ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS; Congressional Record Vol. 141, No. 126
(Senate - August 01, 1995)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S11081-S11099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2057

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, am I correct that amendment 2057 is now 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment for myself, and 
Senators Kohl, Breaux, Ford, Robb, Bradley, Wellstone, and Harkin.
  Mr. President, if you will notify me when I have used 3 minutes, I 
would appreciate that.
  This is a very simple amendment. Many of us feel that the President--
any President--ought to have a line-item veto. I voted for the line-
item veto when President Bush was in office and when President Reagan 
was in office, and I have voted for the line-item veto now that 
President Clinton is in the office of the Presidency.
  On February 6, the U.S. House passed a line-item veto bill. The next 
month, on March 23, the U.S. Senate passed a line-item veto bill. A 
great amount of time has intervened, and there has not even been a 
conference. The House has not even appointed conferees.
  Many of us feel that a line-item veto is a good policy, that it will 
help in reducing the deficit, that it will certainly help in trying to 
take out, from some of the legislation that moves through the Congress, 
special projects that have not previously been authorized or heard or 
substantially discussed. Many of us believe that we ought to see a 
line-item veto conference report passed by the House and the Senate and 
given to this President before the appropriations bills hit his desk 
and before the reconciliation bill comes to this President.
  If a line-item veto is good policy--and, indeed, in my judgment it 
is--then it seems to me that the Speaker of the other body ought to 
appoint conferees. Let us have a conference, let us pass the conference 
report, and let us give this President the line-item veto to be able to 
use it to reduce the Federal deficit.
  I do not understand why this is not a matter of high priority for a 
House that on February 6 passed a line-item veto bill but now in August 
has not even been able to find time to appoint conferees. This 
amendment is very simple. It explains what I have just said, and it 
says it is the sense of the Senate that the Speaker of the House should 
move to appoint conferees on S. 4 immediately--that is, the line-item 
veto bill--so that the House and the Senate may resolve their 
differences on this important legislation. I at least believe that the 
line-item veto in the hands of this President--any President--makes 
sense in terms of public policy, and I hope he has the line-item veto 
before the appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill come to his 
desk.
  That is the purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. President, let me yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, 
Senator Kohl, who is a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I believe 
very strongly that it can be a very useful, in fact, perhaps decisive 
tool in order to avoid the budget impasse and a breakdown of the whole 
process, in order for us to avoid having the kind of a ``train wreck'' 
that will not allow us to pass a budget come this fall.
  It was in the Contact With America. Not only Democrats but also 
Republicans are very supportive of the line-item veto. And there is a 
suspicion that the only reason we are not going to pass it right now is 
because we have a Democrat in the White House instead of a Republican. 
That is not the way to conduct budget policy in this country. That is 
the way to conduct politics. I think it is the kind of Government that 
the American people are sick and tired of. They do not want to see a 
continuation of it. They are supportive in overwhelming numbers of the 
line-item veto. It is something that we can do. It is something that 
will contribute to an effective budget come this fall.
  I think we are all winners. There are no losers if we pass the line-
item veto.
  So I support this amendment by the Senator from North Dakota. I think 
that we, as a body, should encourage the House to appoint their 
conferees so that we can resolve the minor differences between the 
House and the Senate on the line-item veto and get on with the 
important work in behalf of the American people.
  Mr. President, as I said, I am an original sponsor of the pending 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and it states simply that the House of 
Representatives should move to appoint conferees on S. 4, the line-item 
veto bill, and that we should not send appropriations bills to the 
President until we pass line-item veto legislation.
  It may seem odd to see two Democratic Senators calling for action on 
the line-item veto, one of the most popular plans in the Contract With 
America. But as long time supporters of the line-item veto, we are 
unhappy that such an important tool for budget discipline has 
apparently been lost in the bog of balanced budget politics.
  We ought to move the line-item veto legislation because it is a tool 
that can trim the fat of Government and highlight the spending choices 
that must be made if we are going to balance the budget. We ought to 
move the line-item veto legislation now because it is a tool that could 
save us from the budget impasse that we may be facing.
  Many now speculate about the coming budget train wreck. The President 
has already threatened to veto six of the appropriations bills passed 
by the House. Veto override vote counts are taking place on a tax bill 
that hasn't even been drafted. And White House Chief of Staff Panetta 
is drawing up plans for the anticipated shut down of the Government at 
the beginning of the fiscal year.
  It does not have to happen this way, and it should not happen this 
way.
  The 104th Congress could be remembered as the Congress where balanced 
budget changed from a slogan to the status quo. The House passed a 
balanced budget constitutional amendment; the Senate is one vote away 
from doing so.
  The Republican majority passed a Budget Resolution that balances the 
budget. The Democrats proposed an alternative that does the same, and a 
vast majority of our party voted for it. The President has his own 
balanced 

[[Page S11082]]
budget plan on the table. No longer is the debate over whether we 
should balance the budget--we are now talking about how we will balance 
the budget.
  This remarkable change in business-as-usual could all be lost if the 
debate shifts away from budget priorities and toward budget politics. 
Passing the line-item veto is one way to stop that from happening.
  If the President has the line-item veto, he does not have to shut 
down whole agencies because he disagrees with one or two riders in the 
bills that fund those agencies. He can line-item veto out the pork or 
the politics and send just those items back to Congress for further 
debate. No unnecessary show down--just a straightforward debate on 
spending priorities.
  Similarly, if the President has the line-item veto, he doesn't have 
to veto an entire tax bill because he objects to specific items. He can 
line-item veto his objections, send them back to Congress for another 
vote, and again force a clear national debate on spending priorities.
  Balancing the budget means hard choices about where taxpayer dollars 
should go and should not go. It is debate about what we are as a nation 
and what we will become. It is a serious debate--not one that ought to 
disintegrate into a chaotic Government shut down. Giving the President 
line-item veto will focus the debate on priorities and away from 
political points.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a strong 
message to the House: Pass the line-item veto that was in the Contract 
With America. Pass the line-item veto that passed the House and the 
Senate. Don't let budget politics keep us from doing what most of us 
believe is good budget policy. Give the President the line-item veto.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  There is no doubt that many people are surprised that, after 
describing the line-item veto along with a balanced budget amendment as 
the crown jewels of the Contract With America, we still have not had a 
single conference on the bill, the line-item veto.
  The House passed it, I believe, in January and the Senate in 
February. Recently, there have been indications that the House would 
appoint conferees after their recess begins, which, of course, would 
preclude any mention of a full conference until after the August 
recess. And there has been no meeting of the conferees that have been 
appointed on the line-item veto.
  I think maybe for a change we ought to talk about reality here, Mr. 
President; that is, there are significant forces afoot who do not want 
the line-item veto sent to the President's desk until after the 13 
appropriations bills are dispensed with. I do not agree with that.
  For 8 years that I have come to the floor of this body in support of 
the line-item veto, I said that I would support the line-item veto 
whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. I think 
it is wrong of us to delay. But I am afraid it is going to be delayed, 
and I believe that it is wrong of us to do so.
  Senator Coats and I were often accused--and we brought this bill up 
time after time--of saying, well, you would support this bill only if 
there was a Republican in the White House. We steadfastly maintained 
that was not the case. I still maintain that is not the case. I urge my 
colleagues to make every effort they can to see that conferees are 
appointed.
  Mr. President, I want to point out one other aspect of this issue; 
that is, that it has been said that there are significant differences 
between the Senate-passed and the House-passed bill. Yes, that is true, 
but it is mainly in the vehicle. The fundamental aspect of the line-
item veto that takes a two-thirds vote to override a Presidential veto 
is there.
  I do not think there is any doubt that Senator Coats and I would be 
more than willing to accommodate the House in practically whatever 
desires they may have, especially since the House version more closely 
resembles our original proposal than that which finally emerged from 
the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, speaking as a Member of this body from this side of 
the aisle who for 12 years has been involved in this issue, I think we 
are doing a great disservice to the American people in the things we 
promised them last November--we Republicans promised them last 
November--by delaying final passage of this very, very significant 
change in the way that the Government in Washington does business. It 
is supported by 73 percent of the American people.
  Therefore, I am grateful that the Senator from North Dakota has 
brought this bill up. I want to assure him that I and the Senator from 
Indiana and others will continue to do everything in our power to see 
that this bill is moved along. Very frankly, if someone accuses us of 
dragging our feet on this issue, there is some legitimacy to that 
accusation, and I regret very much to have to admit that on the floor 
of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I congratulate the 
Senator for bringing this to our attention, not only to the Members of 
this body but hopefully to the Members of the other body, as well as to 
the attention of the American public.
  Do any of us remember the big public display and the big publicity 
gathering they had on the steps of the Capitol when the Contract With 
America was announced? There was a huge public display, and it made all 
the evening news.
  One of the key plans in that Contract With America was action to be 
taken on the line-item veto. What happened to it? Where is it? Where 
are the conferees from the other body who were willing to sit down and 
finish this incredibly important part of the contract?
  Nineteen Democrats over here voted for it, and Republican colleagues 
here supported it. The Senate appointed the conferees. We found 18 
willing souls to sit down with the other body and work out the 
differences. Cannot the House find 18 Members who are willing to sit 
with the Senate, Republican and Democrats, and work out the differences 
between the House- and Senate-passed bills?
  Sometimes what people do in this business, they give a great 
political speech and then they sort of forget and hope everybody else 
forgets what they said because this is, in effect, what is happening. 
They make this great political announcement and pronouncement on the 
steps of the Capitol that the line-item veto was absolutely essential 
to Western civilization, and then the House passes it and the Senate 
passes it and the House will not appoint the conferees.
  We can send them 18 names and say, ``Here, pick one of these or pick 
anybody you want to pick. Just pick somebody to sit down and meet with 
the Senate.''
  If this was so important and it justified being put in their Contract 
With America, is it not still important in August to find 18 House 
Members who can sit down with the Senate and talk with us? Is it that 
difficult to do? Or is maybe there is another reason? Maybe the reason 
is that all these appropriations bills are now working their way 
through the House and the Senate.
  I have heard some of them say, ``Well, we may do this after we finish 
with the appropriations bills and they have already been signed.''
  That is after the fact. The whole purpose of a line-item veto is to 
say that some items in an appropriations bill should not become the law 
of the land. And they are saying, ``Well, we want to do the 
appropriations bills first and then maybe sometime next year we will 
appoint the conferees.''
  The time is now. The American people do remember what politicians say 
on the steps of the Capitol, and I suggest that our House conferees 
should be appointed. We can send them a list and they can pick. We can 
send them 435 names and just pick 18. It is not that 

[[Page S11083]]
difficult. Start with A and just go right down the list. When we get 
18, stop, send us the names, we have a meeting, and we can work this 
out. If it is important enough to put in the contract, it is important 
enough to at least finish the job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INHOFE). Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I wish to join in the commendation of the Senator from 
North Dakota and support that he has received in bringing forth this 
resolution. I wish to thank him as well as the Senator from Wisconsin 
for their support when the issue was before the Senate.
  This obviously is an effort which involves the Members from both 
sides of the aisle because it deals with a very fundamental, important 
principle, and it is a principle underlying the way in which decisions 
are made that affect the way in which taxpayers' dollars are spent.
  We had what many would consider a historic debate on this issue. This 
effort to provide the President with line-item veto power had been 
tried numerous times dating well into the last century, always failing 
to gain a majority of support in necessary votes in both Houses of the 
Congress to send to the President for his signature.
  We accomplished that goal this year, and it was a historic vote. We 
fundamentally altered the balance of power between the legislative 
branch and the executive branch in terms of how dollars are spent. The 
Congress had forfeited the power that it held, gave it to the executive 
branch. In doing so, it made the statement and the commitment to the 
American people that business as usual, that is, attaching unrelated, 
unnecessary spending items to otherwise necessary appropriations bills, 
was going to end, or at least we would provide a vehicle to end that 
practice. We would shed light on that practice. And Members would have 
to come to the floor and defend the particular item, so-called pork 
barrel item, that was attached to a particular appropriations bill.
  Therefore, what I think the voters have asked of us, that is, that 
our yea be yea and our nay be nay on the specific item in question be 
cast as a vote in this Chamber, so that we no longer would hide 
spending from the direct public scrutiny and from the accountability 
that ought to fall to each of us in terms of where we stood on a 
particular spending item involving their tax dollars.
  So we passed that historic legislation but in two very different 
forms. The form that the Senate used was a very different form than 
what the House used. In fact, the House used a form that Senator McCain 
and I originally had used on a number of occasions. We have led this 
effort over the last several years, coming ever closer to a majority 
and finally had the breakthrough this year, for which we were grateful. 
But in doing so, we adopted what many would say is a somewhat 
convoluted vehicle to deliver the substance of line-item veto.
  Reconciling the two differences between the House and the Senate, 
while it appears on its face to be a very complicated matter, really is 
not that complicated, because the underlying substance of the 
legislation is the same. It is simply the vehicle which delivers that 
substance that is different. Senator McCain and I have said repeatedly 
that we are willing to negotiate that substance and sit down with our 
colleagues from the House of Representatives and work out an acceptable 
vehicle to accomplish that very end.
  Now, the House has not yet appointed conferees. The Senate has. 
Senator McCain and I have urged the leadership in both the Senate and 
in the House to accomplish this fact. Discussions have been held with 
the leadership, and I know that the majority leader is committed to 
moving forward. I know that has been communicated to the House.
  Obviously, this is an extraordinary year. Our plates are full as they 
never have been before. We are dealing with an extraordinary level and 
degree of complex legislative changes. We are redefining the role of 
Government. We are redefining how we spend the taxpayers' dollars, and 
so there is a great deal before us. That has, unfortunately, delayed 
the process of getting some of these conferences together to resolve 
some of this legislation that has passed both Houses of the Congress. 
But we do, I believe, have a commitment from both Houses now to move 
forward with this legislation, to appoint conferees, to meet as soon as 
is possible and bring back to both bodies the line-item veto in a form 
that is acceptable and that can be given to the President for his 
signature, which I believe he has indicated he would sign.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COATS. Let me say, Mr. President, if I could ask unanimous 
consent for 30 seconds, there is no objection to acceptance of the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that has been offered by the Senator 
from North Dakota. If he is willing to accept that, we do not feel it 
is necessary to have a vote. Obviously, that is the decision the 
Senator has to make, but it is perfectly acceptable to our side. It is 
a good resolution, and I am proud to support it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my friend from North Dakota. Let me compliment him, 
Senator Kohl, Senator Coats, Senator Breaux, and Senator McCain for the 
effort that is being put forth this evening.
  I wish to associate myself with the comments that have been made by 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As I voted for line-item veto 
when it passed the Senate, I believe in March, I said I did not like 
the procedure, and I think my friend from Indiana agreed with that.
  The underlying legislation is there. We just need to refine the 
procedure. And I think it will get there. This is good policy. I used 
it as Governor of Kentucky, as other Governors have used it. It works. 
You just line the item, send it to the legislature with a message, and 
they either approve it or disapprove it. It is good policy. It ought to 
come sooner than later.
  So it is ironic to me that after we have been pounded, if I can use 
that word, by those on the other side for years now to pass line-item 
veto, now that we have an opportunity and we have joined together in a 
bipartisan fashion, we cannot get it done. We cannot arrive at the 
conference for purely political reasons. They do not want to give this 
President an opportunity to have the line-item veto as appropriations 
bills come, as the reconciliation bill comes. Now that we are on the 
verge of passing this into law, the Speaker says I do not have time to 
do it. But as we have heard, he can write two books. He can go out on 
the trail and sell his books. But he does not have time to sit down and 
pick a handful of friends to get on a conference committee and let us 
work it out. I think the Speaker should listen to his colleagues on the 
Senate side of the same party that are sending the same message.
  We need to get this done. But, Mr. President, as we try this 
bipartisan effort, when we talk about everything being bipartisan, we 
run into a bump. Mr. President, I believe we have finally found who 
runs the political agenda on Capitol Hill. And that is the Speaker of 
the House. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, 
Senator Robb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank my colleague from North Dakota for offering this amendment. I 
join with others that have already spoken on this particular amendment 
in support. I particularly want to commend our Republican colleagues, 
because this is a situation where it might be in their interest to take 
a little different course of action.
  During the time when we had a Republican President and a Democratic 
majority in the Congress, I took the same position that I do now. I 
sometimes kidded colleagues on this side of the aisle suggesting that 
if we were to give this particular request to the then-Republican 
President of the United States, it might not be a gift that was enjoyed 
to the extent that remarks might have suggested it would be. 

