[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6772-H6794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 171 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1905.

                              {time}  1436


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1905) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Oxley in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this appropriation bill that is 
for water and energy development in our country is a bill that touches 
every congressional district in the country, and it was a difficult job 
this year, but, through the leadership of our fine staff and the other 
Members, we were able to accomplish very close to what I would consider 
to be a miracle. I do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. Tom and I came to Congress 29 years ago together, 
served on this committee for a great many years, he as chairman, and I 
was his ranking member, and he was always most courteous and 
considerate for the minority at that time, and that relationship has 
continued. Nothing goes in the bill unless we both agree, and we just 
do not have that--I will say not bipartisan, nonpartisan--everything 
that went into this bill was totally on the merits. Politics had 
nothing to do with it, and it was difficult this year. Many committees 
have experienced problems because we do have new staffs this year; we 
lost very experienced staff members last year; Hunter Spillan is gone, 
decided to retire this year, but Jim Ogsbury came in and filled those 
shoes with a few times that we had to take the racing stripes off, as 
they say in racing. But our staff, Jeanne Wilson, of course, great job; 
Bob, wherever Bob is here, and I guess he is here someplace, yes, Bob 
Schmidt--we had of course Judy, Judy Penry, came in to join us, and I 
do not see one of our staff members here, Lori Whipp. Lori is here 
someplace, but the great staff and our individual staffs who put the 
bill together this year----
  But this year's bill is $18,700,000,000. This is the smallest 
appropriation bill for energy and water development we have had for 6 
years. The important thing is that we are $1,600,000,000 below last 
year.
  Now to put that in the vernacular of talk show hosts who often talk 
about ignoring baseline budgeting, this bill is $1.6 billion below the 
baseline budget. I want to emphasize $1.6 billion below the baseline 
budget, making real significant cuts. It is $2 billion less than the 
President requested. But, breaking it down, we have $3,200,000,000 for 
the Corps of Engineers. We have a few new start projects this year, but 
we have held those down.
  We could not begin to respond to all the requests we had. But we did 
ignore the new proposal, the criteria for flood control that the 
administration recommended which was that to be eligible for flood 
control, historically the Corps of Engineers has provided flood control 
and preented floods as much as they could, but the administration 
proposed to be eligible a program, a project, would have to have more 
than 50 percent of the water falling in another State, a State 
different from where the flood treatment would be taken care of and 
reverse the local project sponsorship and payment from persently 75 
percent Federal to 25 percent local to just the reverse. Under their 
proposal, 25 percent Federal, and 75 percent local, made a great many 
of these projects just impossible to fund.
  In the second title, the Bureau of Reclamation, we have $813 million. 
This bill is $28 million less than last year, but it is $24 million 
more than the President requested, including the Central Utah Project 
where we are trying to expedite and get the project completed as soon 
as possible to reduce the cost.
  In the Department of Energy we have $14,800,000,000.
   Surprisingly, $10 billion of this is defense and defense-related 

[[Page H 6773]]


projects. A lot of people do not understand that nuclear weapons come 
through this subcommittee. The nuclear weapons and the naval reactors 
for naval ships come through our subcommittee. So in this $10 billion 
out of the $14 billion is for defense activities.
  One of the areas that we had some problems with this year is the 
nuclear waste disposal fund, which since 1982 utilities and utility 
users have been paying into a trust account to provide for a repository 
for the nuclear waste, high-level waste. In 1988-89 we started 
exploration of Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Up until this year they have 
been moving very slowly, but under the contract we had with the utility 
users in the country by 1998 we were to take the nuclear wastes away 
from the utilities and have it in permanent storage. It is obvious from 
this committee's hearings that that will not be possible, so we have 
decided this year we would back off, not back off from the 
consideration of Yucca Mountain, but we have to concentrate on finding 
a spot to take the nuclear waste; so, this year we have recommended 
$425 million, and that would include interim storage someplace so we 
can start meeting our contractual responsibility to taking the waste 
from some of the utilities. We now have 109 reactor sites in the 
country, and a number of those are already having dry storage, 
depositing their storage outside, which is dangerous, so we are 
thinking about and considering that we are going to have to find 
permanent storage, and we could not designate where that interim 
storage would be, but the authorizing committee will be talking about 
this later in our bill.
  In title IV; that is, independent agencies, we have two agencies that 
we have been making reductions, particularly the Appalachian Regional 
Commission where this year we provide for $142 million, which is a $41 
million reduction from last year or a 22-percent reduction. The 
Tennessee Valley Authority that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen] just spoke about earlier in the rule, we provide for $103 
million, which is $37 million from last year for reduction of 25 
percent below last year.
                              {time}  1445

  We did not fund the three River Basin Commissions. Historically, a 
number of years ago a number of States formed a compact over control of 
the rivers and recommendations for the operation of the rivers. The 
Delaware River, the Susquehanna River, and the Potomac River were three 
of those projects that no one came before our committee to testify for 
requests for money, so we did not put the money in. The compacts 
continue, but they serve the States a lot more than they do the Federal 
Government, so we took the money out for this.
  We have had a number of repeals of legislation this year. We have 
three repeals in legislation. In the previous years, we prohibited any 
studies for privatizing the Power Marketing Administrations, the five 
of them. We refused to permit any study about privatization. We 
eliminated this restriction.
  There has been a prohibition on study of optional rates and 
employment for the power administrations. We eliminated this. The 
privatization of hydropower and the rate fixing for those, we 
eliminated this prohibition. So we allow now reconsideration of rate 
making, and also other rate making prohibitions we had in previous 
years.
  In closing my remarks, this is not the ideal bill that any of us 
would have written if we had had the sole responsibility for the 602(b) 
allocations, which is the allocation of how much money can be spent. If 
we had been operating as in the previous years where money was not an 
object, we, of course, would have taken a lot more into consideration 
for some projects that many of you requested.
  But this bill touches every congressional district. As an example, in 
the Corps of Engineers, in general investigations, we touched this year 
41 States. There are going to be investigations in 41 States. In 
construction, we have construction going in 38 States, plus Puerto 
Rico. In operation and maintenance, operating the locks and dams, the 
25,000 miles of inland waterways we have in the United States, it 
touches 48 States, plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
  So this is truly a bill that, when the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] and I came to Congress a good many years ago, was called the 
all-American bill. This year, again, it is the all-American bill. It is 
an austere bill, one that meets the minimum requirements, one that we 
can be proud of. Again, it is not the bill we would like to see, but 
one I hope that all can support.
  Members are going to be offering some amendments to cut some projects 
that the committee in its wisdom and study believes we should consider 
and fund. We hope the Members will stick with the committee, which has 
had thousands of pages of hearings, heard thousands of witnesses, had 
five Governors appear before it, and a great many Members of Congress. 
It is good legislation, and we commend it for your consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Bill, 1996.
  Because of unprecedented budgetary constraints, assembling this 
year's energy and water development bill has been a tremendous 
challenge. The Committee, however, has risen to the challenge and has 
produced a bill that is balanced and fair. Programs and projects that 
have marginal value for the taxpayer have been eliminated, while 
funding for essential activities has been preserved. The bill reflects 
difficult choices among competing priorities, and I congratulate my 
friends and colleagues on the Committee for their heroic efforts under 
difficult budgetary circumstances. I would like to extend special 
thanks to my good friend, the Honorable Bob Livingston, the chairman of 
the Committee and a Member of the Subcommittee, for his support and 
guidance.
  By remaining within its 602(b) allocation, the Energy and Water bill 
turns the rhetoric of deficit reduction into a reality. The bill's 
total spending level of $18.7 billion is $1.6 billion below last year's 
level and $2 billion below the budget request. It is the smallest 
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill reported by the 
Committee since fiscal year 1990.
  In recommending funding levels for programs funded by the bill, the 
Committee has worked closely and cooperatively with various authorizing 
committees of the House. I congratulate these committees for their 
dedicated efforts to report authorization bills this year, and I thank 
them for their cooperation.
  Title I of H.R. 1905 appropriates $3.2 billion for the civil works 
program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is $189 million (or 
6%) lower than the FY 1995 level and $88 million (or 3%) lower than the 
President's request.
  In considering the Administration's budget request, the Committee 
soundly rejected a proposed new policy of the Corps, which would limit 
Federal involvement to projects of national scope and significance. If 
adopted, this policy would eliminate the Corps' traditional 
participation in flood control projects, small harbor maintenance and 
shore protection activities. In rejecting this ill-advised proposal, 
the Committee has revalidated the Corps' proud tradition of protecting 
our citizens from the devastating impacts of floods. The Committee has 
also recognized the great value in continuing the Corps' important role 
in harbor maintenance and shore protection projects.
  In order to maximize the value of the Corps' limited resources, the 
bill deletes funds for a number of low-priority programs and 
initiatives. These include the Construction Productivity Advancement 
Research program, research on the economic impacts of global warming, 
and environmental service partnerships.
  Title II of the bill includes funds for the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation. The bill recommends an appropriation of $813 million for 
the Bureau. This is $28 million (or 3 percent) lower than the fiscal 
year 1995 level and $24 million (or 3 percent) higher than the 
President's budget request. Increases above the budget request are 
included to expedite water projects for which the Administration has 
not requested sufficient funding. The bill deletes funds for a number 
of low-priority programs and new initiatives of the Bureau, including a 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant and the Water Conservation 
Challenge Partnerships program.
  Title III of H.R. 1905 funds programs and activities of the 
Department of Energy. The appropriation of $14.8 billion for the 
Department is $940 million (or 6 percent) less than the fiscal year 
1995 level and $1.9 billion (or 11 percent) below the Administration's 
request.
  The bill effects serious reductions throughout the Department of 
Energy. Unneeded bureaucracy is cut from the budget, while essential 
and necessary activities of the Federal Government are preserved. 
General science 

[[Page H 6774]]

and research activities are preserved within funding constraints, while 
applied research and commercialization activities--especially those for 
which private industry investment is more appropriate--are eliminated 
or dramatically reduced.
  The appropriation for general science is $991 million, a $7 million 
increase over last year's level. The appropriation for solar and 
renewable energy activities is reduced to $222 million, well under the 
budget request of $423 million.
  The appropriation for defense environmental restoration and waste 
management is $5.3 billion, consistent with the authorization level 
developed by the National Security Committee. This is the largest 
single item within the $10 billion appropriation for the atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy.
  The bill appropriates $425 million to pursue solutions to the 
country's growing nuclear waste problem. The Committee directs the 
Department of Energy to downgrade site characterization activities at 
Yucca Mountain in Nevada in order to develop a national interim storage 
program. Authorizing committees retain flexibility to craft a new 
direction for the civilian nuclear waste program.
  The bill eliminates a number of departmental programs and 
initiatives, including: international solar research, hydropower 
research, and technology transfer programs. It also repeals a provision 
of law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to study the sale of 
power marketing administrations.
  Title IV of the bill includes funding for independent agencies and 
commissions. For fiscal year 1996, the independent agencies under the 
Committee's jurisdiction are funded at a level of $276 million. This 
represents a $195 million reduction from last year's level and a 
decrease of $93 million from the budget estimate.
  As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the bill terminates 
Federal participation in three river basin commissions: the Delaware 
River Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the 
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Furthermore, the bill 
effects dramatic reductions in the Appalachian Regional Commission and 
the appropriated programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority. At $142 
million, the appropriation for ARC is 22 percent less than requested by 
the Administration and approximately one-half of the fiscal year 1995 
level. Funding for the TVA is 25 percent less than requested in the 
budget, and for TVA's Environmental Research Center has been deleted 
altogether.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 
tremendous efforts of all Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development. Throughout an arduous hearing process and the 
difficult deliberations on program funding, the Members of the 
Subcommittee have put partisan concerns aside and have consistently 
acted in accordance with the best interests of all Americans. Their 
dedication and hard work have been an inspiration, and serving as their 
Chairman has been both an honor and a privilege.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like pay special tribute to one of the 
most honorable and distinguished gentleman to ever serve in this 
chamber. My friend, the Honorable Tom Bevill, proudly served as the 
Subcommittee's Chairman for 18 years. As Chairman, his virtues of 
honesty, fairness, and wisdom were always in abundant evidence. As 
Ranking Minority Member, his service has been no less honorable. His 
service to the Committee and to the country have been invaluable, and I 
am deeply grateful for his cooperation, his assistance, and his 
friendship.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1905.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H 6775]]
  TH11JY95.000
  


[[Page H 6776]]
  TH11JY95.001
  


[[Page H 6777]]

