Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      


Earmark of $250,000 for Fort Hall Indian Reservation.

[Page: S7115]  GPO's PDF

   Earmark of $4,000,000 for Fort Peck Rural Water System, Montana.

   Earmark of $2,000,000 for Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash.

   Earmark of $1,500,000 for Newlands Water Right Fund.

   Earmark of $800,000 for Truckee River Operation Agreement.

   Earmark of $400,000 for Walker River Basin Project.

   An additional $2,000,000 for Middle Rio Grande Project.

   Earmark of $300,000 for Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project.

   Earmark of $750,000 for Santa Fe Water Reclamation and Reuse.

   Earmark of $250,000 for Ute Reservoir Pipeline Project.

   An additional $2,000,000 for Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP.

   Earmark of $400,000 for Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend Feed Canal, Oregon.

   An additional $2,000,000 for Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project.

   Earmark of $600,000 for Tooele Wastewater Reuse Project.

   Department of Energy

   Earmark of $1,000,000 is for the continuation of biomass research at the Energy and Environmental Research Center.

   Earmark of $5,000,000 for the McNeil biomass plant in Burlington, Vermont.

   Earmark of $300,000 for the Vermont Agriculture Methane project.

   Earmark of $2,000,000 for the continued research in environmental and renewable resource technologies by the Michigan Biotechnology Institute.

   Earmark of $500,000 for the University of Louisville to research the commercial viability of refinery construction for the production of P-series fuels.

   No less than $3,000,000 for the ethanol pilot plant at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.

   Earmark of $250,000 for the investigation of simultaneous production of carbon dioxide and hydrogen at the natural gas reforming facility in Nevada.

   Earmark of $350,000 for the Montana Trade Port Authority in Billings, Montana.

   Earmark of $250,000 for the gasification of Iowa switchgrass and its use in fuel cells.

   Earmark of $1,000,000 to complete the 4 megawatt Sitka, Alaska project.

   Earmark of $1,700,000 for the Power Creek hydroelectric project.

   Earmark of $1,000,000 for the Kotzebue wind project.

   Earmark of $300,000 for the Old Harbor hydroelectric project.

   Earmark of $1,000,000 for a demonstration associated with the planned upgrade of the Nevada Test Site power substations of distributed power generation technologies.

   Earmark of $3,000,000 for the University of Nevada at Reno Earthquake Engineering Facility.

   An additional $35,000,000 to initiate a new strategy (which includes $5,000,000 for activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $10,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory, and $20,000,000 for work at Sandia National Laboratory).

   An addition $15,0000,000 for the Nevada Test Site.

   An addition $15,000,000 for future requirements at the Kansas City Plant compatible with the Advanced Development and Production Technologies [ADAPT] program and Enhanced Surveillance program.

   An additional $10,000,000 for core stockpile management weapon activities to support work load requirements at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas.

   An additional $10,000,000 to address funding shortfalls in meeting environmental restoration Tri-Party Agreement compliance deadlines, and to accelerate interim safe storage of reactors along the Columbia River.

   An additional $10,000,000 for spent fuel activities related to the Idaho Settlement Agreement with the Department of Energy.

   An additional $30,000,000 for tank cleanup activities at the Hanford Site, WA.

   An additional $20,000,000 to Rocky Flats site, CO.

   Total amounts of earmarks: $531,124,000.

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to explain my amendment to S. 1186, a bill making appropriations for certain Department of Energy programs. Among these programs is the radioactive waste management program which is responsible for developing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Moun tain, in Nevada.

   This repository will, if successfully completed, one day hold the spent nuclear fuel from all of this country's commercial nuclear power plants, in addition to defense high-level radioactive waste left-over from the development of nuclear weapons.

   It has been 12 years since passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987, and I believe the Department of Energy's Yucca Moun tain prog ram is in serious trouble. In 1983, the Department of Energy signed contracts with every one of this country's nuclear power generators saying that the government would start taking their spent fuel for disposal in January of 1998.

   Because of the Government's failure to meet that deadline, a number of utility companies, in conjunction with many State governments, are suing the Federal Government for failure to fulfill its contractual commitments. Many of these utilities are being forced, because of the Government's failure, to construct additional storage capacity at their sites. Many of these companies are seeking monetary damages from the Government.