[[Page S11084]]

  In this particular case, it puts the burden directly on the President 
to make some of the very difficult decisions that Members of the 
legislature frequently want to find a way not to have to make. So I 
strongly encourage colleagues to vote in support of this. And I 
encourage those in the other body to encourage the Speaker to make 
those appointments so we can get on with the business. It does not make 
sense to suggest that it is an amendment that only makes sense if you 
have a certain majority and a certain party in the Presidency. And I 
hope that very shortly the Speaker will find time to make these 
appointments.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the status of the time on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 3 minutes 19 
seconds. And the other side has 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to use only another minute or so. 
If the Senator from New Mexico wishes to comment, I would be happy to 
have him comment. I will ask for 1 minute and then a recorded vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back our time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me then use 1 minute and then yield back our time and 
ask for a recorded vote at the end.
  I would like to say that I offer this amendment because I think there 
are some who have said very strongly that they favor a line-item veto, 
but they have become lost in the wilderness somehow on this issue. 
There is an old saying, ``There's no prevailing wind that favors a ship 
that does not know where it is going.'' So we would like to help those 
who we think are lost in the wilderness get found today. We would like 
to provide a prevailing wind to help them move toward a line-item veto 
conference, bring the line-item veto back to the House and the Senate, 
and then send the President the line-item veto--this President, and 
every President, Republican or Democrat.
  I say to my friends, Senator Coats and Senator McCain, no one, in my 
judgment, will, with good cause, ever suggest that they have stalled on 
this issue. They have been consistent for years on this issue, as have 
I and others, who for years have voted for the line-item veto, no 
matter who is in the White House, because we think it will measurably 
help deal with some of the problems that exist in appropriations bills 
and authorization bills and fiscal policy. And we just think it is the 
right thing to do.
  So I very much appreciate the comments that have been made today by 
Senator McCain and Senator Coats, and especially by Senators Kohl, 
Breaux, Robb, and Ford on our side of the aisle. And with that, I hope 
the Senate will register a strong expression today that we would like 
to see those who are stalling to stop stalling, stop dragging their 
feet, help us get a line-item veto passed; appoint conferees, have a 
conference and give this President the line-item veto. In my judgment, 
it is good for the country.
  Mr. President, with that I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reclaim 30 seconds of my time.
  Mr. President, I did not participate in the debate. It was a good and 
interesting discussion. But I think that there might be other reasons 
that the House has for not having appointed conferees. I understand 
they have some rules that are difficult in terms of how long they can 
be in conference before certain other rules take effect. And, frankly, 
I have no understanding that they are peculiarly delaying this because 
they did not want the line-item veto.
  Nonetheless, this ought to serve as a useful tool in reminding 
everyone to get on with the bill that is highly touted and was debated 
here in the Senate in a very adequate and thorough manner.
  I yield back any of my 30 seconds.
  I join in asking for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been properly seconded.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that I be permitted, at the request of the 
majority leader, to seek the following unanimous consent, which I 
understand is satisfactory with the other side. And then we will 
proceed to vote.
  Could I do that, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to 
H.R. 1905; that they be limited to relevant second-degree amendments 
and the excepted committee amendment be agreed to and considered as 
original text for the purpose of further amendments. I will state the 
amendments: Senator Byrd, relevant; Harkin, hydroresearch; Grams, 
Appalachia Regional Commission; Feingold, TVA; Wellstone, water level 
and reservoir; Pressler, water authorization; Brown, salary cuts--I 
believe that is resolved. We will strike salary cuts. Bumpers, SCSC 
close down; Dorgan--we just did that. And the managers' amendment, 
which we will do jointly. In addition, Senator Burns, Flat Head Indians 
irrigation; Hatfield, relevant; Specter, an amendment regarding a 
medical center.
  That is the extent of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is one penciled in I did not see. 
Senator Boxer from California, Corps of Engineers offices.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota, amendment No. 2057.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER (when her name was called). Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--14

     Byrd
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Dodd
     Dole
     Gorton
     Hatfield
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Mack
     Moseley-Braun
     Nunn
     Pell
     Sarbanes

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Boxer
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Exon
     Gramm
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2057) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  (Later the following occurred:)


                           Amendment No. 2057

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted against the amendment today by Mr. 

[[Page S11085]]
  Dorgan and other Senators which expresses the sense of the Senate as 
being that the Speaker of the House should move to appoint conferees on 
S. 4 immediately so that the House and Senate may resolve their 
differences on this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I voted against this amendment for a number of 
reasons, one of which is, I think we ought to do everything we can to 
improve the comity between the two Houses rather than taking actions 
that will undermine that comity. I say this without casting any 
reflection on any of the Senators who cosponsored or voted for the 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment today dealing with the conference on the 
line-item veto.
  Mr. President, I have been in the Senate now going on 37 years and I 
was in the House 6 years prior to that. In these nearly 43 years, I 
have seldom seen one body taking action to tell the other body how it 
should conduct its business. I do not think this is good. I feel that 
most Senators would certainly not like to see the House pass amendments 
or resolutions that called upon the Senate to take certain actions.
  Both Houses in which I have served have been very careful over the 
years to observe the responsibilities, the duties, the prerogatives, 
each of the other. Each House has been conscious of that.
  I have been disturbed in recent times that Senators, on this floor, 
have called the names of House Members from time to time and in some 
cases were critical of what House Members had done or how they had 
voted.
  Mr. President, I do know that in the last Congress the Speaker of the 
House, at least the leadership, called to the attention of a Member or 
Members of that body the rules against referring to Members of the 
Senate by name.
  And so for a number of reasons I voted against the amendment. I did 
not speak against it, but I told the chief sponsor that I would vote 
against it and told him why.
  I feel I should state for the Record, now that the vote has occurred, 
my opposition to the amendment. As I say, I do not believe that the 
Senate should involve itself in the internal matters relating to the 
other body. It is my opinion that the House is perfectly capable of 
determining what it wishes to do and when it wishes to do it in 
relation to the appointment of conferees on the line-item veto bill or 
any other bill. Even had I supported the amendment, I would have had 
reservations about addressing the business of the other body. I think 
we should restrain ourselves from doing such things.
  Another reason why I opposed the amendment was because I did not 
agree with paragraph (b)(2) which, as I understood it, read that the 
Congress should pass the conference report.
  Now, that paragraph may have been stricken from the amendment.
  I understand that paragraph was stricken from the amendment.
  The reconciliation bill will be the vehicle used by the Republican 
majority to include massive tax cuts. There were those who said we 
ought to give the President this line-item veto; there were others who 
said that the reasons they did not want to give the President a line-
item veto now, was because we have President Clinton--a Democrat--in 
the White House, and they did not want him to veto line items in the 
reconciliation bill.
  I have said all along it does not make any difference as to what 
party has a person holding the office of President of the United 
States, he should not be given a line-item veto. We ought to be on 
guard, always protecting the constitutional responsibilities and 
functions and prerogatives of this, the legislative branch.
  Apparently some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
now seen fit to delay acting on the conference report because they are 
concerned that President Clinton might utilize the veto power to line 
item certain matters out of the appropriations bills.
  On our side of the aisle, there are those who say we should send it 
to him now, not hold back, because he is a Democratic President at a 
time when the Republicans are in control of the House and Senate.
  Mr. President, I might have a little sympathy for that approach if it 
were not for the fact that the President on May 8 of this year wrote a 
letter to the Honorable Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, in which 
the President wrote as follows:

       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to urge that Congress 
     quickly complete work on line-item veto legislation so I can 
     use it--this year--to curb wasteful tax and spending 
     provisions.
       We must not let another year go by without the President 
     having authority to eliminate special interest provisions, 
     such as the tax benefits that were targeted to individual 
     businesses earlier this year in H.R. 831.
       I am disappointed that six weeks after the Senate passed 
     its version of line-item veto legislation, neither body has 
     appointed conferees. As you may recall, I commended the House 
     and the Senate last month for passing line-item veto 
     legislation. However, the job is not complete until a bill is 
     sent to my desk that provides strong line-item veto authority 
     that can be used this year.
       I have consistently urged the Congress to pass the 
     strongest possible line-item veto. While both the House and 
     Senate versions would provide authority to eliminate wasteful 
     spending and tax provisions, the House-passed bill is much 
     stronger--and more workable.
       I appreciate your making passage of line-item veto 
     legislation a priority. I look forward to working with the 
     Congress to enact the line-item veto quickly.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Just a few days later, on June 7, 1995, the President wrote another 
letter to the Honorable Robert Dole, majority leader of the Senate, in 
which the President stated:

       Dear Mr. Leader: I am deeply alarmed by today's press 
     report that some Republicans in the House and Senate want to 
     continue to hold back the line-item veto so that I don't have 
     it during this year's budget process. The line-item veto is a 
     vital tool to cut pork from the budget. If this Congress is 
     serious about deficit reduction, it must pass the strongest 
     possible line-item veto immediately, and send it to my desk 
     so I can sign it right away.
       This is not a partisan issue. Presidents Reagan and Bush 
     asked Congress for it time and again, and so have I. It was 
     part of the Republican Contract with America. It has strong 
     support from members of Congress in both parties and both 
     houses. No matter what party the President belongs to or what 
     party has a majority in Congress, the line-item veto would be 
     good for America.
       If Congress will send me the line-item veto immediately, I 
     am willing to pledge that this year, I will use it only to 
     cut spending, not on tax expenditures in this year's budget. 
     I have already put you on notice that I will veto any budget 
     that is loaded with excessive tax breaks for the wealthy. But 
     I need the line-item veto now to hold the line against pork 
     in every bill the Congress sends me.
       The American people have waited long enough. Congress 
     should give them and the Presidency the line-item veto 
     without further delay.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  So what we have is a letter from the President to the Speaker of the 
House on May 8 saying, in essence, ``Give me the line-item veto.''
  Now, again I quote from that letter:

       We must not let another year go by without the President 
     having authority to eliminate special interest provisions, 
     such as the tax benefits that were targeted to individual 
     businesses earlier this year in H.R. 831.

  And then lo and behold, 1 month later, lacking 1 day, the same 
President pledges--pledges--to the majority leader of the Senate that 
if Congress will send the President that line-item veto legislation, 
the President will not--will not--use it on tax expenditures; he will 
only use it ``to cut spending.''
  Mr. President, I have difficulty following that line of reasoning. It 
is obvious that the President intended to use the line-item veto 
authority to eliminate tax expenditures in the first letter. I was 
dismayed by the sudden reversal by the President in his June 7 letter. 
That was a 180-degree turn by the White House on matters which are of 
the utmost importance to the American people in terms of fairness 
relating to how the deficit will be reduced. And it should leave all 
thinking Members of Congress and the American people wondering why this 
administration would make such an outrageous pledge.
  Why should we Democrats butt our heads against the wall urging that 
the Speaker appoint conferees on a measure so that the President would 
have the line-item veto authority, which the President has pledged not 
to use against tax expenditures? Since the President pledged to avoid 
lining out any new tax expenditures, that meant that any new goodies in 
the form of tax writeoffs would be in place from now on, further 
exacerbating our deficit problem for years to come. 