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, this 1996 appropriations bill, effective 
October 1, has been the most difficult bill Chairman Myers and I have 
worked on. As the gentleman has pointed out so well, he and I have 
worked together for all these years. We have exchanged seats now. He is 
the chairman and I am the ranking member, and we are working right 
along just as we have been doing for the last 18 years. The gentleman 
is great to work with, and I just want to commend him. His leadership 
has always played a big role in getting this bill put together, making 
this bill possible and getting the support of the Congress. So we are 
proud of this bill, when we consider the circumstances and what we have 
had to face in the way of cuts.
  For example, the appropriation bill this time contains $18.7 billion. 
Just 2 years ago it was $22 billion. It is 10 percent less than the 
President's budget request for this year. It is 7 percent less than 
what we appropriated last year. So we have done our part in taking our 
share of the cuts, and many good programs have not been funded as much 
as we feel like they should be.
  As a matter of fact, there are many good programs we have had to 
actually just leave out. This is very, very difficult. As Chairman 
Myers pointed out, the recommendation by the administration on the 
flood control projects in our judgment would be a disaster, and we are 
not going to do it. We are not going to accept that recommendation. The 
flood control projects are some of the most important work that the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does, and they need every dollar in this 
bill that they will receive in the 1996 fiscal year.
  In my judgment, if we had to pick out the most important thing the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does, and they do a good job, it is flood 
control. There we are talking about not only saving property, but we 
are talking about saving lives. Certainly we cannot put any dollar 
value on saving lives.
  The corps has estimated and they have testified before our panel 
several times to the effect that for every $1 that we invest in flood 
control projects, there are benefits in the amount of $6. So it is 
something that pays. Of course, the administration, for some reason, 
wants to change this formula that has been in effect for years, where 
the local governments would not be paying the 25 percent of the cost of 
the flood control projects, but it would change to where the local 
government would pay 75 percent. Actually when the division engineers 
were testifying, most of them, as Members know, are major generals in 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and I asked them the question, do you 
know of any State in the Union or any government or any level of 
government or any city in the United States that could afford to pay 75 
percent of the cost of flood control projects that are needed and are 
critical? They actually tried to think of a place, but could not think 
of one in the whole United States.
  So I think that tells the story pretty well. On nuclear waste the 
utilities are paying. The ratepayers in this Nation are paying today 
through their utility bills to dispose of the nuclear waste throughout 
the United States. As Chairman Myers pointed out, we have been very 
unhappy with the success, or the lack of success would be a better way 
of putting it, of getting this waste disposed of, nuclear waste, and 
getting a storage place for it.
  So the fund is in there, and the ratepayers are paying for it, and 
they are not getting it. We are supposed to have a place ready for this 
waste to start
 being hauled to and in place by 1997 or 1998. Certainly it does not 
look like we are going to meet that target. But we would say on the 
Yucca Mountain project, that while we have been very disappointed in 
the past on it, it does seem to be moving now. In the past few months, 
for the first time, it is actually moving and getting somewhere, and we 
feel that now we are on the right track, and we hope that we are, and 
we can do our duty and get this waste disposal underway.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this legislation. We 
recommend this bill to Members highly.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. 
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has, to the extent possible 
within his subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, tracked the energy 
research and development priorities of the Committee on Science as 
outlined in the authorization bills that are still to come to the 
floor, but have been cleared out of our committee. I think that the 
work that the gentleman and his staff have done with my committee has 
been done to an unprecedented extent, and I want to thank the gentleman 
for it, and want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for the leadership 
he has provided to this subcommittee over the years, and I think that 
we are seeing the results of a lot of good work here in the course of 
the development of this bill.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] worked closely with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the chairman of the 
Committee on Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and I 
thank him for that as well.
  This bill is proof that the appropriations process can work along 
with the authorization process, because we have a close cooperation 
here that I think is producing the right kind of policies in the energy 
area. The bill does reflect a very strong commitment to both good, 
fundamental science that is vital to this Nation's future, and to a 
balanced budget. The fact is that as we look at development of a lot of 
our basic science programs, we have to do it in the context of our need 
to balance the budget by the year 2002. This bill goes a long way down 
that road.
  For example, this bill does specify a commitment to the hydrogen 
program that I think is a useful direction for the Nation to go. It is 
a very small program, but it is one that has gone through the right 
process. We authorized the program earlier this year out of this 
committee. We authorized it at a somewhat higher level than what is in 
the bill that comes before us, but, nevertheless, we are making a 
strong commitment to an energy resource that also happens to be an 
environmentally safe resource, and I think that is a very, very good 
direction to go in.
  This is also a bill that does a lot in terms of basic energy sciences 
and in high energy and nuclear physics science. What we have here is a 
commitment to the idea that we ought to be doing basic research in this 
country, that there is an underlying need to develop those new 
knowledge bases that this country will depend upon in the years ahead.
  We cannot afford, under a balanced budget scenario, to go out and 
fund every project that somebody wants to have on a live support system 
that has been developed in the past, but simply was not commercially 
viable at the time that it was developed. We cannot continue to do 
that. But we should and can continue to do the right kind of basic 
science work in this country. This bill moves in that direction. This 
bill is that kind of bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle for the bill they have brought forward, and look forward to 
supporting it strongly.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to thank the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], for their work on this bill, particularly 
with regard to the Army Corps policy and the recommendations made by 
the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I do support the bill. I think it is an excellent bill. 
But I think, in particular, the fact that the committee in its report 
language specifically says that they are not abiding by the 
recommendations of the President with regard to Army Corps projects is 
significant.
  I cannot think of any proposal that has been made in the last 6 
months 

[[Page H 6778]]
that is more ill-conceived than the administration's proposal with 
regard to Army Corps flood control, shore protection, and small scale 
navigational dredging. I think we all recognize that flood waters do 
not recognize state of coastal boundaries.
  Just to give you an example, if this policy that was put forward by 
the administration were to come into effect, a large state like 
California, for example, would be responsible for flood control 
projects within its boundaries, which would easily qualify as 
interstate projects in another area of the country. So just because a 
state happens to be large or because a state happens to be largely 
along the coast of the United States, all of a sudden, because 50 
percent of the flood waters that are affecting or damaging and 
resulting in the need for a flood control project are not within the 
state or not interstate, if you will, the project would no longer 
qualify.
  In effect, I think the chairman and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] mentioned that what we would be doing if this policy were to 
come into effect is simply not providing for these flood control or 
shore protection projects to move forward, because most of the states 
and the localities would not be able to afford to pay for them, 
particularly if the cost sharing, which is now 75 percent Federal and 
25 percent non-Federal, were to switch and become 75 percent non-
Federal or local.
  Just to give you an example, in my own district, we have a major 
shore protection project along the coast. We have towns, I will give 
you an example, such as Bellmawr, where we have a few thousand
 residents, but in the summer are besieged by thousands of people who 
use the beach from Pennsylvania, New York and other states. There is no 
way that a small town like Bellmawr, and I have others that are even 
smaller, could possibly afford to contribute the amount of money that 
would be necessary for the state to go ahead with that project. Even 
though the flood waters are totally from within the state, if you will, 
because it is the ocean, the bottom line is that the people that use 
the beaches and take advantage of that shore protection project are 
from a number of states and many times not even a majority from our own 
State of New Jersey.

                              {time}  1500

  So the policy simply makes no sense. Also I think about the fact that 
the Federal Government and the Corps have the expertise, the 
consulting, engineering and construction expertise to do these 
projects, which the state and the local municipalities do not.
  So overall, I just wanted to commend again the subcommittee for 
moving ahead with projects and basically setting aside the President's 
recommendations.
  One of the things I am still concerned about though is I do think it 
is necessary and I know that the subcommittee in its report asked the 
administration to essentially reverse its policy. I think that is 
important, because theoretically, even though we pass this bill and 
even though it ultimately is signed by the President, there still could 
be a certain amount of discretion on the part of the administration to 
withhold funds for some of these projects, unless they decide to 
reverse their policy. So I think it is also important that in the 
subcommittee report language, they specifically call upon the 
administration, and I call upon them as well, to reverse this policy 
because I would not want to see the various projects that are funded in 
this legislation to be jeopardized at all. I think that the overall 
presidential/administration policy was ill-conceived and should be 
reversed.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy. As you well know, one of the problems that led to the demise 
of the superconducting super collider was that it never received 
international support.
  I said throughout that debate over the SSC that the infrastructure of 
physics must become as international as the science. High energy 
physicists here and abroad have taken the message to heart and are 
ready to move ahead with a large hadron collider. It is my 
understanding that this bill provides funding to enable preparatory 
work to proceed on the LHC; is that correct?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I hope his analogy is not 
analogous of what happened in Texas, but yes, we have provided $6 
million as requested.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman, because I think the 
authorization reported out by the Committee on Science last week gives 
a clear green light to negotiations with the Europeans on this project. 
I hope negotiations can move forward swiftly and that we can inaugurate 
a new, truly international era in research, an era that will also 
ensure that American physics continues to strive.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Mr. Bevill, 
the ranking minority member on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, for 
the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation.
  Earlier this year the Clinton administration and the Army Corps of 
Engineers proposed a phase-out of Federal funding for local flood 
control projects.
  I am pleased that the subcommittee rejected this proposal during 
consideration of the fiscal year 1996 energy and water appropriations 
bill. In southeast Texas, the administration's plan would have been 
devastating.
  During October 1994, southeast Texas suffered some of the worst 
flooding our area had ever seen. Several lives and millions of dollars 
in homes and property were lost.
  Under the administration's proposal, seven severely needed projects 
in the Houston area, including Braes, Sims, Greens, and Clear Creek 
Bayous, would have been halted because the administration would not 
classify them as ``nationally significant.''
  This designation would have left many vital flood control projects in 
my district and around the country in limbo.
  In addition to threatening the safety of our constituents and their 
property, the loss of these funds would create a difficult financial 
burden on our State and local governments.
  Local taxpayers would have been forced to fund the lion's share of 
the $1.5 billion needed to complete these projects. That's $1.5 billion 
they cannot afford.
  More to the point, this plan would have penalized intrastate projects 
but not interstate projects.
  Southeast Texas includes Houston, our Nation's fourth largest city, 
the bulk of the country's oil and gas infrastructure.
  Under the administration's plan, local taxpayers would foot almost 
the entire bill, while taxpayers in smaller States with similar 
projects could still rely on majority Federal funds.
  Most importantly, if we can prevent disasters with proper flood 
control planning, the Federal Government would not be forced to spend 
billions of taxpayers' dollars on emergency and disaster relief. It is 
clear that flood control projects save Federal dollars in the long run.
  In a time when this Congress is considering turning over many 
responsibilities to State and local governments, I believe we should 
maintain Federal support for flood control projects.
  The devastating damage from last year's floods are a clear reminder 
that our lives, our infrastructure, and our economy depend on these 
projects. This bill maintains that commitment. I applaud the work of 
the chairman, the ranking member, and my fellow Texan, Mr. Chapman. I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1905.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 1905 and would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana 

[[Page H 6779]]
[Mr. Myers], the chairman of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill], the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional 
work in bringing this bill to the floor. Extremely tight budgetary 
constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult. The 
subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in creating such a 
fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary pressures, this 
Member would like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee and 
formally recognize that the
 energy and water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 
includes funding for several water projects that are of great 
importance to Nebraska.

  Importantly, the bill provides funding for two Missouri River 
projects which are designed to remedy problems of erosion, loss of fish 
and wildlife habitat, and sedimentation. First, the bill provides $5.7 
million for the four-State Missouri River Mitigation project. This 
funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the 
federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the 
Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to 
support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are 
gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, 
Missouri, and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are 
estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in predevelopment 
days.
  The Missouri River Mitigation project addresses fish and wildlife 
habitat concerns much more effectively than the Corps' overwhelmingly 
unpopular and ill-conceived proposed changes to the Missouri River 
master manual. Although the Corps' proposed plan was designed to 
improve fish and wildlife habitat, these environmental issues are 
already being addressed by the Missouri River Mitigation project. In 
1986 the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri 
River Mitigation project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due 
to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan.
  Second, the bill provides $200,000 for operation and maintenance and 
$20,000 for construction of the Missouri National Recreation River 
project. This project addresses a serious problem in protecting the 
river banks from the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused 
by the sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These 
erosion rates are a result of previous work on the river by the Federal 
Government.
  In addition, the bill provides funding for flood-related projects of 
tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional 
District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily closed Interstate 
80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is 
located along the Platte River near Ashland, NE. Therefore, this Member 
is extremely pleased the committee agreed to continue funding for the 
Lower Platte River and tributaries flood control study. This study 
should help to formulate and develop feasible solutions which will 
alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and 
tributaries. Additionally, the bill provides continued funding for a 
floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through the heart of 
Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member strongly commends the subcommittee 
for rejecting the administration's proposed policy which would 
radically revise the Army Corps of Engineers' mission and severely 
restrict its role in local flood control projects. The rigid set of 
criteria proposed by the administration would greatly restrict the 
Corps' presence in numerous states.
  Under the new criteria, projects would be limited to those in which 
first, more than half the damaging flood water comes from outside the 
boundaries of the State where the damage is occurring; second, the 
benefit-to-cost-ratio is two or greater; and third, the non-Federal 
sponsor is able and willing to pay 75 percent of the first cost of the 
project. These requirements set an impossibly high threshold for many 
necessary and worthy projects.
  The administration's proposed changes would result in a seriously 
short sighted and misguided policy. They would delay urgently needed 
projects and result in unnecessary costs for states. Under such a 
policy, each state would be forced to obtain the contracting, 
engineering, and construction experience which the Corps already 
possesses. This Member is pleased the subcommittee firmly rejected this 
seriously flawed administration proposal.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member 
of the subcommittee for their continued support of projects which are 
important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as 
to the people living in the Missouri River Basin.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished gentlemen and the 
subcommittee for their work. Their efforts have been appreciated by 
this Member and my colleagues from Nebraska and elsewhere in the 
Missouri River Basin.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Ackerman].
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
committee in a brief colloquy, if I might.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee has included money in H.R. 1905 to 
complete the reconnaissance portion of the coastal erosion study on the 
north shore of Long Island, but it does not contain money to begin the 
feasibility portion of that study.
  As the chairman knows, the north shore has had an extensive history 
of tidal flooding and shore erosion and damage to shore-front 
development, most recently in 1992.
  Since the committee has rejected the President's proposal with regard 
to shore protection studies and since New York State has already 
provided money for its share of the project, would the chairman be 
willing to work with me as the bill moves through the process to see 
that the Federal Government provides its share of the cost?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee has worked with the 
gentleman from New York on this erosion problem for a number of years 
and is well aware of the problem. We certainly shall be working to make 
sure that the reconnaissance study is done and be working toward 
solving the problem that you have.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support in 
the past and for his pledge of support as this process moves forward. I 
am deeply appreciative.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alabama as well as for 
his support in the past on this project and ask the distinguished 
ranking member for his continued assistance in the future as this bill 
moves through the legislative process.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the remarks of the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers] pertaining to this project.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank both distinguished gentlemen.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a very valued new member 
of this committee.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905 
making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 
1996. As a new member of this subcommittee, I would like to thank 
Chairman Myers and ranking member Bevill for their leadership and 
direction. I would also like to thank the dedicated and capable staff 
of the subcommittee for their expertise and knowledge of these 
important issues.
  The bill before the House today reduces spending and downsizes the 
Federal Government, while maintaining funding for critical flood safety 
projects, coastal protection, and important energy research programs 
like fusion energy.
  We had to make the tough choices about where to reduce spending while 
supporting programs that are in the best interest of our country.