   Inheriting this situation from his predecessors at the Department of Energy, Secretary Richardson laid a proposal before the nuclear utilities last year. Secretary Richardson told the utilities that if they would agree to drop all future claims against the government, the Department of Energy would be willing to pay the utilities for their on site storage costs and that DOE would ``take title''--meaning DOE would take over ownership and all liability--for the spent nuclear fuel and store it at the nuclear power plants for an indefinite period of time.

   It is safe to say--since this administration opposes my interim storage legislation--that we can expect spent nuclear fuel under their scenario to be stored at reactors until at least the year 2015, because that is when the repository is expected to open--at the earliest.

   The amendment I offer today speaks to the heart of this issue. To be blunt, I think it is irresponsible to create some 80 new federal interim storage sites for spent fuel scattered around this country. And I think the Administration compounds their neglect of this crisis by depleting the funds collected for development of the permanent solution--the Nuclear Waste Fund, created by law in 1982--by dispersing these funds back out to the same utilities who paid them in the first place, only now they are being used as a ``band-aid'' to pay to store fuel at reactors.

   Very simply put, my amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from using funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purpose of settling lawsuits or paying judgments arising out of the failure of the federal government to accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial utilities.

   Money in the Nuclear Waste Fund has been collected to pay for a permanent solution to our nuclear waste problem. Mr. President, I don't think we should be squandering these funds on band-aid schemes. My amendment prohibits this from happening.

   Mr. DOMENICI. Will my colleague from Idaho yield for a question?

   Mr. CRAIG. I yield to my colleague.

   Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Senator from Idaho. However, it is not clear to me that the Department of Energy currently has the authority to use appropriated funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purpose--on site storage at nuclear power plants--that is of concern to the Senator from Idaho. As I interpret current law, there exists no statutory provision allowing the Department of Energy to fund on-site storage. If that were the case, would my colleague from Idaho still feel the need to offer his amendment?

   Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, with my colleague's comment regarding the lack of current Department of Energy authority to use the Nuclear Waste Fund in the way I am concerned, I will reconsider offering my amendment at this time. I thank the Chair and my colleague from New Mexico.

   Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to make a few remarks with regard to the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. First, let me state that I am pleased that this bill takes strides to significantly reduce, in the name of fiscal soundness, appropriations for two programs about which I have been concerned for quite some time--the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Animas La-Plata project by the Bureau of Reclamation. I intend to support this appropriations bill this year.

   For the past few Congresses, I have argued that the non-power programs of the TVA should be seriously scrutinized and reduced appropriately. I have introduced legislation which would put TVA on a glidepath toward eliminating federal funding for the non-power programs. The former Senator from Alabama (Mr. HEFLIN) and I personally met with TVA to discuss this legislation and the appropriate length of time for a federal fund phase-out. In the last two appropriations cycles, I have written to the appropriations committee

[Page: S7116]  GPO's PDF
asking them to reduce TVA non-power appropriations, and in the FY99 appropriations bill the funds for TVA were reduced significantly to a third of the more than $150 million that TVA received when I began raising this issue in the 104th Congress. My voice in the Senate on this issue is echoed by a number of members of the House Appropriations Committee who zeroed out funds for TVA non-power programs in the House-version of the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation.

   I am pleased that this resounding call for scrutiny of these programs is leading to real results. In FY99 the TVA received $50 million dollars, with $7 million of that total specifically for the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) Recreation Area. This appropriations legislation virtually eliminates appropriations for TVA non-power programs, retaining only $7 million in flat funding for LBL. The TVA non-power activities for which we have previously provided funds include providing recreational programs, making economic development grants to communities, and promoting public use of TVA land and water resources. I understand the Committee's concerns that the management of the LBL is a federal responsibility. I believe that the Committee has acted appropriately in this matter. In fulfilling this function, which is federal, the Committee has provided resources specifically for LBL but not for the other non-power programs. In the future, Congress needs to evaluate whether other federal land management agencies, such as the Interior Department, might be able to manage this area, but this is the right step at this time.