[[Page S11086]]

  So, this unwise pledge by the President is just one reason why this 
Senator is not in any hurry to see a line-item veto enacted this year. 
The President says he will use the authority only on appropriations 
bills, not on tax expenditures. In other words, he will continue to cut 
domestic discretionary programs--not defense. He is, to the contrary, 
recommending that military spending go up. Apparently, he is going to 
cut nondefense discretionary programs, which are already being severely 
cut.
  I note also that, in a statement made this morning in the briefing 
room at the White House, the President says:

       One of the most interesting things that has achieved not 
     too much notice in the last few days is that while Congress 
     has been taking care of the special interests, it's also 
     taking care of itself. It is way behind schedule on virtually 
     every budget bill, in the hope, apparently, of enforcing a 
     choice at the end of this fiscal year between shutting the 
     government down and adopting extreme budget cuts which will 
     be bad for our country, bad for our economy, and bad for our 
     future.

  This may, indeed, confuse a lot of people. First the President says, 
``Give me a line-item veto with which I can cut.'' Then he says today 
that Congress is making cuts that are bad for our country:

       Apparently, they don't even plan on letting the American 
     people see their planned Medicare cuts until the last 
     possible minute. But one bill, wouldn't you know it, is right 
     on schedule--the bill that funds the Congress, its staff, and 
     its operations.
       I don't think Congress should take care of its own business 
     before it takes care of the people's business. If the 
     congressional leadership follows through on its plan to send 
     me its own funding bill before it finishes work on the rest 
     of the budget, I will be compelled to veto it.

  Mr. President, if I were in the leadership today I would say, ``Let 
us send it to him. Let him veto it. He can veto it; he can let it 
become law without his signature; or he can sign it.''
  The reference is made to Congress ``taking care of its own 
business.'' Mr. President, the Constitution, in article I, creates the 
legislative branch. And in the very first sentence of article I it 
provides for the making of laws and vests all power to make laws in the 
Congress. In article I, section 9, it vests the appropriations power in 
the Congress. The Constitution created the legislative branch. We have 
to pass laws to appropriate moneys for the legislative branch. I do not 
see that as ``taking care of its own business.'' The legislative branch 
has to operate.
  So I hope that the President will sign the legislative appropriation 
bill if it goes to him first. There is no design here on the part of 
the Members or on the part of the leadership to send to the President 
the legislative appropriations bill first. There was no design. That is 
not by calculation or by intention. We have been marking other 
appropriations bills up in the Appropriations Committee. Another 
appropriations bill has been before the Senate today, the energy-water 
appropriations bill, and we hope to pass it today. So there are other 
appropriations bills that are being acted upon.
 But now we hear the threat that if the legislative appropriations bill 
is the first to be sent down to the White House, the President will be 
inclined to veto it, because those people up there take care of 
themselves first.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I note there is another thing the President said in 
that letter that does not seem to me to be consistent with the way 
business is done and has been done for a long time and done properly.
  He says the appropriations bills are way behind schedule; all budget 
bills are behind schedule. It is my understanding we do not have to get 
the appropriations bills passed until October 1. We started in August, 
did we not? That is 2 months. I have been around here a while, not as 
long as the Senator from West Virginia has, but the House has done a 
pretty good job. They are through with all but two, and we have not yet 
reached August. They finished all but two before August arrived. I have 
been here many years, and we do not get all the appropriations done 
until 16, 17, 18 September. That is not unusual.
  So I think the President is making a false argument even there about 
us being far behind.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, in many instances in past years, appropriations bills 
have not been passed until or after the beginning of the next fiscal 
year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I think the Congress is doing very well. The beginning of 
the next fiscal year is October 1, as the Senator has pointed out. We 
are well ahead of that. We have plenty of time before the beginning of 
the fiscal year. I hope we will pass all appropriations bills and have 
them on the President's desk by or before the beginning of the fiscal 
year. But I also hope that if the President is going to veto 
appropriations bills, he will do so on the basis of the merits, not on 
the basis of some grand strategy to veto appropriations bills for 
political purposes.
  As one member of the Appropriations Committee, I take a bit of 
umbrage at this statement that the legislative appropriations bill is 
being passed first because Congress is ``taking care of itself.''
  Mr. DOMENICI. He did not mention, did he, that we also significantly 
reduced the cost of the legislative branch of Government in that bill?
  Mr. BYRD. It has been significantly reduced, I believe.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Ten percent.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will not belabor the point any longer. I 
think it is unwise to adopt amendments such as the Senate adopted today 
instructing or urging the Speaker of the House to appoint his 
conferees, and so on. As I said, it does not make for good will, good 
feeling, or good comity between the two bodies.
  I would not have voted for the amendment if for no other reason than 
that reason. I hope that we will slow down a little bit and not adopt 
such resolutions, or else we will meet such resolutions coming back 
from the other body, and they will not be entirely to our liking.
  I yield the floor.
  (Conclusion of later proceedings.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on the Dorgan amendment stating the sense-
of-the-Senate that the House should appoint conferees on the line-item 
veto bill and a conference should occur, I voted ``present.''
  Although I have always opposed the line-item veto, because I believe 
it is an unwarranted transfer of power from the legislative branch to 
the executive branch, I do agree with Senator Dorgan that the 
Republican Congress should not refuse to conference the bill simply to 
embarrass the current President, who happens to be a Democrat.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my good friend from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, and my friend from Wisconsin, Senator 
Feingold, we intend to offer a bipartisan amendment to the energy and 
water appropriations bill, which would reduce funding for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC, by $40 million.
  First, I will explain some of our reasons for offering this 
amendment.
  In his inaugural address 35 years ago, President Kennedy challenged 
the American people to ``ask not what your country can do for you, ask 
what you can do for your country.'' Just five years later, however, 
those words seemed to have been forgotten with the establishment in 
Congress of the ARC, the ultimate expression of ``what can I get out of 
my government?"
  The goal of Congress in creating the ARC was to bolster economic 
development in a 195,000 square-mile region which presently encompasses 
13 States. Over the course of the past 30 years, we have spent more 
than $7 billion in the Appalachian region, much of it for pork-barrel 
projects, trying to stimulate economic growth there.
  Today, many of the ARC's programs duplicate activities funded by 
other Federal agencies. In fact, Appalachian corridor construction, 
under which the Senate energy and water appropriations bill justifies 
the $40 million increase in funding from the House, also falls under 
the jurisdiction of the Transportation Department's Federal highway 
program.
  Representative Scott Klug of Wisconsin put it this way:

       What the Appalachian Regional Commission does is 
     essentially allow 13 states in this country to double dip 
     into infrastructure money, money to do economic development, 
     and money also to do highway and water construction and 
     projects like that.

  Now, clearly, Mr. President, the Appalachian Regional Commission has 
become a vehicle to justify continued 

[[Page S11087]]
pork-barrel spending which duplicates the efforts of many other Federal 
programs. That is hardly what President Kennedy had in mind 35 years 
ago.
  While the ARC allocates funds for the poor, rural communities of 
Appalachia, these areas are no worse off than rural communities in 
Minnesota, Arizona, or the 35 other States that do not benefit from the 
ARC. In fact, in my home State of Minnesota, 12.8 percent of my 
constituents live below the poverty level.
  That is a troubling statistic for a state which considers itself not 
a poor State, but a proud State. It is higher than many states which 
benefit from ARC funding--such as Virginia at 9.4 percent, Maryland at 
11.6 percent, Pennsylvania at 11.7 percent, and Ohio at 12.6 percent.
  Do Minnesotans have a Federal program designed just for them? Of 
course not. To pay for something like the ARC on a nationwide basis 
would require billions of dollars, either from cutting more from other 
programs, borrowing money from our children, increasing the deficit, or 
raising taxes. The first option is unlikely--the remaining three are 
completely unacceptable.
  Already, for every dollar the taxpayers of my State contribute to the 
Federal Treasury, they receive only 82 centsworth of government 
services. That is 82 cents on the dollar. The States which receive ARC 
funding receive, on average, $1.21 for every tax dollar they 
contribute.
  Now, Minnesota has been a good neighbor and has contributed more than 
its fair share.
  But when Minnesotans see $750,000 of ARC funds spent on a summer 
practice stadium for the National Football League's Carolina Panthers, 
this is a slap in the face. Clearly, the ARC's priorities do not 
reflect the priorities of the taxpayers.
  While there have been some improvements in the Appalachian region, 
these have generally followed the health of the economy in general. In 
the 1980's, there was strong growth in the area which mirrored the 
economic growth of the country at large.
  During this time, ARC funding was reduced by 40 percent, roughly the 
level appropriated by the House bill this year. Did the region suffer? 
On the contrary. Taxes were cut and unemployment rates in the region 
fell by 38 percent.
  That is how President Kennedy created jobs in the 1960's. That is how 
President Reagan created jobs in the 1980's. That is how we need to 
create jobs as we approach the year 2000.
  The ARC is a classic example of how pork barrel projects are dished 
out in Washington. If ARC programs only benefitted two or three States, 
the Commission probably would not have lasted as long as it has. But 
when you cobble together several hundred counties, in 13 different 
States, with 26 Senators representing them, you have a built-in 
political constituency that will make sure funding is perpetuated 
forever and ever.
  Mr. President, the ARC is a relic, a thing of the past. We need to 
look toward the future, toward a balanced budget, tax cuts, and job 
creation. These benefits would far outweigh the additional $40 million 
in taxpayers' money the Senate wants to appropriate.
  Earlier this year, Congress agreed to phase out the ARC in the 
balanced budget resolution which passed both chambers. Our amendment 
does not zero out funding for the ARC this year--it simply reduces the 
level of funding to that approved by the House, $142 million. That 
means $40 million that goes back to the taxpayers, either in the form 
of deficit reduction or tax cuts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Grams-McCain amendment and 
support us in this effort to cut government waste. Show the taxpayers 
that we will keep our word and make the tough choices necessary to 
balance the Federal budget and bring economic growth and prosperity to 
every region across this Nation.
  President Kennedy was right--Ask not what your country can do for 
you. Ask what you can do for your country.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that two of the poorest counties in 
the nation are located on Indian reservations in South Dakota--Rosebud 
Sioux and the Pine Ridge Sioux?
  Mr. GRAMS. No, I did not know that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that South Dakota is not part of 
Appalachia or countless other areas of poverty on Indian reservations 
in urban areas and rural communities?
  I wonder if my colleague is aware that as part of the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, $750,000 was spent for the Carolina Panthers 
football facility, money was spent for the Alabama Music Hall of Fame, 
money was spent for a program to attract German travelers to West 
Virginia,
 money for an access road to a Pennsylvania ski resort, money for a 
limestone cave display in Georgia, $1.2 million for the National Track 
and Field Hall of Fame, money for the NASCAR Hall of Fame, funding for 
a study on the migration of the elderly, funding for a grant to train 
workers for a BMW plant in South Carolina.

  I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota is aware of all of those uses 
that the Appalachian Regional Commission has spent money on, and how 
far the Appalachian Regional Commission--which, by the way, was a 
temporary commission when it was set up in 1965--has gone. And is the 
Senator aware that the Federal Government has countless programs that 
provide economic development assistance for everyone in America: 
community development block grant programs, housing development block 
grants, social service block grants, community service block grants, 
Economic Development Agency grants, farmers home loans, small business 
development loans and grants, rural electrification loans, highway aid, 
and the list goes on and on.
  In addition, as we know, the individual States have many similar 
programs. The rest of the Nation that is outside of the Appalachia 
region has to rely on those programs in order to achieve funding to 
help people who are poor and deprived.
  I am very proud of the economic advancement that my State has made. I 
am very proud our standard of living is very high and that our economy 
continues to grow. I am also deeply distressed, as I know many of my 
fellow citizens are, that there are still extremely poor places in my 
State, places where Native Americans live in holes in the ground, 
places where there is no running water or sanitation. I believe, 
frankly, these people, along with the people, the Rosebud Sioux and the 
Pinewood Sioux, need help as much as anyone else.
  For us to somehow perpetuate a commission that has spent, now--$5 
billion?
  Mr. GRAMS. It is $7 billion.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, $7 billion--that was originally set up as 
a temporary commission, I think, is an argument, frankly, that it has 
outlived its original purpose.
  Finally, I wonder if my colleague will respond to the following 
statement. In 1994, the American people said they want us to reduce 
spending. In 1994, the American people said that they want us to do 
business in a different way, that the tax dollars that they send to 
Washington, DC, they want wisely and efficiently spent.
  If we cannot cut $40 million out of a commission that was recommended 
to be abolished by President Reagan and that the original House budget 
proposal was to do away with, if we cannot cut $40 million and cut it 
down to only $142 million, I ask my colleague where he thinks we might 
really be in the commitment that we made to the American people to 
balance the budget and reduce this $5 trillion debt that we have laid 
on future generations of Americans?
  I suggest the answer is we are not going to go very far in that 
direction if we cannot make this very modest reduction that my 
colleague and friend from Minnesota is making.
  So I ask my colleague if he believes that this amendment might be a 
strong indicator of what is to come in our battles to reduce 
unnecessary spending on the part of the Federal Government.
  Mr. GRAMS. I would just like to say, I know this might sound like 
just a small step, only $40 million in a city where we talk in billions 
and trillions, but I think about how many taxpayers in Minnesota would 
I have to put in a line to put $40 million into the Treasury. There are 
a lot of people in Minnesota to whom I would have to say, 

[[Page S11088]]
``Your money is going to fund a music hall of fame in Alabama, a 
practice stadium for a professional football team in North Carolina, a 
NASCAR Hall of Fame.
  I have to say, I am one of the biggest fans of NASCAR racing in the 
country, but I do not know if Minnesota taxpayers want to be asked to 
spend some of their tax money for that, when I know in Minnesota there 
are needs for $850,000 to keep flooding out of a town in Marshall, $3 
million request for a highway, 610. But these are going by the wayside 
because there is not enough money to fund projects like this. But yet 
we continue to ask for money that is being spent for such as the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
  I just wanted to mention one other thing. It is always great to say 
we are going to help somebody. But we are always using somebody else's 
money to do it. We are asking the taxpayers of this country to pony up 
for the money we want to spend on pet projects.
  I want to recount a story of a lady back in Minnesota, Natalie 
Wolstad, Coon Rapids. I have used this story before, but I would like 
to recount it again.
  She wrote me a letter saying she had gone to the bank with a realtor 
trying to buy their first home, a young couple. After they went through 
all the process, the bank said, ``I am sorry but you do not qualify for 
a loan.''
  She said she and her husband went home that night and went through 
their checkbook and all their bills because they wanted to see what 
were they doing wrong with their money that they could not afford to 
buy a home. After they figured up all the bills, they found out they 
were not doing something wrong, but as they went through it they 
noticed, really for the first time, how much money was coming out of 
their paycheck to go for taxes. So it was the tax bite that was keeping 
them from qualifying for a loan.
  Like I say, we always want to do something good for somebody else, 
but we want to use somebody else's money. Those dollars come from 
taxpayers. Those taxpayers have faces and names, like Natalie Wolstad. 
So before we take more money out of their pockets to spend as we think 
would be needed--and as my good friend from Arizona said, there are 
many, many poor counties in this country that could use this type of 
funding but they are not supplied with dollars from commissions like 
the ARC. There is no MRC, there is no Minnesota Regional Commission 
that will provide these types of dollars that would help Natalie 
Wolstad and her family. So I think we should think twice about asking 
the taxpayers whether they want to spend money for projects like this.