[[Page H 6780]]

  Overall the bill reflects the changing priorities of the new Congress 
by reducing spending for the Department of Energy, Bureau of 
Reclamation, and other agencies by almost $1.6 billion from last year's 
level: An 8-percent reduction. Unlike the budget resolution which 
passed the House in May, the decisions in this bill will directly 
reduce Federal spending and are essential in our efforts to reach a 
balanced budget.
  I am also very pleased with the subcommittee decision to flatly 
reject the President's wish to end flood control and coastal protection 
projects. These projects are nationally significant and it is my belief 
that the President's policy, was ill-conceived and not founded on solid 
fact. By rejecting the President's policy, New Jersey's shore and flood 
prone areas will be protected again.
  This bill represents real progress toward a smaller, smarter 
government. It is one more step closer to balancing the budget and 
keeping our promises to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge the 
adoption of this bill.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
remarks. The subcommittee continues to be a supporter of fusion, but 
the plasma research will continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much and commend 
him for the leadership he has exercised in bringing this bill to the 
floor. I certainly rise in support of the Energy and Water 
Appropriation Act of 1995.
  As a fiscal conservative Member, I believe that we have a moral 
imperative to balance the Federal budget. Surely every area of Federal 
spending must be open to the possibility of reduction, and no role of 
the Federal Government must remain unexamined. Equally important, 
however, is our quest to balance the budget, however, with the 
knowledge that we must and we cannot afford to be penny-wise and pound-
foolish.
  A few weeks ago, the House Committee on Science moved to reauthorize 
the budget for the Department of Energy and the science and technology 
programs it oversees. As a member of the committee, I commend the House 
Committee on Appropriations for its adherence to authorization 
legislation adopted by the Committee on Science.
  During consideration of H.R. 1905, there may be an amendment to 
strike $18 million for the nuclear technology research and development 
at Argonne National Laboratory both in Idaho Falls and in the State of 
Illinois.
  The environmental nuclear waste treatment program, electrorefining of 
spent nuclear fuel, has the strong potential to significantly reduce 
the amount of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel, decreasing the 
toxicity and the volume of over 100 different types of spent fuel, some 
2700 metric tons, stored at DOE sites around the nation.
  This electrometallurgical research could save taxpayers billions of 
dollars by treating spent fuel that cannot be disposed of safely. The 
National Academy of Sciences supports continued funding of this nuclear 
technology research, saying that it represents promising technology for 
treating a variety of DOE spent fuels.
  In addition, further funding of the research is predicated on the 
continued approval of the National Academy of Sciences so that funding 
for the nuclear technology research and development program was 
requested by the Clinton administration and the Department of Energy.
  At $18 million, the nuclear technology program has already been cut 
28 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level, 50 percent below the 
fiscal year 1996 request, and I believe that it is sound science.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] for the 
leadership that he has shown in a very difficult task, I know, in 
putting together this appropriation bill.
                              {time}  1515

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership. This committee has worked very closely with the authorizing 
committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], and certainly the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who we have worked very 
closely with.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  This energy and water appropriations bill reflects the tough choices 
made by members of the Appropriations Subcommittee to put us on the 
path to a balanced budget in 7 years.
  As chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for a portion of this 
bill, I would like to commend both Chairman Myers and the ranking 
minority member, Mr. Bevill, and their staffs, for a good faith attempt 
to work with the Science Committee and its staff in crafting the 
portions of this bill that apply to programs under Science Committee 
jurisdiction.
  This year's bill was not produced under ideal circumstances.
  The press of legislation during the first 100 days before many of the 
committees were fully reorganized and staffed-up hampered the process.
  The result is not an ideal product but does represent an historic 
change in the authorization/appropriations process.
  Rather than take a meat-ax approach to budget reductions, the bill 
attempts, as we did in the Science Committee, to preserve basic 
research funding while terminating market and development programs that 
are best handled by the private sector.
  Do I agree with every line item in the bill? Of course not.
  But I see this bill as laying the foundation for a new partnership 
that we can build on next year.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Bevill], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], again for the 
great cooperation we have had in putting this together.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the authorizing 
committees for the nice words they have said. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I hope the authorizing committees 
continue to work as they have.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1905 making appropriations for the energy and water development for 
fiscal year 1996.
  This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation 
projects in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area of 
California. I appreciate the Committee's continued support for these 
projects.
  H.R. 1905 and the accompanying Committee report also raise several 
issues which I will address in my capacity as Ranking Democratic Member 
of the Committee on Resources.
  First, H.R. 1905 will fund important individual projects and program 
activities of the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
demonstrated consistent leadership in the Administration's efforts to 
implement significant reforms to Federal water management and 
construction programs.
  Second, H.R. 1905 includes significant funding to implement various 
programs authorized by P.L. 102-575, the Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. In particular, title 34 of 
the law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act [CVPIA], includes 
many innovative measures to conserve water and to restore fish and 
wildlife habitat that has been adversely affected by the development of 
water and power projects in California. Water marketing, changes in 
project operations and water allocations, incentives for conservation, 
and specific goals for fish and wildlife restoration are all included 
in this title.
  I am in complete support of the Bureau of Reclamation's efforts to 
fairly and promptly implement the provisions of the CVPIA, and I 
strongly oppose any attempts to amend this law through the 
appropriations process. I specifically note at this time my strong 
objections to language contained in the Committee Report accompanying 
H.R. 1905 (House Report 104-149), which ``directs that the $1,000,000 
requested for the San Joaquin River Basin Resource Management 
Initiative not be expended for that purpose.'' As my colleagues are 
well aware, this study is required by law; it is not optional. The 
study was authorized so that we could determine what needs to be done 
to restore fish to the San Joaquin River, where irrigation water 
deliveries have wiped out several stocks of commercially valuable 
anadromous fish.

[[Page H 6781]]

  The Appropriations Committee is obviously determined to kill this 
study and prevent people from learning the truth about the destruction 
of fishery resources in the San Joaquin River. The effort to kill this 
study is important only to a small group of CVP beneficiaries who 
continue to profit from their subsidized water supplies at the expense 
of California's commercial and sport fish resources. I wish to 
associate myself with the views of my colleague from California, Ms. 
Pelosi, who correctly noted that ``the San Joaquin study has been 
authorized by Congress and is being conducted properly by the Bureau of 
Reclamation. It should be allowed to proceed without interference from 
special interests.''
  Third, with regard to the repayment of costs of cleaning up Kesterson 
Reservoir and conducting the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Study Program, 
I am concerned that the Appropriations Committee is again attempting to 
legislate matters of policy without consulting the authorizing 
Committee.
  My colleagues will recall that the Federal Government has spent 
approximately $35 million for the cleanup of Kesterson Reservoir, a 
series of ponds in the San Joaquin Valley that were built in the 1970's 
to contain subsurface irrigation drainage water collected from farms in 
the Bureau of Reclamation's San Luis Unit, part of the Central Valley 
Project. The Kesterson facility was closed in March of 1985 by then-
Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel because the drainage water was 
contaminated with selenium and other chemicals. Many migratory birds 
using the Kesterson ponds were being killed in violation of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Other birds were hatched with grotesque 
deformities caused by selenium poisoning. Congress has appropriated 
tens of millions of dollars to clean up this mess on behalf of the 
project beneficiaries of the San Luis Unit, and we have also funded 
extensive multi-disciplinary and multi-agency studies of how to reduce 
or eliminate irrigation drainage contamination.
  There is no legislative language in H.R. 1905 that would amend 
current law regarding repayment responsibilities for cleaning up 
Kesterson Reservoir and conducting the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 
Study Program. The report accompanying H.R. 1905, however (House Report 
104-149), refers to a recent report from the Bureau of Reclamation, and 
concludes that San Luis Unit contractors should work with the Bureau of 
Reclamation ``to develop a reasonable and cost-effective drainage 
solution''. The Committee Report also contains the following statement 
regarding the subject of Kesterson and drainage study repayment:

       The Committee believes it is premature for Reclamation to 
     collect any costs before these negotiations are complete and 
     appropriate drainage service is provided. Therefore, the 
     Committee directs that the Bureau of Reclamation take no 
     action to collect costs associated with the Kesterson 
     Reservoir Cleanup Program or the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 
     Program until drainage service negotiations are complete, 
     drainage service is provided, or the authorizing Committee 
     has acted on this issue.

  The above conclusion and Committee directive to the Bureau of 
Reclamation are unwarranted and are not supported by any facts 
whatsoever. Without even consulting the authorizing committee, the 
Appropriations Committee has decided to indefinitely forgive the 
repayment of tens of millions of dollars in expenses associated with 
the cleanup of Kesterson Reservoir and the completion of the San
 Joaquin Valley Drainage Study Program. Under current law, these costs 
are a legal responsibility of the water users whose contaminated 
irrigation wastewater has caused this massive pollution problem. They 
should be required to pay their bills just like everybody else.

  I also remind my colleagues that committee report language from last 
year's Energy and Water bill specifically noted that repayment of these 
cleanup and study costs should begin soon after the Bureau's report was 
made available:

       It was and is the intent of the Committee that the 
     [forthcoming Interior Department] report be used as a 
     resource to assist in the fair and just apportionment of 
     Kesterson and other drainage related costs and not serve as a 
     method of delaying indefinitely repayment obligations. (House 
     Report 103-533).

  Since FY 1991, House Appropriations Committee Report language has 
directed the Department specifically not to collect payments from water 
users until the Bureau of Reclamation completed the report on 
allocation of costs. That report was received over four months ago. Now 
that the Bureau of Reclamation has submitted the report we requested, 
the water users have decided that they don't like the conclusions of 
that report and they have asked the Appropriations Committee to 
indefinitely delay the repayment. This is directly contrary to 
representations made to this House by the water users regarding their 
intention to proceed with repayment once the results of the Bureau's 
study were made available.
  The fact of the matter is that the Central Valley Project and San 
Luis Unit water users are accountable by current law for the money that 
has been spent on Kesterson cleanup and the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 
Program.
  Until the authorizing Committees and the Full House and Senate and 
the President have had an opportunity to review information on cleanup 
costs and decide whether changes to current law are appropriate or not, 
the Secretary of the Interior is obligated to begin collecting money. 
The study released this year by the Bureau of Reclamation supports that 
conclusion. There is no basis whatsoever for the Appropriations 
Committee to indefinitely forgive the proper repayment of these costs, 
and this language is not and should not be construed as binding on the 
Secretary.
  Fourth, the elimination of funding for the Bureau of Reclamation and 
the Army Corps of Engineers to assist salmon migration in the Columbia 
River basin is outrageously short-sighted. These are not trivial 
actions by the Bureau and the Corps; the agencies agreed to take these 
steps only in response to a court order. The court concluded that 
``business as usual'' in the Columbia basin could place endangered 
salmon in jeopardy of final extinction.
  In part as a result of the court's decision, the agencies have tried 
to find the most cost-effective and least disruptive solution to salmon 
migration. The Bureau of Reclamation has been purchasing water from 
willing sellers in the Snake River basin and the Corps has been 
studying the possibility of lowering the John Day reservoir during 
migratory periods. These measures enjoy broad regional support, while 
the measures suggested by the Appropriations Committee will encourage 
conflict and will probably do little to sustain the salmon.
  If the agencies cannot take the regionally-supported steps towards 
salmon recovery, far more disruptive and costly actions may be required 
to make sure the salmon are not driven to extinction. Forcing the 
agencies into this position defies common sense.
  Finally, I note that the Committee recommendation includes 
$94,225,000 for construction of the Central Arizona Project, a generous 
$1,500,000 above the budget request. While I am generally supportive of 
plans to complete this project, I note that recent attempts to 
negotiate a ``restructuring'' of repayment terms for the Central 
Arizona Project have failed. It is likely that the project sponsors 
will soon begin a costly legal battle to settle their disputes with the 
United States over the amount of money owed for repayment of project 
construction costs. At the present time, hundreds of millions of 
dollars are in dispute, and there is no guarantee that these costs will 
ever be repaid. It should further be noted that we have already 
provided tens of millions of dollars to make extensive repairs to the 
CAP water delivery system, and I suspect we have just started to 
understand how much this project will eventually cost the taxpayers.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee and full committee 
for their efforts in developing this measure. Developing this proposal 
was a difficult challenge for all of us considering the tough financial 
choices we had to make.
  Even in that light, Mr. Speaker, this House appropriations bill 
reflects a relatively balanced approach for energy and water, although 
I have some reservations regarding solar and renewables which was cut 
in half.
  As my colleagues know, I am and always have been a strong supporter 
of Solar and Renewable Energy and would have preferred an increased 
level of funding. I offered an amendment in committee to add back $15 
million which was successful. While I am happy about this modest 
increase, more is still needed. That is why I have coauthored the Klug 
amendment which will restore funding for solar and renewable energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there also will be an attempt to delete funds for 
the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor [GT-MHR] Program. I think 
deleting this funding would be a big mistake and I urge my colleagues 
to support the Appropriations Committee recommendation.
  The bill includes funding for the biochemical conversion program in 
the solar and renewable accounts that fully
 supports the level recommended by the House Science Committee. This 
nation now consumes 70 percent of its energy in the transportation 
sector, predominantly liquid fuel petroleum. Once again, over half this 
oil is imported. Therefore, efficient production of ethanol should be a 
high national priority.

