecosystem restoration, and water 
quality projects. The improvements we make to California's water 
infrastructure now will head off a supply crisis with water, similar to 
the one we faced with energy a few years ago.
  This conference report inc1udes funding for specific flood control 
priorities in California. My State faces a number of significant flood 
threats. The city of Sacramento, the surrounding areas like Marysville 
and Rancho Cordova, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta face some of 
the greatest flood danger in the Nation. Currently, much of Sacramento 
is below 100-year flood protection. This legislation allocates $39 
million to improve flood control in Sacramento and provides funding to 
ensure that other regional flood control projects are ready to go to 
construction next year.
  While the funds in this bill are a good start, I will continue to 
seek additional funding to protect the Sacramento metropolitan area 
from catastrophic flooding.
  The conference report also includes $5 million for Upper Newport Bay 
Restoration. Upper Newport Bay is the largest functioning full tidal 
wetland in southern California. However, the bay's ability to sustain 
wildlife is threatened due to decades of increasing sedimentation 
related to rapid urbanization of the watershed. As a result, open water 
areas are disappearing in the bay, tidal circulation has diminished, 
and shoaling is occurring within Federal and local navigation channels 
and slips. This project will restore degraded habitat and reestablish 
wetland and wildlife habitat areas.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes $61.65 million, 
$11.65 million above the President's Budget request, for the Santa Ana 
River Mainstem Project. These funds will construct flood control 
improvements to protect over 3 million people in Orange, Riverside, and 
San Bernardino counties.
  One issue that concerns me in this conference report is a requirement 
for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete a special report to update 
the analysis of costs and associated benefits of the Auburn Dam on the 
American River. I am concerned that the reporting requirements do not 
include an updated assessment of the risks of an earthquake, risks that 
are serious enough to have caused the termination of earlier work on 
the Auburn Dam in 1975.
  I again want to express my congratulations to Chairman Domenici and 
Senator Reid and want to thank them for the level of support given to 
California in this conference report.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the U.S. is to remain competitive 
and keep pace with its growing energy demands, then we must take stock, 
as a nation, of our energy security, economic growth, and environmental 
protection and make these issues top national priorities. We cannot 
achieve greater energy security with our continued, piece-meal efforts. 
It is time to devote new innovation and ingenuity to energy policy and 
blaze a path forward. We must strive to be free of the chains of 
foreign oil. To do that, we must seriously invest in the energy 
resources that we have here at home, and coal should be at the heart of 
that effort.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I supported and which was signed 
by the President in August 2005, made many promises to the country on 
energy policy. To make good on those promises, the administration must 
be willing to put financial support behind these initiatives. Will this 
administration do so in subsequent budget requests for the clean coal 
and many other important energy programs?
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is only a way station on a long journey 
and more work remains ahead. It is a start, and I am committed to 
continuing to work toward that goal. Yet I continue to be concerned 
about this administration's commitment to funding fossil energy 
research, especially because new clean coal and other energy programs 
were authorized in the Energy bill. There is only so much blood that

[[Page 25849]]

one can squeeze out of a turnip. So where are we going to find the 
funding for these new programs?
  In related matters, H.R. 2419, the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water 
Conference Report provides sufficient funding for the fossil energy 
research and development, R&D, programs for the Department of Energy, 
DOE. But this effort requires a much more sustained and increased 
commitment in future years if this Nation is to be successful in going 
beyond an incremental approach toward new breakthroughs on the use of 
fossil energy resources. In this conference report, I worked to ensure 
that there was adequate funding for coal R&D at the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, the Nation's premier Fossil Energy Laboratory.
  In addition to coal, other energy research investments that must not 
be overlooked are within the oil and natural gas R&D programs. Oil and 
natural gas provide 60 percent of America's energy needs, and demand 
for both will continue to rise, resulting in significant price 
increases. By 2025, U.S. reliance on fossil fuels is expected to grow 
from the current 85 percent to 90 percent. But the administration's 
budget proposal for oil and natural gas technology R&D for fiscal year 
2006 was reduced by 75 percent from fiscal year 2005 levels. The 
administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request was $20 million for 
both programs. The funds were to be used to conclude the oil and 
natural gas programs. The DOE's R&D spending for oil and natural gas 
has consistently ranked at the bottom of the scale. If the United 
States is to maintain its ability to produce its domestic supplies for 
oil and natural gas at a reasonable cost to consumers, then Federal 
expenditures on R&D must fill some of the void left by the private 
sector, primarily independent producers.
  Furthermore, how is this administration going to fund FutureGen when 
it has not been able to provide adequate and sustained funding for 
other fossil energy programs? The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water 
Conference Report provides the $18 million for FutureGen that the 
administration has requested. However, even larger funding requests are 
going to be required if this initiative is to move forward according to 
its schedule. I stand behind the agreement reached in the conference 
report, but the Congress will consider its FutureGen requests 
contingent upon the Administration maintaining adequate funding for 
other clean coal and fossil energy programs.
  When there are so many other unmet fossil energy funding needs, I 
cannot and will not support the transfer of monies from the clean coal 
technology account to a FutureGen account. In fiscal year 2007 and 
beyond, I will not support the transfer of any moneys, in whole or in 
part, to the FutureGen initiative that are not a part of the 
administration's request unless and until other critical fossil energy 
programs are fully funded. This is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and 
masks the underlying problem of continued inadequate funding 
commitments for the fossil energy programs by this administration. 
There are other fossil energy programs that have equal, if not greater, 
funding needs.
  Additionally, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, CCPI, is a program 
that was initiated in 2001, to demonstrate the economically and 
environmentally acceptable use of coal. The CCPI was the successor to 
the long and successful Clean Coal Technology Program that I initiated 
in 1985. The CCPI program, if pursued, will continue to lead to the 
successful development of a set of coal-based technologies that will be 
cost effective and highly efficient and achieve greater control of air 
and water emissions compared to currently available technology.
  President Bush committed to funding the CCPI program during his first 
campaign speech made in West Virginia in 2000. The President pledged to 
provide $2 billion over 10 years for this program, yet the 
administration's budget requests have not met that goal. Over a period 
of 5 years, the President has requested a total of approximately $530 
million, including only $50 million this year. This is barely more than 
half of the funding pledged to the program. A great deal more funding 
will be required in fiscal year 2007 and beyond if the program is to 
remain on a schedule consistent with the President's commitment.
  The DOE is in the practice of issuing a solicitation every other year 
and has done so twice to date. This practice has been required in order 
to collect enough appropriations for a single solicitation. While I am 
fully aware of the fiscal limits we currently face and the immense 
pressure on the budget, it is crucial that the CCPI reach the necessary 
funding level in order to initiate a solicitation in fiscal year 2007. 
The fiscal year 2007 CCPI budget request must be substantially higher 
than the fiscal year 2006 request in order to maintain a schedule of 
solicitations every second year, and I strongly encourage the 
administration to submit a request in an amount sufficient to initiate 
a third CCPI solicitation in fiscal year 2007.
  Finally, the Office of Fossil Energy has been lacking in leadership 
for far too long. There remains a strong team in place, along with a 
new director, at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, but that 
must be matched with a strong Fossil Energy Assistant Secretary. This 
position has now been vacant for at least 20 months. This post should 
be filled by someone who can bring strong technical, policy, and 
managerial experience and who can work well with a variety of 
constituencies.
  In conclusion, I would like to thank Senators Domenici and Reid for 
their leadership and assistance on this conference report. I would also 
like to thank Senator Domenici's staff Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, 
and Emily Brunini as well as Senator Reid's staff, Drew Willison and 
Nancy Olkewicz for their hard work. This is the first year that fossil 
energy R&D programs were included in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill. This is a good conference report given the very 
tough fiscal circumstances that we faced. I have urged Senators 
Domenici and Reid to give greater oversight and scrutiny to the 
administration's fossil energy requests and look forward to working 
with them on this important matter next year. Because our Nation's 
energy security is so important, the fossil energy R&D programs, 
especially the clean coal programs, require strong support. I will 
remain ever watchful and strongly supportive of them in the coming 
years.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields back the 
remainder of his time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Apparently there is.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Boxer), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New 
York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 321 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad

[[Page 25850]]


     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Coburn
     Feingold
     Schumer
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Murkowski
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________