                           Amendment No. 2058

 (Purpose: To reduce the level of funding for the Appalachian Regional 
      Commission to that enacted by the House of Representatives)

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment 2058 at the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, and Mr. Feingold proposes an amendment numbered 2058.
       On page 32, line 13, strike ``$182,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$142,000,000.''

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Grams 
amendment to reduce funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  During debate on the budget resolution, I supported the McConnell 
amendment to ensure that the essential services provided by the 
Appalachian Regional Commission are continued for some of this Nation's 
most destitute areas. The McConnell amendment was agreed to on the 
Senate floor by a vote of 51-49, and was included in the approved 
conference between the House and Senate.
  Under the budget resolution, the Appalachian Regional Commission 
would adjust spending levels to assume funding of $1.154 billion for 
the Appalachian Regional Commission over fiscal years 1996-2002. The 
Energy and Water bill that we have before us follows the budget 
resolution allocating $182 million for fiscal year 1996.
  At a time when we are correctly terminating or scaling back outdated 
Federal programs, I believe the Appalachian Regional Commission is the 
type of Federal initiative we should be encouraging. It is important to 
recognize that the ARC uses its limited Federal dollars to leverage 
additional State and local funds. This successful partnership enables 
communities in Virginia to have tailored programs which help them 
respond to a variety of grass-roots needs.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, 21 counties rely heavily on the 
assistance they receive from the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
Income levels for this region of Virginia further indicate that on 
average my constituents who reside in this region have incomes which 
are $6,000 below the average per capita income for the rest of the 
Nation.
  In 1960, when the ARC was created, the poverty rate in Virginia's 
Appalachian region was 24.4. In 1990, the poverty rate statistics of 
17.6 show improvement which can be attributed to the effectiveness of 
the ARC. However, we are still a long way from achieving the United 
States average poverty level of 13.1 and also the regional poverty 
level of other ARC-member States of 15.2.
  With these statistics in mind, I would like to offer some specific 
points one should keep in mind regarding the effectiveness of ARC 
programs, its relationship with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the 
direct impact that this relationship has on the private sector.
  In recent years, a significant portion of ARC funds have been 
dedicated to local economic development efforts. Were it not for this 
assistance, the LENOWISCO Planning District and Wise County would not 
have been able to complete construction of the water and sewage lines 
to provide utility services to the Wise County Industrial Park at 
Blackwood. These lines were financed by a $500,000 grant from the ARC 
and a $600,000 grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration. 
The construction of these utilities to serve a new industrial park has 
attracted a major wood products manufacturing facility which has 
created 175 new jobs for the community.
  The Fifth Planning District serving the Alleghany Highlands of 
Virginia is a prominent example of leveraging other State and local 
funds and stimulating economic development with partial funding from 
the ARC. For fiscal year 1995 with $350,000 from the ARC, the Alleghany 
Regional Commerce Center in Clifton Forge, VA was established. This new 
industrial center already has a commitment from two industries bringing 
new employment opportunities for over 220 persons.
  The ARC funds for this project has generated an additional $500,000 
in State funds, $450,000 from the Virginia Department of 
Transportation, $145,000 from Alleghany County and $168,173 from the 
Alleghany Highlands Economic Development Authority. As a result of a 
limited Federal commitment, there is almost a 4-to-1 ratio of non-
Federal dollars compared to Federal funds.
  In many cases these funds have been the sole source of funding for 
local planning efforts for appropriate community development. For 
example, such funds have been used to prepare and update comprehensive 
plans which are required by Virginia State law to be updated every 5 
years in revise zoning, subdivision and other land use ordinances. In 
addition funds are used to prepare labor force studies or marketing 
plans in guide industrial development sites.
  Mr. President, the mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission is 
as relevant today as it was when the program was created. This rural 
region of our Nation remains beset with many geographic obstacles that 
have kept it isolated from industrial expansion. It is a region that 
has been attempting to diversify its economy from its dependency on one 
industry--coal mining--to other stable employment opportunities. It is 
a program that provides essential services and stimulates the 
contributions of State and local funds.
  I urge the Senate to follow the budget resolution and oppose the 
Grams amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
hostile 

[[Page S11089]]
amendment that tries to weaken and retreat from the important work of 
the Appalachian Regional Commission. It is with great pride that I join 
the senior Senator of West Virginia in explaining to my colleagues why 
this amendment should be rejected.
  Senators listening to this debate may think this is an amendment that 
deserves the votes of every Senator representing a State other than the 
13 States which comprise the Appalachian region. I hope our case will 
be heard so that this will not be the conclusion of our colleagues.
  The people of every State have a stake in the economic strength of 
the rest of the country. When floods ravage the Midwest or the gulf 
States; when a major defense installation or space center is located in 
a State like Texas or Alabama; when payments are made to farmers in 
Minnesota or Wisconsin for dairy support, for crop losses, and for 
basic support; when billions are spent to shore up S&L institutions in 
certain States; when special aid is given to cities or to California 
after its riots or earthquakes; when research labs get special funds in 
New Mexico or Massachusetts--when any of this support and assistance is 
extended, it is the country's way of investing in each region and in 
the futures of Americans everywhere.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is the Nation's effort to help a 
part of this country overcome tremendous barriers. In many parts of the 
region, major progress has been achieved. But the ARC's job is not 
finished, and the agency should not be abolished until it is.
  Whenever the Senate considers appropriations bills or other budget 
measures, the question is whether the spending proposed is a sound 
investment in the Nation or another form of waste. In this case, the 
answer is that the funding in this bill is a vital investment. The 
bill's architects already made the required cut so that the Appalachian 
States are doing our share of deficit reduction. Digging deeper is 
mean-spirited, and it's a foolish way to abandon the progress made by 
ARC over recent years that should be continued. If we can't finish the 
basic links to economic development and growth, like water and road 
systems, my State and the region cannot make the contributions we want 
to or build the life our people deserve.
  The ARC's partnership with West Virginia and the Appalachian
   region should not be severed. We need to finish the economic 
development being built on top of the foundation being laid by the 
ARC--and that's essential in our States for more growth, more jobs, and 
more hope for our people.

  As a former Governor, an now as a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, I 
know--vividly--the value of the ARC and how it improves the lives of 
many hard-working citizens. Whether the funding is used for new water 
and sewer systems, physician recruitment, adult literacy programs, or 
the Appalachian Corridor highways, it has made the difference in West 
Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and the other Appalachian States.
  The highways are the most visible and best known investments made by 
the ARC for the people of Appalachia. As of today, over two-thirds of 
the ARC highway system have been completed. But if this amendment to 
cut ARC so severely prevails, the job will not be completed. What a 
waste of taxpayers' money to pull out before a road system is finished.
  At this very moment, some of these highways are called highways 
halfway to nowhere, because they are just that--half built, and only 
halfway to their destination. The job has to be completed, so these 
highways become highways the whole way to somewhere. And that somewhere 
is called jobs and prosperity that will benefit the rest of the 
country, too. Appalachia simply wants to be connected to our national 
grid of highways. Parts of the region weren't lucky enough to come out 
as flat land, so the job takes longer and costs more. But it is 
essential is giving the people and families in this part of the United 
States of America a shot--a chance to be rewarded for a work ethic and 
commitment with real economic opportunity and a decent quality of life.
  I won't speak for my colleagues from other Appalachian States, but 
West Virginia was not exactly the winner in the original Interstate 
Highway System. And Senators here represent many States that were. As a 
result, areas of my State have suffered, economically and in human 
terms. Without roads, people are shut off from jobs. That's obvious. 
But without roads, people also can't get decent health care. Dropping 
out of school is easier sometimes than taking a 2-hour bus ride because 
the roads aren't there.
  The structure of the ARC makes it more efficient and effective than 
many other agencies. The ARC is a working, true partnership between 
Federal, State, and local governments. This structure expects 
responsibility from citizens and local leaders, Federal funding is 
designed to leverage State and local money for any activity. According 
to the ARC, throughout its lifetime, it has contributed less than half 
of the total amount of project funds. Administrative costs have 
accounted for less than 4 percent of total costs over ARC's lifetime.
  Long before it was fashionable, ARC used a from-the-bottom-up 
approach to addressing local needs rather than a top-down, one-size-
fits-all mandate of the type that has become all too familiar to 
citizens dealing with Federal agencies. It works, too.
  I urge everyone in this body to keep a promise made to a region that 
has been short-shrifted. Each region is unique. Solutions have to 
differ, depending on our circumstances. When it comes to Appalachia, a 
small agency called the Appalachian Regional Commission should finish 
its work. Slashing the support for such a targeted, effective 
commitment to a region that was excluded from economic progress for so 
long will only create more problems and more costs that should be 
avoided. I urge my colleagues to vote against an amendment that asks 
the Senate to give up on an investment that will benefit all Americans.
                       cuts to arc appropriations

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague. This amendment targets the 
Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] for an unfair and 
disproportionate burden of budget cuts. I have worked with the 
officials of ARC to pare back the budget and duties of the ARC. The 
approach we have crafted is balanced, fair, and meets the new budget 
parameters while continuing to provide essential assistance to the 
people of Appalachia.
  I want to assure my colleagues that the ARC budget proposal does not 
preserve the status quo. The funding level for the fiscal year 1996 
budget of $182 million is $100 million less than what was appropriated 
in 1995. This represents a 35-percent cut in overall funding.
  It has been a mere 2 months since the Senate approved my amendment to 
reform the ARC. My amendment outlined a blueprint to reform the ARC and 
set it on a glide path of reduced spending that falls within the 
guidelines of a balanced budget by the year 2002. I would like to 
remind my colleagues that this amendment, which passed the Senate, 
established the fiscal year 1996 funding levels contained in this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask that a copy of that vote be included in the 
Record at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand why the Senator from 
Minnesota has offered this amendment. To him, the ARC is a program that 
benefits only Appalachian States. I might share his views if I didn't 
see first-hand the impact this program has had on an area that is 
burdened by high levels of unemployment and economic dislocation.
  The ARC is very important not only to Kentucky, but also to a great 
number of other States. This program has proven to be effective in 
providing targeted assistance to those who need it most without wasting 
millions of dollars on administrative expenses.
  Although the ARC has made a significant impact in improving the 
economic opportunities and quality of life for people living in 
Appalachia, there continues to be a real need for assistance in this 
region. Poverty, outmigration, and high levels of unemployment are 
especially prevalent in central Appalachia, which includes some of the 
poorest counties in the Nation.
  The ARC serves parts of 13 States, totaling 399 counties from New 
York to 

[[Page S11090]]
Mississippi. This is a region that lags behind the Nation in most, if 
not all, major economic measures. Chronically higher unemployment 
levels, substantially lower income levels, and perniciously high 
poverty rates plague most of Appalachia. In eastern Kentucky, for 
example, the poverty rate stood at 29 percent in 1990--16 percent 
higher than the national average.
  Of the 399 counties served by ARC, 115 of the counties are considered 
distressed. This means that these counties suffer from unemployment 
levels and poverty rates that are 150 percent of the national average 
and have per capita incomes that are only two-thirds the national 
average.
  The ARC was designed to specifically address the unique problems of 
this region--which has been afflicted by over a century of 
exploitation, neglect, geographic barriers, and economic distress. 
These are not problems born of cyclical economic fluctuation, but are 
the result of years of unremitting underdevelopment, isolation, and 
outmigration.
  The good news is that the ARC has worked hand-in-hand with each of 
the 13 States in its jurisdiction to develop flexible and effective 
programs, tailored to the specific needs of each community or region.
  And there's more good news. The ARC is unusually lean, as Federal 
agencies go, with respect to administrative and personnel expenses. 
Total overhead accounts for less than 4 percent of all expenditures. 
This is largely achieved through close cooperation with the individual 
States.
  State Governors contribute 50 percent of the administrative costs as 
well as the full cost of their own regional ARC offices. In fact, I 
would urge my colleagues to look to the ARC as a model of efficiency, 
cost sharing, and State cooperation for other Federal programs.
  The ARC is not a traditional poverty program, but an economic 
development program, with a lot of work still ahead of it. The fact is, 
that Appalachia receives 14 percent less per capita spending from the 
Federal Government than the rest of the country--and that includes 
funding received through ARC. While this may not seem like a lot, this 
amounts to $12 billion less for the Appalachian region annually.
  Like many of my colleagues, we are all taking a close look at each 
and every program to find areas where we can eliminate wasteful 
spending. I worked with the ARC to ensure that this program was reduced 
to its most essential function--economic development.
  The best way we can achieve this is quite simple. First, we start 
with a 35-percent reduction from the current funding level for ARC. 
There's no question that this is a considerable cut, and it will have 
an impact on the ARC's ability to fully serve its target areas. But I 
think it underscores how serious we are about preserving the vital 
purposes of this agency.
  The 35-percent cut in the first year is just a start. If the reforms 
I have proposed are implemented, funding levels will continue to 
decline through 2002. Overall, if we use, as a baseline, a hard freeze 
at 1995 funding levels, my proposal would achieve a 47-percent 
reduction in spending. This amounts to $925 million in savings over 7 
years.
  With regard to my colleague's concerns regarding the difference 
between the House and Senate spending levels for ARC, I suggest that 
the Senate has already spoken on this matter and endorsed this funding 
level on two occasions. Once as an amendment that passed the Senate on 
May 24, and the second when this body approved the budget resolution. I 
would also point out that this spending level was also included in the 
chairman's mark of the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996.
  I might also point out to my colleague, that the reconciliation of 
these spending differences should be worked out in conference.
  Mr. President, I have worked hard to develop a reform plan that is 
responsible both to the people of eastern Kentucky, and the taxpayers 
of this Nation. If my colleagues believe that eliminating the ARC will 
save money, they are sadly mistaken. The poverty and economic distress 
of central Appalachia will only deepen, imposing higher cost on other 
Federal programs. On the other hand, if we keep ARC alive, we can help 
this region to help itself, and save a lot more money in the long run.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and maintain this level 
of funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