  The bill includes critical water resource projects in every State and 
every region of the country which will help environmental restoration 
and improvement.
  We have provided funding for the key energy, science and water 
projects, and we have 

[[Page H 6782]]
done so within our subcommittee's allocation. We are under the 
President's budget request, under the 602(b) allocation, and under the 
amount appropriated last year.
  This bill is a joint effort to hold the line financially and continue 
the process of downsizing. It is about looking ahead for our children's 
future and making our economy stronger and our communities safer. I 
strongly urge a yes vote on this year's Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Lazio of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 
1905, the FY 1996 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  As you may know, part of my district lies along New York's Atlantic 
Coast. Like coastal areas in many parts of the country, the barrier 
islands along the coast in my district have been hit extremely hard by 
the storms of the past few winters and remain in a delicate state, 
vulnerable to breaches and overwashes. Thankfully, this winter was 
relatively mild, but past damage has never been corrected, and a storm 
of any significance could be devastating to the mainland of Long 
Island.
  The barrier islands protect Long Island in the same manner that the 
levees on the Mississippi River protect the river towns. A vulnerable 
barrier island system cannot protect Long Island's south shore, which 
has a multi-billion dollar economy and significant public 
infrastructure. The barriers afford protection to the freshwater 
wetlands and waters of the back bays, thus nurturing the clamming and 
fishing industries. Furthermore, Fire Island, Jones Island, Long Beach 
Island and the rest of Long Island's barrier system provide recreation 
for the citizens of Long Island and tourists from all over the world. 
As the tourism industry is the largest employer on Long Island, loss of 
this vital resource will means loss of jobs.
  While the President's budget recommends that the Army Corps of 
Engineers get out of the business of local flood and shore protection, 
I believe the Army Corps has a cost-effective and justifiable role in 
these projects. Savings can surely be made in the way the Corps carries 
out its mission. But the mission itself is vital to the Nation's 
coastal communities, and it is not one that can be easily transferred 
to State or local governments. The shoreline protection projects the 
Corps is involved in are vitally important to the livelihood of the 
communities they seek to protect and often end up saving the taxpayers 
money in the long run.
  The first project would provide New York with accurate, real-time 
information on its coastal processes. Many coastal states already have 
monitoring systems in place, and such a system is essential for New 
York. A federally funded monitoring system was authorized for New York 
in the 1992 Water Resources Development Act, and appropriations have 
been made over the past 2 years to initiate its implementation.
  As the authorization states, successful implementation will take $1.4 
million for up to 5 years, at which time the State of New York will 
take over funding and program implementation. The President has 
included the full $1.4 million for this program in his fiscal year 1996 
budget request, and the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill also allocates this amount.
  The second project has also been requested by the President. This 
project, the reformulation study of the area from Montauk Point to the 
Fire Island Inlet, will provide valuable long-term information on the 
coastal processes of Long Island's south shore. It is expected to take 
approximately 10 years and $14 million to complete. Over the past two 
fiscal years, a total of $5 million has been appropriated by this 
committee for the reformulation study. This has provided important 
information and will lay the groundwork for possible interim projects 
needed to shore-up Long Island's coastline. The fiscal year 1996 
segment of the study will cost $2.18 million, and this amount was 
included in H.R. 1905 as part of a $10.4 million total appropriation in 
this area.
  Moving away from flood protection, the final project is a navigation 
project. The waterways involved, Reynolds Channel and the New York 
State Boat Channel, run through the western portion of my district, 
part of Congressman Peter King's district, 3rd CD, and part of 
Congressman Dan Frisa's district, 4th CD. The State and local 
municipalities have only been able to maintain these waterways on a 
limited basis, causing safety concerns among the parties that use them. 
Subsequently, the State and local municipalities have sought Federal 
assistance. A request for an appropriation of $170,000 has been 
included in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget in order to 
complete the reconnaissance phase and initiate the feasibility phase, 
and again, that amount was granted in this bill. There is strong local 
interest and support in improving navigation through Reynolds Channel 
and the New York State Boat Channel. These waterways provide important 
thoroughfares for large volumes of industrial and commercial traffic.
  In this time of tight budgets on every level, I understand the fiscal 
constraints we face. I agree that every expenditure must pass stringent 
economic tests, and I am confident that, upon examination, expenditure 
for these projects will pass such tests. The importance of the 
waterways and the barrier islands to homes and businesses on Long 
Island and New York cannot be stressed enough. As Westhampton has 
taught us, the establishment of protective measures now will save the 
Federal, State, and local government millions of dollars in the long 
term. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from 
Washington State with respect to her amendment.
  I find it bizarre that the Federal Government of the United States 
would consider sending American taxpayer funds to some of the 
wealthiest countries in the world. Especially in a time when we are 
trying to take the necessary steps to balance our Federal budget within 
7 years.
  The Bureau of Reclamation is spending taxpayer funds on water 
projects in the oil rich countries of the Middle East. As my colleague 
realizes, the Bureau of Reclamation is a water resource agency in 17 
contiguous western States, primarily for irrigation. It is supposed to 
focus its efforts on western water and power related issues. 
Apparently, the Agency has taken it upon itself to provide water 
projects for the rest of the world regardless of financial status. I 
think we need to take steps to ensure that we are providing for our 
country before we begin to provide this type of aid to our foreign 
neighbors.
  The amendment from the gentlewoman from Washington State would cut 
the spending for the International Affairs Budget of the Bureau. In 
August 1993 the Commissioner stated,

       International Major Civil Works Construction does not fit 
     or contribute to Reclamation's new direction and should be 
     phased out in order to make human resources and funding 
     available.

  Even the Clinton administration's own officials agreed with this 
analysis and have adopted a policy to reduce the Bureau's spending.
  The United States spends enough on foreign aid without subsidizing 
water projects in wealthy countries. Make the Bureau of Reclamation 
live up to its own claims of a new direction of responsible resource 
management.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Mrs. Smith has worked with the 
leadership on this important amendment and I am pleased to support the 
Smith amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. In 
addition, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Myers, for 
taking the steps to ensure that the important programs in this 
appropriation bill are protected while we continue to strive for a 
balanced budget for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
treatment of renewable energy and energy conservation programs in the 
fiscal year 1996 Appropriation bills. These bills threaten America's 
commitment to proven energy sources and their substantial economic and 
environmental benefits.
  In the rush to cut the Federal budget, Congress should not recklessly 
endanger America's future environmental health and economic 
competitiveness. Renewable energy and energy conservation programs will 
improve America's future by offering clean energy sources at an 
affordable cost. Instead of cutting these programs, we should be 
expanding our commitment and support.
  Gains in renewable energy are made almost daily. Energy generated by 
the wind is now being competitively marketed in the State of Washington 
at 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. In addition to existing solar energy 
stations, plans for a high volume solar energy plant in Nevada will 
competitively market solar energy in rural areas at a price of 5.5 
cents per kwh. Besides being cheap, there are no hidden costs--such as 
environmental degradation through air pollution or threats to human 
health.
  Republican efforts to cut renewable energy research and development 
and conservation programs by almost 50 percent below fiscal year 1995 
levels sets back the Nation's attempt to kick its harmful addiction to 
fossil fuels. While prices for fossil fuels fluctuate on a whim, fuel 
costs for renewable energy are zero. If strides are not made in finding 
alternative energy sources today, it is estimated that by the year 
2010, foreign oil will make up 65 percent of U.S. oil consumption. 
Without an alternative energy plan, the Nation's addictive reliance on 
oil--both U.S. and foreign--will continue to harm the global 
environment and increase the Nation's trade deficit by billions of 
dollars.
  In addition to finding new sources of energy, it is important to 
remember that much can be saved conserving what we already have. The 
Interior Appropriations bill, to be debated later this week, makes 
substantial cuts in energy conservation. For example, by the year 2000, 
a $150 million investment in energy conservation programs will save my 
own State of 

[[Page H 6783]]
Washington almost $700 million, reduce CO2 emissions by 1.74 
millions of metric tons per carbon equivalent [MMTCE]--and create more 
than 10,000 jobs across the State. If the conservation programs escape 
radical cuts from the budget knife, the country stands to save over $21 
billion in energy costs in the year 2000 and would reduce its carbon 
emissions by 4.3 percent. Clearly, relatively small investments today 
could provide huge savings in the future.
  Unfortunately, the Republicans don't want to hear these facts, and, 
instead, prefer to cut state weatherization programs by 50 percent. 
Programs that not only will save energy, they keep low income 
individuals warm in the winter, help institutions such as hospitals 
become more energy efficient, and spur the local economy.
  We are so close to providing reliable alternative sources of energy--
through renewables and energy conservation--which will have lasting 
benefits to us all. Why stop now?
  Congress should be working to improve America's future by building on 
today's successes. Let's not squander this opportunity by turning our 
backs on sources of energy that are vital to improving America's 
economy and its environment.
  The Republican budgetary treatment of renewable energy and energy 
conservation is short-sighted and foolish. I cannot support bills so 
absurd in thinking that they ignore the obvious benefits of 
establishing clean and efficient alternative sources of energy. I urge 
you to vote against this legislation. Thank you.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905 
making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 
1996. As a new member of this subcommittee, I would like to thank 
Chairman Myers and Ranking Member Bevill for their leadership and 
direction. I would also like to thank the dedicated and capable staff 
of the subcommittee for their expertise and knowledge of these 
important issues.
  The bill before the House today reduces spending and downsizes the 
Federal Government, while maintaining funding for critical flood safety 
projects, coastal protection, and important energy research programs 
like fusion energy. We had to make the tough choices about where to 
reduce spending while supporting programs that are in the best interest 
of our country.
  Overall the bill reflects the changing priorities of the new Congress 
by reducing spending for the Department of Energy, Bureau of 
Reclamation, and other agencies by almost $1.6 billion from last year's 
level. An 8-percent reduction. Unlike the budget resolution which 
passed the House in May, the decisions in this bill will directly 
reduce Federal spending and are essential in our efforts to reach a 
balanced budget.
  Specifically, the bill will fund fusion energy research at $229 
million, slightly below the new authorized level. I am hopeful that as 
this bill moves through the committee process we will be successful in 
meeting this new number. In another area, the bill will close the 
Tennessee Valley Authority's environmental research center, a facility 
which I questioned the need for during our hearing process. This is 
clearly not a priority when we have a $5 trillion debt and we have an 
EPA that is responsible for these same activities.
  I am also very pleased with the subcommittee decision to flatly 
reject the President's wish to end flood control and coastal protection 
projects. These projects are ``nationally significant'' and it is my 
belief that the President's policy was ill-conceived and not founded on 
solid fact. By rejecting the President's policy, New Jersey's shore and 
flood-prone areas will be protected again.
  This bill represents real progress toward a smaller, smarter 
government. It is one more step closer to balancing the budget and 
keeping our promises to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge the 
adoption of this bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  This is a good bill. This bill was created in the spirit of fiscal 
constraint, yet it prudently continues the gradual downsizing of the 
Federal energy and water program. I believe it is imperative for this 
Nation to set its priorities regarding Federal spending. This bill has 
cut almost $1.6 billion from the 1995 budget and over $2 billion from 
the Administration's recommendation. In consideration of these cuts, 
this bill prioritizes where the funds should be appropriated.
  The Energy and Water Appropriation Subcommittee has placed a high 
priority on basic research and development. During the past 17 years 
since the creation of the Department of Energy, the DOE's focus has 
been dispersed to a wide array of large Federal programs. Solar and 
renewables, magnetic fusion, nuclear, and fossil energy begin the list 
of energy sources the Department of Energy spends billions of dollars 
each year in an attempt to find the safe and efficient answer to our 
energy needs.
  Frankly, I believe an open and free market is a preferable forum to 
decide our Nation's energy policy. Withstanding my commitment to a free 
market, I do recognize that the Federal Government has a proper role in 
Energy policy to a limited extent, especially in basic research and 
development.
  However, once an energy discovery becomes an applicable energy 
source, I believe the role of the Federal Government should be limited, 
and eventually eliminated. Let the entrepreneurial spirit of America 
apply technology obtained through basic research and development into a 
practical application. Let the working American family encourage the 
entrepreneur through the direct support of this entrepreneur's 
innovation. Encourage the individual innovator by removing burdensome 
and intrusive regulations. Don't stifle the scientists' imagination by 
forcing him to plod through a mountain of paper work to obtain Federal 
funding. And when the consumer chooses one energy source over another, 
don't interfere with the consumer judgment.
  Although we have cut over $2 billion from the administration's 
budget, including over $1.8 billion cut directly from the Department of 
Energy's budget, we did not eliminate the Department of Energy itself. 
And it is not the Appropriations proper role to do so. The proper place 
for such legislation to be introduced is in the authorizing committees, 
where an open and full public debate can follow. It is important to 
understand that even if the Department of Energy is disbanded, a number 
of programs would remain which require Federal oversight and 
interaction. For example, the largest focus of the DOE is its defense 
and national security programs which take up over 60 percent of the 
Department's funding. These programs include nuclear research, weapons 
stewardship, and nuclear waste management.
  To be candid, I am not happy about every provision of this 
appropriations bill. For example, I would support smaller cuts in the 
fusion energy program that promises a safe and inexpensive energy 
source for the future. And I would seek further cuts in some of the 
applied technologies, like the solar and renewable energy program. But 
we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. This bill restores 
prudence by balancing our interest in fiscal responsibility and our 
interest in a safe, clean and efficient energy and water program.
  I seek and encourage your support of this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity 
to speak to several provisions of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996 which will profoundly affect my home State of 
New Jersey.
  First of all, I am pleased that the committee has soundly rejected 
President Clinton's short-sighted proposal to phase out the important 
work of the Army Corps of Engineers in shore protection, navigation, 
and flood study. The Army Corps has worked to reduce erosion along the 
Jersey Shore, to make waterways safe for fishing and commercial boat 
passage, and has protected homeowners from flooding. There is still 
work to be done.
  The Shore is the lifeblood of my home State of New Jersey. The Coast 
Alliance estimates that three-quarters of the State is located in the 
coastal zone and that more than 90 percent of the people in the 
Nation's most populated State live in this coastal zone. These people 
depend on the Army Corps' experience and know-how to maintain the 
quality of life they have come to know. In addition, the coastal zone 
contributes more than $79 billion--or over half of the State's gross 
State product--to the New Jersey economy through tourism, fishing, and 
boating or other recreational activities.
  While we all realize that cuts in Federal spending are necessary, 
they should not be arbitrary and they should be based on sound cost-
benefit analyses. The President's proposal disregarded the long-term 
benefits of the Army Corps' work and simply shifted much of the cost of 
their work to the states. I am proud to have been part of a bipartisan 
group of legislators who successfully worked against this proposal from 
its very onset.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, as if to provide evidence of the 
importance of the Army Corps to New Jersey, H.R. 1905 includes two 
Corps projects in my district which will help to maintain our strong 
fishing and tourism industries. Specifically, the bill includes funding 
to complete a reconnaissance study of the erosion problem along the 
Shore from Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet. The study was begun in 
fiscal year 1995 and, with the $290,000 appropriated in H.R. 1905, will 
be completed this year. The bill also provides for $100,000 to begin 
work on maintenance dredging of the Manasquan Inlet.
  These appropriations, Mr. Chairman, are modest, but the benefits they 
will bring to the State are enormous. Tourism is the second greatest 
contributor to the New Jersey economy, pumping in $22.6 billion in 1994 
alone. A stable and preserved shoreline is vital to the success of that 
industry. In fact, in 1993, the New Jersey coastal regions received 
almost 

