[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.
____________________