                               Exhibit 1
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 
     amendment.
       Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for a rollcall vote.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
       There is a sufficient second.
       The yeas and nays were ordered.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
       The legislative clerk called the roll.
       The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Mack
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone
       So the amendment (No. 1148) was agreed to.
       Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
     which the amendment was agreed to.
       Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
       The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment which 
proposes to alter the Committee's recommendation regarding funding for 
the Appalachian Regional Commission. The Committee recommendation is a 
responsible one and should be supported. The ARC is funded just below 
the President's request, and is well below last year's level. The 
amendment by the Senator from Minnesota would reduce the Committee's 
recommendation to the House level.
  Mr. President, the ARC has already contributed to the deficit 
reduction occurring in this appropriations bill. The ARC is recommended 
at a level of $182,000,000, which is $100,000,000, or 35 percent, below 
the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. Let me repeat--ARC is already 
funded 35 percent below last year's level. We do not need to drain it 
any further. Given that the non-defense portion of the 602(b) 
allocation assigned to this appropriation bill is down just 13 percent 
below a freeze, I contend that the ARC is already bearing more than its 
fair share of the reductions in this bill. Cutting below the Committee 
recommendation will impede upon the ability of ARC to address its core 
mission--maintaining an effective regional development program that 
will create economic opportunity in distressed areas so that 
communities are better positioned to contribute to the national 
economy.
  As I indicated, Mr. President, ARC has already been subjected to a 
significant reduction--35 percent--below the FY 1995 level. Can the 
same be said for other accounts in this bill? Bureau of Reclamation 
funding is down 7.3 percent; energy supply, research and development is 
down 15.6 percent, which is less than half of the reduction imposed on 
ARC. Atomic energy defense activities are up $1.3 billion, or 13 
percent; the regional power marketing administrations are increased by 
nearly 15 percent. So if the concern is about funding, I suggest that 
Senators look closely at which programs are already bearing more than 
their fair share of the reductions in this bill.
  Mr. President, the funding recommendation for ARC contained in this 
appropriations bill is absolutely consistent with the budget resolution 


[[Page S11091]]
approved earlier this summer by the House and Senate. The budget 
resolution assumed that ARC would be reduced below the FY 1995 level, 
and this budget does exactly that. The recommendation in this 
appropriation bill is consistent with the position taken by 51 senators 
when they voted to fund the ARC during consideration of the budget 
resolution in the Senate initially. The budget resolution conference 
agreement adopted the Senate position on ARC. In its consideration of 
this appropriations bill, the House sought to eliminate all funding for 
the ARC and voted overwhelmingly, by a 3:1 margin (319-108), to support 
continued funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. So the 
Congress has been clear--the programs of ARC are important, and they 
should be continued.
  For those who contend that the Senate should not fund ARC at a level 
different than the House, the 602(b) allocation for non-defense 
activities in the energy and water development bill is above the House 
allocation. I will attempt to speak on behalf of the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, but I believe this allocation is consistent 
with the long-standing commitment to the infrastructure development 
funded in this bill. ARC is but a part of that infrastructure--just as 
the investments in the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation 
programs benefit economic activity, so too do the programs of the ARC. 
Mr. President, this bill is in compliance with its allocation and is 
already doing its part for deficit reduction.
  The presumption behind this amendment is that the benefits of the ARC 
are limited to a particular geographic region. Mr. President, that can 
be true of many programs throughout the government, which don't happen 
to have the name of their geographical region in the program name. For 
example, in the Interior appropriations bill, we fund a program called 
``Payments in Lieu of Taxes''. There is nothing geographical in that 
name. However, it benefits primarily those western states where the 
Federal government happens to own land. In that program, we will spend 
$100 million in FY 1996, of which 67 percent benefits just 8 states. 
But we don't propose to terminate that program in the Interior bill 
because it benefits a select few.
  Mr. President, the tradition of this Congress is to come to the aid 
of regions of this country that are in need. We have responded to the 
earthquakes in California, the floods in the Midwest, hurricane 
recovery in South Carolina and Florida, volcano eruptions in 
Washington, and winter storm damages in the Northeast. Some might say 
``well, those are in response to natural occurrences--events that were 
totally unpredictable.'' To that, Mr. President, I would respond that 
the geography that defines Appalachia was beyond the control of man, 
and that the programs of the ARC are designed to respond to those 
challenges. The natural topography has created isolation in many parts 
of Appalachia--it is through programs such as ARC that communication 
and transportation links are enhanced so that access to markets, 
diversity and opportunity can grow. And by investing in the human 
component of Appalachia, through better education and health, the 
region is able to provide the workforce necessary to meet these 
challenges.
  The programs of the ARC have contributed to improvements in the 
ability of the region to address the disparity in poverty and income 
levels between Appalachia and other parts of the country. Despite the 
progress in recent years, the income level in Appalachia is 17 percent 
below the national average. The poverty rate in Appalachia is 16 
percent above the national average. When it comes to U.S. expenditures 
on a per capita basis, in fiscal year 1994, Appalachia had 8.2 percent 
of the U.S. population, but received just 7.5 percent of U.S. 
expenditures. So even with the investments from ARC's programs, the 
funding provided to this area is not out of proportion to the needs or 
economic circumstances.
  Mr. President, at a time when many people are demanding a leaner, 
more efficient government that is closer to the people it serves, the 
ARC should be held up as a model. ARC operates with a small staff--
about 50 people--and spends only about 4 percent of its budget on 
overhead. The decisions on the expenditure of its funds are made after 
consulting with the governors of the region. This Congress has 
repeatedly urged that more attention be paid to the input of the 
governors as we seek to make programs more responsive. This is exactly 
what ARC is all about.
  Mr. President, the governors of the 13 states are represented on the 
Commission. This is not a Federally-run, top-down type of operation. It 
is very much driven by the local requirements, as represented by the 
governors. All 13 governors--8 Republicans and 5 Democrats--have 
supported the continuation of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  So, Mr. President, I urge Senators to table this amendment. This 
agency is already funded 35 percent below the FY 1995 level. Cuts are 
already being imposed on the ARC. Eliminating this agency will not 
solve the problems of the Federal budget. The Senate has already voted 
earlier this year to sustain the ARC. The Senate should stand by its 
earlier vote and stand by the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the business of cutting budgets is a 
matter of shared sacrifice. We want to be fair in the way we cut our 
budgets. The Appalachian Regional Commission has suffered from last 
year a $100 million cut, from $282 million to $182 million, a 35 
percent cut, which is more than most programs in this country.
  With any program you can point out little incidents that are less 
than the best. And over a period of, what, 30 years or so, they have 
pointed out very few with the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  The fact of the matter is that in the 13 States that comprise the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, they do very excellent work and needed 
work, most of it in highways, which is ongoing, and to cut 35 percent 
from that budget I believe is enough. To cut $100 million off of what 
last year was $282 million I believe is fair enough and more than, 
indeed, enough, more than a fair share for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. This is not an important program in most States, certainly 
not in mine. But in those States that comprise the heart of Appalachia, 
it is very important.
  And suffice it to say, we should be prepared to stay here for a long 
time if we do not table this amendment. I hope we do because I believe 
that they have done enough, that we have done enough to cut the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
  So, Mr. President, I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I state to the Senate, at the 
request of the Republican leader, even though some other issues may be 
concluded and votes may be asked for, we are going to try to stack 
votes now until 8:30. So everybody should know that. We will try to do 
that after this vote, I say to my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the tabling motion of the 
Senator from Louisiana.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     
[[Page S11092]]


                                NAYS--38

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Exon
     Gramm
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2058) was agreed 
to.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Harkin wants to speak a moment, 
and then we will have a colloquy with reference to a program he is very 
interested in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman for agreeing to a 
little colloquy. Before we do that, I would like to spend a few moments 
talking about an issue dealing with energy that I care very deeply 
about and which in one form has passed the other body with an 
overwhelming vote, and that is the issue of hydrogen energy.
  Madam President, I would like you to imagine a future energy scenario 
based on a totally sustainable energy system. Imagine a car that runs 
so clean that you could drink the effluent from the tailpipe because 
the only output from this car would be pure, clean water. Imagine a 
small electrical power plant sitting next to all major buildings, 
factories, shopping centers, apartment houses quietly, very quietly, 
producing electrical power and heat or air-conditioning, with over 
twice the efficiency of current power plants, but with absolutely no 
pollution.
  I know it sounds incredible. But it is possible and it is possible 
today using hydrogen and fuel cells.
  Hydrogen is the ideal environmental fuel. Burning hydrogen produces 
no acid rain, no greenhouse gas emission, no smog, no ozone-depleting 
chemicals and no radioactive waste.
  And if the hydrogen is made from renewable energy, that is solar, 
wind or biomass, then there is absolutely no pollution, no greenhouse 
gases, and no resource depletion, a totally sustainable energy system. 
One key to the renewable hydrogen future is the fuel cell. A fuel cell 
is an electrochemical device with no moving parts, much like a car 
battery. A fuel cell produces electricity when supplied with hydrogen 
and oxygen and when the hydrogen and oxygen combine, then the output 
is, of course, H2O, pure water. Now, we have experience with fuel 
cells because they provide the electrical power for our astronauts on 
the space shuttle. Plus it also produces pure, clean water.
  So hydrogen is the latest breakthrough. Unlike electricity which it 
complements, hydrogen can be stored and piped long distance with no 
energy loss. So we think of hydrogen not so much as a source of energy, 
but as a transmittal of energy. It is the carrier we can use.
  One of the problems with solar energy is, of course, it is OK when 
the Sun is shining but it is not too good when it is cloudy or raining 
or it is nighttime. The same is true of wind. Wind energy is fine, but 
it is not too good when the wind is not blowing. And so we can use 
those forms of energy to electrolyze water. And this is the perfect 
cycle. You use biomass or you use wind or you use solar or you use 
hydropower, for example. To make electrolyzed water, you get the 
hydrogen and oxygen, and you then take that hydrogen and you combine it 
back with oxygen in fuel cells. You get the electricity. You get heat 
also that can be used also for air-conditioning. And then what you get 
is water. So you start with water and you end with water. And it is a 
perfectly pure fuel cycle.
  Hydrogen is not just a pipedream. It is already being used. These 
fuel cells that use hydrogen can efficiently convert the hydrogen back 
to electricity. In fact, buses right now are running on hydrogen-fed 
fuel cells in Vancouver and other cities. These buses have the pickup 
and the range of fossil fueled buses. But there is no pollution, and 
they are as energy efficient.
  Furthermore, there is no reason why the hydrogen buses should not 
eventually cost any more than any other bus. And I believe this will be 
true for automobiles also. But much more work needs to be done to bring 
hydrogen energy to the point where it can be used on a wide-scale 
basis.
  A recent House measure just passed the other body that was sponsored 
by Congressman Bob Walker from Pennsylvania, who chairs the Science and 
Technology Committee in the House. I have worked with Congressman 
Walker often in the past. I served on the committee with him when I was 
a Member of the House. And I know of his long and deep commitment to 
getting funds in for hydrogen energy research. And it comes out of his 
long study, as I said, of science and of technology. As I said, he is 
now the chair of that committee in the House. The bill that he 
introduced, I have introduced with bipartisan sponsorship here in the 
Senate. It is now introduced. It has, as I said, sponsors from both 
sides of the aisle.
  It calls for a $25 million authorization next year for hydrogen 
energy research. I might point out that the House has already passed 
that bill and the Appropriations Committee in the House added money to 
this line to bring the total amount for hydrogen research to $15 
million.
  I am quite well aware that the administration only asked for $7.5 
million. The Jeffords amendment, which was adopted earlier, provided, 
if I am not mistaken, another $1.5 million. That brings it up to $9 
million total. That is still less than what we spent last year.
  So for a very promising energy resource, for one that holds a great 
deal of promise for cutting down on pollution and for providing a clean 
renewable source of energy, both for electricity for buildings, for 
stationary uses, but also for use in transportation, this is the wrong 
way to go in cutting down the research.
  As I said, the House upped it to $15 million. I had offered the 
amendment in the full Committee on Appropriations to bring that up to 
$15 million. I must admit, I lost on an 11-to-10 vote. I think if all 
the people had been there, maybe I would have won. I do not know. Not 
everybody was there. It was a very close vote. It was 11 to 10, and it 
was bipartisan. There were people on the Republican side and people on 
the Democratic side both voting for and against it. So it was a very 
close vote.
  I do not want to take a great deal of time of the Senate. I know 
everybody wants to get out of here this evening. I have spoken with the 
chairman about this. I am hopeful that when the committee goes to 
conference, they will look kindly upon the mark that the House put in. 
I want to assure the chairman that he will have my support. I can 
assure him of the support of the people who are cosponsors of the bill 
and I, again, would like to ask the chairman what his intentions might 
be when they go to conference on this one item of hydrogen research.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, Senator Harkin's request has been 
partially granted by the Jeffords amendment which added $1.5 million to 
this program as part of his larger amendment regarding solar energy and 
other things.
  I want to make it clear to Senator Harkin that since the House has a 
higher number--I think they have $15 million; we are going in with $9 
million--we will do our very best to work with them so we do not return 
with anything less than $12 million, and that is what the Senator 
originally asked for. We will be there, or higher than that, when we 
come out of conference.
  I urge that the Senator consider that as a great victory. He has my 
word, and 
 
[[Page S11093]]

certainly he is going to come out of it fairly well.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, when the Senator from New Mexico gives 
me his word, I take it to the bank. I appreciate his consideration of 
this. He has been a strong supporter of research in new energy. I 
compliment him for that.
  This is another one of the elements, I think, that helps us to 
provide the energy we are going to need in the future.
  I thank the chairman for his consideration of this. I will give him 
whatever support I can in getting this item up in conference. I thank 
the chairman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am reviewing the list with the 
ranking member. I will tell the Senate we are, believe it or not, 
perilously close to having this bill done. As a matter of fact, I ask 
if Senator Wellstone's and Senator Grams' offices would contact me. I 
think it is the Wellstone amendment with reference to water reservoirs. 
It is the only one still pending that needs to be discussed. So if we 
can get some word on that. And then we have the managers' amendment 
cleaning up the bill and agreeing to a number of amendments that have 
been presented that we both agree on. Obviously, they are going to be 
in order, and we are going to adopt them. I say to Senator Wellstone, 
Mr. President, that we need to know what his intentions are.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want my colleagues to know I am 
ready to go forward with a discussion on this amendment. The Senator 
from New Mexico is waiting for my colleague from Minnesota. The reason 
for this delay is we are waiting for my colleague from Minnesota, and I 
am reluctant to go forward. I think we will be ready to go in a few 
moments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Vitiating Adoption of Committee Amendment on Page 12, Beginning on Line 
                                   17

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I have a group of cleared amendments 
now.
  I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the action of the Senate adopting 
the committee amendment on page 12, beginning on line 17 through line 
18 on page 13, striking House text regarding Manistique Harbor, MI. The 
adoption of this request will restore the House language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased that the managers of the 
energy and water development appropriations have agreed to keep the 
House language regarding a federally designated harbor of refuge in 
Michigan. The provision will allow the implementation of a U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency administrative order addressing 
contaminated sediments in Manistique River and Harbor.
  In early July, immediately after the House's favorable action on the 
Stupak amendment, I requested that an identical provision be included 
in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on energy and water 
development bill for fiscal year 1996. I understand that the 
Environment Committee has no objection to the substance of the language 
in question, particularly since it does not affect policy or require 
Federal funds.
  I appreciate the cooperation of the managers and the Environment 
Committee. There are special time constraints at work in the Manistique 
case. The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the local community, and 
the interested parties, would like to begin implementation of the 
remediation action this summer to prevent further contaminants from 
entering Lake Michigan. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
EPA Region V Administrator be included in the Record, following my 
statement.
  As some of my colleagues may know, winter comes early to the Upper 
Peninsula. Therefore, it is urgent that action occur during our limited 
construction season. If H.R. 1905 should become bogged down for some 
unlikely reason in the conference process or on the floor, I hope my 
colleagues will bear with me as I seek to move this language on another 
vehicle or as an individual bill. This is not a controversial matter. 
We should move it quickly.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I understand that the House has included 
language in its report accompanying the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill which would have an impact on the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA). I am very concerned that an 
appropriations bill would be used for this purpose and I urge my 
colleagues who will be conferees on this bill to reject these attacks 
on the CVPIA.
  The House report attempts to delay a study of the San Joaquin river 
that was established in law through the CVPIA. As the author of that 
act, I am surprised by the action of the House. The study is 
specifically ordered in the 1992 Act and, in fact, has a statutory 
deadline for action by the Secretary. Clearly, this statute is 
unaffected by any Committee Report language and the law remains binding 
on the Secretary.
  The House also includes report language which bears on the repayment 
for the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program.
  I understand that there is no Senate report or legislative language 
concerning repayment responsibilities for the Kesterson Reservoir 
Cleanup Program and the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I also understand that the taxpayers have spent tens of 
millions of dollars for the cleanup of the Kesterson Reservoir which 
was built to collect the drainage water from farms in the Bureau of 
Reclamations' San Louis Unit within the Central Valley project.
  The Kesterson facility is so contaminated with selenium and other 
chemicals that it was closed on March of 1985 by the Department of 
Interior. Many migratory birds using Kesterson Ponds were killed in 
violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty and Congress has appropriated 
tens of millions of dollars to clean up Kesterson.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BRADLEY. It is my further understanding that absent legislative 
language, the repayment for Kesterson cleanup is reimbursable and the 
Secretary of Interior is obligated by law to collect reimbursable 
costs.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Now is not the time to be spending additional taxpayer 
funds on cleanup which should be paid by water contractors whose 
drainage caused such problems at Kesterson.
  With regard to the San Joaquin River comprehensive plan, I understand 
that the House committee report recommends that $1 million be moved out 
of the San Joaquin River Basin initiative and into the Shasta 
temperature control device. This would have a devastating effect on the 
San Joaquin River comprehensive plan, a study required under the 1992 
statute which is due for completion next year. Is there language on 
these funds in the Senate bill or report?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. No.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senator for these clarifications. Nothing in 
the CVPIA required Friant water users to give up any water. The San 
Joaquin comprehensive plan is only a study.
                    Amendments No. 2059 through 2065

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I send a group of amendments to the 
desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and 
agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. President, these amendments are as follows: An amendment by 
Senator Bingaman to reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities; an 
amendment by Senators Bradley and Lautenberg, within available funds, 
to provide for the use of funds for the Tokamak fusion test reactor; an 
amendment by Senator Daschle, within available 

[[Page S11094]]
funds, to provide $300,000 to complete a feasibility study of 
alternatives for meeting the drinking water needs on the Cheyenne River 
Sioux Reservation under the Bureau of Reclamation; an amendment by 
Senator Baucus to provide $2 million, within available funds, for 
Indian energy resource projects, for Crow Indian projects; an amendment 
by Senator Byrd respecting Petersburg, WV, revising a cost ceiling on 
an authorized Corps of Engineers project; an amendment by Senator 
Feingold to provide spending limitations on the TVA Environmental 
Research Center; an amendment by Senators Boxer and Baucus with respect 
to reporting requirements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], proposes 
     amendments No. 2059 through 2065.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  So the amendments (No. 2059 through 2065) were agreed to, en bloc, as 
follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--The head of each 
     agency for which funds are made available under this Act 
     shall take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency.
       (b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 1997, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.

       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the head 
     of each agency described in subsection (a) shall submit a 
     report to Congress specifying the results of the actions 
     taken under subsection (a) and providing any recommendations 
     as to how to further reduce energy costs and energy 
     consumption in the future.
       (2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved; and
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, when it comes to controlling 
Government spending, nothing stands out in my mind more than the 
billion dollars that the Federal agencies toss out the window every 
year in energy waste.
  The Federal Government is our Nation's largest energy waster. This 
year agencies will spend almost $4 billion to heat, cool and power 
their 500,000 buildings.
  Both the Office of Technology Assessment and the Alliance to Save 
Energy, a nonprofit group that I chair with Senator Jeffords, have 
estimated that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually.
  To achieve these savings, agencies just need to buy the same energy 
saving technologies--insulation, building controls, and energy 
efficient lighting, heating and air conditioning--that have been 
installed in many private sector offices and homes.
  Why, because there are now businesses, known as energy service 
companies, that stand ready to upgrade Federal facilities at no up-
front cost to the Government--That's right, at no up-front cost to the 
Federal Government.
  These companies offer what are called energy saving performance 
contracts which provide private sector expertise to assess what energy 
saving technologies are most cost effective, provide nongovernmental 
financing to make the improvements, install and maintain the equipment 
and guarantee the energy savings will be achieved.
  Agencies pay for the service over time using the energy costs they 
have saved--if they do not see the saving they do not pay for the 
service--its that simple, that is the guarantee.
  This type of contract is used every day in the private sector and 
State and local government facilities. For instance, Honeywell Corp. 
has entered into these energy saving arrangements with over 1,000 local 
school districts nationwide, allowing schools to reinvest $800 million 
in savings in critical education resources rather than continuing to 
pay for energy waste.
  Unfortunately, even though Congress first authorized Federal agencies 
to take advantage of this innovative business approach in 1986 agencies 
have been dragging their heals.
  To help get things moving, the Department of Energy recently prepared 
streamlined procedures to encourage their use.
  Now is the time for Congress to put the agencies feet to the fire on 
financial reform of Government energy waste. Agencies should enter into 
these partnerships with the private sector.
  That is why, today I am proposing an amendment calling for each 
Federal agency covered by this bill, to reduce Government energy costs 
by 5 percent in 1996. I am also asking that agencies report back to us 
by the end of 1996 to ensure that they have actually taken action to 
reduce their energy costs.
  You know, we are often called upon up here to make really hard 
controversial decisions that please some and anger others. This is a 
winner for everyone. If 1,000 local school boards have examined it and 
are reaping the savings, I say its time we got our Nation's biggest 
energy waster on track, too.
  With this one, simple reform, we will create thousands of job and 
business opportunities in every one of our States, improve the 
environment by reducing air pollution and save ourselves hundreds of 
million of dollars every year, at no up-front cost to taxpayers. As my 
kid would say, ``Dad, its a no brainer''.
                           amendment no. 2060

 (Purpose: To provide for the use of funds for the Tokamak Fusion Test 
                                Reactor)

       On page 20, lines 22 and 23, after ``expended'' insert ``, 
     of which amount within available funds $56,000,000 may be 
     available to continue operation of the Tokamak Fusion Test 
     Reactor (for which purpose, the Secretary may use savings 
     from reducing general administrative expenses in accordance 
     with the Department of Energy's strategic alignment and 
     downsizing effort, but none of the savings used for this 
     purpose shall come from programmatic accounts within this 
     title)''.

  Madam President, I rise in support of the pending amendment. This 
amendment is a smart one because it makes use of existing Department of 
Energy resources. It is also a no-cost amendment. It does not increase 
any account in this bill. And it does not take one cent from any other 
Department of Energy research program.
  Last year's conference report on the energy and water bill contained 
language calling for an expert commission to report to Congress on what 
the future of the fusion program should be. This report was done by the 
President's Committee on Advisors on Science and Technology or more 
commonly known as PCAST.
  This report was written by energy research experts within Government, 
the private sector, universities, and the national laboratories.
  The PCAST report anticipated that the fusion program would have to 
live with fewer resources in the next few years. Despite the dwindling 
resources envisioned by the PCAST, they strongly recommended that the 
existing Tokamak fusion test reactor [TFTR] at Princeton University 
operate for another 3 years.
  And the statement of administration policy accompanying this bill 
reiterates support for the PCAST report in general and TFTR 
specifically.
  However, the current language in the energy and water bill is 
ambiguous about the TFTR machine. Therefore, this amendment seeks to 
clarify that the Secretary of Energy will have the authority to keep 
TFTR effectively operating for another 3 years. And it accomplishes 
exactly what the PCAST report called for with regard to TFTR.
  Madam President, the fusion program has been a success for this 
country. The TFTR machine at Princeton University has broken world 
records of fusion power in the last 2 years. Furthermore, the TFTR at 
Princeton is the only machine in the world that uses deuterium-tritium 
fuel, which is the type of fuel that might one day be used in a 
commercial fusion machine.
  Madam President, at this time I would like to tell my colleagues 
about some of the potential advantages to developing fusion energy. 
Fusion energy 

[[Page S11095]]
holds the promise of an abundant, clean burning, inexpensive energy 
alternative for the next century.
  The byproducts of fusion energy are thousands of times less dangerous 
than fission. The byproducts also cannot be converted into nuclear 
weapons. Finally, fusion energy has no chemical combustion products and 
therefore, would not contribute to acid rain or global warming.
  It is clear that fusion energy is an environmentally sound energy 
source worth the investment of Federal resources.
  Despite all of the promise and success of the fusion program in the 
last 2 years, its budget has been cut deeply this year. It has been cut 
by 40 percent which is much more than other energy research programs. 
For example:
  Nuclear energy was only cut by 6 percent.
  Biological and environmental research was only cut by 4 percent.
  General sciences was only cut by 1 percent.
  Nuclear physics was only cut 8 percent.
  And some part of the energy research budget actually received 
increases in this bill:
  High energy physics received a 2-percent increase; and
  Basic energy science got a 6-percent increase.
  Madam President, I understand that some of the cuts in the fusion 
program and in other programs in this bill are necessary. The 
allocation for this bill is less than it was last year. The managers of 
this bill have had to make some tough decisions and I commend them for 
their hard work in putting this bill together.
  However, I believe that adopting this amendment will improve this 
bill while not increasing its tight allocation.
  This amendment simply allows the Secretary of Energy the flexibility 
to operate the TFTR machine to complete all the ongoing experiments at 
Princeton. The Federal Government has already invested over $1 billion 
in the fusion facility at Princeton. It would be shortsighted to stop 
these continuing research activities at Princeton, especially since the 
machine will be ending its operations in 3 years.
  This amendment does not cut the core fusion program or the 
international fusion activities funded in this bill. Nor does it cut 
any other energy research activities funded in this bill. It simply 
allows the fusion research on the TFTR machine at Princeton to 
continue.
  Madam President, in 3 years the fusion program will be at a turning 
point. At that time, we must decide whether or not we will make the 
long-term investment in developing fusion energy. We may or may not 
have the resources at that time to go forward. But we should move the 
fusion program forward until that day comes. We should make the best 
use of the facilities and human resources that we have invested so much 
into over the years.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this no-cost 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, today Senator Lautenberg and I are 
offering an amendment to insure the continuation of the tokamak fusion 
test reactor, or TFTR, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 
Without increasing any account in the bill or cutting any other 
Department of Energy research program, the amendment insures that the 
TFTR and its valuable research will proceed for another year.
  I agree that we need to make significant appropriations cuts, 
however, we should not forget that some cuts hurt more than others. 
Shutting down a major research lab like TFTR is doubly damaging. First, 
we lost the important research it might have provided into cleaner, 
safer sources of nuclear power. But even worse, we make it that much 
harder to restart research when times get better financially but 
scientists have moved on to other, more secure, fields of study.
  The Princeton lab is the world leader in fusion research and the only 
tokamak in the world using deuterium-tritium fuel, the most likely fuel 
for a future commercial fusion reactor. In December 1993, when this 
fuel was first injected into the machine, the TFTR began setting world 
fusion power records. Over the next few years, researchers plan to 
double the production of fusion power at TFTR. And as reported last 
week in Science magazine, Princeton scientists have made a recent 
breakthrough in fusion research which has great promise for removing 
some of the biggest obstacles to power production.
  TFTR was authorized by Congress in 1976 and began operations in 1982 
at a time when fusion machines could produce only a 10th of a watt of 
fusion power. The device has now produced more than 10 million watts of 
fusion power--an increase of more than 100 million times. TFTR has 
achieved or surpassed its initial design objectives and has higher 
performance standards and capabilities than any other existing device.
  When power generation options for the next century and beyond are 
severely limited, we cannot afford to waste precious resources by 
abandoning important research work like the TFTR.
                           amendment no. 2061

    (Purpose: To ensure the completion of the feasibility study of 
alternatives for meeting the drinking water needs on the Cheyenne River 
             Sioux Reservation and surrounding communities)

       On page 15, line 17, add: ``Provided further, That within 
     available funds, $300,000 is for the completion of the 
     feasibility study of alternatives for meeting the drinking 
     water needs on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and 
     surrounding communities.''


                           amendment no. 2062

  (Purpose: To provide that funds shall be made available to the Crow 
  tribe for energy resources programs under title XXVI of the Energy 
                          Policy Act of 1992)

       On page 20, lines 22 and 23, after ``expended'' insert 
     ``Provided further, That within the amount for Indian Energy 
     Resource projects, $2,000,000 may be made available to fund 
     the Crow energy resources programs under title XXVI of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)''.


                           amendment no. 2063

       At the appropriate place in the bill (suggest page 12, 
     after line 16) insert the following:
       Sec. . The project for flood control for Petersburg, West 
     Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(26) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640, 104 Stat. 
     4611) is modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
     construct the project at a total cost not to exceed 
     $26,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of 
     $19,195,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of 
     $7,405,000.
                           amendment no. 2064

     (Purpose: To limit funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority 
                     Environmental Research Center)

       On page 38, lines 1 and 2, after ``$110,339,000, to remain 
     available until expended'' and insert ``Of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not more than $25,000,000 
     may be expended for the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     Environmental Research Center in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in 
     the event that the Center expends less than $25 million, such 
     amount not expended shall be returned to the U.S. Treasury 
     and the Tennessee Valley Authority appropriation reduced 
     accordingly and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall take 
     steps to obtain funding from other sources so as to reduce 
     appropriated funding in the future and, not later than 
     January 1, 1996, submit to Congress a preliminary plan 
     securing funding from other sources.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the manager's amendment includes an 
amendment relating to funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority which 
I authored. I appreciate the willingness of Members concerned with the 
issue to work out an acceptable amendment. This amendment is simple, 
and structured in such a way to gain acceptance from the Senate, 
including those from the Tennessee Valley Region. It limits and targets 
funds for the Tennessee Valley Authority and moves TVA forward on a 
path of becoming less reliant upon appropriated funds.
  This amendment directs that no more than $25 million of the funds 
appropriated for TVA may be spent for TVA's Environmental Research 
Center in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The House Energy and Water bill 
zeroes out funding for the Research Center. The Senate Report explains 
that the Committee restores funding for the Center, but proposes to 
reduce the Center's funds by 22 percent, from its current 
appropriations of $32 million to $25 million. My amendment would 
explicitly codify the Senate Report language and cap the amount that 
the Research Center could receive at $25 million. It provides that if 
less than $25 million is expended on the Center, the amount shall be 
returned to the Treasury and the TVA 

[[Page S11096]]
appropriation reduced accordingly.
 Senate Committee Report recommendations relative to transitioning the 
Environmental Research Center to dependence upon funds other than 
appropriated funds for the conduct of its research program. I was 
pleased to see that the Committee made such a recommendation, and I am 
moving forward with this amendment to ensure that the TVA receives 
explicit legislative direction to achieve such a transition.

  Finally, my amendment adds a new requirement for the Environmental 
Research Center. Consistent with the mandate to reduce dependence upon 
appropriated funds, the amendment directs TVA to report to Congress a 
plan for achieving a transition away from appropriated funds at the 
Environmental Research Center. That report should serve as a baseline 
for next year's fiscal year 1997 appropriations process and I am 
hopeful that the recommendations will clarify the source and type of 
funds that support the Environmental Research Center's program, and 
help TVA to plan for reductions in appropriated funds.
  Madam President, I recently met with the Director of the TVA 
Environmental Research Center. Ongoing work in poultry litter 
utilization, ozone mitigation, and agricultural pollution prevention 
all are important areas of investigation--and all affect my home State 
of Wisconsin. After my meeting, I did feel that the work in which the 
Center is engaged is valuable, but it raised two issues to me. First, I 
question, given the character of the Center's work, whether this work 
needs to be done within the regional context, especially if it has 
national implications. Second, was the question of whether the Center 
has a proper institutional fit within TVA. Certainly, this Center, 
given its capable staff, has the ability to attract and complete 
research projects that are reimbursable.
  Madam President, I understand the role that TVA has played in our 
history. I also know that we face an uncertain budget future. I believe 
that TVA discretionary funds should be on the table, and that the 
fiscal year 1996 funds should be structured and targeted to achieve 
further reductions in the future. I believe my amendment is a 
reasonable approach to address these concerns, and makes a logical 
compromise between the House and Senate approaches. I believe that the 
overall House level of funding for TVA, which amounts to a 25-percent 
cut in the TVA budget is appropriate in these tight budget times and I 
hope the conferees will accept that figure. However, I believe in 
making that cut, we should seek to direct an appropriate transition to 
non-federal funds.
  The amendment caps the Center's funds at $25 million, making the 
Senate Committee report suggestions hard numbers by codifying them. I 
believe that this is an amendment that can be supported by Senators 
interested in reducing federal spending, including those within the TVA 
area.
  Madam President, this amendment seeks to move TVA and its various 
projects closer toward reduced dependence on federal funding. In this 
time of severe pressure on the federal budget and the need to reduce 
the federal deficit, it is essential that some programs, like TVA, 
which have served an important purpose in the past, begin to transition 
away from reliance on federal funding. This transition should be done 
in a careful, planned manner, but the process toward transition off of 
reliance on federal funding must begin now. This amendment takes us a 
step further in that direction and I appreciate the support of the 
manager and interested Senators in reaching an agreement in the 
language of my amendment.
                  tva's environmental research center

  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
reject any amendments that would reduce or eliminate funding for the 
Tennessee Valley Authority's Environmental Research Center.
  TVA's Environmental Research Center was once the Nation's most 
effective laboratory for developing new fertilizer and nutrient 
technologies that fueled the legendary gains in food and fiber 
production in the United States and around the world. Because of this 
work, TVA is largely responsible for the tremendous success of U.S. 
agriculture.
  During the decades TVA conducted its fertilizer and agricultural 
research programs, it built a strong base of expertise in chemistry, 
chemical engineering, process engineering, agronomy, and other related 
agricultural and nutritional sciences. Now TVA is capitalizing on this 
expertise in developing technologies to solve environmental waste 
problems in the Tennessee Valley as well as across the Nation.
  Today, TVA's Environmental Research Center is on the threshold of 
discovering new ways to prevent or reduce pollution of the air, land, 
and water from agricultural, municipal, and industrial operations. For 
our Nation to achieve agricultural and economic sustainability, we must 
have innovative technologies to operate our farms, factories, 
utilities, and cities in environmentally acceptable ways.
  The research and development underway at the Environmental Research 
Center will help us avoid a crisis in disposing our agriculture, 
municipal, and industrial wastes. In fact, some of the Environmental 
Research Center's technologies are already in use throughout the 
country in cleaning up contaminated sites, reducing pollution from 
agricultural, and converting wastes into value-added products.
  Let me cite a few examples of the impact that the Center's 
environmental and waste conversion work is already having across the 
country. These will serve as examples of the potential the Center has 
to fulfill the Nation's substantial environmental technology needs in 
the future:


                  Pollution Prevention in Agriculture

  The Environmental Research Center's scientists have already developed 
pollution prevention technologies that are being used across the 
country. The Center is providing technical assistance in 70 
agrichemical demonstration projects in 27 States.
  It is a tribute to the Environmental Research Center's work that 15 
of the Center's demonstrators have won State and regional awards for 
excellence in environmental stewardship.
  A spinoff of the pollution prevention demonstration work with 
agricultural chemical suppliers is the impact that these retailers are 
having on farmers. The Center's demonstration sites are providing agri-
dealers with information that they are using in promoting environmental 
stewardship with their farmer customers. These retailers are providing 
environmental services to their customers--services which will go a 
long way in helping solve the Nation's nonpoint source pollution 
problem.


                        Animal Waste Management

  The technologies developed at the Environmental Research Center offer 
practical solutions to help manage the Nation's animal waste problems. 
The Center conducts 37 animal waste management projects in 10 States 
including high-tech composting for poultry wastes and poultry by-
products. Research at the Center's constructed wetlands complex also 
contributes to solving severe pollution problems associated with the 
poultry and livestock industries. The animal and meat production
 industries are rapidly growing throughout the Nation to keep up with 
consumer demands. More than 20 States list poultry and poultry products 
as one of their top four agricultural income generators. But the 
downside of this $30 billion dollar a year industry is the tremendous 
volume of poultry litter and other wastes that must be disposed of or 
used in the environmentally acceptable way. The poultry waste issue is 
a serious problem for farmers and for the environment. The Center has 
research underway to develop technologies to convert poultry litter and 
other wastes into usable products.

  The Center's compost research and development facility will 
demonstrate innovative ways to use composting of poultry litter as an 
industrial process. The process will generate products with 
controllable properties and designated uses.
  The Center's researchers are making progress in investigating the use 
of nutrient-enhanced broiler litter as an organic-based plant food for 
turf. And poultry waste by-products are being evaluated as a feed 
source for ruminant animals and as a substitute in potting mixes for 
horticultural plants. Poultry litter also has potential for production 
of methane. The Center is exploring 

[[Page S11097]]
the commercial opportunities in this area.
  Some cutting-edge research underway at the Center is determining the 
potential of mixing poultry litter with heat-loving microorganisms to 
remediate PCB contaminated soils. This development can benefit many 
regions of the country where cost-effective technologies are needed to 
clean up contaminated soils.
  The Center has joined forces with USDA, EPA, and the poultry industry 
to establish a poultry water quality consortium. Together, these public 
and private organizations are promoting innovative ways to manage and 
convert poultry wastes to assure that surface and groundwater quality 
are protected.
  It is essential that this work continue. The Center has the expertise 
and research facilities to speed the development of needed technologies 
for animal waste management practices throughout the country.
                       Environmental Technologies

  There is a national concern over reducing ozone concentrations in 
urban as well as rural areas of the country. America has spent billions 
of dollars on emissions reductions during the past decade. But we still 
have serious problems. Ninety-six urban areas affecting 63 million 
people were identified in 1990 as having ground-level ozone problems. 
Ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, but at ground level it causes 
respiratory problems, reduces agricultural crop production, and hinders 
business growth.
  The southeastern United States is especially susceptible to ozone 
exposure because of the region's warm temperatures, abundant sunshine, 
and high frequency of air stagnation, in addition, to the large 
percentage of forest land.
  To address this concern, the Center helped establish the southern 
oxidants study, a unique partnership of Federal agencies (TVA, EPA, 
NOAA, the National Park Service, NASA, and DOE), universities, 
industry, and regulatory agencies. The research conducted by this group 
has significantly improved our understanding of the factors that 
control ozone formation. This public-private partnership is recognized 
as an excellent example of the efficient use of limited Federal 
resources. Research results from the southern oxidants study have 
significant application to many other parts of the country.
  The Center has developed a genetically-engineered microbe that feeds 
on PCBs. This is a low cost way to clean up
 PCB-contaminated soils and will save millions of dollars annually in 
cleanup costs. The Center's constructed wetlands research facility is 
showing how to use this technology for more effective and low-cost 
cleanup of industrial, municipal, and animal wastes.

  The Center is working on an economical way to filter and remove 
industrial air pollutants from manufacturing plant emissions. For 
example, the system is removing 99 percent of styrene, and industrial 
pollutant, from the emissions of a boat manufacturing facility.
  The Center is working with the Department of Defense to clean up 
hazardous waste sites on military bases. Many defense sites have 
hazardous materials containing elemental phosphorus. The Center has 
found a way to clean up this problem economically.
  Let me briefly highlight additional environmental technologies the 
Environmental Research Center is developing to benefit the Nation:
  The Center is developing methods to predict environmental impacts of 
agricultural practices on nonpoint source pollution on a watershed 
scale.
  The Center's scientists are seeking ways to use waste materials from 
fossil fuel-fired electricity producing plants in the United States. 
These fossil fueled plants today generate 120 million tons annually of 
coal combustion wastes. The Center is making progress in developing 
uses for these wastes, such as in soil amendments, plastics, paint 
fillers, and construction materials. These and other uses for such 
wastes will significantly reduce the amount of coal-combustion wastes 
going to landfills or other storage areas.
  The Center is conducting research to detect, track, and remediate 
wastes and contaminants. These include organics and toxic metals in 
waste water from industrial, power generation, and municipal 
operations; oily contaminants to surface water (ponds, streams, and 
rivers); organic and inorganic contaminants in soil and groundwater; 
and chemical emissions to the air.
  The Center's scientists project that 40 percent of the remediation an 
restoration needs of the Nation can be handled by bioremediation 
technologies. These technologies use living organisms to destroy 
pollutants such as PCBs; and, these bioremediation technologies are 
more cost-effective than many of today's cleanup methods. The Center's 
biotechnical research technologies will help reduce the Nation's cost 
for hazardous waste remediation and site restoration which is estimated 
to be $1.7 trillion over the next 30 years.
  Mr. President, and my colleagues in the Senate, TVA's Environmental 
Research Center is addressing many of the concerns of the Nation in the 
environmental and waste management areas. As this chart shows, the 
Center is involved directly in environmental and waste management 
projects in 41 States. And the technologies being developed have 
significance for all the States, and indeed, the whole world.
  It makes no sense to cut funding for this effective, problem-solving 
research laboratory. Our Nation is at a crossroads. We have the unique 
responsibility today to manage the fragile balance between sustainable 
economic development and environmental protection. The Welfare of our 
generation and future generations will be affected by what we do today 
and in the early years of the 21st century.
                           amendment no. 2065

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to submit the plan to 
    reduce the number of division offices within the Army Corps of 
   Engineers to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
 Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
                       House of Representatives)

       On page 9, line 24, insert ``(including the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives)'' after ``(Congress''.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have a series of amendments that I 
will offer, en bloc. I might state to the Senate that I think that the 
only thing left after this is accomplished is the disposition of the 
Wellstone amendment. I might say that Senator Wellstone is here 
waiting. Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota is on his way. He thought we 
had nothing going until 8:30 because that is what I had announced. But 
he will be here shortly, and we will discuss the Senator's amendment 
and see what we can work out, if anything, then.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. We can wait and 
see what we can work out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Hutchison has an amendment on Cooper Lake, 
Corps of Engineers; Senators Grams and Wellstone have an amendment on 
Marshall, MI, Corps of Engineers; Senator Warner has an amendment on 
Virginia Beach hurricane protection; Senator Brown has two amendments 
on Delaware Basin and Susquehanna River Basin Commissions; Senators 
Craig and Kempthorne have an amendment on Idaho Chemical Processing 
Plant at the Idaho Engineering Laboratory. They have a statement they 
wish to be included following this action. Senators Pressler and 
Daschle have an amendment on Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota, 
which has been cleared on both sides; Senators Dole and Kassebaum have 
an amendment on Arkansas City flood control project; Senator Hatfield 
has an amendment on Coos Bay.


                   Amendments Nos. 2066 through 2075

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send a group of amendments to the 
desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and 
agreed to, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2066 through 2075.


[[Page S11098]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 2066 through 2075) were agreed to, en bloc, as 
follows:
                           amendment no. 2066

  (Purpose: To provide for the donation of land to the Army Corps of 
   Engineers and the United States, the development of a recreation 
          center, and the designation of land for mitigation)

       On page 13 insert the following new section after line 23:
       Sec.   . (a) The Secretary of the Army is authorized to 
     accept from a non-Federal sponsor an amount of additional 
     lands not to exceed 300 acres which are contiguous to the 
     Cooper Lake and Channels Project, Texas, authorized by the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1965 and the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986, and which provide habitat value at 
     least equal to that provided by the lands authorized to be 
     redesignated in subsection (b).
       (b) Upon the completion of subsection (a), the Secretary is 
     further authorized to redesignate an amount of mitigation 
     land not to exceed 300 acres to recreation purposes.
       (c) The cost of all work to be undertaken pursuant to this 
     section, including but not limited to real estate appraisals, 
     cultural and environmental surveys, and all development 
     necessary to avoid net mitigation losses, to the extent such 
     actions are required, shall be borne by the donating sponsor.


                           amendment no. 2067

       On page 6, after line 11, add: ``; For Marshall, Minnesota, 
     $850,000;''.


                           amendment no. 2068

       On page 6, between line 11 and line 12 insert the 
     following: ``Virginia Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane 
     Protection, Virginia, $1,100,000;''.


                           amendment no. 2069

   (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for the Delaware River Basin 
                              Commission)

       On page 33, strike line 5 and insert the following: 
     Commission, as authorized by law (75 Stat. 716), $440,000, 
     Provided: that the U.S. Commissioner (Alternate Federal 
     Member) shall not be compensated at a level higher than 
     General Schedule level 15.
                           amendment no. 2070

  (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for the Susquehanna River Basin 
                              Commission)

       On page 37, strike line 14 and insert the following: 
     $280,000, Provided: that the U.S. Commissioner (Alternate 
     Federal Member) shall not be compensated at a level higher 
     than General Schedule level 15.
                           amendment no. 2071

       Page 26, line 16, insert the following before the period: 
     ``: Provided, that within available funds, $4,952,000 is 
     provided for electrical and utility systems upgrade, Idaho 
     Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National Engineering 
     Laboratory, project number 96-D-463''.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I want to thank the bill managers for 
agreeing to my and Senator Kempthorne's amendment that provides $4.9 
million for safety upgrades to the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. I 
strongly support this proposal, the electrical and utility systems 
upgrade [EUSU] project, that will upgrade the Idaho Chemical Processing 
Plant utility systems.
  This project will correct high risk environmental, health and life 
safety deficiencies at the plant. As the Department of Energy has 
stated in their field budget request, ``Correction of these 
deficiencies will reduce health and safety risks and provide safe and 
reliable utilities to support the ICPP mission.'' These facilities are 
outdated, overloaded and not in compliance with State regulations, DOE 
orders or national codes and standards. This project includes upgrades 
to normal and standby power electrical systems, sanitary sewer systems 
and water systems.
  Madam President, there are spent nuclear fuels stored at the Idaho 
Chemical Processing Plant and it is essential they be stored safely. 
Madam President, this amendment will assure that goal is met.
  I thank the managers.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Craig 
in cosponsoring this amendment.
  Madam President, this amendment provides funding, as called for in 
the President's budget request, for electrical and utility upgrades at 
the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant at the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory. The funding, $4.9 million, would come from the $1.45 
billion provided for the nuclear materials and facilities stabilization 
program within the $5.9 billion provided for the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management account.
  This project was previously identified as a safety concern by the 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Idaho Chemical Processing Plant is 
one of the facilities at INEL that stores large volumes of highly 
radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
  According to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board report of 
October 12, 1994, ``The electrical systems at ICPP, including CPP-603, 
are outdated and overloaded, and are not in compliance with state 
regulations, DOE orders, National Electric Codes and Standards and IEEE 
Standards.'' This report also states that these problems ``present 
potential health and safety risks during continued operation and 
maintenance of these systems. Upgrades to these systems are required 
but have been delayed for many years.''
  Likewise, the fiscal year 1996 DOE budget submission states 
``Upgrades to the ICPP electrical and utility distribution system are 
essential to: First, provide safe operation of site facilities vital to 
the ICPP mission, second, provide a safe work place for employees, 
third, minimize risk of property damage as well as damage to the 
environment, and fourth, provide adequate capacity to support the DOE 
mission.''
  I am sure the chairman and ranking member understand the importance 
of this project and I regret that I did not bring this project to their 
attention sooner. I want to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Johnston 
for agreeing to accept this amendment.
  Finally, I want to thank Senators Domenici and Johnston for this 
overall level of funding for the DOE clean up program provided by this 
bill. As the managers of the bill know, this is a very important 
program to the States and communities that host DOE facilities. In 
light of our very difficult budgetary situation, I am pleased by the 
level of funding for defense environmental restoration and waste 
management provided by this bill.
  I want to once again thank the managers of the bill for their help 
and consideration.
                           amendment no. 2072

 (Purpose: To require the Army Corps of Engineers to take such actions 
 as are necessary to obtain and maintain a specified elevation in Lake 
                 Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . WATER LEVEL IN LAKE TRAVERSE, SOUTH DAKOTA AND 
                   MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), notwithstanding 
     any other law, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers and using 
     funds made available under this Act, shall, to the greater 
     extent practicable, take such actions as are necessary to 
     obtain and maintain an elevation of 977 feet above sea level 
     in Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota.
       (b) Limitation.--No action taken under subsection (a) shall 
     result in flooding at Mud Lake, South Dakota and Minnesota.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, today I and Senator Daschle are 
offering an amendment to correct a problem in South Dakota that has 
resulted in severe flooding along the shores of Lake Traverse over the 
last several years. Lake Traverse lies on the far northeast section of 
South Dakota and in parts of western Minnesota. In fact, the boundary 
line between South Dakota and Minnesota goes through the middle of the 
lake.
  Two out of the last three years, Lake Traverse has faced a major 
disaster due to high water levels. Shorelines were destroyed. Some 
small businesses lost money and proprietors were placed in financial 
jeopardy. Farmland was damaged and homes, cottages and other structures 
were damaged or destroyed. And if this is not enough, the environment 
and subsequent erosion wreaked havoc to the local land. Thousands of 
trees are under water and are dead or dying. Something must be done.
  According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Congressional approval 
is needed before they can take steps to correct the high water level 
and erosion problems. The Corps is managing the lake with arcane rules 
that are half a century old. That is unacceptable. My amendment would 
give the Corps the necessary authority to better manage water release 
at Lake Traverse and control erosion.
  The amendment would direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the 
needed authority to obtain and maintain an elevation of 977 feet above 
sea level at Lake Traverse. The amendment also assures that should the 
Corps take action, such action would not result in flooding at Mud 
Lake. 

[[Page S11099]]

  There is strong public support for this action. I have held two 
meetings in South Dakota on this issue. At both of these meetings over 
250 citizens were in attendance. Such turnout clearly indicates that 
South Dakotans believe something needs to be done. This amendment 
achieves their goal.
                           amendment no. 2073

        (Purpose: To provide funds for a flood control project)

       On page 5 insert the following between lines 16 and 17: 
     ``Arkansas City flood control project, Kansas, $700,000, 
     except that for the purposes of the project, section 902 of 
     Public Law 99-662 is waived;''.


                           amendment no. 2074

       On page 13, insert the following after line 23:
       Sec.   . Using funds appropriated herein the Secretary of 
     the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is 
     authorized to undertake the Coos Bay, Oregon project in 
     accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
     June 30, 1994, at a total cost of $14,541,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $10,777,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $3,764,000.


                           amendment no. 2075

 (Purpose: To require the Army Corps of Engineers to take such actions 
 as are necessary to obtain and maintain a specified elevation in Lake 
                 Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . WATER LEVEL IN LAKE TRAVERSE, SOUTH DAKOTA

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), notwithstanding 
     any other law, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers and using 
     funds made available under this Act, shall, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, take such actions as are necessary to 
     obtain and maintain an elevation of 977 feet above sea level 
     in Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota.
       (b) Limitation.--No action taken under subsection (a) shall 
     result in flooding at Mud Lake, South Dakota and Minnesota.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, we are down to one amendment on this bill. 
It seems to me that rather than call everyone back for one vote, if 
there is a vote on this, we could have that vote tomorrow morning. 
There is no request for a vote for final passage, as long as we have 
one on the conference report-- either one on the bill or one on the 
conference report.
  If that is satisfactory with the Senator from Minnesota, then I am 
willing to say--and the managers, of course--that there will be no more 
votes tonight, but we would have opening statements on DOD 
authorization yet tonight.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I think that is an excellent idea.
  I wonder if we could get unanimous consent to close out all other 
amendments other than the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I want to say to the majority leader 
that anything I can do to accommodate colleagues is fine with me. I am 
hopeful my colleague and I can work this out. It would be fine to have 
the vote tomorrow morning, if that is what we need.
  Mr. DOLE. If it is all right with the Democratic whip, who is on the 
floor, Senator Ford, I announce there are no more votes this evening. 
If there is a vote required on the Wellstone amendment, maybe 9 o'clock 
in the morning.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not, we might want to make sure, because I do not know what 
Senator Grams' desires are. He may want to amend the amendment. I think 
he ought to be permitted to do that.
  The only thing left is your amendment and the possible second-degree 
amendment to it, if any.
  Mr. DOLE. Whatever the disposition is----
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, would the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. I understand the Senator is trying to move this along and 
get Members out. Did we get a unanimous-consent agreement that Senator 
Wellstone's amendment would be the only remaining amendment, or a 
second-degree to that amendment, that has already been offered?
  Mr. DOLE. That was in the original list. We could make that request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There were no others allowed anyway, Madam President.
  Mr. FORD. I wanted to be sure. There will be amendments in the second 
degree.
  Mr. DOLE. I make that request, that the Wellstone amendment plus any 
second-degree amendments be the only amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the majority leader.
  One further question: Should the Wellstone amendment be worked out 
and no final passage vote requested, that we could finish this bill 
tonight, and there would not be any left for tomorrow, could that be 
understood?
  Mr. DOLE. That would be understood. Obviously, if we finish tonight 
without a vote, I am sure the managers would be happy to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Delighted.
  Mr. FORD. One, no more votes this evening; and two, probably no votes 
on this bill tomorrow. We will go to DOD authorization tonight with 
opening statements.
  Mr. DOLE. In the event there is a vote, we request it be put over 
until tomorrow. In the event we complete action without it, obviously 
that is desired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I just noticed on this list there are 
two Senators that I have not formally asked. I believe there will be no 
amendment, but we must check with Senator Burns right now and Senator 
Specter.
  We have nothing else pending. We have to wait for Senator Grams now.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Very briefly, I wanted to thank my colleagues, both 
Democrats and Republicans alike. The managers' amendment includes 
funding for a flood control project in Marshall, MN, which was flooded 
three times in 1993.
  This has been a project that for some time now, is very, very 
important to the people in Marshall. I know that the elected leadership 
of the people will be very, very grateful for the action that we have 
taken.
  I thank my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor. I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________