[[Page H 6784]]
14 million overnight visitors who spent an estimated $10.3 billion and 
created more than 171,000 jobs.
  Fishing is also a key industry to the State economy. New Jersey leads 
the Nation in clam production and is a major producer of scallops and 
other seafood. In 1993, the New Jersey commercial fishing fleet caught 
more than $96 million worth of seafood. In addition, anglers 
contributed more than $649 million to the State economy in 1993. 
Waterways, like the Manasquan Inlet, must be maintained to allow the 
fishing industry to do its work.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am pleased that the Committee gave these Army 
Corps proposals appropriate attention, I am disappointed that the 
Committee has neglected another industry of importance not only to New 
Jersey, but to the Nation, and that is fusion energy research.
  For years, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in Princeton, New Jersey 
has been a key contributor to the United States' efforts to develop 
fusion energy for mass consumer use. Just this past year, the Lab 
reached record levels of energy production and seemed to be on its way 
to making this safe and clean energy source a reality. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 1905 stops their progress just as it is beginning to truly pay 
off. I am hopeful that this will be corrected as we move through the 
conference process.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill. This bill represents a good balance between 
competing interests for a limited pool of resources, and I applaud the 
Appropriations Committee for their good efforts.
  One issue that I have closely monitored during the formulation of 
this bill is the appropriation for the Department of Energy's [DOE] 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Budget. Those of us who 
represent districts containing sites where the Department of Energy 
carried out nuclear energy or weapons research and production 
activities that resulted or weapons research and production activities 
that resulted in radioactive and hazardous contamination are committed 
to ensuring that this budget maintain responsible levels of funding to 
meet the Federal Government's clean up obligations. If there are no 
funds to clean up the environmental and health hazards caused by our 
nation's nuclear weapons production, the sites will continue to cause 
an imminent danger to citizens living near the facilities.
  I believe the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Budget 
appropriation is fair given the Government's budget constraints. The 
recommended appropriation represents a 7.6 percent increase from last 
year's budget, increasing spending from $4.9 billion in fiscal year 
1995 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 1996. I understand that the 
committee has sought to protect funding for cleanup milestones 
established in compliance agreements by directing cuts against support 
service contracts, excessive headquarters and field oversight, and by 
reducing the number of new construction starts proposed to begin in 
fiscal year 1996. I agree that it is important to ensure that this 
funding is sued for actual clean up of sites, instead of wasted on 
overhead costs.
  The Fernald site, a former uranium processing center, lies in my 
congressional district. At no fault of their own, thousands of people 
living near Fernald have potentially been exposed to dangerous material 
in the air, soil and water. With DOE oversight, much progress has been 
made at Fernald in cleaning up these hazards. However, problems 
persist.
  A specific proposal has been developed to accelerate remediation, so 
that the site will be clean in 10 years. Having reviewed the proposal 
and consulted with the various interested parties, I am convinced it is 
a sound approach. It enjoys widespread support, could serve as a model 
of successful cleanup efforts, and would result in significant savings 
to the taxpayer. In fact, I understand that accelerating the schedule 
for cleanup from 25 years down to 10 years would result in a savings to 
the taxpayer of approximately $1.4 billion.
  I am extremely pleased that the Appropriations Committee has also 
specifically recognized the prospects for immediate cleanup at Fernald. 
The Committee Report cites that, ``the Committee supports [Fernald's] 
proposal to reduce costs and accelerate cleanup activities and expects 
the Department to make every effort to increase funding for this 
project.''
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this appropriations 
legislation. It provides fair funding levels for our national energy 
and water priorities, including the cleanup of the Government's nuclear 
waste sites, while still providing for savings that will help move us 
to a balanced budget by 2002. Thank you.
  Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, included in the fiscal year 1996 
Energy and Water Appropriations package are two projects of great 
interest to me for which I want to express my support for funding. They 
are as follows:
  Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, is a navigation project which is 
budgeted for operations and maintenance at $2,190.000. Continued 
funding of this project is essential due to the impact on the local 
economy. The project provides for widening and deepening the existing 
channels to (40.5 miles) and basins from the Gulf of Mexico to 
deepwater ports at Harbor Island, Ingleside, and Corpus Christi, and a 
branch channel to the port of La Quinta to provide a project depth of 
45 feet. It also includes the construction of mooring areas and 
dolphins at Port Ingleside, one mooring area and six dolphins 
constructed initially with seven others deferred to be constructed when 
required.
  Lower Rio Grande Basin, South Main Channel, Texas, is a comprehensive 
flood control-drainage project which is budgeted at $900,000. It 
provides the major outlet component of an overall flood protection plan 
for Willacy and Hidalgo Counties. The authorized plan calls for 
construction of a major channel extending from near McAllen to the 
Laguna Madre, and related fish and wildlife mitigating measures. The 
authorized plan would provide two year protection to rural areas which 
drain into the South Main Channel; one hundred year flood protection to 
the cities of Edinburg, McAllen and Lyford; and 50-year flood 
protection for the cities of La Villa and Edcouch.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles and each title shall be considered read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-154 if offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, is not subject to amendment, and is 
not subject to a demand for division of the question. Debate on the 
amendment is limited to 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  After disposition of that amendment, the bill as then perfected will 
be considered as original text.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The clerk will designate title 1.
  The text of title 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1905

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, for energy and water development, 
     and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes.


                         general investigations

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of 
     authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     $129,906,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     funds are provided for the following projects in the amounts 
     specified:
       Norco Bluffs, California, $375,000;
       Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $2,000,000;
       Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, $1,000,000; and
       Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania, 
     $300,000.


                         construction, general

       For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
     shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws; 
     and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
     projects (including those for development with participation 
     or under consideration for participation by States, local 
     governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible 
     for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
     commitment of the Government to construction), $807,846,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which such sums as are 
     necessary pursuant to Public Law 99-662 shall be derived from 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, for one-half of the costs of 
     construction and rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, 
     including rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 25, 
     Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri, Lock and Dam 14, 
     Mississippi River, Iowa, 

[[Page H 6785]]
     Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi river, Illinois and Missouri, and GIWW-
     Brazos River, Floodgates, Texas, projects, and of which funds 
     are provided for the following projects in the amounts 
     specified:
       Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and 
     Louisiana, $6,600,000;
       Sacramento River Flood Control Project (Glenn-Colusa 
     Irrigation District), California, $300,000;
       San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California, 
     $5,000,000;
       Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, $1,500,000;
       Harlan (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and 
     Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $12,000,000;
       Williamsburg (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $4,100,000;
       Middlesboro (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River 
     and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $1,600,000;
       Salyersville, Kentucky, $500,000;
       Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection), 
     Louisiana, $11,848,000;
       Red River below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization, 
     Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, $3,800,000;
       Broad Top Region, Pennsylvania, $4,100,000;
       Glen Foerd, Pennsylvania, $200,000; and
       Wallisville Lake, Texas, $5,000,000.


 flood control, mississippi river and tributaries, arkansas, illinois, 
       kentucky, louisiana, mississippi, missouri, and tennessee

       For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood 
     control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance 
     of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood, 
     as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), $307,885,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                   operation and maintenance, general

       For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, 
     maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 
     control, and related works, including such sums as may be 
     necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by 
     a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of 
     harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce 
     and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and 
     northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and 
     straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to 
     navigation, $1,712,123,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as become available in the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662, 
     may be derived from that fund, and of which such sums as 
     become available from the special account established by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that fund for construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available 
     for obligation for national emergency preparedness programs: 
     Provided further, That $5,926,000 of the funds appropriated 
     herein are provided for the Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, 
     project: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army is 
     authorized to transfer an appropriate amount of land at the 
     Cooper Lake and Channels, Texas, project, not to exceed 300 
     acres, from mitigation or low-density recreation to high-
     density recreation, and is further authorized to take 
     whatever actions are necessary, including the acquisition of 
     additional mitigation lands, to accomplish such transfer.


                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $101,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary for emergency flood control, 
     hurricane, and shore protection activities, as authorized by 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, 
     as amended, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                           oil spill research

       For expenses necessary to carry out the purposes of the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund, pursuant to Title VII
      of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $850,000, to be derived 
     from the Fund and to remain available until expended.


                            general expenses

       For expenses necessary for general administration and 
     related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and 
     offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal 
     Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center 
     Support Activity, the Engineering Strategic Studies Center, 
     and the Water Resources Support Center, $150,000,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $60,000,000 of the funds 
     provided in this Act shall be available for general 
     administration and related functions in the Office of the 
     Chief of Engineers: Provided further, That no part of any 
     other appropriation provided in title I of this Act shall be 
     available to fund the activities of the Office of the Chief 
     of Engineers or the executive direction and management 
     activities of the Division Offices: Provided further, That 
     with funds provided herein and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Army shall develop and 
     submit to the Congress within 60 days of enactment of this 
     Act, a plan which reduces the number of division offices 
     within the United States Army Corps of Engineers to no less 
     than 6 and no more than 8, with each division responsible for 
     at least 4 district offices, but does not close or change the 
     function of any district office: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Army is directed to begin implementing the division 
     office plan on May 1, 1996, and such plan shall be 
     implemented prior to October 1, 1997.


                       administrative provisions

       Appropriations in this title shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed 
     $5,000); and during the current fiscal year the revolving 
     fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase 
     (not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.

                           GENERAL PROVISION

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       Sec. 101. (a) In fiscal year 1996, the Secretary of the 
     Army shall advertise for competitive bid at least 7,500,000 
     cubic yards of the hopper dredge volume accomplished with 
     government-owned dredges in fiscal year 1992.
       (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the 
     Secretary is authorized to use the dredge fleet of the Corps 
     of Engineers to undertake projects when industry does not 
     perform as required by the contract specifications or when 
     the bids are more than 25 percent in excess of what the 
     Secretary determines to be a fair and reasonable estimated 
     cost of a well equipped contractor doing the work or to 
     respond to emergency requirements.
       (c) None of the funds appropriated herein or otherwise made 
     available to the Army Corps of Engineers, including amounts 
     contained in the Revolving Fund of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers, may be used to study, design or undertake 
     improvement or major repair of the Federal vessel, McFARLAND, 
     or for any use of the McFARLAND to perform work other than 
     emergency dredging work.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against title 1?


                             point of order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 6, 
line 6, beginning with the words ``provided further,'' through line 13 
on page 6.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard in support of my point 
of order, nevertheless I want to emphasize that I am sympathetic to the 
language that my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] has 
attempted to insert here. The problem is we have had many requests for 
authorizations come before our committee from both sides of the aisle, 
including Members of our own committee, which we have not agreed to. 
Therefore, I feel constrained to oppose this particular authorization 
because we have already disagreed and opposed so many.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that I understand the purpose of 
the provision, and that we will consider it very seriously and I 
believe favorably in the context of our authorizing legislation to be 
brought before the Congress. I want to give my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas, that assurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 
104-154.
                    amendment offered by mr. shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 8, line 3, strike 
     ``May 1, 1996'' and insert ``August 15, 1996''.
       Page 9, line 6, strike ``McFARLAND,'' and all that follows 
     through line 8 and insert ``McFARLAND.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the authorizing 
committee having jurisdiction over the water resources programs of the 
Army Corps of Engineers, I rise to offer an amendment to title I of the 
bill. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is in two parts: first, to change the 
effective date of a plan to close some of the Corps of Engineers 
divisions offices, and second, to delete a prohibition against the use 
of the dredge McFarland during fiscal year 1996.
  Regarding the first part of my amendment, I certainly applaud the 

[[Page H 6786]]
  Committee on Appropriation's efforts to streamline the corps and to 
save money. The Corps of Engineers must be allowed to downsize and make 
itself more efficient. The bill requires a plan to close three to five 
division offices. This plan will be only implemented after Congress has 
had an opportunity to review it. I have supported this aspect of the 
bill.
  The effect of my amendment simply is to assure that by changing the 
effective date from May 1, 1996, to August 15, 1996, that the 
authorizing committee has a reasonable amount of time to review the 
plan after it has been transmitted to the Congress.
  The second part of the amendment recognizes the need to avoid the 
expenditure of funds to rehabilitate a vessel that may not fit into the 
long-term plans for the corps' dredging program. Yet, this amendment 
allows the vessel to be kept operational while decisions are reached. 
We must carefully review the corps' long-term needs for hopper dredges 
and the private dredging industry's capability to provide timely and 
cost-effective dredging services. The proper place to conduct this 
review is in the context of Water Resource's authorizing legislation, 
which will be addressed by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  H.R. 1905 prohibits the use of funds available to the corps in fiscal 
year 1996 for rehabilitating the dredge McFarland and for use of the 
dredge for anything other than emergencies. The effect of my amendment 
is to retain the prohibition against rehabilitating the McFarland, but 
to allow continued use of the vessel in its current capacity as part of 
the corps' minimum dredge fleet. This will allow the authorizing 
committee to fully explore all options for the long-term disposition of 
the McFarland as well as the overall direction of the dredging program.
  Both of these recommended changes to the bill will result in needed 
improvements and cost savings, and at the same time assure that the 
issues they represent are fully addressed in the proper form.
  I certainly want to emphasize our appreciation for the cooperation 
shown by my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations during the 
development of this legislation, especially from the chairman, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's 
amendment. First let me state, it has been noted that the Corps has 
tried to consolidate, not close but consolidate, some of the division 
offices around the country. We could cut back to six or eight offices 
to be more efficient. We selected May 1 because by this time next year 
we will have a bill on the floor.
  It is not just quite as easy as closing up an office and walking 
away. It requires appropriations to close some of these offices and to 
consolidate them. We chose May 1 in order to be able to next year 
appropriate for that consolidation. I hope the committee will make 
every effort to try to get the job done, to make these consolidations 
as soon as possible, so we can appropriate next year.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to get our job 
done, I would say to the gentleman, and we will make every effort to 
get that done.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. It was my understanding we had an understanding 
about May 1. We were not trying to be arbitrary, but it was just a 
misunderstanding between the authorizing committee and us.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if there is no Member in opposition, I ask 
unanimous consent that I be yielded that 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire if there is any Member in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster].
  If not, without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to enter into a colloquy 
with the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As author of section 101 of the bill, let me 
clarify my intent and the intent of the Committee on appropriations. 
Our primary motivation was saving extremely scarce dollars without 
adversely impacting essential Corps missions. In addition, we intended 
to take steps that would be supportive of the private sector which is 
so essential in ensuring the proper maintenance of the Nation's 
navigation channels. Specifically, the amendment I offered in Committee 
would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from going forward with 
major repairs and improvements to the government owned dredge 
McFarland, especially when earlier studies questioned the justification 
of the current Federal hopper dredge fleet and when the Corps is, once 
again, conducting a reevaluation of the Federal hopper dredge fleet and 
industry capability.
  We on the Appropriations Committee have the responsibility of 
ensuring that Federal dollars are spent wisely. At the same time, we 
recognize that the authorizing committee has the major role in deciding 
the need for and the appropriate size and scope of the Federal hopper 
dredge fleet. Our intent was simply to defer expenditures for major 
repairs of one of the vessels until the ongoing study is completed.
  Further, we felt that a more accurate assessment of the existing 
Federal fleet was through a market test--using industry first and the 
Corps vessel in reserve if industry can't do the job. It was never our 
intent to usurp the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I want to thank the gentleman for his reassurance and 
indicate that the authorizing committee also is seeking to find savings 
wherever possible and to support the private sector if it can 
demonstrate it can do the job. We intend to look carefully at the 
performance of the private sector in evaluating the appropriate scope 
of and need for a Federal dredging fleet at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just for clarification, the compromise that we 
have agreed to would prohibit the expenditure of funds for improvement 
or major repair of the dredge McFarland.
  This language is intended to prohibit the Corps from going forward 
with any substantial new investment in upgrading the McFarland or 
extending the vessel's useful life, but not to limit the Corps' ability 
to undertake repairs needed to keep the vessel operational as part of 
the Corps' minimum dredge fleet and to meet Coast Guard certification. 
I would ask the gentleman whether this is his understanding as well.
  Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman is correct, that is our understanding. 
There is no expenditure of additional Federal funds involved here.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his time and comments.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the 
Shuster amendment which will allow the Dredge McFarland to keep 
operating to meet the dredging needs of the ports of the east coast and 
gulf throughout fiscal year 1996.
  I compliment the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for taking the initiative on this important matter.
  I look forward to working with the chairman when our committee 
reviews this issue as part of our water resources development 
legislation later this year.
  The continued operation of the Dredge McFarland is absolutely vital 
to the port of Philadelphia and the many businesses which depend on the 
Delaware River Channel.

[[Page H 6787]]

  The Delaware River ports handle almost 80 million tons of cargo 
annually. They generate $4 billion in commerce for the region.
  These ports depend on the 120-mile Delaware River Channel being kept 
open. The river has a high silt content and frequently requires a 
rapid, effective response.
  It is too much of a risk for the economy of the Greater Philadelphia 
region to eliminate the McFarland without having a proven substitute.
  There has been no demonstration that the private dredging industry 
will provide an effective replacement to the McFarland.
  The private dredging industry was offered an opportunity in last 
year's Water Resources Development Act to prove it can do the job while 
the McFarland was being repaired.
  If private industry proved up to the task, the McFarland would be 
kept in reserve until it was needed for emergency work.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to some statements, there has been no Corps of 
Engineers study that finds that the corps' dredge fleet should be 
reduced.
  The study that the corps submitted on this issue was rejected by the 
Army Audit Agency for using poor data and poor methodology.
  The Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, John Zirschky said, 
``Given the uncertainties associated with dredging needs, the existing 
studies do not provide sufficient certainty that the dredging needs of 
the country can be met by the private sector alone.''
  He said, ``It would not be prudent to reduce the fleet.''
  The Army Audit Agency reviewed the proposed corps study and found 
that its data reliability was too low for its conclusions to be carried 
out. The Army Audit Agency asked for a new study.
  That is why the corps is studying the issue again--because the 
previous studies were inadequate.
  Again, I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for offering this amendment and I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Myers, and the ranking Member, Mr. Bevill, for 
accepting the amendment.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Shuster.
  I cannot stress enough the importance of the dredge McFarland to the 
operation of the Delaware River ports. These ports handle 80 million 
tons of cargo, and generate $4 billion in commerce for our region. 
Eight-five percent of the Northeast's heating oil also passes through 
these ports. Both our economy and environment could be devastated if 
the Delaware Channel was not served by the McFarland.
  And as the only dredge currently operating with sea turtle 
deflectors, the McFarland is proven effective in preserving sensitive 
marine habitats. This has sent the McFarland to several key ports in 
Florida and Louisiana which have required dredging in sensitive waters. 
I urge support for the Shuster amendment, and continued operation of 
the McFarland.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                              {time}  1530


                    amendment offered by mr. stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stupak: Page 9, after line 8, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 102. (a) Sand and Stone Cap in Navigation Project at 
     Manistique Harbor, Michigan.--The project for navigation, 
     Manistique Harbor, Schoolcraft County, Michigan, authorized 
     by the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1905 (33 Stat. 1136), is 
     modified to permit installation of a sand and stone cap over 
     sediments affected by polychlorinated biphenyls in accordance 
     with an administrative order of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (b) Project Depth.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     project described in subsection (a) is modified to provide 
     for an authorized depth of 18 feet.
       (2) Exception.--The authorized depth shall be 12.5 feet in 
     the areas where the sand and stone cap described in 
     subsection (a) will be placed within the following 
     coordinates: 4220N-2800E to 4220N-3110E to 3980N-3260E to 
     3190N-3040E to 2960N-2560E to 3150N-2300E to 3680N-2510E to 
     3820N-2690E and back to 4220N-2800E.
       (c) Harbor of Refuge.--The project described in subsection 
     (a), including the breakwalls, pier, and authorized depth of 
     the project (as modified by subsection (b)), shall continue 
     to be maintained as a harbor of refuge.

  Mr. STUPAK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] for their assistance on this amendment.
  This amendment is to allow a harbor to be capped in accordance with 
an administrative order negotiated between the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers and potentially 
responsible parties at the Manistique Harbor.
  EPA has agreed that a hybrid remedy of dredging and capping could be 
necessary to cap PCB's in the Manistique Harbor. This agreement was 
just entered into within the last 2 weeks. The dredging which is part 
of the remedy negotiated here has already begun in the Manistique 
Harbor.
  We would like to cap yet this year. In order to cap this year, we 
would have to change the river level, the depth of the river. It is now 
18 feet. We would have to change it to 12.5 feet. We would like to do 
it this year, before the ice moves in in northern Michigan, by the 
first of the year.
  Mr. Chairman, we are scheduled, under the negotiated agreement 
between all the parties, to begin capping on August the 1st. I have 
been able to draft this amendment, and I again would like to thank the 
principals involved in helping me to draft this amendment to make it 
acceptable to this legislation.
  We are not here asking for an authorization of any money now or in 
the future. Any costs associated with this amendment will be picked up 
by the potential responsible parties with this negotiated settlement.
  I am not here for, nor does my amendment request, any authorizing 
funds or reprogramming funds. This is not an authorization amendment.
  Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Any 
delay would be a serious delay in the negotiated settlement between the 
parties, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. As I said, capping is 
slated to begin next month. If we could pass it through with this 
legislation now, we will move on to the Senate and we are confident we 
can get it done yet this year.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would once again ask that this amendment 
be adopted as written and I appreciate the cooperation of all the 
parties involved.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  The agreement was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project


                central utah project completion account

       For the purpose of carrying out provisions of the Central 
     Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575 (106 Stat. 
     4605), and for feasibility studies of alternatives to the 
     Uintah and Upalco Units, $42,893,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $23,503,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account: 
     Provided, That of the amounts deposited into the Account, 
     $5,000,000 shall be considered the Federal Contribution 
     authorized by paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Act and $18,503,000 
     shall be available to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
     Conservation Commission to carry out activities authorized 
     under the Act.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior under 
     the Act, $1,246,000, to remain available until expended.
                         Bureau of Reclamation

       For carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     as provided in the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 
     1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or 
     supplementary thereto) and other Acts applicable to that 
     Bureau as follows:
     
[[Page H 6788]]



                         general investigations

       For engineering and economic investigations of proposed 
     Federal reclamation projects and studies of water 
     conservation and development plans and activities preliminary 
     to the reconstruction, rehabilitation and betterment, 
     financial adjustment, or extension of existing projects, to 
     remain available until expended, $13,114,000: Provided, That, 
     of the total appropriated, the amount for program activities 
     which can be financed by the reclamation fund shall be 
     derived from that fund: Provided further, That funds 
     contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes similar to 
     this appropriation shall be available for expenditure for the 
     purposes for which contributed as though specifically 
     appropriated for said purposes, and such amounts shall remain 
     available until expended.


                          construction program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For construction and rehabilitation of projects and parts 
     thereof (including power transmission facilities for Bureau 
     of Reclamation use) and for other related activities as 
     authorized by law, to remain available until expended, 
     $417,301,000, of which $27,049,000 shall be available for 
     transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund authorized by 
     section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620d), and 
     $94,225,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin Development Fund authorized by section 
     403 of the Act of September 30, 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1543), and 
     such amounts as may be necessary shall be considered as 
     though advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund for the 
     Boulder Canyon Project as authorized by the Act of December 
     21, 1928, as amended: Provided, That of the total 
     appropriated, the amount for program activities which can be 
     financed by the reclamation fund shall be derived from that 
     fund: Provided further, That transfers to the Upper Colorado 
     River Basin Fund and Lower Colorado River Basin Development 
     Fund may be increased or decreased by transfers within the 
     overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further, 
     That funds contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes 
     similar to this appropriation shall be available for 
     expenditure for the purposes for which contributed as though 
     specifically appropriated for said purposes, and such funds 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     all costs of the safety of dams modification work at Coolidge 
     Dam, San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona, performed under 
     the authority of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 
     (43 U.S.C. 506), as amended, are in addition to the amount 
     authorized in section 5 of said Act.
                       operation and maintenance

       For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or 
     parts thereof and other facilities, as authorized by law; and 
     for a soil and moisture conservation program on lands under 
     the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to 
     law, to remain available until expended, $278,759,000: 
     Provided, That of the total appropriated, the amount for 
     program activities which can be financed by the reclamation 
     fund shall be derived from that fund, and the amount for 
     program activities which can be derived from the special fee 
     account established pursuant to the Act of December 22, 1987 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), may be derived from that 
     fund: Provided further, That funds advanced by water users 
     for operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or 
     parts thereof shall be deposited to the credit of this 
     appropriation and may be expended for the same purpose and in 
     the same manner as sums appropriated herein may be expended,
      and such advances shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That revenues in the Upper Colorado 
     River Basin Fund shall be available for performing 
     examination of existing structures on participating 
     projects of the Colorado River Storage Project.


               bureau of reclamation loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $11,243,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small 
     Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $37,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000: 
     Provided, That of the total sums appropriated, the amount of 
     program activities which can be financed by the reclamation 
     fund shall be derived from the fund.
                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, to remain available 
     until expended, such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), 3405(f) and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575: 
     Provided, That the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to levy 
     additional mitigation and restoration payments totaling 
     $30,000,000 (October 1992 price levels) on a three-year 
     rolling average basis, as authorized by section 3407(d) of 
     Public Law 102-575.


                    general administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses of general administration and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, $48,630,000, of which $1,400,000 shall remain 
     available until expended, the total amount to be derived from 
     the reclamation fund and to be nonreimbursable pursuant to 
     the Act of April 19, 1945 (43 U.S.C. 377): Provided, That no 
     part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted for the 
     current fiscal year as general administrative expenses.


                             special funds

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sums herein referred to as being derived from the 
     reclamation fund or special fee account are appropriated from 
     the special funds in the Treasury created by the Act of June 
     17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391) or the Act of December 22, 1987 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), respectively. Such sums shall be 
     transferred, upon request of the Secretary, to be merged with 
     and expended under the heads herein specified; and the 
     unexpended balances of sums transferred for expenditure under 
     the head ``General Administrative Expenses'' shall revert and 
     be credited to the reclamation fund.


                        administrative provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed 9 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?


             amendment offered by mrs. smith of washington

  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Smith of Washington: Page 14, 
     line 13, strike ``$48,630,000'' and insert ``$48,150,000''.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering 
is a $480,000 cut in the Bureau of Reclamation's appropriation for 
their international program. Let me explain why I am offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not know that the Bureau of Reclamation had an 
international program until a constituent asked me at a town hall 
meeting why we were spending money on sewer systems in Egypt. First, I 
told him I did not think we were, but then I took a look.
  What I found was that the Bureau of Reclamation is spending over a 
million dollars annually to help build water projects in some of the 
wealthiest nations on earth, including Saudi Arabia. Part of this is 
reimbursed, but not all.
  These countries can afford to hire American private sector 
consultants to teach them to build dams or improve irrigation canals. 
They do not need the technical assistance that they can get from 
professionals in the international and private sector.
  In fact, the American Consulting Engineers Council supports this 
amendment. There are 200,000 engineers that could do this in the 
private sector and not have to complete with public dollars. They 
support this amendment because they believe they can do the job and do 
it competitively.
  The Bureau of Reclamation commissioner pledged, when he first came 
in, to phase this program out, but he did not do it. Mr. Chairman, I 
guess what I am asking today is that we put our vote behind what we 
have been saying and get unnecessary spending out, return to the 
private sector, and save the taxpayers some money.
  But even if we do not cut this totally out of the budget, we can find 
somewhere where want to spend $480,000; somewhere else. I am sure there 
are projects on children or other projects that would be better served 
by this money than these wealthy nations.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Washington 
has discussed her amendment with the members of this committee and we 
find it acceptable.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith]
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
  
[[Page H 6789]]


                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

           Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy activities 
     including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant 
     and capital equipment and other expenses incidental thereto 
     necessary for energy supply, research and development 
     activities, and other activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 25, of which 19 are 
     for replacement only), $2,596,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended.
                Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy in connection with 
     operating expenses; the purchase, construction, and 
     acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other expenses 
     incidental thereto necessary for uranium supply and 
     enrichment activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et 
     seq.) and the Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486, section 
     901), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; purchase of 
     electricity as necessary; $64,197,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That revenues received by the 
     Department for uranium programs and estimated to total 
     $34,903,000 in fiscal year 1996 shall be retained and used 
     for the specific purpose of offsetting costs incurred by the 
     Department for such activities notwithstanding the provisions 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2296(b)(2): Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as 
     revenues are received during fiscal year 1996 so as to result 
     in a final fiscal year 1996 appropriation estimated at not 
     more than $29,294,000.
      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 1992, $278,807,000, to be derived from the fund, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That at least $42,000,000 
     of amounts derived from the fund for such expenses shall be 
     expended in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                General Science and Research Activities

       For expenses of the Department of Energy activities 
     including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant 
     and capital equipment and other expenses incidental thereto 
     necessary for general science and research activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion; purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to 
     exceed 12 for replacement only), $991,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
                      Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $226,600,000, to remain available until expended, 
     to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund.

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities


                           weapons activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 79, of which 76 are 
     for replacement only, including one police-type vehicle), 
     $3,273,014,000, to remain available until expended.
         defense environmental restoration and waste management

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense environmental restoration and waste management 
     activities in carrying out the purposes of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     the acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion; and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
     (not to exceed 7 for replacement only), $5,265,478,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
                        other defense activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense, other defense activities in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the acquisition or 
     condemnation of any real property or any facility or for 
     plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion 
     $1,323,841,000, to remain available until expended.
                     defense nuclear waste disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $198,400,000, to remain available until expended.
                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for Departmental Administration and other 
     activities in carrying out the purposes of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     the hire of passenger motor vehicles and official reception 
     and representation expenses (not to exceed $35,000), 
     $362,250,000, to remain available until expended, plus such 
     additional amounts as necessary to cover increases in the 
     estimated amount of cost of work for others notwithstanding 
     the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511, et 
     seq.): Provided, That such increases in cost of work are 
     offset by revenue increases of the same or greater amount, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous revenues 
     estimated to total $122,306,000 in fiscal year 1996 may be 
     retained and used for operating expenses within this account, 
     and may remain available until expended, as authorized by 
     section 201 of Public Law 95-238, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 3302 of title 31, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced by the amount of miscellaneous revenues received 
     during fiscal year 1996 so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 1996 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $239,944,000.
                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $26,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

         Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     projects in Alaska and of marketing electric power and 
     energy, $4,260,000, to remain available until expended.
                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $3,000.
       During fiscal year 1996, no new direct loan obligations may 
     be made.
      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as
      applied to the southeastern power area, $19,843,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, and for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     connected therewith, in carrying out the provisions of 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     as applied to the southwestern power area, $29,778,000, to 
     remain available until expended; in addition, notwithstanding 
     the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $4,272,000 in 
     reimbursements, to remain available until expended.
 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7101, et seq.), and other related activities including 
     conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized, 
     including official reception and representation expenses in 
     an amount not to exceed $1,500, $257,652,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $245,151,000 shall be 
     derived from the Department of the Interior Reclamation fund: 
     Provided, That of the amount herein appropriated, $5,283,000 
     is for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 
     Conservation Account pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation 
     Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
     transfer from the Colorado River Dam Fund to the Western Area 
     Power Administration $4,556,000 to carry out the power 
     marketing and transmission activities of the Boulder Canyon 
     project as provided in section 104(a)(4) of the Hoover Power 
     Plant Act of 1984, to remain available until expended.

[[Page H 6790]]


           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $1,000,000, to remain available until expended and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, including the hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000); $132,290,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $132,290,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 1996, shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues are 
     received during fiscal year 1996 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 1996 appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III?


             amendment offered by mr. barrett of wisconsin

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin: Page 16, 
     line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(less $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, concern over the size of the 
deficit is at an all-time high, and the last thing taxpayers want to 
see right now is a Federal program receiving an unjustified 50 percent 
increase in funding. Yet, that is precisely what is happening with the 
Department of Energy's hydrogen research program.
  Despite all of the hot air about cutting spending, the hydrogen 
research budget has ballooned. The administration asked for $7.3 
million for fiscal year 1996, and the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee responded by providing $10 million. Then the 
Appropriations Committee saw fit to increase funding in the bill to $15 
million, more than double the administration's request and 50 percent 
more than this year's funding level.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would reduce the 
appropriation for hydrogen research by $5 million. It would fund 
hydrogen research at its fiscal year 1995 level, and at the level 
recommended by the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
  The generous funding for the hydrogen program is excessive when 
compared to other funding levels in this legislation. Take a close look 
at H.R. 1905 see how it compares to the fiscal year 1995 budget:
  Energy and Water Appropriations are cut by 7 percent. Funding for 
energy supply research and development is cut by 22 percent. Funding 
for solar and renewable energy programs is cut by 43 percent.
  Hydrogen research is the only program in the solar and renewable 
energy category that receives any increase, and the increase is 
enormous. By freezing the appropriation at last year's level, my 
amendment would restore fairness and balance to the energy research and 
development budget. Hydrogen research should not be immune to fiscal 
responsibility.
  Opponents of my amendment will argue that $5 million in budget 
savings is insignificant and that Congress should go ahead and fund the 
hydrogen program at $15 million, as the committee recommends. Nobody 
can convince me, however, that $5 million is insignificant.
  Moreover, allowing the funding for programs like these to be 
increased without adequate justification only worsens the deficit 
problem. The administration, which oversees the actual research, only 
requested $7.3 million. But if $15 million goes to the Department of 
Energy, we all know what will happen. DOE will find other ways to spend 
it. And when DOE makes its budget request next year, it will ask for 
more dollars to pay for the new initiatives that it launched with this 
year's appropriation. By providing more than is necessary, we are only 
feeding the appetite of the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to 
Federal dollars going toward hydrogen research. Hydrogen research is 
legitimate science that holds the promise of substantial returns in the 
next century. But opponents of my amendment have not made the case for 
increasing it by 50 percent when so many other programs are being 
slashed.
  If we are to craft a responsible budget and a fair budget, then we 
will have to learn to reject increases in spending for programs we 
like. My amendment provides the opportunity to save the taxpayers 
several million dollars while rejecting a meat-ax approach to cutting 
spending. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor for the amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this is a disappointing amendment because I 
think it goes after an area where there is a legitimate attempt to try 
to do all of this process the right way.
  Earlier in this Congress the House passed a hydrogen research bill. 
We actually passed an authorization bill. It is the only item in the 
energy portion of this bill on which the House has actually acted.
  This amount of money that is in the bill represents 60 percent of the 
amount that the House has previously authorized in its attempt to 
upgrade hydrogen research in the country. When you try to do the 
process the right way, you then end up with an amendment like this one 
suggesting that you ought not follow the priorities as set by the House 
itself. I think that is disappointing. It is kind of a shame.
  It is also, I think interesting to note that the programs that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin is defending because he says, well, they have 
been cut and this one is being increased, but the programs that he is 
defending, the solar program costs $149 million in the bill, nuclear is 
$164 million in the bill, $229 million for fusion, fossil is $379 
million, conservation is $400 million, in the bill. The gentleman is 
complaining about the fact that there were cuts in those areas but that 
this one was increased.
  Well, let's consider what we are talking about here. We are talking 
about an increase of a program that is at $10 million now and is going 
to $15 million. One of the reasons why we ought to be doing what we are 
doing is readjusting priorities. We ought to be saying that there are 
some areas of research that have had their day, where we have done good 
R&D, we have found out what we need to know, and then we ought to apply 
some money toward doing other areas of high priority research.
  This House earlier this year determined that hydrogen was one of 
those areas that we want to do good research. The gentleman says he is 
not against hydrogen. Of course he is. Of course he is.
  Ten million dollars is what we spent this year. If he does not want 
to move beyond where we are, then he is opposed to doing some research 
in an area that promises to be a very good energy resource as well as 
being an environmentally sound energy resource. You do not often get 
those kinds of combinations.
  Is there scientific knowledge to be gained from this? Yes. This is a 
place where we could get some significant scientific discovery. The 
fact is that what this is an effort to do is to stop that from 
happening, is to simply say, ``We don't want to learn, we don't want 
new knowledge in this area. We would simply like to say where we are, 
despite the fact that the House has forced us to move ahead.''
  As I said, that is disappointing. It is particularly disappointing 
when what the gentleman is doing is complaining about the fact that we 
are cutting programs in the areas of fossil, for example, where we have 
done research for many, many years, and are now spending $379 million 
in this bill versus the $15 million that we are spending in the 
hydrogen program.
  I agree with the gentleman. Five million dollars is always a lot of 
money. But I have got to tell you, so is $379 million a lot of money. 
What we need to be doing is deciding what our priorities are in this 
kind of approach. Do we want to go with $379 million in research in 
energies that are admittedly environmentally questionable? Or should we 
do research in an area that is environmentally sound? 

[[Page H 6791]]

  We are simply suggesting in this particular bill with this particular 
spending that we ought to, for once, direct the Energy Department to be 
doing some energy research in an area where we can produce 
environmentally sound energy. I am disappointed the gentleman from 
Wisconsin does not want to proceed down that track. I would hope that 
it would be something that we could unite around, particularly since 
the bill that passed the House of Representatives earlier in this 
Congress passed by an ovewhelming margin.

                              {time}  1545

  The role of the Federal Government should be in funding long-term 
basic research that does have a chance for significant scientific 
payoff. This is one of those places.
  If you support the gentleman's approach of cutting out our 
investigation of that long-term research, I think that would be 
disappointing. I would hope that the House would stick with this modest 
increase in a program that has a chance for massive payoff for us in 
the years ahead.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 243, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 483]

                               AYES--182

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Burr
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wyden
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--243

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonior
     Collins (MI)
     Frost
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Yates

                              {time}  1611

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. McKinney for, with Mr. Yates against.

  Messrs. MARTINEZ, GUNDERSON, HOLDEN, BROWNBACK, WAXMAN, and Ms. 
ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. HALL of 
Texas, Mr. CRAMER, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. KLUG, Mr. COOLEY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. 
GENE GREEN of Texas, LARGENT, HORN, PORTMAN, SCARBOROUGH, WELLER, TATE, 
McINTOSH, GOODLATTE, HILLEARY, ORTON, and Ms. SLAUGHTER and Mr. 
STOCKMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water.
  Mr. Chairman, as you and the members of the committee know, one of 
the Department of Energy facilities that is in the process of ceasing 
production is the Pinellas plant, which I have the privilege of 
representing. As noted in your report, we are engaged in a very 
innovative effort there to convert this defense facility to a 
commercial facility. As part of this effort, the Department of Energy 
has transferred ownership of the Pinellas facility to the Pinellas 
County Board of County Commissioners in an agreement that benefits both 
the Federal Government and the people of Pinellas County, FL, I 
represent. The Federal Government saves valuable resources by not 
having to bulldoze the facility and go through the time consuming 
process of surplusing the property. The county gains from retaining 
access to this facility which will save many of the jobs that would 
otherwise be lost from its closure.
  Mr. Chairman, in decommissioning and closing out the defense mission 
of the Pinellas facility, the Department of Energy has certain 
obligations to leave the facility in compliance with various state and 
local codes and configured in such a way that it is safe and able to be 
utilized for its new commercial mission. The cost of these requirements 
is much less than the cost the Department would incur if it was to 
simply bulldoze the entire facility.

[[Page H 6792]]


                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that nothing in the bill or 
accompanying report would in any way impede the ongoing effort to 
decommission and convert the Pinellas plant from a national defense to 
a commercial facility.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman is correct. The committee is well 
aware of the innovative ideas and work that the Pinellas County Board 
of Commissioners is doing in Florida. We hope this will be a model that 
more industry can take over where the corporations or the government 
moves out and that corporation or industry can move in. So you are 
doing a good job, and we are very much aware of it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask if my colleague, Wayne Gilchrest, and I 
might engage with you in a colloquy on the future of beneficial use 
projects for the disposal of dredge spoils. We are particularly 
interested in the Poplar Island project, planned for the Chesapeake 
Bay, which could provide a model for such projects throughout the 
Nation.
  As you are well aware, the Port of Baltimore is central to the 
Maryland, regional, and national economies. An estimated 87,000 jobs 
are directly or indirectly related to port activity in Maryland. In 
1993 a total of 25 million tons of cargo passed through the Port of 
Baltimore. Over the past 2 years a total of 15 steamship lines have 
begun or expanded service at the port. Success in maintaining and 
improving ship channels will help assure the continued growth in 
activity at the Port of Baltimore into the 21st century and facilitate 
efficient international trade activity for the United States.
  In order to maintain shipping channels serving the Port of Baltimore 
at their existing authorized depths, each year approximately 4 million 
cubic yards of material must be dredged from the Maryland waters of the 
Chesapeake Bay. Any new work, such as improvement or deepening of 
channels, requires dredging additional amounts of material.
  In the past, the Port, working with the Army Corps of Engineers, has 
been able to meet its dredge disposal needs through careful use of 
overboard placement within Chesapeake Bay waters and by use of the 
Hart-Miller Island disposal site. Although limited overboard placement 
of dredged material will be continued--if and where it can be done 
without adversely impacting the marine environment--this option will 
nevertheless provide relatively little capacity. The remaining capacity 
of the Hart-Miller Island site is limited. Although we are in the 
process of developing a new containment site within the port, site 
constraints are such that its capacity will be relatively limited, too. 
In sum, in order to meet the dredging needs of the port, we must 
supplement these measures with other options.
  Working with many concerned parties, the Corps of Engineers and the 
State of Maryland have studied a full range of placement options. As a 
result, four potential beneficial use projects have been identified. 
Based on a consensus of various Federal, State, and local agencies, our 
first priority is the Poplar Island project. Poplar Island will provide 
additional capacity for the placement of dredge materials, while 
simultaneously enhancing the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
  Across the Nation, many ports are facing similar constraints in 
finding large, new disposal sites for necessary dredging work. Unless 
methods are developed to allow this work to proceed, the efficiency of 
our ports is increasingly threatened and the costs of international 
trade could grow significantly.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest], joins me in this colloquy, and I would say to the 
chairman, if I might, that we appreciate the subcommittee's report 
language this year supporting the Poplar Hill projects through the use 
of section 204 wetlands and aquatic habitat creation funds. In this 
Congress we will be working with the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to shape a comprehensive water resource project 
authorization package that will include Poplar Island. Recognizing 
tremendous fiscal restraints facing your subcommittee, I hope we can 
also work with you to see that Federal resources necessary to move this 
project forward as a national model will be made available over the 
coming years.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You, the 
gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Gilchrest, have worked with 
our committee very closely in making sure that the Port of Baltimore, 
which is very important to the economy of our Nation, is kept open.
  Spoil from dredging is a problem that our committee has been facing 
for a number of years, finding a site to dispose of it. The program you 
have worked out here with Poplar Island, of being able to dispose of 
the waste, of the dredged material, to enhance the ecosystem, to 
enhance the environment and wetlands, has been very, very beneficial. 
We appreciate the good work you have done, and the committee is very 
much aware of the project, as we have evidenced in our report.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to echo the words of the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] who does such an 
outstanding job representing Baltimore, the port, and our State.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to also rise to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the committee, who has been a 
longstanding supporter. I came here in 1981 and started working on the 
dredging of the Baltimore Harbor along with others. One of the 
predecessors on the committee was not too enthusiastic about that, as 
the gentleman may recall. But the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] have been tremendously 
helpful to the Port of Baltimore. I thank them, thank the committee, 
and join my colleague from Maryland in his remarks.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for the work of 
his committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reopen title II 
for the purposes of an amendment which I have at the desk, and that the 
debate be limited, as per prior agreement, to 5 minutes per side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
and I hope we will not, this is the only time we are willing to do 
this, with the understanding to limit the debate to 5 minutes pro, 5 
minutes con, and no amendments to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is the 
understanding.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. DE FAZIO

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 11, line 7, strike 
     ``$417,301,000'' and insert ''$412,180,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this goes to the ultimate commitment of $700 million of 
Federal taxpayer money. The Committee on Appropriations in its wisdom 
saw fit to add $5 million to the administration's request on the 
Animas-La 

[[Page H 6793]]
Plata project. The administration asked to continue studies and 
planning for the Animas-La Plata project, a potential $701 million 
Federal obligation. The committee has added $5 million to actually 
begin construction, that is, make an irrevocable commitment to go 
forward.
  I would suggest that this is poor timing. We have a report from the 
inspector general of the Department of Interior dated July 1994 which 
finds that this project is not economically justified. Further, the 
report of the inspector general says,

       Inform the Congress of the economic and financial viability 
     of the Animas-La Plate project based on the results of the 
     reevaluation. If warranted, the commissioner should seek 
     congressional approval for restructuring the project to limit 
     the size and scope of the project to only those water supply 
     functions that are either economically or financially viable 
     or required under the terms of the Colorado Ute Indian Water 
     Right Settlement Act.

  Mr. Chairman, that report has been prepared. We know the numbers. It 
is being concealed downtown, withheld, by the Clinton administration. 
They have twice withheld release of this report, delayed release of 
this report, and were prepared to release it this week, but are now 
going to withhold until after we take this vote.
  The last evaluation said that this had a cost-benefit ratio of 0.6 to 
1, colleagues--$701 million of Federal money, and we will get back a 
return of 0.6. According to the rules of the Department of Interior, 
Bureau of Reclamation, the project should not go forward.
  On a per acre cost, the irrigation will be $7,664 per acre, and the 
repayment will be $303. We would be better to buy out those irrigators 
or to give them half that amount of money, rather than spending all of 
this Federal money.
  This is a project born in a very different time: Cheap power, cheap 
water subsidies to agriculture, limitless Federal resources. It was 
first authorized in 1968. Times have changed, and so should this 
project.
  If we appropriate this additional $5 million and make an irrevocable 
commitment, begin to turn dirt, you all know how difficult it will be 
next year to revisit this after we get the new report from the 
Department of Interior, which is rumored to have lowered the cost-
benefit ratio from 0.6 to 1 to 0.36 to 1. That is 36 cents on the 
dollar returned, in the most generous terms, to the Federal taxpayers 
for this project.
  We should take out this $5 million. It will not kill the project, and 
it allows continued planning and evaluation and allows us to look for 
cheaper alternatives. There will still be $5 million in the bill for 
the project. But then we will have the benefit of the report from the 
inspector general, the new cost-benefit analysis, and perhaps have an 
opportunity to review less costly alternatives next year before we make 
this irrevocable commitment.
  It does not make sense to go forward now and commit this Congress and 
the taxpayers of this country to a $701 million project, when less 
expensive alternatives are available and when this does not provide a 
position cost-benefit analysis to the American taxpayers.
  Beyond that, it is particularly outrageous to go forward, when the 
Clinton administration is concealing a very, very negative report 
downtown, and they are going to release it just after we vote. If you 
vote to keep these funds in the bill, you will be very embarrassed next 
week when they finally release that report and show the benefit to be 
0.36 to 1, 36 cents on the dollar to the Federal taxpayers.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee and 
opposed to this amendment. This project concerns two large Indian 
tribes in southwest Colorado. We have been working on this project for 
10 years. The unemployment rate in the area is some 62 percent, and 
this is water over which the Indians have given up their water rights, 
very valuable water rights, that they were given 100 years ago. As a 
matter of fact, the negotiations have been going on for 100 years 
between the State of Colorado, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United 
States Government, and the Department of the Interior. This has been 
going on for 100 years, and they reached agreement. Secretary Babbitt 
says this is an obligation to the United States of America, and we are 
going to stick with our agreement. The subcommittee has supported this 
position for 10 years, and we expect this project to move on. We do not 
want to see this project sidetracked again. It has been an 
environmental matter for years, been in the courts, and now it is all 
wrapped up. We owe it to these Indians, who have given up very valuable 
rights in order to get this project going. I urge Members to vote 
``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Committee 
on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. The gentleman from Alabama put it very clearly: This is not 
about the author of the amendment's statement about money. This is 
about, very frankly, the environmental community opposes this dam. Let 
us get beyond that. Let us go to the commitment we have made to the 
American Indian. Let us make that commitment one not of the forked 
tongue. This project has been worked on for over 100 years. It is time 
that this Congress speaks with a straight tongue and fulfill our 
obligations.
  I would suggest respectfully that if we do not do so, we have gone 
back and repeated what we have done over the years, breaking our word 
again and again. I would suggest respectfully this amendment is not 
appropriate if we are to fulfill our obligations. I urge a strong no 
vote. Let us speak with a straight tongue, and not forked tongue.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let us start out, the gentleman from 
Oregon states that the President's recommendation did not include 
construction. The gentleman is wrong on that. The President did include 
construction. The President supports this, Bruce Babbitt supports it, 
there are a lot of people in support for this, except for the Sierra 
Club. Why are they in support of it? It is because we have a treaty 
with the native Americans. Let me read a letter, one of the most moving 
letters I have read.
                              {time}  1630

  This is from the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, from the 
chairman:

       After reading the article on the Animas-La Plata Projection 
     the June 29, 1995, edition of The Washington Post, I knew how 
     my ancestors must have felt when the United States government 
     repeatedly broke treaties with the Colorado Ute Indians. 
     First in 1863, then in 1868, 1873 and, finally, in 1880. With 
     each treaty, the homelands of the Utes were reduced in size. 
     Finally, in 1880, Congress confiscated all of the Ute lands 
     in Colorado--over one-third of the state of Colorado. In the 
     1930's, a small remnant of our aboriginal homelands in 
     Southwestern Colorado were restored to tribal ownership.
       Now, The Washington Post suggests that the United States 
     government breach the agreement that was entered into in 
     1988. At that time, the Colorado Utes chose to negotiate 
     rather than litigate and entered into another treaty, or 
     contract, with America, in return for deferring the Colorado 
     Utes' senior Winters water claims on the rivers in 
     Southwestern Colorado that cross the reservation. Congress 
     and then President Reagan said, ``We will build the Animas-La 
     Plata Project. The Utes will have wet water--not paper water 
     rights.'' Upon passage of the Colorado Ute Indian Water 
     Rights Settlement Act, the legislation was hailed as a model 
     for all tribes to follow--negotiate, do not litigate. Since 
     passage, the States of Colorado, New Mexico, the water 
     districts, the municipalities, and the Indian tribes, have 
     been strangled in a swamp of red tape and bureaucratic 
     backpeddling.
       Now comes The Washington Post, not unlike the Indian givers 
     of the last century. Do not honor our commitment to the 
     Indians. Ignore the trust responsibility the United States 
     government has under the Constitution of the United States. 
     Sacrifice the Indian water claims on the alter of economics. 
     It is too expensive to build the Animas-La Plata. Let's give 
     he Indians ``wampum'' instead of water. My ancestors were all 
     too familiar with the ``beads for Manhattan'' mentality of 
     the early Indian traders. Colorado Ute Indian tribes 
     honorably negotiated the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights 
     Settlement Act, which mandates construction of the Animas-La 
     Plata Project. In his inaugural message to the Congress, 
     President Bush said ``great men, like great nations, must 
     keep their promises. The Colorado Ute Indian tribes expect 
     this great nation to keep is promise and construct the 
     Animas-La Plata Project.''


[[Page H 6794]]

  Above everything else, the number one issue that we have to face as 
Members of the United States Congress and on this very amendment that 
is in front of us today is will we or will we not honor our treaty 
agreement with the native Americans. If you vote yes on this amendment, 
you once again walk away from the native Americans of this country. 
Vote ``no'' on DeFazio.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 151, 
noes 275, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               AYES--151

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Obey
     Owens
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--275

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Frost
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     McKinney
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Scarborough
     Yates
                              {time}  1653

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Yates for, with Mr. Scarborough against.

  Mr. ROSE and Mr. DIXON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DEUTSCH, CONYERS, LaHOOD, KLUG, RAHALL, GILCHREST, TOWNS, and 
GILMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.

                          ____________________