   I believe it is appropriate for the Senate to significantly reduce funds for TVA's appropriated programs because there are lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities that should be paid for by non-federal interests. In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: the TVA Stewardship Program and the Environmental Research Center, which no longer receives federal funds. Stewardship activities historically received the largest share of TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when TVA repairs a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected from electricity ratepayers. This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs associated with that activity. I think that removing appropriations for this program largely ends concerns about taxpayer subsidization of the dam repair and maintenance program.

   I am also pleased that this legislation contains a $1 million reduction from the Budget Request for the Animas La-Plata project. In this bill, the project receives a total of $2 million for FY 2000. As my colleagues know, I have long been active in raising Senate awareness about the financial costs of moving forward with development and construction of the full-scale version of the Animas-La Plata project. I do not want the federal government to proceed with construction of the full-scale project while the Department of the Interior continues its discussion about alternatives to that project.

   As my colleagues will recall from the debate on an amendment I offered to the FY 98 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation on this matter, the currently authorized Animas-La Plata project is a $754 million dollar water development project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico, with federal taxpayers slated to pay more than 65% of the costs. I am glad that we are not proceeding on this project full steam ahead, and I am pleased to see that the Appropriators recognize that on-going alternatives discussions can proceed without a large infusion of new resources.

   Despite these gains in reducing funds for some questionable programs, the bill contains some shifts in program funding about which I am concerned. Particularly troubling is the reduction in the President's proposed increase in the renewable energy budget. The bill provides $261 million more for the DOE defense activities than requested by the Administration, but reduces the request for solar and renewable energy programs by $92.1 million. I believe that it is important for the federal government to make appropriate investment in solar and renewable technology, particularly in light of our efforts to restructure the electricity system and meet our overall energy efficiency goals. I would hope that we could find a way to shift resources within this legislation to make it possible to fulfill the Administration's request.

   Overall, Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill can meet our requirements under the budget caps by reducing unnecessary spending. I yield the floor.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, as in recent years, the energy and water Appropriation bill has been faced with dilemmas about funding the diverse activities within its jurisdiction. For example, last year, the budget request for the Corps of Engineers was significantly decreased and in this subcommittee we had the challenge of keeping the Corps of Engineers viable and focused. Clearly this year's appropriation bill was just as dramatic--since for the first time in over twenty years the Corps of Engineers funding is reduced below the enacted bill's level. Despite the problems, there are many positives to this particular appropriation which the Chairman and I pointed out in opening statements.

   Additionally, we have worked hard to find ways to accommodate our colleagues with their amendments. I believe that the responsibility of a Senator is not simply to listen to the bureaucrats who plan ways to spend the appropriations, but to request those amendments the Senator sees as necessary for his or her constituents. While Members may not be satisfied with every aspect or the resolution of every request, the chairman and I have made a conscientious effort to work with those amendments.

   I recommend this bill to my colleagues for the vital functions across the nation that are funded through these appropriations. I recognize the difficult work done by the subcommittee staff and their efforts in preparing this bill and responding to the members of the Senate. So I commend the diligence of Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, Gregory Daines, Lashawnda Leftwich, Elizabeth Blevins, Sue Fry, a detail from the Corps of Engineers, and Bob Perret, a congressional fellow, in my office.

   Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are ready to go to final passage. We need 2 minutes, and then we will call for third reading. Senator HUTCHISON wanted 2 minutes. I ask that she be granted 2 minutes, and then we will proceed.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SESSIONS). The Senator from Texas.

   Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for allowing me 2 minutes. I was introducing a judicial candidate and was not able to come earlier.

   I thank the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the committee, for the great help he has given to many of us who particularly have strong water needs in our States.

   I particularly want to mention the Port of Houston. The Port of Houston is the second largest port in the Nation, and it is the largest in foreign tonnage. It is the largest container port. We have the largest petrochemical complex in the entire world.

   It is very important that our port be competitive. This bill will fully fund the dredging of that port, which is the last port in America that has not gone under 40 feet. This will take us to 45.

   It is a very important bill.

   I think both Senator DOMENICI and Senator LEAHY have done a great job on this bill, but particularly I appreciate the support for this great Port of Houston and the efforts that were made to continue this dredging project that will help us in trade and help us remain competitive in the world market.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the third reading.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

[Page: S7117]  GPO's PDF

   The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

   Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There is a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator form Iowa (Mr. HARKIN) is necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. HARKIN) would vote ``aye.''

   The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]





Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents