[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6838-H6883]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1905.

                              {time}  1028


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
11, 1995, the bill had been read through page 24, line 18, and title 
III was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title III?


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 25.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H 6839]]

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 16, on line 1, 
     insert ``(less $40,000,000)'', before ``to remain''.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a 
mutual agreement to limit the debate on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto, like we did similarly yesterday, to 40 minutes, 
with the time equally divided between the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, this is the third cutting amendment that I will have 
offered on this bill. Let me simply explain what it does. This 
amendment cuts $40 million in the bill for the advanced light water 
reactor program.
  What I would simply say is ``Here we go again'' as President Reagan 
used to say, with another example of corporate welfare for the nuclear 
industry. Essentially what these funds do is to help large corporations 
obtain design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
This amounts to the Government funding a portion of the licensing costs 
of large corporations in order to comply with its own regulations.
  The committee has heard volumes of testimony this year from 
organization after organization saying, ``Let the marketplace determine 
what is commercially viable; the Government should not be in the 
business of picking winners and losers.''
  How many times have you heard that? Yet these remarks apparently have 
fallen on deaf ears, or, alternatively, the committee has determined 
these
 concepts do not apply to the nuclear industry.

  Since 1974, the Federal Government has spent $26 billion on nuclear 
fission programs. This has occurred despite the fact that not one 
American utility has successfully ordered a nuclear powerplant in all 
of that time. The House budget resolution, which was passed with so 
much fanfare, presumes to set criteria for Government science funding, 
emphasizing that long-term noncommercial R&D with the potential for 
scientific discovery ought to be funded. What should not be funded, 
according to that budget resolution, are programs whose economic 
feasibility and commercialization should be left to the marketplace.
  Over and over we have heard those same themes, yet when it comes to 
actually cutting the corporate welfare out of appropriation bills, this 
House seems to back away again, and again, and again.
  Now, the nuclear industry makes a number of arguments for their 
program, which I am sure we will hear today. I would simply respond to 
those arguments as follows:
  First of all, nuclear energy supplies about 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity; 72 percent of utility executives said in a recent 
poll conducted by the International Energy Group that their company 
would never consider ordering a nuclear powerplant. So the industry 
seems to have determined that the current mix is just fine as far as 
they are concerned.
  Second, I would ask, since when does industry want the Government 
involved in things like product design? I guess the answer is only when 
there are Federal dollars available.
  The NRC is charged with determining enhanced safety margins and 
regulatory acceptance of these designs. Their ultimate action on these 
proposals will be a determinant and will demonstrate to potential 
customers whether the U.S. Government considers them sound, not whether 
or not DOE is provided dollars to support industry design efforts.
  I would also say, third, that we have received letters in all of our 
offices indicating that ``Failure to meet commitments to the specified 
amount, $100 million, jeopardizes DOE's ability to recoup the moneys 
already invested in the program.''
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have been here for quite a while, and I 
cannot recall anything quite so brazen. I want to make it quite clear, 
despite that veiled threat, the nuclear industry is legally committed 
to repaying DOE. Their threat to renege, in my view, borders on the 
outrageous or the scandalous.
  The fourth point I would simply make is that trying to convince 
somebody that the promotion of nuclear technology through the export of 
nuclear powerplants to foreign countries in Southeast Asia, that 
somehow promotes nonproliferation, is an argument I simply cannot 
swallow. Has anybody in the nuclear industry checked what is going on 
in North Korea lately?
  So I would simply say, in conclusion, this amendment comes back to 
one central point: Are you for cutting corporate welfare, or do you 
want to exempt the nuclear industry? Are you for letting the 
marketplace pick winners and losers, or does the nuclear industry get a 
buy on the one too? Are you going to respond to the threats of the 
industry that they are not going to repay previous funding, despite a 
legal obligation, or are you going to buckle to those threats?
  Last night, we met on the labor-health-education appropriation bill. 
That bill is being cut by $9.5 billion below last year. We are wiping 
out assistance to senior citizens who make less than $10,000 a year, so 
they do not have to choose between paying prescription drugs and 
keeping their houses warm in the winter. We cut back almost $700 
million in student aid, not with my vote, but that is what the 
subcommittee did. We have seen huge reductions in job training, despite 
this House's vote for things like NAFTA and GATT. We are abandoning 
workers who desperately need help to be retrained.
  So it just seems to me with all of these cuts, for us to say that we 
are going to continue to subsidize one of the wealthiest industries in 
this country with funding such as this represents a badly warped sense 
of priorities. I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of our ranking member, Mr. 
Obey, in trying to reduce spending in our country. I share that 
concern, and I compare my record with just about anyone here, I think, 
on that cutting effort.
  But often as I drive down the interstate highways, 4, 6, or 8 lanes 
wide, or travel through urban areas with elevated highways, I think 
where would we be today if Dwight Eisenhower, former President, had not 
had the vision, the farsightedness, to prepare for today's 
transportation requirements and needs. And as we approach amendments 
like this, I wonder, where will our children and grandchildren be a few 
years from now if we do not today be farsighted and visionary to 
prepare for the energy that they are going to require if we are to 
continue our standard of living and be competitive in world markets for 
industry.
  I have children and grandchildren. I think of our two grandsons here, 
Justin and Austin. They are just little right now. But when they start 
looking for a job, there may not be jobs here. They may have to go 
overseas somewhere else.
  Yesterday afternoon we struck $20 million in a program to prepare for 
a reactor for the next century, a gas turbine modular helium cooled 
reactor, which would be very efficient and very safe in a nuclear 
reactor.
  Now, today the only reactor we really have working and the only one 
we have in the future available to this committee is the light water 
reactor, and this is the fifth year of a 5-year program for the 
advanced light water reactor. To enhance that reactor, to build a 
reactor that would be competitive in world markets that would be as 
safe as could be for a light water reactor, now we want to stop the 
fifth year of a program that we are well down the road in the fourth 
year already?
  The administration's request for this program for the advanced light 
water reactor was $49.7 million. We cut that back to $40 million. But 
this is industry coshared at this point. This year, when you look at 
the budget for the advanced light water reactor research 

[[Page H 6840]]
and safety, the U.S. Government would put in $100 million and the 
industry would put in $170 million.
  The industry has been putting their money in, because the CEO's of 
large companies who are today generating electricity realize they have 
to be prepared for the next century, even though most of them will not 
be CEO's at that time. They will be retired. But they have their 
vision. They are putting their money up front. It would be a terrible 
mistake today for our government to renege on the commitment of the 
fifth year of a 5-year contract when we already have 4 years invested.

                              {time}  1040

  I urge a ``no'' vote on this well-intended amendment. It just does 
not fit with the needs of our society today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 227, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 487]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews
     Bishop
     Brown (OH)
     Collins (MI)
     Doolittle
     Engel
     Fox
     Frost
     Hefner
     Longley
     Moakley
     Porter
     Reynolds
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Williams

                              {time}  1104

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. Porter against.

  Messrs. CANADY of Florida, LAZIO of New York, ROHRABACHER, and 
EVERETT, and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GEPHARDT, PETERSON of Florida, WATTS of Oklahoma, SHADEGG, 
HOLDEN, and McHALE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that there was a delay, apparently, 
in the bell system, so a little more leeway was allowed on the time for 
voting.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. KLUG

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 14.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 16, line 2, insert 
     before the period the following:

     : Provided, That, of such amount, $44,772,000 shall be 
     available to implement the provisions of section 1211 of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13316).

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 
minutes equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request was that the debate be 
limited to 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side on this amendment and 
all amendments thereto. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] would 
control the 20 minutes on this side, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug] would control the 20 minutes on the other side.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment in front of us simply does one thing 
today, which is to reaffirm this Congress' commitment and, frankly, the 
American public's commitment to renewable energy, both solar and wind 
power. This money does not increase the deficit. It simply forces the 
Committee on Appropriations and the conferees to decide where else to 
offset spending cuts in order to fund what we think is a very high 
priority for the American public.
  Solar renewable energy programs were gutted from the current funding 

[[Page H 6841]]
  level of $388 million to $221 million. That represents a 43-percent 
cut. This amendment increases solar renewable funding to $266 million 
which we think, frankly, better illustrates the priorities of this 
Congress, but still I might add at the end of the day results in a 31-
percent reduction. This ensures that the United States remains a strong 
player in energy markets and moves toward self-sufficiency and away 
from foreign oil imports.
  As we all know, there is obviously a finite amount of fossil fuels. I 
think it is a mistake to continue in many ways to fund outdated post-
mature technologies when we are beginning to veer away from wind and 
solar, which are beginning to show some promise. Fundamentally, what 
this does is reaffirm this Congress' commitment in basic research in 
these areas and not necessarily in applied technology.
  Overwhelmingly, the American public supports renewable energy 
programs as an investment in our future.
  There was an election last fall, as we know, and which this Congress 
has been attempting to execute its agenda which said downside and 
shrink governments. I think the American public understands there are 
some areas where we may want to spend still more money. According to a 
survey conducted by Vince Bregala, a pollster for Presidents Reagan and 
Bush, 85 percent agreed that the Federal Government should continue to 
support partnerships with American business to promote sales of 
renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies through research and 
development. Seventy-five percent agreed that with the overall 
reduction in the Department of Energy's budget, resources should be 
redirected toward renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.
  I stand here today to offer this amendment with a number of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], who I point out chairs the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce, the Gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it very clear to my colleagues 
that what this amendment fundamentally does is invest in America's 
future, a future clearly defined by the American public.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], former chairman of 
the subcommittee and longstanding Member.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and urge the 
Members to support the subcommittee. Throughout this bill we have had 
to take cuts on programs that are very popular. We realize that there 
are other ways that we could go in different directions on these 
things, but the subcommittee has studied this, the full Committee on 
Appropriations has approved the bill, and actually, I just urge the 
Members to vote in support of the committee.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, a responsible energy policy requires that we focus our 
attention and research toward the infinite supply of renewable energy 
alternatives. As we begin to enter the 21st century, we must begin to 
shift our reliance away from our finite supply of fossil fuels.
  The promotion of renewable energy sources is more important now than 
ever before. We should have learned by past oil crises that we can not 
continue to ignore our increasing dependence on imported oil. For the 
first time, we are now importing more than 50 percent of our oil. Oil 
accounts for a large part of our trade imbalance. The harsh reality is 
that the world's oil supply will one day run out. There is nothing that 
this Congress or our Government can do to change that.
  To the extent that we foster the development and use of alternative 
renewable sources like solar technology, we can act responsibly to 
reduce our dependence on imported oil.
  I am disturbed by the committee's slashing of the solar and renewable 
energy programs from their current funding level of $338 to $221 
million, a 43-percent cut. This amendment would restore $45 million, 
which still leaves these programs with 31 percent less than they got 
last year.
  I am also concerned about the budget circumstances we must work 
within. This amendment does not exempt renewables from cuts, it merely 
seeks to distribute the deficit reduction burden more fairly.
  The development of renewable energy technologies stimulates job 
creation, stimulates the economy, and helps American businesses become 
more competitive.
  The University of Florida's Solar Energy and Energy Conservation 
Laboratory and the Florida Solar Energy Center have uniquely influenced 
the development of solar energy. Breakthroughs at these laboratories 
have helped foster a solar energy industry in Florida that has created 
high technology jobs. Current developments at these labs continue to 
create opportunities for U.S. entrepreneurs and industries.
  Our investments in solar technologies are just beginning to yield 
returns in the form of energy security and a cleaner environment. We 
would be taking a giant step backward if we were to retreat from the 
successes that solar programs have made. This amendment will ensure 
that the United States remains a strong player in alternative energy 
markets of the 21st century.
  During the 1970's, the United States was the recognized world leader 
in solar technology. During the last 20 years, the rest of the world, 
recognizing the enormous potential solar energy holds, has dramatically 
increased its commitment to funding solar energy research.
  Now, as we stand on the brink of the 21st century, we find ourselves 
playing catch-up with nations who used to follow us. We should be 
leading the pack, not playing follow the leader. This amendment will 
not reverse a 20-year decline in the Federal Government's commitment to 
our energy future, but it will prevent us from falling even further 
behind.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a very valued member of this 
committee and a hard-working Member.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the courtesy of 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers].
  I do rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This is a 
basic question of priorities. To the solar industry's credit, solar 
technology is no longer at a basic research and development level. It 
is in fact a commercial technology, ready for use as an energy source 
in a variety of applications. It is ready, but in many ways, the public 
is not.
  Frankly, I am skeptical that solar energy will ever be the prominent 
energy source, due to the expense of manufacturing solar panels and the 
limits in their energy-producing capabilities. I do expect that solar 
energy will continue as a secondary energy provider for specific energy 
needs, such as isolated structures which need a limited supply of 
energy. I am more optimistic about the future of other energy programs, 
like fusion, for example, which would be a substitute for the current 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  I want to repeat what has been said by others, Mr. Chairman. We are 
not cutting the entire solar and renewable energy program. Current 
funding allows continued research into this area at the most basic 
research and development level. I believe the solar energy program and 
any other applied technology must prove itself in the marketplace.
  I believe that only when the cost to obtain and process fossil fuels 
becomes increasingly more expensive will the time become right for 
alternative energy sources, including solar energy. This way they can 
compete in a free market. I believe the energy debate is more 
appropriately resolved by the consumer in that free market.

                              {time}  1115

  Let the consumer decide. Let the market work freely. Currently, the 
relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the form of petroleum, natural 
gas, and coal keeps these energy sources at the forefront.

[[Page H 6842]]

  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill. The gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers] has worked very carefully with the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member, and the rest of the 
subcommittee, to produce a fiscally responsible bill while maintaining 
a productive energy and water program.
  We could debate the merits of increasing funds for every Federal 
program ad infinitum. If my colleagues are committed to balancing the 
Federal budget, then they should support the bill as it is and vote in 
opposition to this amendment. We only seem, in Congress, to try to 
nourish things that just will not grow in the marketplace. Now, there 
is a place for this, but frankly we did not cut funding out entirely. 
We reduced it at a level where we restored enough money to do the job. 
Let us give it time to work its will.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and I feel 
very strongly that we ought to let the market set the pace for the 
investments in this country in our energy supply. The real question is 
whether or not all the amendments that have just been passed that 
provide tremendous subsidies to the nuclear industry, which have 
absolutely the single highest cost of electricity that is produced in 
this country.
  It does not seem to me to make a lot of sense that we are going to 
not provide any research, real primary research, for renewables, but 
will provide for actual applied research for the nuclear industry. It 
makes no sense.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the 
gentleman makes a point, but this frankly is not research, what the 
gentleman is talking about.
  All I am saying, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts agrees 
with me, is that we have not cut out the idea of considering 
renewables. They are not being cut away.
  In fact, the basic research has been done. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is talking about applied research. I would 
say to my colleague that this is the money that this committee has 
found to be substantial enough to create what he needs to make his 
project work. Let the marketplace decide.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I point out to my colleagues that this is a 
bipartisan amendment and, hopefully, by the time we end debate, that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bono], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], and 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] from my side of the aisle will 
be here to help us out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Schaefer], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, who 
has been a key ally in this entire fight.
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, the Congress passed the Energy 
Policy Act by a vote of 363 to 60, and it passed by a Democratic-
controlled Congress and was signed into law by a Republican President.
  This so-called EPACT 92 demonstrated that Congress could address 
pressing issues of a national energy policy in a very bipartisan way.
  Now, in 1995, we stand at another historic juncture. In January, we 
passed the balanced budget amendment, which I sponsored, by 
overwhelming vote and I will continue to fight for a balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, while our country needs this balanced Federal budget, 
we also need uninterrupted reliable sources of energy. Such energy 
supplies will assure our continued economic growth in this country and 
our national security. Some of these sources of energy include nuclear, 
fossil fuels, and natural gas.
  However, the country also needs to develop a robust capability in the 
critically important area of solar and renewable energies. And this is 
not only solar; it is also biomass, it is wind, it is every other type 
of energy that we can think of, because other type of energy that we 
can think of, because some day, the whole era of fossil fuels will be 
gone.
  EPACT 92 created a 5-year plan authorizing funding to help 
demonstrate and commercialize new technologies such as biomass, 
geothermal, solar and wind energy. As we enter the third year of that 
5-year plan, it would be irresponsible now to renege on our 
Government's commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Klug 
amendment earmarking $44.8 million of the energy and water bill for the 
Solar Technology Transfer Program. Even with this amendment, we are 
talking about a reduction of 31 percent from last year's level.
  It is not widely realized that by the beginning of 1994, renewable 
energy technologies provided over 8 percent of the Nation's domestic 
energy production, more than doubling the contributions since 1973.
  Renewable energy technologies combined are now producing about 7 
quads of energy annually. Roughly half is produced from biomass, over 
40 percent from hydroelectric, and the balance from the mix of 
geothermal, wind, and solar resources.
  Between 1973 and 1993, renewable electric
   capacity, including hydropower, grew by over 70 percent, from about 
58 megawatts in 1973 to 100 megawatts in 1993. Of this, the renewable 
technologies that emerged during the late 1970's and 1980's, solar, 
geothermal, and biomass, grew from 500 megawatts in 1973 to over 10,000 
megawatts today; the equivalency of 17 large coal-fired powerplants.

  Clearly, renewable energy is becoming an increasingly important 
component of our national energy policy. I do not believe we should 
short-circuit this industry's growth by choking its funding.
  Some people may ask, well, maybe this is because the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL, is located in my district, and, 
yes, it is. I have been out there and I know the work they are doing 
and it is very important and I think there is much progress being made 
in this particular area.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record two news 
articles on behalf of this district. The first one details NREL's 
receipt of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Dwight D. 
Eisenhower Award for Excellence, while the other describes NREL's 
winning of the 1995 Federal Design Achievement Award from the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  I believe this material will help the Members get a better picture of 
NREL and I submit these articles as part of the Record, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

   National Renewable Energy Laboratory: We empower America with new 
                             energy choices

       NREL is dedicated to putting clean, renewable energy to 
     work for you.
       Our research transforms wind and sunlight into abundant 
     electricity for your home. We're finding ways to turn fast-
     growing plants into liquid transportation fuels and valuable 
     chemicals. Better buildings, industrial processes, and 
     recycling methods will help you save energy and reduce our 
     nation's dependence on foreign oil.
       But making sure that new energy technologies are both 
     practical and affordable is an awesome challenge. At our 300-
     acre campus in Golden, Colorado, more than 480 scientists 
     conduct research in fields ranging from bio-chemistry to 
     solid-state physics. Many of our specialized laboratories are 
     available for cost-shared research with U.S. companies as 
     they develop new products and services at competitive prices.
       We also work with electric utilities, regulatory bodies and 
     state energy offices to make sure that new technologies reach 
     their full potential as quickly as possible.
       A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, 
     NREL's diverse research programs include:
       Analytic studies--Studying the economic aspects, 
     environmental effects, and policy issues related to energy 
     use.
       Biofuels--Finding better ways to turn trees, grasses and 
     agricultural waste into cleaner-burning transportation fuels.
       Buildings--Developing new materials and systems to reduce 
     energy use in homes and offices.
       Fuel use--Studying the use of alternative fuels in fleets 
     of cars, vans and trucks.
       Industrial processes--Finding ways to reduce waste and 
     improve the efficiency of industrial processes.
       Photovoltaics--Developing efficient solar cells and modules 
     for converting sunlight to electricity.
       Resource Assessment--Studying and measuring renewable 
     resources such as sunlight and wind.

[[Page H 6843]]

       Solar thermal electricity--Developing economical systems 
     for transforming the sun's heat to electricity.
       Solar thermal industries--Exploring ways to use solar heat 
     for manufacturing and other industrial processes.
       Superconductivity--Pursuing practical, low-cost materials 
     to conduct electricity without loss.
       Waste management--Finding ways to recover landfill gas, 
     recycle tires and plastic, and generate power using garbage 
     destined for landfills.


                               Renewable

       Americans have made great strides in conserving energy 
     since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. But our need for 
     energy--especially electricity and transportation fuel--
     continues to grow by about 3% each year. Renewable resources 
     can help meet this growing need without pollution or 
     dependence on foreign oil.
       There's no shortage of renewable resources. For example, 
     the sunlight falling on the United States in just one day 
     contains more than twice the energy Americans consume in an 
     entire year. Strong, steady winds in North Dakota alone could 
     supply about 35% of our nation's electricity needs. Fast-
     growing plants, geothermal energy and ocean energy are three 
     other renewable resources awaiting the right technologies for 
     harvesting.
       We've made a good start. About 8% of our nation's energy 
     now comes from renewable resources, primarily falling water 
     (hydropower). Continued research by NREL and its industry 
     partners could help increase the contribution of renewables 
     to 30% by the year 2030.


                                 Clean

       Imagine a world powered by clean energy technologies.
       Rows of sleek solar panels gleam in the sun, using 
     semiconductor materials to directly convert light into 
     electricity. Wind turbines spin out power for large cities 
     without the millions of tons of air pollutants emitted by an 
     oil- or coal-fired power plant every year. Solar thermal 
     systems capture the sun's abundant renewable energy to heat 
     water or drive industrial processes.
       These are only a few renewable energy technologies at work 
     today. Many more are on the horizon. For example, NREL is 
     exploring ways to use sunlight to clean up contaminated soil 
     and groundwater. We're also developing methods for recycling 
     plastic
      and making better use of garbage now dumped in landfills.
       Our research preserves America's environmental heritage. It 
     can also lead to a more sustainable energy future.


                                 secure

       Founded in 1977 in response to oil embargoes, NREL is 
     diversifying U.S. energy options in many ways.
       One of those ways is finding alternatives to gasoline, much 
     of which is now made from imported petroleum. NREL is working 
     with U.S. companies to squeeze more ethanol from corn kernels 
     and the woody parts of other plans. We also collect data on 
     the performance of alternatively fueled vehicles and share 
     the results with automobile manufacturers.
       In addition to fuels research, NREL is strengthening 
     America's energy security with more efficient buildings. Our 
     guidelines for passive solar homes are used by builders and 
     architects throughout the nation to slash typical home energy 
     costs by as much as 90%. We're also developing ways to rate 
     the energy efficiency of buildings.
       Renewable energy and energy efficiency not only lessen U.S. 
     dependence on foreign oil--they strengthen the economy as 
     well.


                              competitive

       About half of NREL's federal funding returns to the private 
     sector through subcontracts and cost-shared research 
     agreements.
       Thanks to this support, U.S. companies now compete in 
     international markets for wind turbines and blades. American-
     made solar panels are supplying electricity to thousands of 
     Brazilians. And a leading U.S. ceramics producer may soon 
     replace imported ceramic powders with ones made locally.
       Wind energy is already cost-competitive in areas with good 
     wind resources, and solar panels are finding hundreds of 
     remote uses throughout the nation. Ultra-efficient 
     appliances, more reliable electronic components, and better 
     adhesives are just a few other products coming your way as 
     the result of NREL's research.
       The renewable energy technologies now being developed at 
     NREL can fill every kind of energy need. They're a smart 
     choice for America.
                                                                    ____


                    NREL Receives National SBA Award

       GOLDEN, Colo., April 20/PRNewsire/--The Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower Award for Excellence, the national award given 
     annually by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), 
     will be presented to the Department of Energy's National 
     Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on May 4 during Small 
     Business Week activities in Washington, D.C.
       The Eisenhower award annually recognizes large federal 
     prime contractors that excel in their support of small 
     business. In 1994, NREL awarded more than $85.5 million in 
     purchases and subcontracts to small companies--about 77 
     percent of its total procurements. Of this amount, 25 percent 
     went to businesses owned by women or minorities.
       NREL Director Dr. Charles F. Gay said the award is 
     especially significant because the laboratory also was named 
     1994 Corporation of the Year by Minority Enterprises Inc. 
     ``This award is a credit to the many outstanding NREL 
     employees who are committed to the success of small 
     businesses,'' Gay said.
       The SBA award recognizes success in guiding entrepreneurs 
     of diverse backgrounds through the complexities of government 
     procurement.
       ``We are very active in our outreach and mentoring of 
     small, minority and women-owned firms,'' said Ed Green, 
     NREL's manager of procurement and small-business liaison. 
     ``Linking with small businesses is only half the job. The 
     other part is supporting these firms during contract 
     performance to assure mutual success.''
       In addition to economic support, NREL has spawned 27 spin-
     off companies. Laboratory facilities and expertise are 
     available to small businesses, and NREL hosts seminars to 
     help those businesses market their products and services.
       To be eligible for the Eisenhower award, a federal prime 
     contractor first must win an SBA Award of Distinction. NREL 
     was one of two organizations in the six states of SBA's 
     Region VIII to receive this award in 1993.
       The SBA's Office of Government Contracting selected 
     finalists in three categories this year: research and 
     development, service and construction. NREL won the 
     Eisenhower award in the research and development category.
                                                                    ____

                      NREL Wins U.S. Design Award

           [From Jefferson County Transcript, June 16, 1995]

       One of the federal government's most energy-efficient 
     buildings was honored with a 1995 Federal Design Achievement 
     Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.
       Golden Mayor Marv Kay was on hand for the ceremony that 
     honored regional winners.
       The Solar Energy Research Facility, part of the U.S. 
     Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
     in Denver West Office Park, is one of 77 federal projects 
     honored nationwide for superior architectural design. SERF 
     and the other winners are now in contention for the nation's 
     highest honor--the Presidential Design Award for Excellence, 
     which will be awarded at the White House this fall.
       SERF is a state-of-the-art laboratory facility used for 
     advanced photovoltaic solar cell research.
       SERF's unique design incorporates energy efficiency 
     features that reduce energy consumption by 30% to 40%. This 
     reduces annual heating, cooling and lighting costs by almost 
     $200,000. Energy-saving features include the use of daylight 
     to illuminate office areas and corridors.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my 
admiration for the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. Many of the 
things that he does, I am totally supportive of. In this case I cannot 
be supportive. He is suggesting in this amendment that we earmark $44.8 
million for the innovative and renewable technologies transfer program.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric today about the importance of 
developing solar energy. This has nothing to do with the development of 
solar energy. Zero. In fact, this will hurt the development of solar 
energy. What we are doing here is we are talking about a transfer 
program. We are talking about promotion. We are talking about 
marketing. We are talking about commercialization. We are not talking 
about research and development. In fact, we are spending $44 million, 
if this amendment succeeds, by taking it away from research and 
development. Some of that money may well come from research and 
development of solar energy.
  Being the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this issue, I 
know how much money we have had to cut from the budgets of energy and 
environmental research in this country. The fact is we did everything 
we could to protect the fundamental research and what we had to do is 
cut programs that dealt with promotion and marketing and 
commercialization of which this is the perfect example.
  We need to focus the Federal Government effort on research and 
development, fundamental research and development that cannot be done 
by the private sector. Fundamental research in solar was protected. In 
fact, because it is not coming from anywhere, it is just suggested it 
is going to be a general cut throughout our budget in this area, this 
could well come from solar energy research and development money. 
Certainly it is going to come from somewhere. It might come from 
fundamental research and development in other 

[[Page H 6844]]
type of energies that we need to do research and development on.
  Mr. Chairman, what in essence we are doing is taking money away from 
a budget of research and development that has already been strained to 
the braking point. We are taking money away from a budget that has 
already been strained to the breaking point and we are putting it into 
marketing and commercialization for specific interests that are 
involved with pushing these products overseas. I think this is green 
pork. What we are suggesting here by this amendment is green pork, 
taking the Federal Government away from its essential role on energy 
research and development and putting it into promotion.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
point out to the gentleman that his own committee is in conflict with 
the statement that the gentleman just made.
  Looking at what has been authorized here, which this money will go 
toward, it is the Solar Thermal Program to determine the economic 
viability of dish/Stirling, power tower, and trough systems, it is the 
concentrated solar energy to break down toxic organic wastes, the 
development of technologically advanced, higher efficiency wind 
turbines, the integrated biomass feedstock production. These are all 
specific programs that were identified by the committee that will be 
put back in the budget.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, we specifically deauthorized the 
use of funds for solar technology transfer. What we tried to focus in 
on at the committee and subcommittee level was direct and solid 
research and development because that cannot be done by anybody else 
but the Federal Government.
  This indeed is taking the money, I say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], $44 million basically from across-the-
board cuts to channel it into a program that is aimed at marketing
 and commercialization.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, 
the fact is that what we are talking about is what is in the 
authorization. What we are talking about is whether or not these 
industries need this kind of basic research in order to be successful.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we are not financing basic research. It is 
promotion. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might point out one of the reasons we have had 
such strong bipartisan support on this amendment is we are talking 
about renewables across the board, including wind. So this amendment 
cannot be seen as simply a debate about solar technology. That is one 
reason that the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], both of whom had a great deal of 
success in California with wind power, so clearly understand.
  Second, if I may make the point to my colleagues that if we are 
trying to figure out where we are going to get the money to pay for 
this, might I suggest we apply some of the $20 million we eliminated 
yesterday from the nuclear program that 3 to 1 this House agreed was 
absolutely out of date.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time. I very much compliment him on the making of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really to a very large extent the critical 
debate that we are going to have out here on the floor. Renewable 
energy now provides 10 percent of the energy in our country. But it is 
still in its nascent stage. Whether it be solar voltaic, which has 
dropped dramatically from upward of 26 cents a kilowatt hour down to 8 
or 9 cents a kilowatt hour just over the past decade; wind, which has 
dropped from 30 cents a kilowatt hour down to 4 or 5 cents a kilowatt 
hour in the last 10 years, we are seeing dramatic changes in the way in 
which electricity and energy are generated in this country.
  Unfortunately the bill as it is presently constructed still tilts 
dramatically toward the older technologies. There is $236 million in 
this budget for fission technology. This is a 40-year-old technology 
that is already out in the marketplace with one of the wealthiest 
industries in the United States, the electric utility industry, 
perfectly capable of doing all additional research on that technology.
  In addition, there is $230 million in here for fusion technology. 
Money is here for coal research. Money is here for all kinds of 
research on the older technologies.
                              {time}  1130

  Now, I really would not mind if the committee cut out all the money 
for solar and all money for wind if they cut out all the money for 
fusion and fission. I really would not care. Then it would be a fair 
fight out in the marketplace. I would feel a lot better about it.
  But if you are going to continue the subsidies for the mature 
industries, it is wrong to have a 43-percent cut for the nascent 
competitors of solar and wind and geothermal and conservation. That is 
what disturbs me most about this whole debate. It has either got to be 
one way or the other, an amendment to cut out all subsidies or an 
amendment to keep comparable subsidies for all the competing energy 
technologies.
  There is a good reason for it. We are so overly dependent upon 
imported oil. Sixty percent of the oil is imported. If we are going to 
break our dependence on that, we have to have these domestic, 
indigenous sources of energy developed. Those are going to be the 
renewables. We need ways in which we are going to lower the cost of 
energy. Only by having competing technologies do we reduce the overall 
likelihood we are going to see increases in the traditional fossil fuel 
or nuclear power generated electricity.
  We need to reduce the smog in order to reduce the global warming 
phenomenon, in order to reduce the acid rain problem. These are benign 
technologies that reduce our need to have more intrusive environmental 
laws which pass here on the floor of Congress.
  So for all of those reasons, the Klug amendment takes us in the right 
direction.
  The history, however, out here on the floor of the House is if it 
does not glow, it gets no dough. The nuclear budget continues to be 
enhanced.
  The reason we need this is like the fax machine or telephone, while 
they may have a nascent discovery and application, it takes 20 and 30 
years to finally get them to the marketplace. That is what we have 
found, and that is why I support the Klug amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close the debate please?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. KLUG. Second, Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has 11 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very 
sensible amendment.
  It is sensible because it does not assume that we will be forever 
able to draw on our current sources of energy. It is sensible because 
it would ensure that the Department of Energy has a balanced research 
portfolio that does not short-change important potential sources of 
energy. It is sensible because it backs programs in which business and 
government work together to achieve national goals that would be 
ignored without these programs. It is sensible because it funds 
programs that have had bipartisan support. It is sensible because it 
recognizes that every DOE program must share in budget cuts. And it is 
sensible because it accomplishes all this without increasing the bottom 
line of this bill.
  Our Nation should not be ignoring renewable energy in the vain hope 
that fossil fuels will solve our problems forever. This amendment 
restores needed 

[[Page H 6845]]
funding for renewable energy research--funding for well managed 
programs that would still be cut by almost one-third if this amendment 
is passed.
  Vote for this amendment and vote for a sensible approach to ensure 
that this Nation can meet its future energy needs.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who has been a strong champion 
of renewables and a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  I yield to no Member in my respect for the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. I have served 
with them on this subcommittee for 16 years.
  During that time, I have been a great advocate of renewable energy, 
but this bill is $2 billion less than the President's budget. It is 
$1.5 billion less than last year spent in this area of spending, and I 
understand, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has 
indicated, that we are all going to have to absorb reductions. There is 
no question that all forms of energy research and development will have 
to take their fair share.
  But I stand here today for the first time in opposition to my 
chairman and ranking member on this matter, because I believe we have 
taken an inordinately deep cut in renewable spending. A 43-percent cut 
simply is out of whack with all of the other proposals that have been 
made to reduce spending. We have simply asked too much of an area that 
is on the upturn. It is a growing area for exports, an important area 
of small business in this country.
  These are proven performers, technological trend setters. We are not 
where we were 20 years ago where this is merely an ideological issue. 
Today renewable energy is part of the energy grid. Utilities across 
this country are adopting these as low cost alternatives.
  We have an opportunity in this amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] to begin to restore some balance to our 
energy policy.
  Now, I have really stood in opposition to all of the cuts in the 
nuclear fission program, because I truly believe we need a balanced 
energy policy. We have forgotten the lines at the gas stations. Maybe I 
have been here too long, folks, but I think many of us have forgotten 
in our desire to find areas to cut that there is a potential for an 
energy crisis again. It is out there ahead of us. We are almost at 60 
percent reliance on imported fuel from the Middle East and other parts 
of the world.
  This Congress has got to keep in mind that we are headed in the wrong 
direction, and this amendment makes a modest step back toward the right 
direction.
  I ask for its support.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard a 
lot of talk about how we are not supposed to pick winners and losers in 
the Congress of the United States.
  This is a blatant attempt to pick a winner, and the winner is the 
nuclear industry. We are cutting 31 percent of the renewable energy 
budget in this bill.
  This attempt by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and others is 
to attempt to put a few dollars back into a budget that has already 
gutted renewable energy supplies of this country. Why do we not 
recognize that it is the nuclear industry who has single-handedly 
raised the cost of electricity for the ordinary citizen of this country 
and we still have not taken into account how we are going to get rid of 
the nuclear waste?
  This is an energy supply that is clean. It is an energy supply that 
is renewable. It will enable us to gain some independence from the 
foreign creditors that are breathing down our necks. Let us say to 
OPECers, let us say to the rest of the world that wants to continue our 
dependence on foreign oil that we are sick and tired of it, that we are 
going to develop our own independent energy sources, and if we need 
government assistance to develop those new sources, we are going to put 
the money in and break the dependence on the big nuclear industry and 
our foreign traders.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who has a new idea now, a 
new thought.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out again 
we are hearing over and over again that this is in some way juxtaposing 
some new type of energy research with solar energy research. This 
debate has nothing to do with the research and development policies on 
solar energy or any other kind of energy except for the fact that it 
will take money from research and development programs across the board 
in energy, some of which are renewable, I might add, and take that 
research and development money and take and put it into a transfer 
program, a program that is totally designed for promotion, marketing, 
and commercialization.
  I think our Members should also be aware that the prime beneficiary 
of the $44 million that is being taken out of energy research and 
development and put into this promotion marketing commercialization 
effort, the prime beneficiary is not an American company but a German 
company, a German company, called Siemens Co., which is the leader, 
yes, in this type of technology, but we will be providing them funds to 
help them with the promotion of solar energy.
  Now, this is not, again, this gentleman, by the way, took great pains 
during the authorization process to see that solar energy research and 
development was protected.
  I happen to believe that is a very probable and potential source, a 
good source, of energy in the future if it is developed. We, in fact, 
by the way, let me also add that we also made sure that there were 
major cuts in fusion and nuclear energy programs.
  I have become the target of nuclear energy people across the country 
who are as mad as hell that I have cut, that Dana Rohrabacher has cut 
their budget for research and development in the nuclear area.
  The fact is we have tried to maintain a balanced research and 
development program.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The fact of the matter is there is a 43 
percent cut in this bill by solar and renewable energies and a 13 
percent in nuclear.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not in research and development, only in promotion, 
which is what this bill deals with.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Klug 
amendment to restore funding for renewable energy programs in the 
Department of Energy.
  Like my constituents in Connecticut, I believe that no Federal 
program should be spared from reductions. But fiscal responsibility 
doesn't mean cutting everything without regard to its value; it means 
making priorities for our scarce dollars.
  Energy-efficient technology opens markets abroad and creates jobs at 
home, and it must be one of our highest priorities.
  As a manufacturer of wind energy equipment in my State puts it, 
``Renewable energy is an investment into the economic and environmental 
future of the country.''
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Klug amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend him for his efforts to shift the priorities in this 
bill in the right direction.
  This is not about an increase. It is about choices. It is about 
energy independence, about sustainable economic growth.
  Yes, the solar and renewable accounts do, to a great degree, go to 
applied research and even to technology transfer. Yes, private industry 
may not find it profitable enough, quick enough, to go it alone. But 
that is just another way of saying that the marketplace does not work 
perfectly. It does not account well for the external 

[[Page H 6846]]
costs of the current dominance of fossil fuel sources, and it does not 
account well for the external benefits in terms of energy independence, 
jobs, balance of payments, and the avoidance of environmental costs.
  This is exactly the kind of situation, therefore, in which some 
modest government program of R&D assistance, to bridge the gap in a 
marketplace that is too preoccupied with an immediate payoff, is 
entirely appropriate.
  I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and urge my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make several points in closing, if I could.
  First of all, let me reiterate to my colleague what the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] said, that fundamentally we made a 
decision in this Congress just 3 years ago that we would make an 
important transition from an era of fossil fuel to an era that included 
Federal funding for new emerging renewable technologies. That was just 
3 years ago.
  And the choice now is as I think a number of my colleagues on the 
other side, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] have pointed out, here we find a situation where 
this bill continues to fund substantial amounts of money for coal 
research which we have been doing for 60 years, nuclear research which 
we have been doing for 40 years, and while it is true those programs 
are cut, they are not cut as dramatically as the renewable program 
under the markup we now find ourselves in from the committee.
  Finally, again, if I could say this one more time, this is not a vote 
about solar. This is a vote about renewables. That includes wind. It 
includes other technologies as well as solar technology.
  And finally, to primarily my Republican colleagues, let me assure 
them this does not add to the deficit. This is simply shifting money 
around and trying to reestablish a priority in this Congress that the 
American public overwhelmingly supports and this Congress 
overwhelmingly supported just 3 years ago.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has long been a supporter of the 
renewables, including solar, wind, geothermal, everything. We have long 
been a supporter.
  But no item, no appropriation in this budget has increased as much as 
solar has. Solar alone, not all the other renewables, just solar, since 
1991, in the last 5 years, this committee has increased the 
appropriations for solar research, including what we even cut out here 
this year, by 93 percent. Name any other item we have in our bill other 
than waste management and environmental cleanup that we have increased 
that much. None have we increased as much as we have solar.
  This committee this year heard a lot about corporate welfare and how 
often we heard it yesterday about the reactor, ``Oh, this is corporate 
welfare. We are helping some utility some place or General Electric or 
Westinghouse build a reactor,'' for our country, hopefully, someday or 
someplace overseas that we might be able to sell one. Call that 
corporate welfare.
  So our committee this year got to examining just where are the solar 
dollars going. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] hit it 
right on the head. We found that much of the solar research really was 
not going into research. It is not going into solar panels. It is not 
going into wind research for better windmills, even though we have a 
lot of windmills in California, farms of them out there. Some have been 
closed down; we even built several around the country we have had to 
close down because of the environment.
  So this committee examined these very closely this year and realized 
we were not getting the bang for the taxpayers' buck in solar. We still 
support solar, but we have to draw the line.
  It has been said here this morning that we are cutting research. We 
are not cutting research. What we took out of this bill is not as the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut said, making jobs for the United States. 
Making jobs for Germany is one example because what we took out, what 
we reduced this year, primarily we eliminate the solar international 
marketing program, solar international marketing program, solar 
technology transfer. We're paying some company this year to put up 
solar panels on the roof, technology transfer, or energy storage 
systems. We have been long trying to build a solar battery. We have 
been working on that for quite some time; not much success; maybe some 
day we will have it. We have not closed the door on it, but we just 
found this year that we had to make some choices. We found that 50 
percent of the budget request is for cost-sharing arrangements with 
industry, 50 percent. We did not cut it 50 percent; we left some of it 
in, but we cut those big programs. The limited resources we have we 
decided should not be used in corporate welfare, but be directed toward 
basic science and research programs.
  So, if you adopt this amendment, of $44 million, almost $45 million, 
it will reduce funding for all the other research that is being done 
around over the country, other research for renewables which are so 
vitally needed. What we are cutting out, what is unnecessary, is paying 
companies to try to use solar. This is all we are doing.
  We are cutting out corporate welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 488]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--208

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady

[[Page H 6847]]

     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Brown (OH)
     Collins (MI)
     Fox
     Frost
     Hefner
     Longley
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1210

  Messrs. CHRISTENSEN, COYNE, EWING, LIVINGSTON, HOLDEN, SOUDER, 
KINGSTON, HILLEARY, EHRLICH, SCHIFF, and PORTER, and Mrs. ROUKEMA 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Messrs. 
THOMPSON, POMBO, RAHALL, SCHUMER, FATTAH, POMEROY, GENE GREEN of Texas, 
YATES, and KIM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    Amendment offered by Mr. SANDERS

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 38.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 18, strike lines 8 
     through 20.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree to some 
limitation on time?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I am 
going to be withdrawing the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be withdrawing this amendment, 
which would reduce by $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1996 funding for the 
nuclear weapons activities of the U.S. Department of Energy. Instead, I 
will be offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 defense 
appropriations bill, which in fact will take a bigger bite out of 
wasteful Federal spending for unneeded unclear weaponry.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is absurd for this country to 
keep producing and deploying huge amounts of nuclear weaponry, and 
ignore the fact that the cold war is over. This mindless spending costs 
the American taxpayer over $30 billion a year.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this country has many, many 
problems. We have people sleeping out on the street; we have children 
who are hungry; we have elderly people who cannot afford their 
prescription drugs; we have millions of middle-class families who 
cannot afford to send their kids to college; we have 30 million people 
who cannot afford health insurance. We have many problems, but one 
problem we do not have is a lack of nuclear weaponry.
  It may be of esoteric interest to some scientists as to how many 
times over we can destroy humanity, whether it is 100 times over or 50 
times over, through the use of nuclear weapons. That may be of interest 
to some people, but it really is not one of the pressing problems that 
this country has right now.
  The cold war is over. We should not be spending $30 billion a year on 
nuclear weaponry, $300 billion a year over a 10-year period.
                              {time}  1215

   Mr. Chairman, we have some 20,000 nuclear warheads in our Nation's 
arsenal. That seems to me to be enough.
   Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing this amendment today but will be 
bringing it back in a more appropriate fashion through the Department 
of Defense appropriation. I believe very strongly that we must get our 
priorities right. We do not need more money on nuclear weaponry when we 
are cutting program after program that tens of millions of middle-
income and working-class Americans depend upon. I look forward to the 
support of my colleagues when this amendment resurfaces in the 
Department of Defense appropriation.
   Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  There was no objection.


                     amendment offered by mr. ward

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ward: On Page 16, line 1, insert 
     ``(less $1,000,000)'' before ``to remain''.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 
minutes equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, will the 
gentleman be willing to amend that to 12 minutes?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request is for 12 minutes, 6 
minutes on each side, time to be controlled by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] will be 
recognized for 6 minutes and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
will be recognized for 6 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment seeks to strike a special earmark in this bill for 
sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is the act of bombarding water with 
sound waves which excites air bubbles to flash light. This is a 
legitimate course of study. There is no question of that. But neither 
the Energy Department nor any of the energy labs in this country have 
requested money for this program. This is a special earmark.
  I would hasten to point out, though, that the gentleman from 
California who has earmarked this money in the budget does not have 
this in his district. This is not something that the gentleman from 
California has done for someone in his district. The gentleman and I 
have talked about this. I want to hasten to make sure that there is no 
question in any Member's mind that this is a piece of pork in his 
district. This is not.
  What it is is a reasonable disagreement about how we should be 
spending our science research dollars. I feel that we should not 
earmark $1 million when the Department of Energy has not asked for the 
money, when the lab that is doing the work has not asked for the money, 
when, in fact, a former director of that lab has been quoted, and this 
is from Science Magazine, December of last year, the last 6 months, the 
former director of this lab was quoted as saying that it was highly 
improbable that 

[[Page H 6848]]
researchers can achieve the desired results from this money.
  There was no evidence presented at any hearing with respect to this 
million dollars. There was report language added, but in the 
subcommittee on which I serve there was never a discussion, a public 
hearing back and forth on this issue.
  What I feel we need to do today, my colleagues, is to strike $1 
million to show that we are not going to micromanage America's science 
programs by spending this earmarked $1 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to talk 
about fundamental basic research, which is supposed to be the purpose 
of my subcommittee and the purpose of the Committee on Science. There 
are some things that cannot get done in the private sector and that is 
what we try to do in Government. The fact is that this is a program 
that has nothing to do with my district. In fact, it has nothing to do, 
I do not know anyone as an individual, there is no friend of mine on 
this project. It is something that came to my attention from other 
scientists who suggested it was a good idea, and it was something that 
was an example of how huge programs that we have, in fusion and all 
these other mega programs that we spend billions of dollars on, crowd 
out the small research programs that have a high potential but never 
get the money because they do not have lobbyists, they do not have any 
of the big guys behind them.
  This program is aimed at achieving a modest amount of fusion energy 
from a very modest, a $2 million investment over 2 years, research 
program. It is the first year of the program, so we are asking for $1 
million this year and, after 2 years, we will know whether or not this 
potential research program is viable. But this is exactly the kind of 
program the Federal Government should be doing.
  It is pure research. It is not one of these mega bureaucracies where 
the money goes into administration. In fact, if the Ward amendment is 
successful and this money is then cut out from going to this program, 
the money will likely be channeled directly into one of these mega 
programs. It might be paying for the office of public relations for one 
of those programs instead of research and development.
  This is scientific research, earmarked by the way. There is nothing 
wrong with an earmark in the sense that this is, if it is peer 
reviewed, and this is a peer-reviewed, competitive program, we are not 
asking for this money to be given to just any company or any 
laboratory. And the fact that it is an earmark does not make it wrong. 
We had the debate in the subcommittee. In fact, this is very similar to 
the earmarking that is for coal research, which I know the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] is very in favor of.
  So I would ask my colleagues to support this fundamental research 
program that deserves it. We have the support of many scientists: Dr. 
Seth
 Putterman of UCLA, Dr. Kenneth Suslick of the University of Illinois, 
and Dr. William Moss at Lawrence Livermore. These are men that are 
preeminent in their field. They think it is a worthwhile program. I 
think that these are just the type of things the Federal Government 
should do. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark].
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my distinguished 
colleague from California, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment.
  This is a wonderful project. The gentleman knows it will go to 
Livermore, CA, and shooting light on these bubbles will cause a lot of 
wonderful things. Do you know what else they make in Livermore, CA?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Lawrence Livermore happens to be the laboratory that 
develops a lot of types of energy.
  Mr. STARK. It is right in the center, reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Chairman, of the finest champagne country in the world. What this will 
do is irradiate that champagne that comes from California, much to the 
disadvantage of New York, where they do not make such very good 
champagne.
  I understand that the gentleman, and Texas has a problem with it, 
too. The gentleman from Wisconsin supports this amendment because the 
bubbles in beer will be irradiated and that will put the gentleman from 
Missouri at a disadvantage. So that I want to say that if you want to 
waste $1 million trying to make California champagne better, which you 
cannot do, then we welcome this money. But if you really think that 
there is a place for $1 million and fewer bubbles or better beer, we 
could spend that money elsewhere.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I take it that this is tongue in cheek? I just would like my 
colleagues to know that.
  Mr. STARK. This is bubbles in a bottle, shining a little light on the 
bubbles for California champagne is certainly worth $1 million of the 
taxpayers' money.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If it produces energy for the American people.
  Mr. STARK. Enough energy to blow those corks right out on New Year's 
Eve.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]. Of 
course, I would mention to him this is the first time I have risen to 
offer an amendment on the floor, and he should not scare me that way.
  Two quick points, in response to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher]. The million dollars will go back to the treasury. It is 
being taken completely out of the budget of the Energy Department.
  Second, if the Department of Energy feels that this research is 
important and they have in the past expended money on this research, in 
fact since 1934, there has been research going on in this field, they 
will have the opportunity and certainly have the wherewithal to make 
these kinds of expenditures.
  Remember, this is the Department of Energy energy lab. I think that 
answers those points.
  As I said, this is my first time standing to offer an amendment.
  I will close by saying that we need to show that we can give $1 
million back to the treasury when it has been earmarked in a 
legislative committee without a hearing, without a public discussion, 
on the subcommittee on which I serve. We need to show that we are not 
going to micromanage every million dollars spent by the Department of 
Energy, and we need to do it today. Please support the Ward amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee appreciates the 
cooperation by the gentleman from Kentucky as a beginner. In Kentucky 
we do not call them ``beginners,'' we call them ``maidens.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak 
nor did I know until the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] 
just informed me that this project was indeed to be done at one of the 
laboratories, whether it is Livermore or one of the defense 
laboratories. I have never heard so much smoke and mirrors, let alone 
bubbles on this debate.
  First of all, this was in the bill. The bill had a hearing. The 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] was there. But he did not bring this 
amendment up, nor did he discuss this project. So do not say this is 
some secret earmark that some scientist dreamed up to pork it up. And 
he was very kind in his remarks to exclude pork in this. But there is 
no reason to go after a basic science program, $1 million, yet, when it 
has had a hearing and it went through the process and nobody said 
``bubble'' during that hearing.
  So now we use the word ``earmark.'' Well, this is an earmark. If this 
is such 

[[Page H 6849]]
a tremendous earmark, why are not the lobbyists here saying, we have to 
have this; this is for fossil fuel? Or we have to have this; this is 
for wind?
  This is basic research and we ought to be doing more of it and not 
less. This is also to improve and give us an alternative to the various 
fusion programs that everybody is taking pot shots at here on the 
floor.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, on the point of 
this coming before the committee, it was as part of 60 pages of report 
language that I did not see prior to the time we sat down to discuss 
the bill.
  Mr. BAKER of California. I will excuse the gentleman, then, but I 
think it is frivolous to bring it up on the floor, to say that out of 
the 60 pages, this is the one project that the gentleman would like to 
eliminate.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is this the 
same type of basic research as why the fly lands on the ceiling and not 
on the wall?
  Mr. BAKER of California. This is the same kind of skepticism that 
says we cannot balance our budget. We can. This is good basic science. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 141, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 489]

                               AYES--276

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--141

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clinger
     Coble
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     Mica
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Roth
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews
     Brown (OH)
     Coburn
     Fox
     Frost
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Istook
     Longley
     McKeon
     Moakley
     Moorhead
     Ortiz
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Stockman
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1250

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Frost for, with Mr. McKeon against.

  Messrs. MICA, KIM, and WALSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. ALLARD, McDERMOTT, HOBSON, PORTER, CHRISTENSEN, HALL of 
Texas, CHRYSLER, CONDIT, COLLINS of Georgia, and JONES changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike that last word. I would like 
to take this opportunity to engage in a brief colloquy with the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the subcommittee, 
to clarify the intent of the subcommittee to appropriate $150,000 to 
fund the Corps of Engineers' study for a 9.1-mile section of the 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County, FL.
  I am very pleased that the subcommittee made the decision to fund 
this study, but due to the unique circumstances regarding this project, 
I believe it is necessary to clarify the congressional intent on how 
the Corps should proceed with this study.
  Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman has accurately portrayed this. We 
put it in the report accompanying H.R. 1905 and it directs the Corps of 
Engineers to do a reconnaissance study as to the waterway.
  Mr. SHAW. That is correct. However, the traditional definition of a 
reconnaissance study is not adequate to describe the focus that is 
needed by the Corps to study this portion of the Intracoastal Waterway.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield further, no 
question about it. This thing has been studied to death. And there are 
a lot of projects like this. And the authorization goes 

[[Page H 6850]]
back to 1945. So we will be pushing, helping the gentleman clear this 
up.
  Mr. SHAW. The chairman is absolutely correct. It was on March 2, 
1945, that the Congress authorized the channel depth in this area of 
the Intracoastal Waterway to be 12 feet deep; however, over the years 
it was only dredged to 10 feet.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. It is my understanding that because the project 
has already been authorized by the Corps, all that is necessary is a 
narrowly refocused reevaluation study to determine the economic 
viability at this time, and the $150,000 appropriation can be used for 
this purpose.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for allowing 
me to discuss this project with him to clarify that it is the 
congressional intent that this $150,000 appropriation be used for a 
reevaluation study.


                    amendment offered by mr. volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. 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. Volkmer: Page 16, Line 1 insert 
     ``(less $8,000,000)'' before ``to remain''.

  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $8 million 
from the legislation, from the appropriation, in order to remove the 
funds for the conceptual design and for the spallation source 
conceptual design at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory proposed there 
for Oak Ridge.
  After the cancellation of the advanced neutron source, which we 
canceled out, the Department proposed ANS-lite, the spallation source, 
to provide work at Oak Ridge for the scientists whom DOE had promised 
the ANS.
  It appears to me, when we look at this program, even though there may 
be some worthwhile end results if the project is carried out, at this 
time when we have the budgetary restraints that we have, I think we 
need to review these types of projects before they actually get started 
and say, now, is this really where we want to put our money and how 
much is it going to eventually cost and where are we going to get the 
money from to fully fund it, all the way down the road to carry out 
this project?
  I am sure that nobody wants to sit here and start a project and then 
2 years from now or 3 years from now when you have gone down that road 
and spent so much money, find out, hey, it is going to cost too much. 
That is exactly what ANS is all about, the advanced neutron source. 
That is what we did.
  Should we do it again? I say no. I would say that we should not do it 
again. I really do not believe that we should use taxpayers' money to 
keep Federal employees, even though they may be real good scientists, 
some of them our best scientists, and other ancillary employees that 
assist them and work there, that we should be spending money to come up 
with scientific projects because their project which they thought they 
would be working on got canceled.
  I believe that just like when we have base closings, just like when 
we cut back on USDA employees, everyplace else, that those Federal 
employees have to suffer like everybody else is going to have to suffer 
under these budgetary times.
  The second thing I would like to point out is that it is projected 
that even though we may be just starting out with a design stage, $8 
million for design, that it is projected that the total cost of this by 
the time you get through with construction and everything is going to 
be around $1 billion. It is $1 billion out of this budget, out of this 
appropriation. That has to come from somewhere, folks. Is it going to 
come from other research projects? Is it going to come from renewable 
resources? We just had a vote on that. That committee has already cut 
back. They did not like that amendment. Does it mean further cuts in 
those projects, in those type of programs, in that type of research? It 
is going to mean cuts somewhere in order to have a research program 
that is questionable as to whether we actually have to do it.
  The other thing that really concerned me about this, it is supposedly 
because the ANS project was being done at Oak Ridge, that Oak Ridge is 
going to end up with this, too, even though there is no question about 
it that Los Alamos is a lot better equipped to do this if you are going 
to do it.
  Why did the DOE not decide to let the various laboratories bid on it 
just like they do other projects? Why did they not say, let's open it 
up, let's have a bid on it, and let the various laboratories decide 
which one would do it. Oh, no.
  The reason is, and I will go back to it, the reason is, it is a jobs 
program. It is a $1 billion jobs program from Oak Ridge, TN. They do 
not want their scientists to be unemployed.
  I have a whole bunch of people out there, folks, that are not 
working. I have a whole bunch of them. If they are going to do this for 
scientists who make $100, $150,000, $200,000, $75,000----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to do this in order to 
keep these scientists on the payroll rather than telling them that, 
``Sorry, we're not going to do this, we're not going to expend this 
money to keep you on the payroll,'' we are going to keep them on the 
payroll, why do we not say, ``We're going to help the other poor people 
with school lunches, we're not going to cut back on Medicare for our 
senior citizens''?
  No, no. No, no. It appears that right now they would much rather pay 
high-priced scientists to keep them on the payroll than it would be for 
other people in this country. I do not think that that is a very good 
idea. I never have.

                              {time}  1300

  I have said the same thing when it comes to military procurement; if 
we do not need a certain airplane or we do not need submarines or 
aircraft carriers anymore, I do not think we should keep shipyards in 
business. I do not think we should keep aircraft manufacturers in 
business just to keep people on the payroll.
  But that is what this project does is keep people on the payroll down 
at Oak Ridge rather than say to them, ``No, you are going to have to go 
find a job elsewhere.''
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the proper intent of our colleague and 
friend from Missouri to save money and try to help us with this 
patriotic challenge to balance the Federal budget.
  I tell you, we are at a critical time right now with this issue on 
this floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as we move forward to 
not make dramatic mistakes in this country. We have got to separate 
good sense from nonsense, and I will tell you right now, to say that 
scientific investment in basic research that will not be accomplished 
by the private sector, we know that anyone that knows, and I am not a 
scientist but I understand, and I know a lot of real good scientists, 
and I do represent Oak Ridge, TN, and I am proud some of the finest 
scientists in the world Nobel Prize winners, like Dr. Cliff Shull, in 
neutron science, are in Oak Ridge, TN.
  I take great disagreement with the gentleman from Missouri in what he 
called a jobs program. This is about research in the areas of 
pharmaceuticals electronic materials, metallurgy, ceramics, chemistry, 
biology, superconductivity, condensed matter, physics, and let me walk 
you though briefly where we have been on this issue.
  The advanced neutron sources was a major project. It was what 
President Reagan would call throwing the ball deep on staying ahead of 
the rest of the world with respect to research and technology. It was 
too expensive, sir. Maybe $3 billion, if it would have been built, a 
lot of money. It was also a nuclear-based, reactor-based project.
  We had a nonproliferation problem that we were going to have to 
address with the reactor-based neutron project. This new project is an 
accelerator-based project, not a nuclear reactor-based project.

[[Page H 6851]]

  So you do not have the waste problem to deal with, and you have far 
less expense.
  But here is the critical issue: We in the new Republican majority are 
trying to make statements about basic research versus applied 
technology, separating the role of the private sector from the critical 
need for the Federal Government of the United States of America to 
continue making basic investments so that we stay competitive globally, 
so we can, sir, save lives, and I mean that.
  When you are talking neutron science, you are talking about potential 
cures for severe medical problems, major breakthroughs.
  So, here, are we going to be just absolute libertarians that the 
Federal Government should even barely exist or not exist at all, or are 
we going to say in a very conservative budget balancing, stand firm in 
your conviction, so that the Federal Government has a legitimate role 
in certain key areas, and that is basic research? And this is at the 
most basic level, sir, a very good investment, and this is not 
particularly where this facility is going to be built. We have not 
selected where the neutron source is going to be built.
  This is where the design is going to take place, and this is $8 
million. Last year's budget for the ANS was $20 million. We are 
retreating from that because this is a time of belt tightening and 
budget restraint. We are doing that.
  But we have got to continue the design in this direction so that we 
are prepared if this Congress makes the decision next year and the year 
after and
 the year after to go forward with the construction of this project to 
say this is where it should go.

  I would respectfully disagree, strongly, that Los Alamos is the place 
for this project because we have been working on this project in Oak 
Ridge since the inception of neutron science.
  Our national competitiveness is at stake. This project warrants our 
support. It is a small amount of money, and if we in this fever, and I 
am glad that the fever pitch is here, to balance the budget and cut 
spending, but this is where I will guarantee you this Congress is going 
too far if we just say let us just discontinue funding in all of our 
basic research efforts in science and technology in this country. We 
will live to regret this if we go forward with killing this initial 
design money.
  The scientists and the technological community agree, including the 
leaders of the University of Missouri, where our sponsor of this bill 
hails, support this project.
  I clearly believe we need to defeat the Volkmer amendment and stand 
up for the basic research that this Federal Government can do well.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very discouraging day in the House. I 
have watched peer review science being just put aside by this House in 
almost a mindless cannibalism of basic science programs. That is a 
very, very disturbing kind of thing.
  If this country is going to move in important ways into the next 
century, the thing we need is new discovery and new knowledge. This 
Congress, on this floor today, is putting aside our commitment to the 
new discovery and that new knowledge, and we are doing so in almost a 
gleeful way. It is almost fun; you know. ``Here is a project that I do 
not understand the title of, so it cannot be worth anything. Let us 
just throw it away.'' And that is exactly what is happening out here 
today.
  It is very discouraging because if this country is going to lead in 
the global economy, we had better be able to produce the new products 
of the future.
  The gentleman from Missouri a few minutes ago talked about jobs. 
Where in the world does he think jobs are going to come from if we do 
not develop the new knowledge and new discoveries that make it possible 
to create those jobs? I mean maybe he thinks we can be a nation of 
hamburger flippers and so on that has no economic base to compete in 
the global economy. Maybe he thinks that is where we are going to find 
those jobs.
  But this amendment, this amendment suggests we are going to go even 
further down the pike than we have gone before in terms of wiping out 
the commitment this Government and this Nation should have to basic 
science.
  Now, I am the first to admit this is money we have spent in the name 
of science over the past years that has not been very good investment, 
and we ought to take care of that and we ought to make certain we 
prioritize science.
  What we have said, as we prioritize, is that basic science ought to 
be our goal. This amendment goes after a core basic science program.
  Let me tell you what the payoff could be in terms of jobs: Neutrons 
are an indispensable tool for research in nearly all areas of physics, 
chemistry, biology, health and materials. Much of the research using 
neutrons is important to fulfilling the
 scientific and technological missions of the Department of Energy and 
will have large technological and economic payoffs, particularly in 
fields like polymer technology, hydrogen-containing materials, high-
temperature superconductors, and the structural 
studies of catalytic and biological materials. I cannot think of a 
thing more important in terms of this Nation in terms of developing 
products of the future and communication skills than to have high-
temperature superconductors.

  This is the underlying research we are talking about here to doing 
high-temperature superconductivity, and the gentleman wants to wipe it 
out, do away with it. I cannot imagine why that makes sense.
  The fruits of neutron research will impact the development of new 
products such as high-tech plastics that are lighter and stronger, that 
are lighter and stronger than steel. It will allow us to build new 
generations of silicon chips for electronics. It means better computer 
disks and video tapes. It means better pharmaceuticals. It means high-
performance magnets for motors, and transformers. Those are the things 
that are going to produce the jobs in the next century. In the 
knowledge economy of the next century, those are all the items where we 
are going to be the job generators of the future.
  And we want to kill it on the floor today? We have killed off several 
other basic research programs that are going to take away from the 
future, and the gentleman from Missouri stands up and wants to kill off 
another one. It makes absolutely no sense. It is discouraging and 
disappointing.
  If you really do believe that science has something to do with this 
Nation's ability to do the economy of the future, then, by golly, do 
not vote for this amendment, and stop voting for some of the rest of 
them that are out here that are mindless cannibalism of basic research.
  It is time we stand up for the future, and this amendment is a 
regression into the past.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was just struck in listening to the gentleman who 
just spoke about his moral outrage at the cut of basic science.
  Now, I share his concern that basic science can be a producer of jobs 
in the future, but to come on this floor and express the moral outrage 
that he expressed in this Congress' cutting basic science, I wish I 
could have heard him express the moral outrage when we cut in this 
House, based upon the Republican rescissions package, money for women 
and infants and childrens programs, money that goes to help pregnant 
women deliver healthy babies, and you are talking about making an 
investment in this country's future.
  I will tell you where the Democrats make their investment. The 
Democrats make their investment in people, because we know in this 
country we are not going to be a strong country if we produce babies 
that are sick babies, who do not have the nutrition they need, but the 
Republicans did not express that moral outrage when it came to cutting 
the WIC program. The Republicans did not express the moral outrage when 
it came to cutting the Meals on Wheels Program or cutting the programs 
that help our senior citizens.
  And this morning when we were in the well of the House speaking on 
the 1 minutes, I kept hearing how the Democrats refused to reform 
health care; the Republicans are stuck with cutting $280 billion from 
Medicare over the next 7 years, and when I spoke, I 

[[Page H 6852]]
spoke about Herb McCollock in my district who is going to be spending 
on average 100----
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No, I will not yield.
  On average----
  Mr. WALKER. Will the gentleman not yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman from Rhode Island has the floor. I would 
appreciate it if the gentleman would----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island controls the time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to carry on.
  Like I said before in my presentation, there is no question about it, 
ANS was ended because ANS was going to cost too dang much money. We 
already had spent millions of dollars on it; throw it away, throw it 
away.
  But we had people on the payroll down there. We have got to keep them 
working. But we do not worry about, like the gentleman from Rhode 
Island says, we do not worry about young women that are out here going 
to have babies; because they are poor, tough, you are not going to get 
any help. We do not worry about the senior citizens in my district who 
are going to have to pay over $100 a month on Medicare part B in a few 
years under their program. We do not worry about them, because they are 
only getting $300 or $400 a month Social Security. You are going to 
take it and do that.
  And you say, ``No, we need basic research.'' Yes, we need basic 
research. But, like I said, we have got to establish priorities.
  Theirs is they want the scientists. They want them to have the money. 
I, like the gentleman from Rhode Island, I want to take care of the 
people that are here today that are suffering, and under your programs, 
they are going to suffer a heck of a lot more.
  I do not see that as a very good priority. To me that is the question 
here today: Whether you want to keep scientists who make over $100,000 
a year on the payroll or if you want to say ``no'' to them, and we are 
going to help other people out here, we are going to help that young 
mother that is going to have that baby so that she has a healthy baby, 
so that she does not have to have an operation or something in order to 
have that baby, so that she does not have to worry about it, so that 
she can get just plain old milk and help, you know, for the baby.
  Why are my senior citizens, you know, the gentleman, the chairman, 
you come from a State that has a little cold weather. I have cold 
weather. But LIPEAP is gone. LIHEAP is gone, lower-income energy 
assistance. I did not hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania yelling 
about that. I have got senior citizens out home this winter, come this 
winter they are going to have a heck of a time. They are going to have 
to make a decision whether they want to eat or heat their house.
  Yes, folks, they are going to have to make that decision. And yet you 
say let us pay today, let us pay $100,000, $150,000 to these scientists 
to keep them on the payroll. But you will not give me 1 penny, not 1 
penny to help my low-income people pay heating bills this winter.
  Well, folks, to me that also is a lot of what we are talking about 
here today. You can talk all you want about basic research. I am saying 
it is priorities.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. He hit the nail on 
the head. We are interested in people.
                              {time}  1315

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] for yielding because I think we have just gotten the perfect 
explanation of the difference between the Democrats and the 
Republicans, the difference between the minority and majority, and 
thank goodness the American people, in their wisdom, have helped us 
have a majority that is in the right direction.
  The difference is, and the two gentlemen, one from Rhode Island and 
one from Missouri, have just described it:
  The Republicans are for knowledge. We are for science and knowledge. 
The Democrats are for welfare. The Republicans want to put money into 
trying to get new knowledge for the future so that we can produce the 
jobs of the future. The Democrats want to increase and expand the 
number of welfare checks we pay in the future. The Democrats believe 
that the way in which you advance into the future is to grow welfare 
programs bigger, and bigger, and bigger so that more and more people 
are not working, but are simply getting a check from Government, while 
what we want to do is grow the science of the country so that everybody 
can work in the future and we will have no need for welfare checks.
  That is a big difference. We have having it defined on the floor.
  The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has just perfectly 
described his amendment. His amendment is in favor of cutting back on 
the development of new discovery and new knowledge in favor of welfare 
checks. He wants to make certain that we have enough money to continue 
to pay welfare checks even if it comes out of the hide of the science 
programs needed to produce the jobs in the future. The gentleman says 
right now we want to focus on spending the money on the people here 
right now. We have already accumulated massive debt for the people in 
future generations, and what we are now saying is we want to continue 
to spend the money for all of that, continue to pile on the debt and 
hand them the bill in the future, and also hand them no new knowledge, 
no new discoveries, and, therefore no new jobs.
  It is the perfect description of the difference between the two 
parties, the party of welfare and the party of knowledge.
  Now I got to tell my colleague, ``If you think the next century is 
going to be the century where we are going to develop the welfare 
economy, the Democrats are your party, and they just defined 
themselves. If you believe the next century is going to be the 
knowledge economy, that we are going to have the information economy, 
then you've heard them describe the situation. You ought to vote 
against this amendment and then vote for expanding new opportunities 
for knowledge and discovery.''
  This is the perfect prescription. I am glad we have had this debate. 
The gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentleman from Missouri have 
described it perfectly:
  The Democrats, the party of welfare; the Republicans, the party of 
knowledge.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
another way of putting it is the old saying, ``You can either give a 
man a fish and feed him for a day, or teach him how to fish, and he can 
feed himself for the rest of his life.'' That is the question of 
opportunities. Pure science will provide us with those jobs of tomorrow 
or teaching people how to fish. Clearly this amendment is to give them 
a fish to feed them for a day. We ought to defeat it and teach them how 
to fish so that the opportunity for jobs tomorrow will be there.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have not heard pure science. We have heard pure 
bunkum. Let me simply tell my colleagues what the real differences are 
between the parties as I see them.
  Let me stipulate I think both political parties have had a fine 
tradition in this country. But I think there are some very distinct 
differences between our party today and theirs, and they do not have to 
do with who wants to write welfare checks.
  I sat last night in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and I saw that committee take a number of 
specific steps which cut the guts out of efforts to help middle-class 
working families, not welfare recipients, but people who work and sweat 
every day to make enough money to keep a decent living standard, take 
care of their grandparents, take care of their parents and worry about 
sending their kids to school at the same time. And I saw that 
subcommittee last night cut $2 billion dollars out of, not welfare 
programs, but education programs to provide help to local school 
districts. The 

[[Page H 6853]]
next biggest whack came at the expense of low-income elderly, disabled 
and poor kids, a billion and a half dollars cut from programs such as 
Healthy Start and Head Start. Head Start has been demonstrated to 
produce less welfare dependency, fewer pregnancies, and less high 
school dropout tendencies than kids that have not gone to Head Start 
programs.
  The next biggest cut came in programs to train people to get them off 
welfare.
  We hear people in this place talk out of both sides of their mouth 
and do a duplicitous routine, pretending they are really going to go 
after welfare. But then, when it comes right down to it, what happened 
last night is that they gutted virtually every program to help take 
people off welfare and get them into training programs and working 
programs. Example: displaced worker program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, how many of you voted for NAFTA? 
or GATT? I did not because that was an elitist rip-off of working 
American and working people, but what did they do? What did they do? 
They wind up, they wind up saying that for displaced workers--and these 
are not welfare cases--these are people who worked for 20 and 30 years, 
and now being put out of jobs and are asking after they paid taxes for 
a long, long time to finally get some of that money back in order to 
help retrain them for a decent job. And what did your party do last 
night in Labor-H? They cut the guts out of programs like that. Then 
what you have done, you have also attacked the NLRB. You made it easier 
for corporations to violate wage and hour restrictions. You made it 
easier for them to set up bogus pension systems. You made it easier for 
them to treat workers like cattle.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, you bet you there is a 
difference between the parties. What is happening in this country is we 
are ceasing to be a country with a large and growing middle class. 
Fewer and fewer people are getting tickets into that middle class, and 
a whole lot more people who used to live like middle-class workers are 
now thinking of themselves as being lower-class workers, poor workers. 
And what is happening is, you are taking actions which seriously damage 
the ability of this society to stay tied together regardless of income 
because of your attack on working people, your attack on the poor. And 
yet you stand here, and you have done it on a number of votes today and 
yesterday, you have defended corporate welfare, all if it's for the 
nuclear industry. If it is for Westinghouse, if it is for GE, oh, my 
God, shovel the money out the door. We can't spend it fast enough.
  It just seems to me there is a big difference between the parties. We 
all have our faults, and frankly we deserved to lose the last election 
because we were lousy salesmen, we fought among ourselves, and we got 
diverted on some issues we should not have been diverted on, and the 
public taught us a lesson. Frankly I think it was good for our party 
that they did, but my colleagues are misreading that election if they 
think that election produced a battle cry from the American people to 
cut working people, cut education, cut health care, cut Medicare, but 
oh, by all means, keep corporate welfare.
  Baloney.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania who spoke earlier that this money does not go to 
welfare if this amendment carries. The money stays unspent. It does not 
increase the deficit; it reduces the deficit. So, if the gentleman is 
really interested in balancing the budget, he would vote for this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Got to remember we have got to borrow the money to spend 
this $8 million to keep these scientists on the payroll. That is what 
we are going to have to do.
  Now it is not only corporate welfare who benefits. We heard the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania talk about all the things that will 
naturally flow from this basic research.
  Impossible. It is a possibility; it is not a necessary. It is not 
that it will happen. It is a problematical out there. In the meantime 
we are spending all this money, and we are making the cuts.
  I would just like to point out, and the gentleman mentioned I did not 
know this, that in the retraining programs under NAFTA, Mr. Chairman, 
they have cut that money? I just had a plant close in my district in 
the last month. In a small town the largest employer is going to 
Mexico; they are going to Mexico. Now, if they have gone ahead and 
proposed to cut those funds, I do not know what those people are going 
to do. That was our last hope, the only hope. There is no other plant 
out there. This is a farming community. We do not have another plant 
for them to go to work at.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
just one other thing.
  The Federal Reserve, not exactly a left-wing pinko, Democratic 
institution. They have just completed their second study of wealth in 
this country; and what that showed is that in the 1980's we saw the 
richest one-half of 1 percent of American families increase their share 
of national wealth from 24 to 31 percent of the total national wealth. 
They increased their wealth by $2 trillion, more than twice as much as 
the national debt went up during that same period. And yet they want to 
give them more. They want to cut back on programs for working people to 
give tax cuts to people who make $200,000 a year, and then they want to 
defend themselves as defenders of the middle class?
  What a joke.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. They also want to repeal the EITC, the earned income tax 
credit.
  Mr. OBEY. Which raises taxes for lower-income people.
  I say to my colleagues, you're real friends of the working folks; 
aren't you?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, somehow we strayed away from the intent of this 
particular amendment, and the program that the gentleman's committee 
put in here got away to why we are in such straits we are today. I 
guess I am not quite the oldest person here, but pretty close to it. 
This House has spent 40 years spending itself into prosperity that the 
gentleman talked about.
  Now we ask for a small investment here in our future, that we might 
be competitive in the world. I can recall 40 years ago as a teenager 
working for an industry. That industry is not here any more, and I say 
to the gentleman, Mr. Obey, I didn't vote for GATT, I didn't vote for 
NAFTA. I don't know where that puts me; in no man's land I guess. But I 
am still concerned about the future. I am concerned, and this committee 
is concerned, about children, healthy children, women, and infant 
children, in another appropriation bill providing for them. But, if we 
do not have jobs in this country, if we are exporting all the jobs, 
importing all the products that we now import that we once produced in 
this country because we do not have the technology today to be 
competitive in the world, how are we going to pay the taxes to do these 
things you are talking about?
  So I remember years ago we were in business, a family business. My 
dad wanted to cut everything out. No investment; he did not want to 
take any chances. Yet the money coming in the front door, but do not 
invest anything and get more people coming in the front door. I 
remember my dad was a great businessmen, better than I will ever be, 
but I tried to talk my dad into making some investment, and we finally 
did, and we did double the business.
  So this is where we are today as a nation. Do we want to say we are 
going to save $8 million here, a drop in the bucket? I know it is a lot 
of money, but 

[[Page H 6854]]
a drop in the bucket when we are thinking about being competitive in 
the world. This is what we are trying to do here, provide this resource 
that we can provide the tools that industry can be more competitive in 
the world, and this is all we are asking for.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I would just say, and I feel fascinated, as my colleagues 
know, in listening to the debate, and, apart from the debate on the 
merits, on the scientific merits, and the research and so forth in this 
particular argument, I would encourage my colleagues on the floor and 
listening in their offices that, if we are going to have good 
technology jobs, many of which are at Oak Ridge, if we are going to 
have good scientific jobs in the future, we have got to support Head 
Start programs. We cannot cut those Head Start programs. That will be 
coming to the floor in about 2 weeks, as the gentleman from Indiana 
knows, but we certainly cannot be cutting title I funds. We certainly 
cannot be taking 60,000 young kids off of Head Start rolls. These kids 
are the future for the Oak Ridge Laboratories, and for national 
laboratories, and for our scientific base and for these good jobs that 
are going to lead this country forward in the 21st century.
  So, I would say, if we are going to be consistent here, if we are 
going to invest in young people, and science, and basic research, I 
would say that when this Education, Labor, HHS bill comes up, I would 
hope that we would join together in a bipartisan way to support the 
educational endeavors in this country.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is 
entitled to his opinion here. I am afraid he is putting the cart out in 
front of the horse here.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield one more time?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ROEMER. I do not think the horse is in front of the cart or the 
cart is in front of the horse at all. I think the two are directly 
interconnected. If you cannot invest in your people and education----
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Where are these young people going to work? In 
Japan, Germany, Latin America, someplace, in GATT? Where are they going 
to work if we do not create the technology in this country? That comes 
first or you are not going to have jobs. They are not going to pay the 
taxes to do the things we want to do for the children. We want to do 
it, but you have to have the investments first.
  Mr. ROEMER. If you cannot have the young people with the knowledge, 
skills and talent to work with this high technology, then you are going 
to have a problem.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Let us discuss that in a bill coming up in a 
couple weeks. We are talking about $8 million.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. The fact is that would be one of the reasons why this 
Nation has a good education program, and we should continue to have a 
good education program, because we do pursue new knowledge and new 
discoveries. The fact is that the way in which we pay for most 
education is paid for at the state and local level through moneys 
gleaned from profitable businesses and from homeowners and all those 
people who profit from having real jobs.
  Now, the fact is that when we go after the underlying new discoveries 
that will produce the jobs of the future, we are undermining our 
ability to continue to do all the good things that these gentlemen have 
talked about.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We spent 40 years doing it their way.
  Mr. WALKER. Average middle-class Americans, the working man that we 
all want to support, deserve to have jobs not only now, but in the 
future. That is what this issue is all about here, is whether or not we 
are going to create those jobs for the new discoveries.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 275, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 490]

                               AYES--148

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--275

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)

[[Page H 6855]]

     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Brown (OH)
     Fox
     Gutierrez
     Hefner
     Longley
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Reynolds
     Spratt
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1352

  Messrs. NEY, UPTON, SMITH of Michigan, COBURN, CUNNINGHAM, and Ms. 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
''no.''
  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, and for 
     necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the 
     alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for 
     payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses 
     of the Commission, including services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, to remain available until expended, 
     $142,000,000.

                DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $17,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including the employment of aliens; services authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; publication and 
     dissemination of atomic information; purchase, repair, and 
     cleaning of uniforms, official representation expenses (not 
     to exceed $20,000); reimbursements to the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles and aircraft, $468,300,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $11,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That from this 
     appropriation, transfer of sums may be made to other agencies 
     of the Government for the performance of the work for which 
     this appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums so 
     transferred may be merged with the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That moneys received by the 
     Commission for the cooperative nuclear safety research 
     program, services rendered to foreign governments and 
     international organizations, and the material and information 
     access authorization programs, including criminal history 
     checks under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
     amended, may be retained and used for salaries and expenses 
     associated with those activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, and shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $457,300,000 in fiscal year 1996 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced
      by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1996 
     from licensing fees, inspection services and other 
     services and collections, excluding those moneys received 
     for the cooperative nuclear safety research program, 
     services rendered to foreign governments and international 
     organizations, and the material and information access 
     authorization programs, so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 1996 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $11,000,000.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, including services authorized by section 
     3109 of title 5, United States Code, $5,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; and in addition, an amount not to 
     exceed 5 percent of this sum may be transferred from Salaries 
     and Expenses, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Provided, That 
     notice of such transfers shall be given to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate: Provided further, 
     That from this appropriation, transfers of sums may be made 
     to other agencies of the Government for the performance of 
     the work for which this appropriation is made, and in such 
     cases the sums so transferred by be merged with the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other 
     services and collections shall be retained and used for 
     necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues 
     received during fiscal year 1996 from licensing fees, 
     inspection services, and other services and collections, so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
     estimated at not more than $0.

                  NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $2,531,000, to be transferred from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund and to remain available until expended.

                       TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

                    Tennessee Valley Authority Fund

       For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
     ch. 12A), including purchase, hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, and purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $103,339,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. 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. Klug: Page 25, line 6, strike 
     ``$142,000,000'' and insert ``$0''.

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we have before us now, my 
colleagues, is an amendment offered by myself, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], and also the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and the hard work the committee did 
on making some very significant cuts already in the Appalachian 
Regional Commission. Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional 
Commission provides additional money to 13 States, which, as you might 
take from the title, run along the Appalachian mountain range, 
stretching from New York on the north, through Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, and Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Now, keep that 
list in mind, if you would, Mr. Chairman, because I suspect most of the 
speakers we will hear from on the other side of this issue, as luck 
would have it, happen to fall from the 13 States which are directly 
affected by this money.
  Since 1965, we have spent more than $7 billion in the Appalachian 
region, trying to bolster economic growth in these 13 States. And I 
think to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, what have we gotten for that $7 
billion of investment and why it is 30 years later we are still trying 
to fund the exact same programs?
  What the Appalachian Regional Commission does is essentially allow 13 
States in this country to double dip into infrastructure money, money 
to do economic development, and money also to do highway and water 
construction and projects like that.
  I do not begrudge my colleagues for this additional help because 
clearly in 1965, when we first established ARC, there was a clear 
economic need that these States and many of these specific regions were 
disadvantaged compared to the rest of the country. But here we are 
again, 30 years later still spending millions of dollars trying to 
jumpstart the economy of 13 States.
  I have to ask my colleagues from the Southeast, what is it that makes 
a community in Alabama or a community in Tennessee or a community from 
West Virginia or Virginia or New York that is poor different from a 
community in Wisconsin, or New Mexico, Oregon, or Idaho, or Utah, or 
whatever the case might be?

[[Page H 6856]]

  I think this was a well-intentioned program
   established in 1965. Frankly, it has long outlived its usefulness. 
While it was established in 1965, it did not take very long for 
President Nixon to put ARC on the radar screen, but the Nixon 
administration could not beat it. The Reagan administration tried as 
well, Mr. Chairman, back in the 1980's and found themselves equally 
unsuccessful. And I think this is the great challenge for this 
Congress.

  As I was saying, there was an election last fall that I think 
challenged this Congress to a new mandate. The mandate was to make 
tough decisions about spending and to begin eliminating programs that 
could no longer be justified. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen] and I, Members of the Tennessee delegation, I think, will have 
a similar argument a short time on the Tennessee Valley Authority 
established back in the 1930's. And here we are with the Appalachian 
Commission established in 1965 to fund development money for these 
projects.
  Now, listen to this, which, I think, is going to be interesting. 
There is little evidence that ARC has contributed to the long-term 
economic health of Appalachian. During the 1980's, there was strong 
economic growth in the Appalachian region. ARC's budget was cut by over 
40 percent during the same period. And unbelievably, unemployment rates 
fell by 38 percent.
  So there is clearly no correlation in ARC money with what is going on 
in those areas. It has to do with economic development and the growth 
of the country as a whole.
  Now, let me point out some of the very important projects that we 
have managed to fund over the years with the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, beginning just back in February, when to develop the 
economic region of the country they paid--they did not pay; taxpayers 
paid--$750,000 to help the Carolina Panthers build a new football 
facility. We had a little team up in Green Bay called the Green Bay 
Packers. I have to tell you, there is not one Federal dollar involved 
in Lambeau Field. The Packers have been around since 1920. Why is it 
that the Federal Government is building football stadiums?
  Along the way, we have also helped build the Alabama Music Hall of 
Fame, a program to attract German travelers to West Virginia, build an 
access road to a Pennsylvania ski resort, helped do a limestone cave 
display in Georgia. Let us go back to the athletic theme for a minute.

                              {time}  1400

  There was $1.2 million for the National Track and Field Hall of Fame 
and, of course, the NASCAR Hall of Fame, a study on the migration of 
the elderly, a grant to train workers for a BMW plant, and on and on 
the list goes.
  So here we are, Mr. Chairman, $750,000 for a football stadium, 
billions of dollars for a region and hundreds of millions of dollars 
here in 1995. I would suggest to my colleagues in this House, although 
many of my colleagues from much of the Southeast may fundamentally 
disagree, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward], and I say it is time to put an end to the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, now we know why the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] 
is so opposed to the Appalachian Regional Commission. Is it the 
Carolina Panthers, in opposition to the Green Bay Packers, which 
motivates this gentleman to try to strike the entire Appalachian 
Regional Commission effort to end poverty in the most poverty stricken 
part of the country? Now we know the truth.
  The real truth is the Appalachian Regional Commission works to end 
poverty in the most poverty stricken part of our Nation. Let me point 
out to the body that the poverty in Appalachia is intractable. Income 
in these areas is still 17 percent below the national average. The 
region's poverty rate is 16 percent higher than the national average. 
In areas like mine, the poverty rate is over 25 percent. Even with ARC 
funding, Appalachian counties receive 14 percent less in total Federal 
dollars than the rest of the counties of the State of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], even with Appalachian Regional Commission 
funding.
  Many areas of the country have enjoyed the benefits of economic 
growth and expansion over many decades, but not Appalachia. Yes, on the 
edges there have been improvements over the years, and we are proud of 
that. That proves ARC works. However, there are still core counties in 
Appalachia that simply cannot make it without the work of the 
Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC works the way I think the 
majority in this body would like for other programs to work. It is sort 
of like a block grant or Federal revenue sharing; local grassroots 
people involved in their problems getting their local officials 
involved first, then their Governor, then the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. All of the Governors support the ARC, Republican and 
Democrat, because it is the model for the future, a grassroots program 
with local, State, and Federal governmental involvement.
  Mr. Chairman, the ARC funding in this bill has been cut in half. The 
chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and ranking member, 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], have done a superb job of 
reforming this agency. They cut the funding in half. Already ARC has 
been reformed.
  No. 2, Mr. Chairman, the budget that passed this body contains $40 
million more than this bill does. This bill is under the House-passed 
budget resolution, $40 million under it. It is one-half the current 
level, so already we have reformed, and we have cut and made it more 
efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, please do not snuff out the life of this agency that is 
making so much of a difference in the lives of poor people, in a part 
of the country that has been ravaged by nature, by the loss of jobs in 
the coal and textile business, and others. Give us a chance. This 
organization works to help poor people help themselves from poverty. It 
works. Poverty rates have been halved in the region. Incomes have 
increased. High school graduates have doubled during this period of 
time.
  The dollars are targeted to the most severely distressed counties, 
putting the money where it is really needed, in drinking water lines, 
sewer treatment for families without indoor plumbing, even in this day 
and age, and in health care clinics and hospitals in places that had 
none before, in job skills training for workers displaced from coal 
mines and textile shops, since closed.
  Mr. Chairman, this appropriation bill continues the ARC, but as I 
have said before, it reforms it. It directs that the remaining moneys 
be focused on basic infrastructure and health needs. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest], chairman of the subcommittee, will later tell you that they 
have passed through the subcommittee a new authorization bill for the 
ARC. It will be authorized and modified and reformed.
  The facts speak for themselves. ARC works. It is a model of a 
conservative nature, in my judgment, that marries the best of the 
voluntarism in the country with local, State, and governmental help, in 
order to help us to walk up the stepladder on our own. That is what we 
most desperately want.
  I hope Members will oppose the Klug amendment. Help us keep the ARC 
alive. We have cut it in half. It is being authorized. It is underneath 
the budget resolution that has passed both bodies of the Congress now, 
House and Senate. Please give us a chance to help ourselves. Oppose 
Klug.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], has raised some good questions, as 
he has on other amendments. However, I think the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] have dealt with 
these questions, and they have crafted a very good package for us to 
continue this program. The gentleman from Kentucky just stated some 
very strong arguments in favor of the ARC.
  The ARC's mission is to equip Appalachian citizens with 
entrepreneurial skills and enterprise development resources they need 
to create self-sustaining local economies where people take control 
over their own economic 

[[Page H 6857]]
destiny and contribute as taxpayers to the national economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I know a lot of people from the rest of the country may 
have questions about this program, so I would like to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], 
who shares our interest in this program in Alabama.
  I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree 
with me that ARC is a proven example of an effective Federal, State, 
and local partnership that has had a dramatic effect in improving the 
lives of Appalachian citizens?
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWDER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CRAMER. My colleague from Alabama is correct, Mr. Chairman. ARC, 
as was stated by our colleague from Kentucky, has helped in slashing 
the region's poverty rate in half. We have cut the infant mortality 
rate by two-thirds. We have reduced unemployment rates as well. 
However, despite these successes, this region still has very much 
economic needs and unmet needs. We have 399 counties that are 
classified as severely distressed under ARC and 115 of those counties 
are still severely distressed. We have come a long way, but we have not 
come the way that we need to go. That is why this amendment is not 
justified at this time.
  As was pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, is 
the gentleman from Alabama aware that this Committee on Appropriations 
has already cut ARC funding by 50 percent from fiscal year 1995 funding 
level?
  Mr. BROWDER. I am aware of that cut, Mr. Chairman. That is why I 
cannot support a further cut that would place a heavier burden on some 
of the most distressed communities in the country.
  Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
this is not the time that Congress should consider further reductions. 
The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, finally referred to 
as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is completing 
oversight hearings over ARC. We are in the middle of that oversight 
review.
  This will be a 5-year reauthorization bill that would reform and in 
fact streamline ARC. This bill eliminates some of the Commission's 
activities and better targets its resources to the areas of greatest 
need. One important aspect of ARC is that it is a bipartisan program. 
At least it has bipartisan support.
  Our Governor there in Alabama, Fob James, has stated that ARC is 
unique in that it is a shared partnership of Federal, State, and local 
governments. As such, he says ARC provides flexibility to address the 
needs of the people, and allows Governors and local governments to set 
priorities, so it is one of the few programs that is responsive to 
local and State needs. We only request that this program be retained 
and other programs in fact modeled after it.
  Mr. BROWDER. Governor James' statement is right on point, and ARC is 
responsive to local and State needs and should be retained, Mr. 
Chairman. I thank
 the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] for his time in support of 
ARC. I am sure that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, after 
hearing this colloquy, wants to withdraw this amendment and let us move 
on with this very deserving program. I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama.

  Mr. CRAMER. I thank my colleague from Alabama for his interest and 
support for a program that has as its mission to help communities 
create self-sustaining economies.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWDER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I think it might also be interesting to 
point out, in addition to what the gentleman from Alabama just said, 
that a lot of other solid conservative Governors who are in favor of 
cutting wasteful spending have given wholehearted support to the 
Appalachian Regional Commission. Governor George Pataki of New York, 
Governor George Allen of Virginia, Governor Don Sundquist of Tennessee, 
Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, have all given the ARC their ringing 
public endorsements, because they realize that ARC is an example of a 
proven program which works, and works well. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. BROWDER. I appreciate the comments from my friend, the gentleman 
from Mississippi. I think that demonstrates widespread support for this 
program.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We have 
not been a bit bashful in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to move to kill agencies, to move to substantially 
downsize and to streamline. We are killing the ICC, we are 
substantially downsizing and streamlining the Federal Maritime 
Commission, we are in the process of imposing tough reforms on Amtrak 
in order to see if it can be saved.
  GSA, we have stopped the construction of courthouses. We are saving 
hundreds of millions of dollars through actions on our committee. 
Indeed, when we looked at the Appalachian Regional Commission, as I 
said, we have asked ourselves with all of the programs under our 
jurisdictions, ``What can we do here to change this program?''
  I really came to two conclusions. The first conclusion was that this 
kind of a program is in many respects a model program. This is the kind 
of a program we should be urging the Federal Government and the States 
and the localities to adopt as a model. Why? Because the decisions are 
not being made by a bunch of bureaucrats here in Washington, but are 
being made by local officials and State officials in cooperation with 
the Appalachian Regional Commission, which, indeed, as Members may 
know, is controlled in large measure by the 13 Appalachian Governors.
  I would remind particularly my Republican friends that 8 of those 13 
Governors are Republican Governors, and all of them, all 13, have 
communicated to us their vigorous support of this program, because it 
is a program that works.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has talked about the 
boondoggles. He is right, there have been some boondoggles. There is a 
need for reform. That is precisely what we have done in our committee. 
We have changed. We have tightened up. We have said that ``if you are a 
severely distressed county, then you qualify for help, but if you are 
not a distressed county, you do not get any help.''
  We have not only tightened the requirements, we have cut by $100 
million a year, $500 million over the life of the next 5 years, a 
reduction of spending, so we have stepped up to the plate. We have 
reformed an already outstanding program. We have reduced spending by 
$500 million.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, says there is no 
evidence that the program works. The National Science Foundation 
studied it and released a report where they compared distressed 
counties in ARC with distressed counties that are not in ARC. What was 
their conclusion, not my conclusion, their conclusion? That there was a 
48-percent faster economic growth rate in the severely distressed 
counties in the Appalachian region compared to the ones that are not in 
the Appalachian region. If anything, this suggests that we should be 
looking at this as a model program if we want to help severely 
distressed counties across America.
  Indeed, there has been substantial progress, and that is why many of 
the counties in the ARC region no longer qualify under our tightened 
requirements. That is why only the distressed counties will be the ones 
which will be supported, and indeed, of the 399 counties in the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, virtually all of them were distressed 
counties 20 years ago. Today 115 of them are distressed counties.
  There has been very, very substantial improvement. However, the fact 
remains that many of these counties are severely distressed, and as has 
been pointed out, the counties in the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
even with this ARC support, receive 14 percent less Federal funding 
than other counties like the counties from Wisconsin, of my good friend 
who has offered this amendment. Therefore, there is still a need. This 
is a model program. We should be vigorously supporting this program.

[[Page H 6858]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by quoting a letter from the 13 
Appalachian Governors who strongly support this; indeed, a letter from 
Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, a former Member of this House, who 
says, ``The governing structure of the Appalachian Regional Commission 
serves as a significant model for how the national and State 
governments can work together in the administration of Federal funding 
programs.''
  In summary, there is a need for ARC; the program works. There has 
been abuse; we have reformed it. The ARC authorization bill provides 
those reforms. We have cut $500 million in spending over the next 5 
years. We are doing what the people sent us here to do. That is to 
streamline, to reform, to reduce spending, but also to continue 
supporting the building of needed infrastructure for America, 
particularly in the pockets of poverty for America.
  For all of those reasons I would urge my colleagues to join us in a 
bipartisan effort to defeat this amendment and support this very worthy 
program.
                              {time}  1415

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Klug, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Shuster was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. I just want to understand, tell me what it is in 1995 that 
makes a distressed county in Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Alabama 
eligible for funds when the same distressed application does not apply 
to the other 37 States?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for this question. It is an 
excellent question. The reason why this should be supported is because 
we are not talking about an isolated county but we are talking about a 
region of America that has been severely disadvantaged. Indeed if my 
friend from Wisconsin wants to come to our committee and say that there 
needs to be a Great Lakes Commission, or whatever you would like to 
call it, to accomplish the same kind of thing that we are doing for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, I welcome you to do that. I will 
support this kind of an effort.
  No matter where we find these pockets of poverty in America, we 
should be doing the kinds of things that we are successfully doing in 
the Appalachian region. I would be very happy to support him in 
extending this kind of a program to other pockets of poverty across 
America. It is a great idea, and I welcome the gentleman to come to our 
committee.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to make a comment, not only is it pockets 
of poverty in a particular region but a program like the Appalachian 
Regional Commission is way ahead of its time. We know it has been in 
effect for a few decades now. This is the kind of program that we want 
to use Federal dollars because it is Federal-State combination dollars. 
It leverages money. For every dollar we put down there, the Federal 
Government is going to get back $5 in taxes. But it is a model program.
  We talk about block-granting programs, how can the Federal Government 
help these local communities in a much more efficient manner. The 
Appalachian Regional Commission is that model program.
  Mr. KLUG. I ask the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], are 
these counties not already eligible for public works money and for 
economic development money? What I do not understand is how these 13 
States are somehow different from the rest of the world.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, several years ago when I chaired the Economic 
Development Subcommittee in partnership with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], we held hearings here in 
Washington and throughout Appalachia and elsewhere around the country 
in distressed areas. One of the witnesses, the mayor of Sneedville, KY, 
said to the committee, ``Before the Appalachian Regional Commission 
came along, we were so far down, we had to look up to see bottom.''
  What characterized Appalachia for the nearly 100 years before 1965 
was 80 acres and a mule. It was isolation.
  You have heard about the hills and the mountains of Appalachia. 
People being isolated. It would take 30 miles for one community to 
visit another, to go around through the hollows. And why there were 
generations of intestinal illness from people drinking their own sewage 
because of the hard pan that would not allow the sewage to filter 
through, and they needed advanced sewage treatment systems and they 
could not afford them.
  You have head about the domination of King Coal throughout the 
Appalachian region, and the whole purpose of ARC was to break that 
domination, to break the isolation, to build roads, to provide 
communication, to provide access to markets, to give people an 
opportunity, to build clinics, to provide health, to build the 
educational/vocational training centers and the health clinics, to give 
them an opportunity to get out from looking up to see bottom.
  At the time the Appalachian Commission was created, the people 
throughout the 13-State region averaged 45 percent of the average 
national income. Forty-five percent. After 20 years of ARC, they were 
up to 82 percent of national income.
  The previous speaker talked about growth in Appalachia during the 
1980's. That was because of the investments made during the 1960's and 
the 1970's. That was because there were wise investments made, job 
opportunities created, industrial parks developed, vocational training 
centers developed, and skills and jobs came to Appalachia.
  At Tennessee, we heard from Tilda Kemplin, director of a day care 
center, a day training center for children of poor families, who talked 
about how they had elevated the level of education of these children 
who had little children who had little opportunity.
  In concluding her statement, she said, ``Gentleman, when you go back 
to Washington, please try to look over the top of the dollar and don't 
see George Washington but see a child. See a child whose life has been 
rebuilt and reborn.''
  That is what Appalachia is all about. Sure, you can go around and you 
can pick up any number of projects and say, oh, that was a waste, 
building a stadium, building this and building that. But that is your 
judgment. That is a Washington judgment. Those projects were decided by 
people who live in the area, who have suffered with poverty, who have 
lost jobs, who made a decision based on a plan of economic development 
on what suits them best, what can help them grow. That was a local 
decision. You are going to say, ``We are going to substitute our 
judgment for yours''? No. That is wrong.
  We have made changes in the way the Appalachia Regional Commission 
functions. During the time when I was chairman and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] was the ranking Republican, we brought that 
bill to the floor. We have reformed the way the Federal Economic 
Development Administration operates, changed the eligibility standards 
to terminate those counties that were grandfathered in to require new 
ways of determining eligibility, and those bills have passed this House 
on a basis of 4-to-1 votes during the Reagan administration, the Bush 
administration, on a bipartisan basis, because people realized that 
this is a commission that works, this is a program that helps people, 
this is a program that gets to the real needs, helps create real jobs 
and lift people out of poverty.
  It was in West Virginia that we went to, I think it was Martinsburg, 
WV, where we held a hearing, and the mayor of the city took us to his 
little store and in back of the cash register on the wall hung a sign 
that said, ``God Never Put Nobody in a Place Too Small To Grow.'' God 
never put nobody in Appalachia to be condemned to a life of poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a country. We worked together to build America. 
Let's work to build Appalachia.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment to 
eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

[[Page H 6859]]

  It is an amendment whose time has not come.
  The energy and water appropriations bill that we are considering 
today already reduces Federal spending on ARC by $142 million for 
fiscal year 1996.
  That is a real cut of 50 percent.
  Sometimes in Congress we confuse the issue of cuts in spending by 
talking about cuts that are not actually cuts. They are just reductions 
in estimated future spending increases that really are not cuts at all. 
They are only imaginary.
  That is not the case with ARC in this bill. H.R. 1905 reduces ARC 
spending from $282 million for fiscal year 1995 to $142 million for 
fiscal year 1996.
  The Klug amendment proposes to go further and completely eliminate 
ARC. Plain and simple, this is just a bad idea.
  For the poverty-stricken areas in Kentucky and the other parts of 
Appalachia that ARC helps, a 50-percent cut is a very, very tough hit. 
To wipe out ARC completely would be nothing short of disastrous.
  Even now when we are finally making the tough reductions in spending 
necessary to balance the budget, there are scores of other Federal 
programs that are not getting cut by 50 percent of anything near this 
figure.
  But we are asking ARC beneficiaries, some of the poorest and neediest 
people in America, to take a 50-percent hit. They are already doing 
their fair share and more in helping Congress to get the Nation's 
fiscal house in order.
  Trying to up the ante to a 100-percent cut like the Klug amendment 
proposes literally adds insult and further hurt to an already aching 
injury.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is one of those rare Government 
programs that get results. Because of ARC, infant mortality rates in 
Appalachia are down 67 percent. ARC spending on education has helped 
double high school graduation rates.
  ARC has helped put in roads to link lonely, isolated areas. It has 
built water treatment plants for communities that could not treat their 
sewage.
  I know personally that in Kentucky ARC has made a real difference in 
the essential quality of life in the most impoverished areas in my home 
State.
  Everyone knows that Federal agencies have to tighten their belts if 
we are going to balance the Federal budget. And under this bill ARC has 
tightened its belt plenty.
  But if the Klug amendment passes, we would be tightening the belt so 
much that we would end up strangling the victim.
  The Klug amendment asks us to take from the poorest of the poor. It 
is that simple. ARC is an agency that helps some of our neediest 
communities, and to kill it now would be a sad setback.
  We are already cutting ARC funding by 50 percent. Half of the loaf is 
gone. It would be a sad day if we were to adopt the Klug amendment and
 take the other half away.

  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there are many Members of the House 
who have a stronger record than I do on cutting Government spending. 
But the Klug amendment is one proposal that goes too far.
  It does not slice off the fat of Government spending. It does not 
just cut into bone. It rips the heart and soul out of the program. It 
is a wholesale amputation.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Klug amendment.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a place a long way from Appalachia, and I 
do not serve on this committee, but I wanted to rise today in support 
of the Appalachian Regional Commission and in support of my colleagues 
who understand how well it works. Both Republicans and Democrats will 
defend the results of the good work of this Commission.
  I also rise because I want to talk about a couple of matters of the 
atmospherics in this House and in America which occasion amendments 
like this.
  One of the atmospherics, it seems to me, that is beginning to seep 
into this Chamber is, if it is more than a couple of decades old, it is 
bad and it does not work anymore. Despite the fact that the data and 
the facts and the statistics and the evidence may show otherwise, too 
many people, sometimes a majority tragically in this Chamber, just go 
by the criteria that ``if it's more than two decades old, we've got to 
get rid of it, it doesn't work.'' I think that is wrong on the face of 
it. Let's not govern that way.
  When I was first elected 17 years ago and I went to a Kiwanis or 
Rotary meeting, they were having a retirement lunch for a woman who had 
been directing that county's welfare office for I think close to 30 
years.

                              {time}  1430

  She was one of the first welfare department employees in America, and 
I will never forget, she said this in her little remarks, this 
wonderful elderly woman, she said, ``When I first went to work in this 
job 40-some years ago,'' she said, ``I asked how long will this job 
last,'' and she said, ``My boss at that time said, `Well, until the 
Depression goes away.' '' And she looked out at those Rotarians, and 
she smiled, and she said, ``You see, for thousands of people in this 
country, the Depression has never gone away.''
  Well, that is what the Appalachian Regional Commission is about. For 
a lot of folks in Appalachia, the problems have not gone away. They are 
new to them. They are new to poverty, and this program will help lift 
them out as it helped their predecessors come out.
  Just because it is old does not mean it does not work.
  There is another atmospheric that occasions amendments like this. Let 
me close by mentioning that. There have been in my lifetime two great 
political slogans. One came in the 1960's and the other one in the 
1970's. The one in the 1960's was when a young President stood out here 
on the East Front and said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, 
ask what you can do for your country.'' The other great political 
slogan of my lifetime came in the 1970's when another President looked 
at America through that window, that eye of the television camera, and 
during a Presidential debate said, ``I will tell you what the question 
is, my fellow Americans: Are you better off than you were 4 years 
ago?''
  Now, those are two very different Americas. I will take Jack 
Kennedy's. Support the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from 
Wisconsin, but I would like to make a couple of quick points.
  We all know that for every dollar that the U.S. Government spends, we 
do not often get that money back, but if we look at a program like the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, and when we spend a dollar on this 
particular program, very often we get at least $5 back into the Federal 
Treasury as a result of the infrastructure created that attracts new 
jobs. So I think as a program, it is powerfully positive for a region 
that is deserving and needs it.
  The other comment is, what is the difference between the Appalachian 
region and some other areas of the country? My district is not in the 
Appalachian region. We do not have any mountains. We are not isolated. 
So we get no money from ARC in the first district of Maryland.
  If you go to places like my good friend from Kentucky has described, 
and other regions of Appalachia, places like Turkey Fork, Stinking 
Creek, or Hell for Certain, these places are so mountainous the rivers 
and creeks and streams barely have room to meander through them.
  What did we do with the interstate highway plan when we created that 
in the 1950's? We did not go through the Appalachian region, because it 
was too mountainous. We have decided to do that for a couple of decades 
with the ARC, and the highway program that can bring jobs to that 
community is 75 percent complete. Let us hold onto this for just a few 
more years.
  The poverty rate is down. Infant mortality rate is down. This is a 
good program. It is the type of program that we want the Federal 
Government to be involved in.
  If you are fiscally conservative and you are sensitive to the needs 
of people, you will vote for the ARC.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H 6860]]

  The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned some egregious examples of 
things that may have been funded by the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, and nobody is here to defend those projects.
  I think the chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
Infrastructure has indicated we have undertaken numerous reforms that 
are going to tighten criteria for the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
What the gentleman from Wisconsin did not mention, however, are the 
many, many accomplishments the ARC has created and the job 
opportunities created by ARC.
  Projects which have been funded by the ARC over the last 10 years are 
projected to create 108,000 new jobs and to help retain 80,000 more 
jobs. I think these are the kinds of statistics, the kinds of criteria 
we need to look at.
  As the gentleman from Maryland has said, the highway system which 
really is the lifeblood of any area, if you do not have transportation 
in and out of your area, you are never going to be able to grow or have 
any kind of economic growth. We have got that system nearly completed.
  The poverty rate, as has been mentioned, has been cut in half, from 
31 percent to 15 percent. Infant mortality rate has slowed 
dramatically. We have created water and sewer systems. These are not 
boondoggles. These are not goldplated projects. These are the lifeblood 
of the community to be able to have decent water and sewer systems.
  Health care, a network of more than 400 Appalachian Regional 
Commission-funded primary care clinics and hospitals now serve over 4 
million Appalachians a year. Again, these are facilities that did not 
even exist in the most depressed, most hard-bitten area of our entire 
country.
  We have had jobs skills training, small-business assistance; there 
have been a myriad of programs that really have made a difference that 
have not been boondoggles.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin said you have done it all, but the fact 
is the job still remains to be done.
  I think what needs to be emphasized here is Appalachia is not 
receiving any kind of special dispensation or any kind of extra help. 
As a matter of fact, they are disadvantaged below the rest of the
 country now. They actually receive less in terms of Federal funding 
than any other region of the country, even with the Appalachian 
Regional Commission help.

  But as has been indicated, there is work left to be done. The highway 
program is not yet complete. Per capita income is still 17 percent 
below the national average. The poverty rate is 16 percent higher. 
These are disturbing statistics.
  Appalachia has made a dramatic difference, but the work needs to be 
continued and completed.
  I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and urge a ``no'' vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
  One quick comment to the gentleman from Wisconsin: When we had the 
hearings on the Appalachian Regional Commission, I asked for a plan; 
what are we going to need to stop funding this type of program for 
Appalachia to come up with the rest of the country, and they have 
gotten to work on finding a way so that within the next 4 or 5 years 
this particular program will not be needed. It is a different region. 
The funds are necessary to complete the task. There is a plan to do 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Klug and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KLUG. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I say to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], you took some time off before 
you joined me here in Congress in 1990 to work out West. Is that right? 
Where did you work?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I worked within a designated wilderness area in the 
Bitterroot Mountains of northern Idaho.
  Mr. KLUG. So there are mountains in Idaho as there are mountains in 
Washington, and Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah? These may not be 
quite as colorful.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. KLUG. What is the difference?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, let me make a distinction. Do you 
want to know the distinction between the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho 
and the Appalachian region, the Blue Ridge Mountains and this region, 
the difference is the Bitterroot Mountains, and I will make a 
distinction with Idaho, it is a national forest, a designated area 
where there are very few people. There are mostly elk, bear, and so on. 
In the Appalachian region, in an area that has been so eloquently 
described by a number of Members here, is a different area because of 
its geography, but it is also different because you have people there.
  Are you going to ask people in the area where the 25 percent of the 
highway has not been completed so we cannot bring jobs there, they are 
all going to have to move, or are we going to leverage a few dollars to 
create jobs for these folks?
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment, I am 
pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], in offering this amendment 
to eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  Let us be clear about what this amendment is all about. If we cannot 
eliminate programs like the Appalachian Regional Commission, we are 
sending a clear message to the American public that we are not serious 
about eliminating duplicative Federal programs, and we will be sending 
a message that we are not serious about ending old-fashioned pork-
barrel programs that benefit narrow geographical interests.
  That is why both the National Taxpayers' Union and Citizens Against 
Government Waste have endorsed this amendment.
  Earlier this year the Committee on the Budget, which I sit on, passed 
a resolution that proposed the termination of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission in the next fiscal year. To quote from the committee report, 
it says,

       There is little evidence that the ARC can be credited with 
     improvements in the economic health of Appalachia. The 
     programs supported by the ARC are duplicative activities 
     funded by other Federal agencies such as the Department of 
     Transportation's Federal Highway Program and the Department 
     of Housing and Community Development block grant program.

Thus, like many other deficit hawks in the House, I was shocked and 
amazed to see the appropriations bill come out of the committee with 
continued funding for ARC at levels of $142 million next year.
  How can we face the taxpayers of this country and tell them that we 
should delay our rate of deficit reduction in order to fund this 
duplicative, parochial program? How can we face our senior citizens and 
tell them that we are making cuts of almost $300 billion in Medicare 
over the next 7 years so that we can accommodate programs like this 
that benefit only a few selective geographical areas?
  Finally, I would like to conclude by quoting the final sentence of 
the House budget resolution committee report, which argued for 
termination of the Appalachian Regional Commission,

       The ARC provides resources to poor rural communities in 
     areas that are no worse off than many other areas outside the 
     Appalachian region and, therefore, no more deserving of 
     special Federal attention.

  Like many other Members, several of these poorer communities are in 
my district. They are no less deserving of assistance just because they 
are not located in Appalachia, and I will give you a specific example: 
San Juan County, UT, is in the top 10-percent poorest counties in the 
United States, the top 10-percent highest unemployment rate in the 
United States, the top 10-percent youngest counties in the United 
States. This county is not eligible for any funding from the 
Appalachian Regional Commission to help fund their schools or their 
economic development projects or their highway systems.

[[Page H 6861]]

  The real question here now, and I admire my friends, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the chairman of the Transportation 
Committee, and they have eloquently described what benefit this 
Commission has provided to the poor in those communities. This is not a 
question of whether the ARC has provided a benefit. This is not even a 
question as to whether or not the Federal Government can and should be 
involved in providing economic
 assistance to poor communities, and there are many in this body who 
believe that the Federal Government has absolutely no role whatsoever 
in doing that.

  But even if they assume it does have a role in doing that, why is the 
role limited to a regional area? Why do we not have such a program that 
says, ``Let us identify the 25 or 30 poorest counties in the Nation and 
provide assistance to those counties even though they are not in 
Appalachia?''
  Now, the chairman of the subcommittee said to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], ``If you wish to create the Great Lakes Regional 
Commission, come on in, I would support you.'' How about the Mountain 
States Regional Commission? How about a regional commission in the 
Northwest, where they have been hit terribly by logging declines? How 
about the central farming States that have been hit terribly?
  Now, for those of you in this body who believe that the Federal 
Government ought to be expanding and creating more commissions to pump 
more Federal dollars into local communities, then you will vote against 
this amendment. If you believe that even though we ought to be helping 
poorer communities we ought to help them on the basis of need and not 
geographic location, you will vote for this amendment. If you believe 
the Federal Government has no role in providing that assistance, you 
will vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Rahall, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an excellent point for 
the ARC by the example he uses that the ARC has been helpful to 
regional and local economies in the Appalachian region.
  The EDA is now trying to take that same example and, by the reforms 
we are helping the EDA to make, take the successes of the ARC and 
spread it across the country and help regions such as the gentleman 
points out in Utah. But let us not zero out the ARC. It has been so 
successful by involving local communities at the grassroots level, 
taking their input and bringing it up; a bottoms-up effort. That is 
exactly what we ought to be spreading to the EDA as the gentleman 
points out.
  Mr. ORTON. The gentleman really raises the crux of this whole debate. 
If, in fact, this body believes that we should go out and expand the 
concept, create more regional commissions, fund it with Federal 
dollars, and put the money into those regional commissions for these 
kinds of programs, then, in fact, they should vote against the Klug 
amendment. But in so doing, you have to make a choice. That means we 
are going to be spending not $147 million. We are going to be spending 
billions of dollars in putting money out into all of those other 
regional commissions and communities, and if we are going to do that, 
you have to pay for it or you are going to borrow the money from the 
future by increasing the deficit, and so if you are going to pay for 
it, you either have to pay for it by cutting other programs or you have 
to pay for it by raising taxes.
  I do not believe this body is willing to do either of those. I do not 
want to increase the debt. So I would urge adoption of the Klug 
amendment.
                              {time}  1445

  Mr. RAHALL. Well, the gentleman does not take into account that the 
ARC has created jobs over the years of its existence. Creation of jobs 
means revenue generated----
  Mr. ORTON. But that argument is an argument that any money the 
Federal Government spends creates jobs and increases the economy. That 
argument----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Rogers and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman's State benefit from a thing called 
the Central Utah Project?
  Mr. ORTON. It is questionable whether the State benefits from it, but 
the State does receive money to build it, yes.
  Mr. ROGERS. As a matter of fact, there have been over a billion 
dollars spent on the Central Utah Project----
  Mr. ORTON. Over the past 35 years.
  Mr. ROGERS. We increased the funding for that project in this bill by 
how much, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Four million dollars.
  Mr. ROGERS. Four million dollars----
  Mr. ORTON. That is a water project very similar to the TVA, a dozen 
other water projects throughout the Nation. It is----
  Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman want us to zero out the project----
  Mr. ORTON. Different from the ARC.
  Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman want us to zero out that project?
  Mr. ORTON. It is different from the ARC. The ARC is direct money 
going to communities to pay for highways, for the kinds of----
  Mr. ROGERS. It is OK in central Utah, but not in Appalachia.
  Mr. ORTON. The gentleman is talking about apples and oranges. He is 
talking about the construction of water projects which have gone out 
through the entire United States, or he is talking about specific 
funding going to local communities simply because they are located in a 
particular regional area.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Klug and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was 
allocated to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. I think the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] makes a good 
point, though I mean everybody in this Chamber's State receives some 
money, but the question is whether this series of 13 States gets 
additional money on top of the normal economic development money.
  I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Orton, for example you have mountains 
in Utah, and I still don't understand Mr. Gilchrest's argument that 
your mountains are different than West Virginia's mountains because 
they have more or less people in them. I mean you have ski resorts in 
Utah. I mean were you eligible to receive Federal funds to help build 
ski resorts in Utah or Colorado?''
  Mr. ORTON. We did not get any money to build a road to a ski resort 
in Utah as they did in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KLUG. I will tell the gentleman another story. It is interesting 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] was over here talking about 
northern Minnesota and contrasting Appalachia. There is a Hockey Hall 
of Fame in northern Minnesota, not built with any Federal dollars. 
There is a Bowling Hall of Fame in Milwaukee, not built with any 
Federal dollars. But there is an Alabama Music Hall of Fame and the 
NASCAR Hall of Fame built with Federal ARC dollars, and that is what we 
 are  talking  about  is  double- and triple-dipping for----
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the Chair has been extending the 
time beyond the 5 minutes, and we have gone 55 minutes now. I hate to 
do this, but I am going to object if the Chair extends any Member's 
time beyond the 5-minute allocation.

[[Page H 6862]]

  Mr. KLUG. Would the gentleman and my colleagues on the other side be 
willing to agree to a time-limit period at this time?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I say to the gentleman, if he is willing at 
this time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I think we 
are making pretty good progress. I suppose we can go along with the 
procedure for a little while longer and see how we are in a few 
minutes.
  Mr. KLUG. If the gentleman objects to a time limit, I understand.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Florida, and Utah.
  The Energy and Water development appropriations bill provides $142 
million for the programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC]. 
This appropriation cuts the ARC's current year funding in half. It is 
$41 million less than the President's request; it is $40 million less 
than the authorization which our Subcommittee on Public Buildings and 
Economic Development unanimously passed 2 weeks ago; and it is $41 
million less than the fiscal year 1996 assumption included in the just-
passed budget conference agreement.
  If we use as a baseline a hard freeze at fiscal year 1995 funding 
levels for the ARC, this appropriation will save $980 million over 7 
years. As ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, I can tell you that the ARC has contributed more than its 
fair share to deficit reduction.
  This amendment seeks to cut what little is left and eliminate all 
funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  Thirty years ago, Appalachia was considered a region apart because 
its development lagged so far behind the rest of the Nation. With the 
help of the ARC, the region has made great strides. Yet, one generation 
cannot overcome a century of neglect.
  Although the ARC has helped the region make significant progress, 
many problems persist. These problems are particularly acute in central 
Appalachia, where the poverty rate is 27 percent, rural per capita 
income is only two-thirds of the national average, and unemployment 
rates are almost double the Nation's average.
  The amendment which is before us would kill any effort to turn this 
around. It would halt development of the Appalachian Development 
Highway System with only three-fourths of the 3,000 mile system 
complete and it would cut off the ARC's funding for economic 
development; cutting Appalachian communities' investments in education, 
small businesses, and health care.
  Mr. Chairman, almost 30 years ago, Congress made a commitment to 
Appalachia and its people. We promised to help it overcome its 
isolation, to enhance its quality of life, and to restore pride to this 
critical area of our Nation. That commitment is not yet fulfilled, and 
this amendment would make the situation worse.
  I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in sharp opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. I hope 
that my fellow Members of the freshman class are paying close 
attention. Several weeks ago I had occasion to hear an address by the 
Speaker of the House. In those remarks the Speaker talked about the 
need for dramatic decentralization of government where, and I quote, 
``local folks are solving local problems with local strategies.'' Now, 
Mr. Chairman, I know of only one Federal program which is qualified to 
serve as a model for this approach, and that is the Appalachian 
Regional Commission. Mr. Chairman, dollar for dollar the ARC is one of 
the best bargains we get in Congress each year.
  Now, as the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania related, the ARC is a model for local, State, and Federal 
cooperation. Under this model, local officials suggest options and 
refer them to their Governor. The Governor then prioritizes a list and 
sends it to the national office, which works in conjunction with the 
Governors to select applications for approval. Most of these projects 
are then administered locally by local planning and development 
districts located in the community selected.
  The Federal dollars used under ARC serve to leverage many more times 
that amount in State and local matches. In many cases the ratio of 
local and State funds to Federal dollars is as much as five to one, as 
the gentleman from Maryland pointed out. This is a bottom-up program, 
not a Washington solution for local problems.
  It is important for us to understand where the money goes. There is 
$142 million in this bill for ARC. Of that amount 58 percent will go to 
the ARC highway program.
  The highway portion of ARC was authorized by Congress in 1965. It is 
nearing 75-percent completion. By act of Congress these highways have 
been brought under the national highway system. These roads are every 
bit as legitimate as the highways in other sections of the country that 
have been paved with Federal dollars under the interstate system. And I 
can tell my colleagues from personal experience that, when ARC money 
assists in building four-lane highways, it means greater business 
growth, increased access, expanded markets, and more taxpayers for the 
entire United States of America.
  I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that ARC is not the kind of 
bloated Federal bureaucracy that we hear about a lot. This little 
agency has only about 50 employees nationwide. Most of the overhead is 
paid for by the States.
  In addition, it cannot be stressed too much that ARC has been cut in 
half in this bill. It was funded at $282 million in fiscal year 1995. 
Under this bill, it is reduced by 50 percent, and, Mr. Chairman, that 
is real budget progress and real budget savings. Actually the energy 
and water appropriation bill recommendation of $142 million is less 
than the amount adopted by this House in the budget resolution 
conference report last month.
  I am firmly committed to cutting the budget and cutting programs 
which do not work, but ARC does work, it is a program that has proven 
itself. It is not a Federal handout where we take money out of 
somebody's pocket and write somebody else a check. It develops 
infrastructure to create private jobs in the private sector. It is 
working for economic development, and, Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Klug amendment and support the ARC 
program.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I am going to depart from my prepared remarks 
and deal with a lot of the issues that have been raised. The one 
gentleman asked why, why is a mountain different in Utah or wherever, 
Wisconsin, from a mountain in West Virginia, or Kentucky, or wherever. 
We are talking about a region. We are not talking about a mountain 
someplace. We are talking about a region and a common tradition, 
unfortunately often a common tradition of poverty, not because people 
were inept, not because people did not try, but because of a whole lot 
of cultural, historical, and industrial factors. Nobody questioned, for 
instance, coming out of central West Virginia, nobody questioned why it 
was that we had such low-energy costs for so many years. That coal had 
a price to it. It had a human price to it. It has a price in roads that 
were never built, and schools that were never funded, and children that 
never got educated that that coal came out cheaply and it built this 
country. That is one of the reasons we are in the situation we are in. 
Nobody ever talked about absentee ownership, the fact that from so many 
other parts of the country there was absentee ownership of central 
Appalachia, and so that is one reason.
  I want to--someone asked the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure why would one county be different 
from another, and he properly replied because we are 

[[Page H 6863]]
talking about a regional approach, not a county approach, not a city-
by-city approach, but a regional approach. I think it is worthwhile to 
note, my colleagues of the House, that Appalachia in fiscal year 1994 
had 8.2 percent of the U.S. population, 8.2 percent, and received, even 
with the ARC going to 13 of the States, Appalachia received 7.5 percent 
of total Federal expenditures. We are 14 percent per capita below the 
rest of the country in Federal expenditures, and that is with the ARC, 
and this would now drop even more because this will cut the Appalachian 
Regional Commission from roughly $280 to $140 million, which 
incidentally in terms of the Federal deficit this year we are talking 
about two one hundred thousandths; that is, 0.002, two one hundred 
thousandths of the Federal deficit.
  There have been questions about why is one county different from 
another. Let me make a point. Madison, WI, Dane County, median family 
income, $41,529; unemployment, 3.1 percent. Owsley County, KY, which 
came before our subcommittee, $12,200 in median family income; 
unemployment, 8.4 percent; poverty rate, 52 percent. We are dealing 
with a special set of circumstances.
  The gentleman from Mississippi pointed out the value of the 
Appalachian regional system of highways. Studies conclusively show that 
in ARC counties with a four-lane ARC highway, job creation has been 
three times as high in as in counties that do not have that.
                              {time}  1500

  Incidentally, this is money that is coming back to the Federal 
Treasury. Just recently in my district was announced an ARC grant that 
would create a water system to an industrial area. I calculated that 
based upon the average income of the jobs that will be created there, 
the Federal Government, the Federal taxpayer, will receive their money 
back in about 1\1/2\ years, of what went into the ARC, and for that 
they got several hundred tax paying, job holding citizens, and all of 
us are better as a result.
  Every region has its own approach. Indeed, interestingly enough, the 
Economic Development Administration and others may be moving more and 
more towards the ARC model. I think that is important too. We are 
talking about grassroots up. Thirteen Governors make up this board. You 
apply from the local level to the statehouse, then to Washington. But 
the 13 Governors agree, the majority of which are members of the 
Republican Party this year. They all support this, as well as all the 
Democrat Governors. Why? Because they know it is a proven job creator.
  We are talking $142 million for 13 State regions that clearly have 
the benefits that have been proven with the ARC.
  Incidentally, the job is not done. You do not pull this one back and 
think you have solved something. You may have made the situation worse, 
particularly with the highway system that is three-quarters of the way 
complete. But if you do not complete it, many portions of it will never 
achieve the promise that they had before.
  So I would urge my colleagus to reject this amendment. Appalachia has 
made great strides, but we still have a ways to go. This is a 
relatively small amount of money, that has been cut in half from what 
it was last year, but is so important to a 13 State region.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the comments of my 
colleague and friend from West Virginia. The gentleman has made an 
excellent statement. I think the points the gentleman has made are very 
important. It shows the people of the Appalachian region are finally 
taking their economic destinies in their own hands. This is all the 
more important a reason to keep this program going.
  The $142 million contained in H.R. 1905 for the ARC, represents a 50-
percent reduction in funds compared with fiscal year 1995--which was 
set at $283 million.
  The ARC reauthorization bill, reported out of subcommittee, reflects 
a 35-percent cut in authorized funding levels--set at $182 million.
  I repeat--this funding is a 50-percent cut in funding for a vitally 
important program--the ARC.
  Many of my colleagues are arguing that they voted for the Kasich 
budget, and therefore will have to vote for the Klug amendment to kill 
the ARC.
  That is no longer a fact. The budget conference report does contain 
funding for the ARC--Mr. Kasich having agreed to its funding in 
conference with the Senate.
  Thirteen Governors--eight Republicans and five Democrats--
representing the Appalachian region, have asked you to defeat the Klug 
amendment.
  Support 21 million Americans who live in Appalachia, in more than 400 
distressed counties, who are just now entering the mainstream of 
America's economy--who are just now taking control of their economic 
destines and becoming contributing taxpayers. Don't take away their 
only means of breaking the cycle of poverty. Defeat the Klug amendment.
  In addition, the ARC reauthorization bill, which has been marked up 
by the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, 
reflects a 35-percent reduction in the authorization level for ARC in 
the out years.
  We have done our best to be a part of spending cuts and deficit 
reduction with respect to ARC funding--and we believe the $142 million 
in this bill, down from $283 million in fiscal year 1995, reflects our 
fair share toward reaching those important goals.
  I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, of a newspaper article from one of our 
State newspapers, written by a reporter who has no love for the ARC. 
Ironically, in his effort to be caustic about the ARC, the reporter 
inadvertently used words that, in fact, tell you what is good about the 
program.
  The lead sentence in the article stated: If you drive a car, flush a 
toilet, or swallow a gulp of water in West Virginia, you have felt the 
influence of the ARC.
  That statement is a statement of fact--and something I believe we can 
be proud of.
  Indeed, the funds that have come from ARC appropriations over the 
years have been used to make safe drinking water available to hundreds 
of small, isolated communities whose children would never have been 
safe from disease and possible death from impure elements in their 
drinking water had ARC not been there to provide it. More than 700,000 
Appalachians now have access to clean water and sanitation facilities.
  The funds have been used to build the Appalachian Development 
Highway--3,025 miles of road linking rural, isolated towns and hamlets 
to the rest of the State--and to the rest of the world--for the first 
time. Through ARC funds, we were able to move towering, rugged 
mountains out of the path of those who needed to be able to travel 
beyond their small towns to find good jobs, better homes, an 
education--a way to break the cycle of poverty.
  But aside from water and sewer projects, and aside from highway 
development, there is the fact that the ARC has helped develop my 
State's travel and tourism industry--an industry that is crucial to 
continued job creation in our State.
  ARC has also funded adult literacy programs so that unemployed 
persons needing to read and write in order to find a job, can get that 
help. ARC helped the Governor's cabinet on children and families plan 
on how to distribute scarce resources so that the most needy children 
would be served. ARC funds assisted the State in a tremendously 
successful effort to teach real West Virginia State history in grades 
four through eight throughout the public school system. We are really 
proud of the way the funds have been used to upgrade the quality of 
education of Appalachia's children.
  ARC funds have gone to create or assist 766 businesses, creating 
8,000 new jobs. A network of more than 400 primary care clinics and 
hospitals has been completed with ARC funding, now serving 4 million 
Appalachians a year.
  There are 13 States in the Appalachian Region--and all 13 Governors 
of those States--eight of whom are Republicans, five of whom are 
Democrats--all hope and pray that you will defeat the Klug amendment 
and save the ARC so that it can continue to help those living at and 
below poverty levels--to help raise themselves up and, as I've said 
before, to break the cycle of poverty that surrounds them in 
Appalachia.
  There are more than 400 counties in the 13-State region, where 21 
million people reside, and who are just now being brought into the 
mainstream of the American economy, making them contributors to society 
rather than drains on our national resources. People in Appalachia, 
through ARC funding, have been enabled--empowered--to take control of 
their lives, of their economic destinies, and become contributing 
taxpayers to the Nation's economy.
  When I see a newspaper article, intended to deride the ARC, begin 
with the words, ``If you've ever driven a car, taken a drink of 

[[Page H 6864]]
water, or flushed a toilet, you've felt the influence of the ARC,'' 
then I know that ARC is working just as it was intended to work.
  For if any one of you here on this floor didn't have a toilet to 
flush, or didn't have safe drinking water available to you and your 
children, or didn't have a decent road to drive on--you'd darn well be 
wondering what the Federal Government was spending your tax dollars on. 
In West Virginia, and in 12 other Appalachian States, we're sending 
their taxes back to them where, at their discretion, decisions are made 
as to how it will be spent.
  This is a model program that ought to appeal to every Member on this 
floor--conservative to liberal--because it sends tax dollars where they 
are needed, and allows the recipient population to decide where those 
dollars will go. The ARC model could very well be a better model than 
block grants for turning Federal programs back to the States.
  Think about it. Reject the Klug amendment. Save the ARC.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug 
amendment. You know, the gentleman is getting the reputation of cutting 
out projects in other parts of the United States, but I know that he 
leaves his projects alone and does not use the cutting knife when he 
should be doing so in his own State.
  Mr. Chairman, I was on the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation from 1963 through 1964 when the Appalachian Regional 
Commission was conceived and planned and worked out. I know that it is 
a good program. I helped start it, and it has worked miracles in the 
Appalachian area.
  I live in the heart of Appalachia. I represent a county that was the 
seventh poorest in the United States. But this is not a pork-barrel 
bill. This is a bill that helps a region, and, in helping a region, it 
helps the whole United States of America. It is a good program. It 
should not be eliminated. Actually it should not suffer a 50-percent 
loss, but we are willing to accept that. But let us not cut it any 
further. Hungry people, people who do not have an opportunity in life, 
they should be building themselves up by their own bootstraps, and this 
gives a helping hand for them to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
First District of Tennessee, a district they now call by his name after 
33 quality years of service.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say as a freshman conservative Republican Member 
of this body, who came here to this Congress a few months ago with the 
No. 1 goal of staying here to see the Federal Government's budget come 
into balance, I came here knowing that I represented a part of this 
country where TVA and the Appalachian Regional Commission have provided 
quality service for a number of years, and that we would have to cut 
spending in the programs in my backyard. And we are going to do that. 
This amendment and the next amendment are taking a budget and shrinking 
it substantially with severe cuts.
  But when I took office I said to the elected representation at the 
local level throughout my district, will you please tell me as I go to 
Washington to represent the citizens that you and I represent together, 
what has worked the best? What is the most effective Federal programs 
you can refer to?
  Let me tell you, the Appalachian Regional Commission was at the top 
of the list, time after time, because it is hard dollars for roads and 
gas and sewers and utilities and things that create a better economy in 
this region. It is a quality service, a critical service, and this is a 
step toward a balanced budget, a 50 percent cut in funding. This is 
what a conservative Republican would support, not oppose, as we seek to 
share this patriotic burden to balance the Federal budget across the 
board. The ARC has taken a 50-percent cut.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again I urge defeat of 
the Klug amendment, and ask everyone to support that effort, because 
the Appalachian Regional Commission does a tremendously good job.
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment. 
Rather than restate all the reasons everybody else has said, I just 
join in them.
  Not only does the Appalachian Regional Commission make a difference 
in those counties and States which it serves, it makes a very big 
difference in those which it does not serve. My district has only eight 
counties that are qualified and adjoin the district of the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] but because of the eight that are qualified 
and because the districts in Appalachia are improved, the quality of 
life is improved, the whole State of Kentucky benefits, not just ARC 
counties. It gives our whole State educational opportunities, economic 
development opportunities, and I urge strong support for the ARC and 
strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug].
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAESLER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding. I join 
him in strong opposition to the Klug amendment, which threatens the 
very substantial progress that we are making in the Appalachian region 
in our effort to become a part of the American economic mainstream.
  Since 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission has been a major 
force in our economic progress, enabling the construction of industrial 
parks, water systems, wastewater systems, access roads to those 
industrial parks, in many instances shell buildings. We are growing 
economically as a consequence of what the Appalachian Regional 
Commission is doing. Libraries have been built, schools in our region 
have become more capable and have expanded their course offerings, 
enabling the people in our area to have access to the same kind of 
instruction that students in the more financially fortunate parts of 
the country have long had access to. Factories have opened and new jobs 
have been created. But we still have a very long way to go.
  In my district in the southwestern part of Virginia, unemployment 
rates in some of our counties are in excess of 20 percent. I know that 
is a
 situation that pertains in many of the counties that exist in the 
Appalachian region elsewhere across that 12-State area. The ARC is a 
very important part to our answer to that set of problems, and it is a 
wise investment in the future of our regional economy and the economy 
of the Nation as a whole.

  It has been pointed out by some of the other speakers that when the 
ARC makes an investment in an industrial park or other job creating 
facility, that the economy expands, that the tax base expands, and that 
as a consequence of that, the Government more than gets its money back 
based upon the very modest investment that is made in Federal dollars 
in the first instance.
  I have figures showing that for every dollar the ARC invests in an 
industrial park or other job creating facility, that $12 in private 
sector investment is stimulated. That clearly shows the very important 
economic effect that the ARC is having. It shows that it is a wise 
investment in our economic future, and for that reason I join the 
gentleman in his strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAESLER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a 
personal note here. I grew up in the Appalachian Mountains, and I 
remember the little one-lane roads, the dusty dirt roads, the lack of 
utilities, the small one-room schools. I remember how it was.
  If you go into eastern Kentucky where I came from today, you will see 
a tremendous improvement. We still have a way to go. But now there are 
nice highways, nice schools, utilities reaching into the homes, paved 
highways.
  I remember my grandmother, you had to go about 3 or 4 miles up a 
hollow on dirt roads. And when it was raining, you could not get there. 
And I remember when she was very ill, we were concerned if she was 
going to be able to 

[[Page H 6865]]
get out of that hollow to make it to the hospital. Today, you can drive 
all the way to where her home was at.
  It did make a big difference, but there are still things that need to 
be done. There has been a cut, 50 percent, but we need to continue this 
program. It is working, one of the few Federal programs that does work, 
but the reason it does work is because of the community input into it.
  I urge defeat of the Klug amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am up here because of one thing, and that is because 
the sponsor of this bill gave a very effective, very articulate opening 
statement. As I listened to that statement, had I not know better, I 
would have said how could anyone disagree with what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin is saying? How could anyone oppose this amendment?
  Well, let me tell you why I am here in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I am here because what he said was very effective, it was 
very articulate, and it was very wrong.
  You know, if you can close someone's mind by giving an effective 
opening statement, you can win a trial. Do you know that a trial can be 
won in a 1-minute opening statement if everybody accepts what is said 
as true and quits listening? But let me tell you, I am here for the 
reason that what was said in the opening statement is incomplete, it is 
inaccurate, and it certainly is not the complete story.
  We were told in the opening statement that the people that you would 
hear advocating for the ARC were going to be from Alabama, they were 
going to be from Tennessee, they were going to be from West Virginia. 
We were not told about the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from 
Montana, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York 
that I may yield to if I have enough time. We were not told any of 
that. And had you quit listening, had the Members back in their office 
quit listening, they might have gotten the wrong impression that this 
was something that only Members from the ARC States were advocating.
  Not true. Let me tell you what is even worse then that, and let me 
tell you something about the flawed argument. When the California 
floods came, did I, from Alabama, come out here and say ``We have got 
floods in California. Knee deep?'' No. I came and I voted to assist 
those people.
  I am from Alabama. I could have got up and said ``Let's vote for no 
earthquake relief in California, or the floods in the Midwest.'' I 
could have said you are going to hear from people in the Midwest. And 
the gentleman from Utah who sponsors this bill, he comes before us and 
says, ``We need to support the people on the Indian reservations.'' I 
have never come down here and said ``I do not have any Indian 
reservations.'' I do not have any military bases, but I vote for 
military expenditures.
  What an outlandish, illogical argument. Let us not buy this.
  Let me conclude in saying then he gave a description of the ARC which 
was even more inaccurate than who he said would be speaking for this 
amendment. This is about reducing the number of infant deaths, infant 
death mortality. This is about clean drinking water. This is about 
roads for people to get to work and haul their products. But we were 
told about a few examples that had been limited in the legislation 
before us, not something that is going to happen but something that 
happened before and we changed.
  Finally, we are not talking about adding. We are talking about a 50-
percent cut.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
                              {time}  1515
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to 
strip an impoverished region of precious funds.
  I admit that I have little confidence in most Government programs. 
Since I came to Congress 3 years ago, I have always supported budget 
proposals that release the strangle-hold that the Federal Government 
has on our local communities. Washington, DC, has gorged itself on tax 
dollars long enough.
  However, the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is not like most 
Federal Government programs. It works. I do not know of any Federal 
programs which involves State Governors and local officials in the 
decision making process more than ARC. Working through the 69 local 
development districts that ARC supports, projects originate at the 
local level, as community leaders determine what programs best serve 
their needs. As the 104th Congress makes historic and systemic change 
in the way Washington works, I believe that ARC is already performing 
in a way that we wish all of our Government programs could operate. It 
truly is a unique Federal-State-local partnership that should be used 
as a model for future cooperative efforts, not torn apart.
  I understand that times are hard. Sacrifices must be made in all 
areas if we are going to get the budget deficit under control. My 
record reflects a strong commitment to reaching a zero budget deficit 
by 2002 and the subcommittee's bill addresses the necessity to reduce 
Federal funds for ARC programs. Mr. Chairman, as the bill now exists 
funding for ARC will be cut in half. That is a significant cut for a 
program which has in the past provided Appalachian communities with 
water and sewer systems, access to rural health care centers, child 
care centers, educational training, job skill training, and affordable 
housing. Nevertheless, I have heard from a number of local officials in 
western Maryland who insist that ARC can still play a vital role in our 
communities. It will simply be leaner, something that all Government 
programs could be.
  Some Members are asking why ARC is still necessary. It has a proven 
track record of improving the conditions of the Appalachian region. 
However, the poverty rate for Appalachia is still 16 percent higher 
than the national average. Appalachia's per capita income is only 83 
percent of the U.S. average. Over 20 percent of the youth in northern 
and southern rural areas grow up in poverty and an even higher 34 
percent of youth in central Appalachia live in poverty. In fact, 115 of 
ARC's 399 counties are classified as severely distressed, which means 
that they suffer from unemployment rates that are 150 percent of the 
national average and poverty rates are at least 150 percent of the 
national average.
  There are too many Government programs that are outdated and 
inefficient. The Federal bureaucracy is bloated and needs a serious 
diet. But gutting ARC does not address our problems, it only creates 
new ones. I urge defeat of this amendment and support the 
subcommittee's recommended appropriation.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Houghton].
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we have beaten up on the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug] a little too much. This fellow is 
doing a great job in trying to cut the expenses. I do not happen to 
think this is a great idea for a variety of reasons.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman means his amendment is 
certainly not a great idea.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
absolutely. His amendment is not a good idea. I obviously support the 
ARC. But the thing that I want to mention is that there are two 
categories of expenses. One is an expense expense; the other is an 
investment expense. This is really an investment expense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has 
expired.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission program. Actually in 
all the years that I have been in this Congress, I do not recall a 
program receiving the enthusiastic support that this program has 
received. Today made me feel proud just to have played a role and a 
part in funding this program, and I wish I could take credit for 
creating it, but actually, it was created the year before I came to 
Congress.
  I recall, reading the act, when it was passed. It said that the 
Appalachian 

[[Page H 6866]]
area of the United States is the most depressed area of the United 
States and this is to assist this area of our country to get back on 
its feet. And I think it uses the words, to give it an ``equal economic 
opportunity.'' And that is what it has done.
  This is a program that is working, and we do not get to stand up here 
often, I am sorry to say, and say that this program has worked. This 
program is doing the job that the Members of Congress intended when 
they passed it. It is working, and it has been very effective.
  I commend those of my colleagues, I notice that we had our former 
chairman here, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], who is very 
knowledgeable about this program. He was chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee. He, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], called it a model program. He is the present chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  We had the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] here, former 
chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
to stand up and tell us what a good program it is. These are Members 
that have no connection with the program whatsoever, as far as the area 
of the country is concerned.
  I think my colleague from Alabama made a good point. When we have 
these emergencies in other parts of the country, we do not get up here 
and say, This is just regional and it should not exist. We do not get 
up here and say, These people do not need this help. We are not going 
to make this a Federal program, and it is not benefiting my State, all 
of that kind of thing.
  This program--for example, just picking out one thing, because there 
are many--but this program has made it possible in the Appalachian area 
of this country, the most depressed area of the United States, for 
every person in that part of the country to be within 30 minutes of 
some type of medical care, the first time in history, within 30 
minutes. Most of them are little rural clinics, cost practically 
nothing. They have a registered nurse. They have access to a doctor 
they can call on the phone.
  The preventive medicine, my gosh, think of the children that are 
getting inoculations in those mountain areas now in the Appalachian 
area that never did get any preventive medicine before. That saves this 
treasury money. I am sorry you think that is bad, but I think it is 
good. I think it is good. It is saving the National Treasury money. It 
is saving the taxpayers of the whole Nation money, because it is 
benefiting the entire Nation.
  So we could go on and on here, but you have covered it so thoroughly. 
We have in the Appalachian area now stronger vocational schools. We 
have got the health care centers I mentioned. We have got roads 
throughout rural areas that could not get the roads before. They are 
using this partnership actually, which is, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] said, it is a model program for the United 
States. I think it ought to be extended to cover the whole United 
States, because these counties now that have been lifted out of poverty 
and are now on their own feet and the people are working and the people 
are getting health care and the people are getting good training at the 
technology schools. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] pointed out, they are coming out of this program because they 
do not need it anymore.
  But we have got 115 more counties still left in the Appalachian area 
that need help and are poverty stricken and that is out of 399 
counties. Can you tell me another program that has succeeded like this? 
This is exactly what you and I on both sides of the aisle have been 
advocating, joint partnership, a program where the Governors approve 
these applications.
  So I just want to point out that this program has worked and let us 
be proud of it and proud that it has worked because it is helping 
people. That is what our Federal Government is about.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I am here not to beat up on our 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], just to make sure 
he is defeated in his amendment.
  Also, I want to talk about Utah. I do not want to see us get into 
regional warfare or State-by-State warfare here. Maybe that billion is 
needed in Utah, but it is not apples to oranges; it is apples to rocks. 
It is $1 billion for a State, whether it is Utah or California, 
whatever area. We are talking again, about $142 million for 13 States. 
I am not going to belabor this point. I know we are close to a vote.
  I will tell you something. There is a difference in Appalachia and a 
difference in the entire region. The more we pool those regions up 
within those States, the better off we will help surrounding States and 
other areas, for example, in Ohio, that will have to pay for the 
distressed economies in their States. In Ohio, part of us are in 
Appalachia, part of us are not in Appalachian; but again, it benefits 
the whole.
  The one thing I would also tell you, I think I bring a different 
perspective than any other speaker. I used to work for Appalachia. I 
was on Appalachia's payroll, federally paid. I worked in the Ohio 
Appalachian office. I was program manager for education, health, and 
child development programs.
  They paid part of the salary. We ran the show. Local development 
districts, for a minute, how they work in Ohio. We have real people. 
Tom Closser down in Marion, OH, we have John Quinlin in the Omega 
region, they are called local development districts. They have mayors 
that respond to them. They have mayors that have input. We have OMERSA 
program run by a gentleman named Craig Closser in Zanesville, OH, who 
is helping over a couple hundred schools. Small amounts of money we put 
in that program when I worked there in 1979, very small amounts of 
money, sometimes $20,000 to help with a road, with a joint, shared 
activity with the local government that creates 100, 300, 400 jobs.
  We have reams of statistics. There may have been some bad projects, 
but you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are taking a 
50-percent cut. I think that is important. These have been good 
projects. This is something that all of us should support. Let us not 
get into some warfare from State to State or region to region. We need 
the help.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also vehemently speak against my friend from 
Wisconsin's amendment. I thank him, though, for offering the amendment 
because it has made me think about something that has been an ultimate 
success not only for this Nation but for the region of this country in 
which I grew up, the region which my family is from. And the gentleman 
from eastern Kentucky who spoke just a few speakers ago spoke so 
eloquently and from his heart, I know, reminded me myself of growing up 
in a little town called Summit Mills in Somerset County in southwestern 
Pennsylvania.
  Back in the late 1950's, I went to one of the one-room schools he was 
talking about, where we had no running water. Where we had only two 
outhouses out back and you had the overflow that went in the creek. And 
that is where the kids swam with the raw sewage in the same stream, 
which is where you would go out to swim.
  We could not understand why people were  dying  of  unusual  diseases 
 and unusual  forms  of  cancer.  We  thought 
that half the roads were supposed to be dirt 
roads. Of course, certain times of the year you just did not travel 
from point A to point B, and people knew they were supposed to lay up 
supplies. After the Appalachian Regional Commission was founded 30 
years ago, things began to change. America discovered Appalachia 
because one of the networks--I wish I could remember which one it was--
ran a news documentary about Appalachia. We did not get it. We were 
watching, but what was so unusual? This is the way we lived. It is the 
way things were.
  I also was reminded by one of the last speakers who talked about the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], who talked about the vaccinations. 
I can remember several of the kids that were my own age, one who was in 
my class, some who were younger than me who got polio. I remember them 
finally bringing the whole community, from up in the mountain tops, 
grew up very near the Mason-Dixon line and Mt. Davis which is in the 
district of the 

[[Page H 6867]]
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the highest points in the 
State of Pennsylvania, that brought everybody down.
  The took us to the old high school gym. Everybody took three 
different doses of polio vaccine over a 3-week period so that we would 
not have to
 deal with that anymore. You see, while things have changed, while we 
have had a dramatic turnaround in the last 30 years, we have not made 
up for 100-plus years of neglect. We have indeed cut the infant 
mortality rate. We have indeed doubled the percentage of high school 
graduates. We have cut down on the outward migration of people who are 
leaving our area. We have reduced unemployment.

  In fact, if you take those 399 counties that were included, you are 
right, only 115 now have poverty. So we are not there yet. I would say 
to the sponsors of this bill, while this may be a number in a budget, 
to those of us who have watched members of families die of unusual 
illnesses and cancers because they did not have a well, could not 
afford to drill one, did not know about the technology and they were 
drinking water that flowed into a cistern with all kinds of elements of 
all sorts and one family member would die, this is not lines on budget, 
on a Federal budget. This is about the lives of Americans. It is about 
the Federal Government and the State and local governments working 
together.
  It is about a program that has averaged less than 4 percent in 
administrative costs. It is about a success that has worked. We are 
cutting it in half. I cannot understand, because, you see, I still come 
from an area in Pittsburgh where 4 years ago as a television newscaster 
I said to the people in the city of Pittsburgh who work at the station, 
I said, give me a camera crew, I will shoot a story for you. We are 
going to call it the rural third world. They were dumbfounded.
  As we went to towns like Outcrop in Fayette County, the way it still 
is in those towns today, those towns not yet reached by the Appalachian 
Regional Commission or any other agency, where the outhouses still sit 
in the front yards of the houses, where when the winter wind blows, if 
they have curtains over the windows, they flow back and forth. Where 
there is maybe one coal stove in the center of the house with holes in 
the walls and in the ceilings and floors so that the heat can radiate 
to other parts of that room, where there is one hand pump in the middle 
of town where people can still go and they can pump their buckets of 
water, take it back, heat it on that same stove if they wanted to heat 
it to bathe or to wash their clothes.

                              {time}  1550

  People still live this way today in Appalachia. It is a whole region 
that has been neglected for over 100 years. We cannot make that up in 
10 years or 20 years or 30 years, but, Mr. Chairman, we are getting 
there. We are asking the Nation to take a look at Appalachia, to vote 
against the gentleman's amendment, and to help this region come back 
into the 20th century before the 21st century gets here.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
discussion on this amendment, which has gone on for an hour and 35 
minutes now, end at 3:45, the time to be equally divided between the 
parties.
  The CHAIRMAN. To clarify, the unanimous-consent request offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] was that the debate end at 3:45.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  Mr. KLUG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, if 
I could extend an invitation to the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Chairman, we need 10 minutes on 
our side, which is what I told my colleague, the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker]. We miscommunicated. Twenty minutes more and 
we will be all right.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
would say to the gentleman, he can have 10 of the 15. How much more 
generous could I be?
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] please 
repeat his request?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
discussion on this amendment and any amendments thereto be divided and 
restricted to 15 minutes, 10 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and 5 minutes on this side.
  Mr. BEVILL. Reserving the right to object, could we get 5 minutes 
over here, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEVILL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman, we would have 
10 minutes, and the gentleman would have 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] will have 10 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill] will have 5 minutes. Is that correct?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my freshman colleague, 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say thanks for what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is doing here. I know a lot of people are opposed 
to this amendment, and I think it has been a very healthy discussion. I 
have sat here a long time and a lot of people have been watching this 
going on for a long time. What I think he is doing that is so important 
is we are moving to balance the budget.
  These are then tough choices that we have to make. We are having a 
good discussion, I think, of a tough choice. Here is a program that has 
been very successful over a period of 30 years. It is a program that 
has had some failures over 30 years. I will bet we could find that any 
program in the Federal Government has had both successes and failures 
over 30 years.
  I think the question we have to ask ourselves today, then: Is this 
program worth continuing, adding more debt on our kids with the 
successes that it promises into the future or the potential failures on 
the path that it is on? I think that is the central question we have to 
ask. Is this worth putting more debt on the kids?
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is great we have cut it in half? I 
understand the program, though, was at $50 million under the Bush 
administration, so it has had some up as well as it being knocked on 
back as well. I just put that question to us, and I say that it seems 
to me, at the end, in the final analysis, that the biggest problem we 
are facing as a Nation today is not necessarily what is going on in the 
Midwest or the Appalachian region or the West or the Northeast or the 
South, it is the stupid debt and the amount we keep adding to it and 
growing. If this is worth continuing today what about next year, and 
the year after that when we really get to the tough choices, in year 3, 
4, 5, 6, and 7 to balance the budget?
  I would suggest that now is the time to make the tough choice. I 
think we should support the Klug amendment. I think it has been a 
legitimate debate. I think the program has had good successes. It has 
had some failures. We are at a point in time in history where we just 
cannot mortgage the kids any further. That is why I would urge Members 
to support the Klug amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman voted for the budget 
resolution conference report that came back from the House and Senate 
conference, is that correct?
  Mr. BROWNBECK. Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the 
gentleman realize that in that budget conference the budget allowed for 
$182 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission? Was the gentleman 
aware of that?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. The budget resolution also called for the elimination 
of TVA.
  Mr. ROGERS. I am talking about the conference report that came back, 
the House and Senate conference on the budget that came to the House.

[[Page H 6868]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I also voted for the budget that came out of the 
Committee on the Budget that called for the elimination of TVA. Did the 
gentleman vote for that one?
  Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I did. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, 
it is not TVA, it is ARC. Does the gentleman realize that the budget 
conference that he voted for that came out of the Senate and House 
conference provided for $182 million for the ARC and this bill only has 
$140 million in it?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I did realize that.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of inquiry. I understand I 
have 5 minutes remaining, under the agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I will not take the full time. I simply wanted to rise to say this.
  I had not intended to speak, Mr. Chairman, and I think almost 
everyone knows I am one of the most conservative Members of this 
Congress, but the ARC is one of the most conservative agencies in the 
entire Federal Government. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed 
out a few minutes ago, just 4 percent of this agency's budget are spent 
for administrative costs. This is one of the least bureaucratic, least 
top-heavy agencies in the entire Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from Tennessee, and I come from a district where 
very little is done by the ARC, but I do know of the good work that has 
been done throughout our region and throughout these entire 13 States 
by these agencies. I want to salute the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and particularly my 
good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for his yeoman 
work on this particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of ARC and in strong 
opposition to this amendment. This agency is already taking a 50-
percent cut in this bill. If every department and agency in the Federal 
Government was receiving a 50-percent cut, it would be amazing. We 
would be operating with a surplus.
  As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] pointed out a few minutes 
ago, throughout this country, every region, every State has money that 
is being spent by the Federal Government in some project or by some 
agency. As the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] pointed out, the 
central Utah project, has had over $1 billion spent on it. This is just 
$142 million, and is very small in comparison to many, many projects we 
could name throughout this entire country.
  I rise and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support 
one of the finest and most conservative agencies in the entire Federal 
Government, an agency that is working to bring the Federal Government 
home to the people, not spending money here in Washington, but spending 
it out in the country to help some of our poorest citizens in this 
Nation. I think it is a fine organization and it deserves the support 
of this entire body.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. Earlier in this debate, while I was in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, I understood there was some discussion of a 
project in my district involving a training stadium at Wofford College. 
I can tell the Members that I do not fault the people at Wofford for 
seeking that ARC funding, nor do I fault the Carolina Panthers for 
wanting to have the team training there. That has nothing to do with 
it.
  What I do fault, Mr. Chairman, is an old way of thinking here in the 
Congress among us as Members. Shame on us if we cannot move on with 
this revolution. Shame on us if we cannot think more creatively about 
how to solve these problems. The ARC has done some excellent work over 
the years. It was created long ago and did some great work.
  The problem with Federal programs is they never die. This is a time 
to bring this one to a nice death. It is good that the bill calls for a 
significant cut. I think it is time to take it straight to zero, 
though. The reason is we have to
 think more revolutionarily, if that is a verb or an adjective, I guess 
that was, or maybe it was an adverb, I am not sure. In any event, we 
have to think more revolutionarily about how to do this thing.

  Sure, it is good to get a grant every once in a while in our 
districts, but let us think that through. If we just got rid of the 
unfunded Federal mandates, how much money would there be in the State 
of South Carolina to deal with our needs? Tremendous amounts of money.
  This is the heart of the revolution. We have to start at both ends. 
We have to eliminate the Federal control through the unfunded Federal 
mandates, but then we have to stop looking at Uncle Sam as the great 
sugardaddy that is going to give us this free money from Washington to 
build a water system here or a road there. We have to think more 
creatively. We have to be able to see the whole revolution. The 
revolution involves downsizing this Federal Government, shrinking it to 
core business, and allowing the States to serve the functions that they 
can better serve.
  There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no free money 
from Washington. This money that we are about to spend is going to go 
on to the deficit and be added onto the debt. Our children will be 
paying for this amount for years to come. We have a great opportunity 
here to complete this revolution, but do it from both ends. We have 
already taken action on unfunded Federal mandates. We need to go in and 
repeal some existing ones.
  The other part is right here, right now, on this amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, an excellent amendment. Let us just get rid 
of the ARC. Let us finally bring to an end a program that served a very 
useful life, but now its time has come. I congratulate the gentleman 
for his amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. The gentleman speaks of this great revolution, Mr. 
Chairman. It seems like this gentleman is speaking about an economic 
Jihad against all Federal Government. That seems to be the best 
description of the revolution to which the gentleman referred.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
best people to know how to allocate needs within South Carolina, I 
submit, are people in Columbia, people in Spartanburg, and Greenville. 
I daresay that not many of those folks would spend some of the money 
that has been spent the way ARC has spent their money. We create these 
programs, they fit those categories, and then the money is spent that 
way.
  What we have to do is be willing to think more creatively and say to 
the locals: ``You run it, you raised the money.'' Let us not have this 
pool of money that comes from Washington. I understand that the 
gentleman from Kentucky will likely tell me that it has been a local 
decision. I understand that. But it appears to be free money. That is 
the problem.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to demean the efforts of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. I think he means well and is 
doing a good job for his people and he is consistent. We have 
differences of opinion. I can recall as a freshman Member going to 
visit the grand opening of the Tennessee-Tombigbee, called the biggest 
pork barrel project in our Nation.
  All the news media gathered around their good old friend Jamie 
Whitten, the former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and 
said ``Well, they call you the pork-barrel king, Congressman. What do 
you have to say about that? This is a great day for you, isn't it?'' 
Jamie Whitten looked at the camera and he says, ``I want it to be known 
that I played a part in investing the American taxpayers' dollars in 
the heartland of America. My son will get a job, my grandson will get a 
job, his son and his granddaughter have a shot at getting a job.''
  I am going to vote against this amendment, and I am going to vote 

[[Page H 6869]]
  against the amendment to cut the TVA. We have to cut, and I offered to 
cut on the foreign aid bill, 1 percent. I did not see all these hawks 
running around. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal 
yesterday, Israel got $13 billion in aid, loans, and grants last year, 
$21,000 for every man, woman, and child, and they did not get cut by 
this Congress.
  Do Members want to hear something else? This is not taking off on 
Israel. Israel has a $1 billion trade surplus with America and a $7.5 
billion trade deficit with Europe. Come on, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
make the cuts. I am not going to cut from America. I am not going to 
cut another damned thing from our people who need it. I think Congress 
should set its priorities in place. I would ask the Congress to vote 
``no'' on this overwhelmingly, and vote ``no'' on the amendment to cut 
the TVA.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate this afternoon and an 
important one. It is amazing we are even at this point in Congress, 
where we are not debating a 50-percent cut for ARC, we are debating 
whether or not it should be eliminated.
  Again, while I may disagree with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] on the level, or my 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], who has done an 
excellent job rallying opposition to this amendment, I think we all 
have to ask ourselves, where are we today in 1995.
  Let me just make three more points. First of all, this program was 
established in 1965, and we have poured billions of dollars into the 
region. If we listen to the economics we have heard from the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]; for example, we spent $1 and then got $5 
back. That is a great deal. Why do we not spend the entire U.S. economy 
there and somehow we will magically multiply by five? Those economics 
just do not make sense.
  Now we are told there was an agreement in the authorizing committee 
that will phase it out over 5 years. We have had this debate over the 
budget. Why is 7 years magical? What is magical about 7 years? The 
bottom line is with a $200 billion deficit, I say the decision is not 5 
years from now, the decision is finally today, in 1995.
                              {time}  1545

  Just years after this program was established, the Nixon 
administration took the first shot at it. Then the Reagan 
administration took a strong shot at it. We have talked about how tough 
the programs are in ARC today and where we are.
  In the first Bush administration budget, the recommendation was only 
$50 million in funding. Today with a 50-percent reduction, we are at 
$142 million in funding. The truth of the matter is since the early 
1970's, this program has been on everybody's hit list who has 
objectively stood back and looked at it. I do not begrudge my 
colleagues involved in the 13 States involved in the Appalachian 
Regional Commission. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] I 
think explained rather passionately, there was a need for this program 
when it was set up in the 1960's, dramatically illustrated on 
television and fought for very passionately by President Johnson. But 
here we are 30 years later. How much longer? How many billions more? 
How many hundreds of millions of dollars more?
  I know that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] has assured 
us we will be all done in 5 years, but do you really want to bet in 
this Chamber what happens 3 years from now, that it has got to be just 
2 years more, and we cannot do it the year after that because it is 
another election, so it will have to be 2 more years after that.
  I am sure the Governors love the money because it is money they do 
not have to ask their own citizens for. But the problem is this is a 
double-dipping and in some cases triple-dipping program that has 
fundamentally benefited 13 States in this country at the disadvantage 
of the other 37.
  Finally for my colleagues in this Chamber, I think you have to ask 
yourself fundamentally, what is it today about a poor community in West 
Virginia or Georgia or Kentucky that is different from New Mexico or 
Wisconsin or Missouri? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We should do 
economic development for these communities but it should be in the 
Economic Development Administration, so that all 50 States in this 
country are treated equally.
  Appalachia needed help. My friends, 30 years of help is enough.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, these are indeed historic times. This 
Congress has adopted the first balanced budget resolution in over a 
generation. We have successfully shifted the debate from more and more 
big Federal programs to fiscal restraint and responsibility. In this 
vein, I applaud the work of Chairmen Myers and Livingston and the 
committee in crafting an energy and water appropriations bill that 
reflects this goal.
  Nevertheless, I remain concerned that certain programs prime for 
elimination may escape intact, battered; and bruised but still 
standing. The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] plainly falls into 
this category.
  ARC was formed in 1965 as a temporary response to poverty in a broad 
section of the United States known as Appalachia. Thirty
 years later, we continue to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars annually on ARC activities that are largely duplicated by 
several agencies, including DOT's Federal Highways Program and HUD's 
Community Development Block Grant Program. The legitimate programs the 
ARC funds, from building highways to sewer projects, will continue to 
be funded.

  However, ARC has a long history of funding projects that have a 
rather dubious impact on poverty. The ARC has spent taxpayer money on 
projects ranging from the NASCAR Hall of Fame to a football stadium for 
the NFL's Carolina Panthers. ARC has spent $100,000 for a film history 
of West Virginia and another $25,000 to attract German travelers to 
that same State. During this time of scarce financial resources, we 
must ask the question, Where is the Federal role here?
  I am pleased to join with Representatives
   Klug and Orton to offer this bipartisan amendment to eliminate 
funding for the ARC. Many will argue that the chairman's mark already 
contains a substantial reduction in ARC funding for fiscal year 1996 
and beyond. However, we are all aware of numerous temporary commissions 
that have outlived their original mission but continue to survive for 
political reasons. The Reagan and Bush administrations were successful 
in dramatically cutting the funding for ARC only to see the program 
flourish again in future years. In fact, President Bush's first budget 
called for $50 million for ARC, a paltry sum compared to the $142 
million that this bill calls for, even with a 40 percent cut.

  Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we act boldly and rip out the 
roots of ARC now to ensure it doesn't grow back. Many members have 
correctly noted that the heavy lifting toward a balanced budget begins 
with the appropriations bills. Let's match our rhetoric with action and 
take the overdue step of eliminating the Appalachian Regional 
Commission.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 108, 
noes 319, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 491]

                               AYES--108

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barcia
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Brownback
     Burton
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt

[[Page H 6870]]

     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--319

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Fox
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Longley
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1607

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Scarborough for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Messrs. DREIER, KIM, and FOLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked as amendment No. 
9.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 29, line 1, strike 
     ``$103,339,000'' and insert ``$0''.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 60 
minutes, which will be equally divided between the author of the 
amendment, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and 30 minutes by 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the order of the Chair that the debate on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and any 
amendments thereto will be 60 minutes in length, divided equally 
between the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, what we have before us is a test 
much like the test we just went through on the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, which is to ask this Congress to fundamentally reevaluate 
programs set up decades ago and which continue to live on, perhaps with 
justification, as I suspect my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Quillen], and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and the 
other side of the fight will argue.
  But from my perspective, frankly, I think we have to ask ourselves 
why in 1995 the Federal Government is still involved in the 
hydroelectric business. Mr. Chairman, my great wish is we could have a 
discussion today about whether or not the Tennessee Valley Authority 
itself should be privatized.
  You see, American taxpayers have already invested millions upon 
millions of dollars in the Tennessee Valley Authority, which now, 
frankly, owes the taxpayers of the United States $28 billion, $28 
billion.
  Now, this fight we are about to have in the next hour is not about 
the power side of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It is about ancillary 
relationships and ancillary businesses which have grown up around the 
Tennessee Valley Authority over the course of the last 60 years.
  Beginning in the 1930's, the Federal Government began building a 
series of hydroelectric dams across the United States, the first of 
which, and really the kind of granddaddy of all those projects, was the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. It did a marvelous job fulfilling the 
mission, bringing electricity to much of the Southeast, and to help do 
important flood control projects. Over the course of time, TVA has 
begun, like many government projects do, to morph and change and 
develop an entirely different mission than its original core mission.
  Ronald Reagan, back in the 1980's, used to like to say the closest we 
could ever get to eternity in this lifetime was a Federal project, and 
so it is with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  Now, again, much like the previous debate, I have to give credit to 
my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], because 
they have made very difficult decisions. We have substantially lowered 
the amount of money to be given TVA this year for operations, aside 
from its power operations, which stand on its own and operate with the 
taxpayer-financed debt I referred to a minute ago.
  Now, in the appropriations process, TVA has had three programs for 
years, one of which was a research center which has been zeroed out. 
Again, I know that is tough for the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen], and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] and my colleagues 
in Tennessee, and I can understand their hesitation to cut the programs 
still deeper.
  There are still two programs which exist, a stewardship program which 
involves operation and maintenance of dams and reservoirs, and I think 
you are going to hear an argument in a minute that says if TVA does not 
do those projects, somebody else, perhaps the Corps of Engineers, 
might. That may be true.
  I then make the argument what you can achieve is consolidation and 
slim 

[[Page H 6871]]
down a number of other services by consolidating those funds, and 
perhaps that is an argument we should have.
  But, in addition, there is another nearly $19
   million for tourism and marketing. There is a series of recreational 
facilities located at the heart of the TVA region, which is another 
$3.3 million.

  Finally, logger education, regional water supply, et cetera, would 
total about another $10.9 million, which is another $103 million, 
because this is actually the money that is given to TVA this year by 
the taxpayers around this country to run the power marketing 
administration in the southeast corner of the United States.
  I think it is time that we begin to ask the Tennessee Valley 
Authority to stand on its own and to operate on its own, and if these 
services are valuable and if they benefit the residents of the 
Southeastern United States, again I think we have to ask ourselves why 
it is that the residents of the Southeastern United States are not 
paying for tourism.
  I think the Federal Government has a responsibility and obligation to 
the water projects. I think the Federal Government had an obligation 
and responsibility to first build those power-plants. But here we are, 
my colleagues, 60 years after the construction of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, and the Bonneville Power Administration in Pacific Northwest 
and a whole series of other hydroelectric plants around the country, 
with nearly a quarter of the Department of Energy staff working on the 
power and marketing administrations, generating, selling, and marketing 
electric power.
  We cannot, I think, move to privatize TVA today. It is too 
complicated a subject. In time we may have that debate as we do the 
Alaska Power Marketing Administration, which we will do this year, 
thanks to the leadership of Chairman Young, and thanks to the fine 
works of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], 
we are likely to do in the Southeast Power Marketing Administration, 
the Southwest, maybe, fingers crossed, the Western Power Marketing 
Administration.
  The issue before us today is, narrowly, whether the Federal 
Government will cut its relationship to fund the ongoing operations of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, not directly tied in to the power 
business itself.
  So I urge my colleagues, if we are serious, as the National Taxpayers 
Union suggests, to reevaluate Federal projects and to make tough, 
difficult decisions and to begin to close down government relationships 
that have gone on for 10, 20, 30, 50, and 60 years, then the Tennessee 
Valley Authority is the place to begin today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of control, I yield 15 minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and I yield the other 15 
minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] will each control 
15 minutes of debate time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I stand here, before my colleagues, today 
as a former member of the TVA Board as well as a former chairman of the 
TVA Caucus. I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment and 
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure. I sure want to 
invite the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] down to the Tennessee 
Valley area sometime because I think he totally misunderstands the 
mission of TVA as well as the debt. I know he mentioned awhile ago a 
debt of $28 billion, and he is referring to power funds and power debt. 
Since 1959, we have been under the self-financing act because of the 
U.S. Congress. We have paid back year after year after year the moneys 
that were originally borrowed to start TVA back in 1933.
  Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] sends out 
colleague letters and makes statements, he always wants to confuse 
ratepayers' dollars with appropriated dollars. Over 97 percent of the 
TVA budget is from power funds, from those funds that are spent or from 
power bills that people pay on a monthly basis. They do not come from 
the taxpayers from around the country. He is constantly confusing those 
issues, and I think the time is right to set the record straight.
  My colleagues, adopting this amendment would be a serious mistake. If 
it is adopted, flood control on the Tennessee River would cease, 
protection of TVA's reservoir shorelines would not be accomplished, and 
proper care of over 170 acres of park land would not be maintained. If 
TVA were to disappear, most of the functions would have to be picked up 
by the appropriate Federal agency, like the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 
and the EPA. There are no provisions in the Klug amendment providing 
for transfer of these duties, and there is no additional funding for 
these other departments or agencies. Wisconsin and all the other States 
have provisions, have money, have funding in order to provide for these 
services, and yet TVA is the vehicle that is used in the seven-State 
region in order to provide for these services.
  But what I want to talk about in my very brief remarks left is the 
valuable assistance TVA provides for the poor rural counties in seven 
States which would be eliminated by Mr. Klug's amendment. When TVA 
began just over 60 years ago, only 3 farmers in 100 had electricity.
  Defeat the Klug amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the TVA Board and former chairman 
of the TVA congressional caucus, I rise in very strong opposition to 
the Klug amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this 
measure.
  My friends, adopting this amendment would be a serious mistake. If it 
is adopted, flood control on the Tennessee River would cease, 
protection of TVA's reservoir shorelines would not be accomplished, and 
proper care of over 170 acres of park land would not be maintained. If 
TVA were to disappear, most of these functions would have to be picked 
up by the appropriate Federal agencies like the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, and the EPA.
 There are no provisions in the Klug amendment providing for the 
transfer of these duties or additional funding for these departments.

  But what I want to talk about in my brief remarks, is the valuable 
assistance TVA provides for the poor rural counties in seven States 
which would be eliminated by Mr. Klug's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague who offers this amendment is not from the 
seven-State region which TVA services. Perhaps he does not realize the 
important role TVA plays as a regional development agency.
  For those who are not from the valley, let me relate to you a story 
that emphasizes TVA's importance. In the early 1940's when TVA was not 
yet a decade old, an old farmer stood up in church on Sunday morning to 
give a testimonial. ``The greatest thing on this Earth is to have the 
love of God in your heart,'' he said, ``and the next greatest thing is 
to have electricity in your house.''
  The farmer knew what he was talking about. He could remember the days 
before electricity when a coal-oil fired lamp was the only source of 
light at night, when a block of ice in the icebox was all that kept his 
meat and milk from spoiling. TVA introduced light and comfort into the 
farmer's life, and he and his family were grateful. Electricity was a 
symbol of progress. Electricity brought the Tennessee Valley into the 
modern age.
  When TVA began just over 60 years ago, only three farmers in 100 had 
electricity. Floods ravaged the countryside every spring. Soils from 
farm lands were washed away with the rains. Good jobs were scarce. Over 
the next half of a century, TVA worked with other Federal agencies, the 
States, business, industry, and the farmers to help solve many of these 
problems.
  These activities continue to this day. While TVA provides electricity 
to over 7 million citizens in seven States, it is also a resource 
development agency, charged by Congress to help develop the Tennessee 
Valley region.
  Let me repeat this because I think it gets into the heart of the 
debate today. TVA is a resource development agency, charged by Congress 
to help develop the Tennessee Valley region.
  TVA is a partner with communities in the Tennessee Valley, providing 
expertise, support, and ideas needed to help distressed rural areas. 
TVA's Rural Development Program, which provides valuable assistance to 
small- and medium-sized businesses to expand their operations and 
employment, would be terminated under the pending amendment. Mr. 

[[Page H 6872]]
Chairman, the small business sector is the only sector of the economy 
that is creating jobs right now. We should be adopting legislation 
which encourages growth for small businesses, not discouraging it.
  TVA has a program also targeted for elimination by the gentleman's 
amendment which focuses on the valley's most distressed counties which 
have unemployment in excess of 10 percent, per capita income less than 
60 percent of the national average, a poverty rate of 26 percent, and 
derive more than 24 percent of total personal income from Government 
transfer payments like welfare and food stamps.
  Under this program, TVA works with local communities in developing 
economic development projects, education and skills training, waste 
management, and business competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, TVA turns down 
requests for assistance each day because they are unable to meet the 
demand for this program.
  I would like to make a final point regarding some of the 
misconceptions and outright inaccuracies made by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. Representative Klug presumes that the Federal taxpayer is 
subsidizing TVA's power program.
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The fact is that prior to 1959, TVA's power operations were financed 
primarily by Federal appropriations. However, in 1959 Congress passed 
the TVA Self-Financing Act.
  Public Law 86-157 required that TVA's power program be self-
sustaining--no longer funded by Federal appropriations. The 1959 act 
even directed TVA to pay back the Government for its initial 
appropriations out of future power revenues.
  The fact is that TVA must charge sufficient electric rates to cover 
the costs of operations, maintenance, and capital improvements for the 
power program. Not one single Federal cent goes into TVA's power 
programs. So when Representative Klug states that TVA provides 
Government subsidized power, obviously he has been misinformed or ill-
advised.
  Mr. Chairman, TVA's appropriation has already been reduced by 28 
percent under the bill. I believe we have taken our fair share of cuts. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman from Wisconsin's 
amendment.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this afternoon this 
subcommittee is taking a responsible position on the TVA, cutting what 
we felt was--could be cut, unnecessary spending, maybe areas that the 
Tennessee Valley Authority did not belong in, but retaining its right, 
its responsibility, to operate the rest of its traditional business 
responsibilities.
  A few years ago when the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and I 
were on the committee it was reckless. We have to say it was not run 
prudently as a business should be run. Rates were set arbitrarily with 
little regard about the ratepayer, and it got way out of hand. There 
was waste, a tremendous amount of waste, but through the years we have 
trimmed this down, and I think this year is a huge step. We have 
reduced the appropriation from last year's level by 26 percent, and 
that is a level of $39,534,000 less than last year, and we have reduced 
the President's request for this by 25 percent, $37,134,000.
  We have made significant cuts. Please support the committee.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] for yielding this time to me and for his efforts at deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Klug amendment. 
Mr. Chairman, I think, as my little niece would put it, we have to get 
real around here about deficit reduction, and, if we cannot cut this 
$103 million, we are not going to be able to balance this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, as one taxpayers' group put it, this is pure pork. How 
can we justify Federal tax dollars, Federal taxpayers' dollars, going 
to such functions as boat landings, campgrounds, and logger education? 
Mr. Chairman, most of these functions, whether it is boat landings, or 
campgrounds, or logger education, can and should clearly be operated by 
State and local governments. Of course the operation of the dams and 
reservoirs are properly functions of the Army Corps of Engineers. If we 
truly intend to balance the budget, we must examine each and every 
program in the budget and ask whether or not it is something we should 
require taxpayers across the country to pay for.
  In this case, Mr. Chairman, the answer is a resounding no. We must, 
must, have the political courage to shut down such programs as this or 
allow States to take them over.
  Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers are sick and tired, with all due 
respect to my good friends from Tennessee who are here fighting hard 
and representing the Tennessee Valley Authority well, but with all 
respect to them, Mr. Chairman, this is pork-barrell politics in its 
pure form, and American taxpayers are sick and tired of such politics. 
Mr. Chairman, this is a real test of whether this Congress is serious 
about fiscal discipline.
  I urge a vote for the American taxpayer. Vote for the Klug amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Klug amendment 
to eliminate the Tennessee Valley Authority's appropriated budget. My 
district is not located in the Tennessee Valley, yet I support 
continued funding of TVA. This amendment is bad for a number of 
reasons.
  As we have been told, TVA's remaining funds are necessary to carry 
out Federal responsibilities in areas such as flood control, land 
management, and resource stewardship. If TVA does not carry out these 
responsibilities, they will have to be carried out by other Federal 
agencies such as EPA, the Corps of Engineers, or the U.S. Forestry 
Service.
  Where are the savings purportedly attained through this amendment? 
There are no savings because these agencies would need additional funds 
to carry out these activities. If this amendment passes, land 
management, flood control, and resource stewardship programs would 
still be needed and will have to be carried out by other Federal 
agencies. Therefore, the cost savings will not be realized.
  Now the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has made a very good 
argument perhaps, that programs should be evaluated. That would perhaps 
need to be taken up by other agencies. Perhaps we could have that 
discussion. But this amendment does not provide for that discussion. 
This amendment zeros out this program without a discussion of whether 
or not these functions should be funded in another part of the Federal 
budget.
  I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill] in their committee have done a very good job of 
tightening the belt and cutting this program down to what we think is 
reasonable, and I think that it is something that this Congress should 
approve because it is a good agency, it provides good functions, and 
those functions would have to be carried out whether they were in the 
TVA or not.
  I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], another classmate of mine and a fierce deficit 
hawk.
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I 
commend him for this fight that he has undertaken. The Tennessee Valley 
Authority is part of our history, it is a proud part of our history, 
but there comes a time when you have to go back to first principles, 
especially when we are under the constraints of a balanced budget 
requirement, and one of the questions that we should ask ourselves with 
respect to any government program is: Is it appropriate that 
government--government at any level--fund this program in the first 
place? I would submit that items such as running boat landings, and 
campgrounds, and tourism simply are not the appropriate realm for 
government activity. I would submit that other activities that are 
covered by this cut, although they may be appropriately within the 
realm of government, are not within the realm of the Federal 
Government. This is a quintessentially regional and local program. It 
is for the benefit of the people who live in the Tennessee Valley, and 
I do not doubt that there is a considerable benefit to them. But the 
people 

[[Page H 6873]]
who benefit from the program should pay for the program. It should be 
done, if they choose, by their State, county, and local governments, 
but it should not be paid for by people living in other parts of the 
country.
  If we had a surplus instead of a multi-hundred-billion-dollar 
deficit, I think it might be appropriate to fund programs which are not 
absolutely necessary but which are merely desirable or appealing from a 
political or regional point of view, but we do not have that luxury, 
and I think as we scrutinize every single program, regardless of the 
noble history, regardless of the sentiment, regardless of the good 
feeling that they have generated over the past several decades, we have 
to be clear-eyed, we have to be analytical, and we have to reject those 
programs that do not meet the test. I believe that the TVA programs 
covered by the amendment do not meet the test, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Klug amendment to eliminate TVA funding.
  Colleagues, before you cast your vote for the Klug amendment, 
consider the ramifications of your vote.
  Surely no one in this Chamber is going to blindly believe that the 
numerous functions of TVA are simply going to disappear into the 
woodwork if this amendment were to pass?
  Let us consider some of TVA's responsibilities for just a moment. 
TVA's work ensures that over 650 miles of the Tennessee River is 
navigable to meet the needs of America's intercostal water 
transportation system by operating some 48 locks and dams.
  TVA also has the responsibility for the upkeep of over 250,000 acres 
of Federal land and the largest contiguous forest east of the 
Mississippi River, known as Land Between the Lakes.
  Are we to simply believe the Klug amendment is going to eliminate 
TVA's responsibility to operate all of these dams and lands?
  Are we to assume that if this amendment passes, then the Federal 
Government will have cleansed itself from its obligations concerning 
TVA and its functions?
  I would certainly hope that no one in this Chamber would believe 
that.
  What is more, under current law, TVA's functions are to be carried 
out by TVA, and this amendment does not take that into consideration.
  Colleagues, TVA is already going to see a reduction of 28 percent of 
its funding and the elimination of many of its programs as part of the 
Appropriations Committee's recommendations.
  With so much uncertainty involved with this amendment, I certainly do 
not want to leave TVA's important functions to the whims and wishes of 
more Government agencies and departments in Washington.
  Colleagues, there is a better solution than the Klug amendment.
                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug 
amendment. This amendment would callously eliminate funding for 
necessary activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority without making 
any provision for how these functions will be accomplished.
  The Tennessee Valley Authority was created in 1933 to provide flood 
control, improve navigation, promote economic development, and provide 
electricity in the Tennessee Valley. Its accomplishment are legendary.
  I am concerned that my colleague who is offering the amendment fails 
to fully understand what the effects of his amendment would be.
  First, the TVA power program operates entirely without Federal 
subsidy--it is a user financed program which never adds to Federal 
expenditures or to the deficit. Funds from the power program cannot be 
used to make up the funding shortfall.
  The remainder of the program, the nonpower program, plays an 
important and vital role in the lives of the citizens of the Tennessee 
Valley and the national economy.
  TVA has the responsibility for 1,000 miles of navigable waterways, 
and of operating 52 dams and 14 navigation locks. It also manages 
420,000 acres of public lands. If the Klug amendment were to be 
enacted, there are no provisions for any other entity taking over these 
responsibilities. Even if other agencies were to be instructed to take 
on the responsibilities for managing TVA property, there has been no 
allowance in any other budget to cover the additional costs.
  The result would be 7 million people in the Tennessee Valley with no 
one responsible for flood control or navigation, and these are not 
insignificant elements of the TVA program.
  In 1994 alone, TVA's flood control program prevented an estimated $1 
billion in flood damages across the valley and saved Chattanooga twice 
from devastation by floodwaters. The navigation system moves 48 million 
tons of cargo annually. The Klug amendment makes no provision for how 
these important benefits of TVA will be replaced.
  This bill already cuts TVA programs by nearly 30 percent. Let us not 
be penny-wise and pound-foolish by eliminating necessary functions 
without adequately considering the needs of the people who depend upon 
TVA for the same functions which are provided to the remainder of the 
Nation.
  Vote ``no'' on the Klug amendment.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
   Mr. Chairman, I am from the Third District of Tennessee, and, 
gratefully, have more TVA employees in my district than any other 
district in this Nation--6,000 TVA families live and work in my 
district. I will tell you from firsthand experience, Mr. Chairman, 
while it might surprise you, that the Tennessee Valley Authority is not 
perfect. Neither is the Pentagon perfect, neither are the Centers for 
Disease Control perfect, neither is the White House perfect, and 
neither is this institution perfect. But I have not seen any amendments 
to zero those core functions out.
  This amendment does not say ``Let's find an area that can be 
restricted further and reduce it.'' It says zero. It says cut it off, 
cold. Let me tell Members this: TVA is much better off than it used to 
be, because the TVA Board is appointed by the President of the United 
States. The TVA Board has been run by the Democrats at times, it has 
been run by the Republicans at times. It survived a few years under the 
leadership of who they call ``Carvin' Marvin'' Runyon, who now runs the 
U.S. Post Office. I will tell the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], 
he would be one of your kind of guys, because he goes in there and cuts 
it to the bone. I told TVA at that time I thought it would be good for 
them to have the years under Marvin Runyon. I tell my friends at the 
post office the same thing. It is one of the best things that can 
happen to you. We experienced almost a 50-percent reduction in 
employment through the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  The Tennessee Valley Authority is going in the right direction. There 
is one basic flaw to the Klug amendment to zero out TVA. That is the 
stewardship, the water management part, what keeps backyards from 
flooding all along this river system. There is no provision for the 
Army Corps of Engineers beginning October 1 of this year when this 
money runs out to take that function over. We have already gone through 
that part of this bill, this appropriations bill, and there is no 
addition to pick this function up. So the bill is fundamentally flawed.
  As I said earlier on another amendment, I believe everyone must share 
in this patriotic challenge to balance the Federal budget. The TVA is 
no exception, and I told them that earlier when I got here, my friends 
at TVA, ``I am going to fight for you, but you are going to have to 
take some licks. You are going to have to do your share. You are going 
to have to show the country.'' So we reduced the budget in the 
appropriations process from $143 to $103 million, a substantial 
reduction. This is the TVA's share to this patriotic challenge.
   Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
oppose 

[[Page H 6874]]
the Klug amendment and support continued, but less, TVA funding.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two points to respond to the 
articulate argument of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], in 
defense to TVA.
  First and foremost, one of the programs we are talking about today is 
additional economic development money, aside from the water development 
projects the gentleman talks about. As he knows, and I know all too 
well, given the vote on the last amendment, the region in Tennessee 
finds itself not only available for the normal economic development 
money that a county in Wisconsin or a county in Ohio may be eligible 
for, but now for Appalachian Regional Commission money as well, and now 
finally Tennessee Valley Authority money.
  So now we have got counties in this region of the country that are 
eligible for three times as much funding as your counties back in Ohio 
or mine in Wisconsin or those in Colorado or Minnesota, or whatever the 
case might be.
  Second, I would have loved to have crafted an amendment much 
differently than the one we have in front of us, but the fundamental 
point is anybody in this institution understands you cannot legislate 
on an appropriations bill. So I would love to change the ground rules 
for TVA. I would love to have arguments about transferring this to the 
Corps of Engineers. I could not do it because the committee would have 
never let me do it.
  But I think what we are faced with today is an amendment that 
fundamentally tries to send a message to TVA that says eventually we 
are going to get to a point where you are going to have just the kind 
of cuts we have had under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], but eventually 
TVA is going to have to cut its strings, and eventually, in one form or 
another, TVA is going to have to stand on its own, whether it 
privatizes or corporatizes or whatever the model is, because in 1995, 
the Federal Government should not be in the electric utility business.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman evidences a basic misunderstanding here 
of what TVA is about. TVA stands on its own on its power production and 
the ratepayers who use the power in the Valley pay for that. You are 
not talking about the Federal Government being in the electric power 
business in 1995.
  I, quite frankly, to some degree resent this attack on one area of 
the country, because I think that we are all one country. My friend 
from Chattanooga before me pointed out very well that there are some 
things good happening in the Tennessee Valley because of TVA.
  We do not attack people because we do not have something that happens 
in Wisconsin or New Jersey. We do not have a lot of Coast Guard along 
the Tennessee River. We do not attack the the Coast Guard because they 
patrol in New Jersey and up in the Great Lakes.
  I resent this attack on a small southern area of the country. But 
more than that, what the gentleman's amendment will fail to do and what 
he does not understand is this money that is appropriated to TVA is 
because TVA is the agency of choice to fulfill some of the safety 
measures that must be undertaken by either the Corps of Engineers, the 
Coast Guard, or others along 600-plus miles of the Tennessee River with 
dams and locks and those sorts of things.
  That is the kind of money we are appropriating, because the TVA can 
do it efficiently, and it is the agency of choice in this regard. There 
is a fundamental difference here between power money, which is not 
involved, and safety money, which is.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug 
amendment. Back in 1963, President Kennedy initiated a project of TVA 
called the Land Between the Lakes. And there were 2,500 families and 
children and mothers and fathers moved out of that property, not 
because they wanted to leave their farms, but because the Government 
instituted eminent domain authority and forcibly removed them from the 
property. So they left.
  Under the Klug amendment today, they are going to zero fund this 
project, as well as others of TVA. This project has nothing to do with 
electric utilities or anything else, but it is one of the largest 
wildlife preserves in the United States.
  Today at LBL you can find endangered red wolves, bald and golden 
eagles, coyotes, black vultures, redtail hawks, and there is no 
provision on what is going to happen to this land, 170,000 acres of it. 
There is a herd of buffalo on this property. Two million visitors a 
year visit this property, and they come from all over the United 
States.
  When you make the argument that this is something different or the 
Federal Government should not be involved in it, we have national parks 
throughout this country that people visit all the time. This is 170,000 
acres of wildlife preserve that this Government made a conscious 
decision that they wanted, and they moved 2,500 people off of the 
property, forced them off.
  So I say that we are trying to redefine the role of Government, and 
we can do that, but we need some time. They are reducing the TVA budget 
this year by 28 percent, but we are not asking many agencies of 
Government to go to zero funding. We need time, and we can reach that 
time and make arrangements.
  With that, I vigorously urge you to oppose the Klug amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, in my brief 1\1/2\ minutes, let me try to 
clear up a couple of misunderstandings.
  First of all, there has not been a penny of taxpayer Federal dollars 
going to the TVA power program since 1959. What little Federal money 
goes to the TVA goes to carry out Federal mandates. And these Federal 
dollars, as has been pointed out, have been cut by 28 percent already.
  So let me point out what are these Federal mandates. Where are these 
Federal dollars going. TVA manages the Nation's fifth largest river 
system, using 48 dams to control flooding and maintain the navigability 
along 652 miles of the Tennessee River. TVA is responsible for keeping 
up with 250,000 acres of Federal land along with 11,000 miles of 
environmentally sensitive shoreline, and the Land Between the Lakes, 
which is a 170,000-acre national recreation area, which is the largest 
contiguous forest east of the Mississippi River.

                              {time}  1645

  So to cut these funds any further does not cut the responsibilites, 
it just shifts it from one pocket to the other.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope this has cleared up some misunderstandings, and 
I hope my colleagues will vote to only cut the TVA nonpower funds by 28 
percent.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me, if I can, clarify somewhat the relationship between the 
Tennessee Valley. Authority and the Federal Government.
  This is a General Accounting Office report, dated June 1995. The 
headline says, Tennessee Valley Authority, problems raise questions 
about long-term viability.
  If I can, Mr. Chairman, let me read briefly:
  ``While no cash flow crisis exists today, GAO believes that TVA's 
financial condition threatens its long-term viability and places the 
Federal Government at risk.''
  If there is no relationship between the TVA and the Federal 
Government, how can they possibly be at risk?
  ``Resolving TVA's financial problems will be costly
   and require painful decisions.

  ``In other words,'' concludes this report, ``without the guarantee of 
the Federal Government, much of the financing of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority is the equivalent of a junk pile.''

[[Page H 6875]]

  That is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the U.S. 
Congress General Accounting Office.
  So let us not for a minute pretend there are not any significant 
financial ties between the U.S. Government and its taxpayers and the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, because, as everybody in this Chamber 
understands who is now defending the project, TVA only exists because 
of $28 billion in taxpayer-financed subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let me say this. As has been pointed out by so many other speakers, 
TVA is already taking a 28-percent cut in the Federal appropriation. 
there are very few other agencies or departments in the Federal 
Government that are taking a hit or a cut of this size. And I yield to 
no one in my desire and determination to balance the Federal budget. 
But balancing the Federal budget and reducing Federal spending is one 
thing; totally eliminating the Federal appropriation is another thing, 
because very few people are trying, I think, to totally do away with 
the Federal Government. That is really based on what we are doing with 
regard to the TVA, if we eliminate this Federal apropriation.
  Let me say this, I want to spend most of my time talking about the 
Federal role here because there is a very important Federal role. TVA 
is primarily or at least in large part a benefit to citizens all over 
this country. The people of the Tennessee Valley benefit to a certain 
extent, but people all over this country benefit from TVA's activities.
  For instance, when the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers overflowed 2 years 
ago, TVA restrained the flow of the Tennessee River saving billions of 
dollars and an untold number of lives. In 1988, a drought stalled 
hundreds of barges, and TVA released water that helped keep the 
Mississippi flowing. The Mississippi, which flows from Minnesota down 
to New Orleans, again, saving millions, potentially even billions of 
dollars for shippers and for American consumers, American consumers who 
live all over the country.
  In 1994, 34,000 barges traveled the waterways managed by TVA, 34,000 
barges. These barges carried goods and products intended to be used all 
across the country. In addition, the cheap cost of this type of 
transportation helped keep prices low for American consumers in every 
State in this country.
  A recent study by the Iowa Department of Transportation stated that 
it would take 58 tractor-trailers to carry what one barge carries. If 
TVA had not managed these waterways for the 34,000 barges which used 
them last year, we could have potentially had to have at least an 
additional 1.9 million tractor-trailers on our highways. By making 
these rivers navigable for barge transportation, TVA helps reduce air 
pollution, road damage and the potential for serious highway accidents.
  The amendment would also reduce TVA's ability to manage 11,000 miles 
of shoreline for which it currently has responsibility. Supervision of 
this land is not only critical for flood control but also to industrial 
development, recreation, and wildlife management.
  TVA operates 160 public recreation areas for boating, hunting, 
fishing, hiking, and camping. People from all over the United States 
visit and enjoy these facilities. Visitation to these recreational 
areas contributed $1.25 billion to the economy last year.
  Thus, in many ways, Mr. Chairman, TVA is a major asset to this 
country, in many different ways.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], distinguished 
ranking member of this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment and urge that Members vote against it.
  I know my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug], is like all of us, we are anxious to get the budget 
balanced and we are certainly well on our way to doing it. I do know 
that there is a little confusion about this.
  As my colleagues know, the TVA is not something new. This was an act 
of Congress, recommended by President Roosevelt, and has been one of 
the most successful Federal programs that we have ever had in the 
Nation.
  We are talking about a big part of seven States; we are talking about 
an installation that has over 40 dams along the Tennessee River and its 
tributaries. We are talking about closing down, privatizing. I notice 
the gentleman, the author of the amendment there, says, we need to 
privatize the TVA. We need to get the TVA out of the power business. 
And can you imagine that? Can you imagine if an amendment like this 
passed that cut the funding from this program, I will not attempt to 
talk about all the disasters it would create. Can you imagine the 
170,000-acre park down there, without any doubt the biggest animal 
preserve in the continental United States just suddenly being closed; 2 
million people no longer would have a park to go to and the biggest 
preserve would be closed down there, just automatically, no study, no 
nothing, no thought about it?
  And think about what would happen to the $20 million a year payment 
that the TVA is paying every year to the U.S. Government. Is that the 
way you balance the budget? Cut off your income? That is $20 million 
coming in every year. It is a check. It is money. It is being brought 
to the U.S. Treasury.
  Now, are we going to cut that off, privatize it? That word privatize 
amazes me, the way they throw it around here. The shoe shine boy even 
mentioned it the other day. He said, They are trying to privatize me. I 
hear that word coming in from every angle around here. It sounds like 
it is magic or something. But I cannot imagine having a complaint about 
a $20 million payment coming into our Federal Government. I do not know 
of any other program we have that does that.
  If any of you know of it, I would like to know about it, because I 
have not heard it.
  I think the gentleman's intentions are good, but to be exact, there 
are 48 dams there, 652 miles of the Tennessee River, and there is some 
thousands of tons, 48 million tons of cargo going down this Tennessee 
River, this part of the TVA system. We could just go on.
  If you want to privatize TVA, let us get a bill and get a study made 
and see what ought to be done about it. I think they would recommend we 
forget about it.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, may I be advised how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 3 minutes of 
my time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], and that they be permitted to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to make two points. First, on the argument of the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] that somehow this idea of privatizing the TVA 
is absolute anathema and will mean the end of the world. May I again 
refer to the same GAO report on the financial viability of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority:

       TVA's links to the Federal Government--

these links that do not exist which do exist, says the GAO--

     and its high debt limits have enabled it to borrow the 
     billions of dollars needed for its nuclear construction 
     program. TVA's electricity rates and power production 
     decisions are not subject to the same oversight that other 
     utilities routinely face. Although protected from competition 
     by legislation and its customers contracts in the short run, 
     TVA will have to compete with other utilities in the long 
     run. Because of heavy debt burden and resultant high 
     financing costs, TVA lacks the flexibility to successfully 
     compete in this environment.

  May I suggest that if we do not figure a way to privatize the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, your taxpayers in Alabama and mine in 
Wisconsin will at 

[[Page H 6876]]
some point have to eat $28 billion in TVA debt. I am not making that 
up. That is the conclusion of the General Accounting Office.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, let us not tell the TVA to quit sending 
that $20 million a year to the government. Let us agree on that.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, sending how much to the Federal Government? 
Twenty million?
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
$20 million a year paid in to the government. We are talking about 
balancing the budget.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I will make a deal with the gentleman. They 
can keep the $20 million and you let me keep the other $103 million 
that is part of the debate right now.
  The second conclusion on the TVA, this was in the House budget 
resolution:

       Eliminate Federal support for the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority. In 1995, Congress appropriated $143 million for 
     these activities. This proposal would end this annual subsidy 
     for TVA.

  I would like Members to listen very carefully to the last sentence 
here:

       Other equally deserving regions of the country fund these 
     activities either through higher rates for electric power, 
     local tax revenues, or user fees.

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the 
gentleman, he has been reading from a report by the GAO. But in a 
letter to Mr. Quillen, dated June 28, 1995, the GAO said this:

       Dear Mr. Quillen, your staff asked us to clarify whether 
     the scope of our current review of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority included work on TVA's nonpower programs. Our 
     review focused on TVA's power program. It did not examine 
     TVA's nonpower programs.

  We are today discussing TVA's nonpower programs. We are not 
discussing TVA's power programs. That is the bulk of the TVA work, 98 
percent of it. But the GAO report that the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
been reading from repeatedly today did not examine the nonpower 
programs that we are discussing here in this amendment today. So there 
is a pretty big distinction there that I think should be made clear to 
everyone who is listening.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. 
Duncan, is absolutely correct. But I brought this report out in order 
to counter arguments from a number of Members on his side who have been 
saying, There is no longer a Federal relationship because the power 
administration operates on its own and the only money the Federal 
Government is somehow tied to TVA for are these ancillary operations. 
All I was trying to do in raising this GAO report is to say, any 
suggestion that the Federal Government is not deeply intertwined in the 
financial longrun future of TVA is not correct.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
but the gentleman does understand though that the TVA power programs 
are self-supporting and that taxpayers in Wisconsin and other parts of 
the country are not subsidizing the power programs of the TVA?
  Mr. KLUG. Correct, Mr. Chairman, in that they are not paying current 
payments, but not correct to the degree that they got subsidized loans 
initially not available to other parts of the country.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Initially, many years ago.
  Mr. KLUG. Many years ago, correct, but it is still subsidized.
  Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman does understand, as the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] pointed out a few minutes ago, that TVA power 
rates have not been subsidized since 1959, and then it was only to a 
very, very small extent.
                              {time}  1700

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
guess I am going to give a slightly different perspective. I am going 
to reiterate some of the points, but slightly different. I grew up in 
the very shadow of TVA. From my parents' home, the home I grew up in, 
you could actually see the TVA dam and the cooling tower sticking out 
from the trees. We actually had our best friends in the world work for 
TVA. Now their sons and daughters work for TVA.
  TVA has been a lot of good things to the Tennessee Valley. It has 
been some bad things. It has provided jobs, flood control, electricity, 
and in doing so, provided a lot of economic development in a region 
that sorely needed it. However, I will go a little further than my 
other colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], in saying 
that it is not perfect. It is a long ways from being perfect. In fact, 
in my opinion, it has been extremely wasteful and mismanaged over the 
many years in the power part of TVA, not the non-power part of TVA.
  Of course, we pay for this in the Tennessee River Valley with higher 
rates. No taxpayers in Wisconsin or any other part of the country pay 
for this, but we, the ratepayers in the Tennessee River Valley, pay for 
this management.
  The amendment of our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, does 
nothing to alleviate these problems. His amendment seeks to zero out 
TVA's nonpower budget. In a way, I have no problem with this, in some 
ways. I have no problem with TVA taking a hit. I tell everybody who 
comes into my office, people who are very sincere about their programs. 
Some programs in Tennessee were in the southern region, and I say to 
them that they are going to have to take a hit, too. We all have to 
take a hit to balance this budget. I think TVA is taking a hit, 28 
percent.
  I have no problem with some Federal programs being zeroed out. I 
think there are some programs in the Federal Government that are 
absolutely worthless, and should be zeroed out. However, that is not 
the case in the TVA's nonpower budget. The TVA's non-power budget goes, 
to a large extent, for flood control, navigational management, 
ecological, and environmental stewardship. These things, once again, 
will have to be picked up by some other Federal agency. These will have 
to be picked up by some other Federal agency, Mr. Chairman, so this is 
not one of those Federal programs
 that needs to be zeroed out.

  If it is not picked up by some other Federal agency, the is only one 
other choice. Those of us in the Tennessee River Valley will be 
accepting mediocre and in some cases unsafe stewardship of our 
shoreline, of our flood control. I just do not think that is the right 
thing to do.
  For all these reasons, I urge all my freshman colleagues to pay 
attention to these very big distinctions. All of us are budget hawks up 
here. Many of us in the freshman class ran on this, and this is what we 
are dedicated to. However, this is a big distinction in this particular 
case. I urge all my colleagues in the freshman class and otherwise to 
vote ``no'' on the Klug amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to my colleagues that are both here on 
the floor and those that are in their offices listening to this debate. 
I want to say to my classmate, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], 
I applaud him for his consumption with the budget and keeping us on the 
edge of where we need to be. As we from districts that have irons in 
these budget fires, the gentleman squeezes this budget and some of us 
feel the pain from that, but he has made us realize that we have to 
accept some cuts, that we have to reanalyze some of our connections to 
the Federal Government, because we cannot keep spending money at the 
rate or at the level we have been spending money.
  However, I also want to say to my classmate that he is consistent 
with regard to my region, the ARC amendment and how this TVA amendment, 
and the space station fight we go through annually. I want to echo some 
of the words of my colleagues from 

[[Page H 6877]]
Tennessee and from Kentucky and the other regions that certainly have 
interests connected to this issue here. I want to remind my colleagues, 
we are taking a 28-percent cut here. We are talking about an agency 
that runs
 dams, almost 50 dams in the TVA area. We are talking about an agency 
that is charged with obligations that it cannot meet if this 
irresponsible amendment passes here today.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not speak to other alternate ways 
for us to run those almost 50 dams. This amendment does not talk about 
the flood control issues that our region of the country would be 
saddled with. There are many troublesome reasons that we need to oppose 
this amendment. This amendment ensures that rural communities in the 
Tennessee Valley will lose access to a variety of information sources, 
including education, health care, and business opportunities.
  Much like the speaker who just spoke from Tennessee, my region takes 
a cut, a significant cut. We have the environmental research center, a 
TVA project, that is located in my district. It bears the direct impact 
of this budget cut, this 28-percent cut here today. That is a very 
important program in my district that TVA has started, that has 
environmental impact. I think those of us from our region have taken 
our fair share of cuts. We only ask the Members not to go so far as to 
cut us off. We think we have been responsible in this effort. I urge 
Members to oppose this Klug amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for yielding the additional time.
  However, I would like to set the record straight. As chairman of the 
TVA Caucus, I am delighted to do that, and I think the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] should listen carefully. Under the bond covenants 
financing the power program, there is a provision that no income from 
ratepayers can be used to maintain the dams, to provide for flood 
control, to provide for navigation, and all the things that he lists 
here as stewardship, water and land, land between the Lakes, et cetera, 
which are a Federal obligation.
  Those obligations are performed by the Corps of Engineers throughout 
the other regions of the United States. If he is successful, and I hope 
he is not, in his amendment there is no provision in the energy and 
water bill to increase the funding for the Corps of Engineers to take 
over this operation. I think what the gentleman is saying is something 
that is completely foreign to the facts.
  Also, the intent of the TVA Act when it was created in 1933, was that 
the power rates--the income from the power production--was not to be 
used for flood control, was not to be used for navigation, was not to 
be used for the protection and the care of the lands bordering the 
Tennessee River and the dams that they have constructed, so what he is 
doing is cutting, absolutely cutting and making TVA an inoperative 
agency.
  Therefore, I urge this body, each and every Member, to oppose his 
amendment, because he does not have the facts in this case. Mr. 
Chairman, I remember when TVA was created in 1933. I remember how the 
flooding drove people out of the area. The farmers could not farm. The 
floods took and washed their crops away. It was disastrous.
  Then farsighted Members of this body created the Tennessee Valley 
Authority to control the flooding, to provide farmland for the farmers 
to use for this Nation to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the food 
to eat. It was created. Over the years some 48 dams have been 
constructed on the Tennessee Valley, in the Tennessee Valley program, 
along the Tennessee River. It is a power-producing area, and the 
Federal Government does not pay any of the power production costs. That 
is done under the bonding of TVA itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember going over to the Secretary of the Treasury 
with Marvin Runyon when he was Chairman of the Board of TVA. We finally 
persuaded the Government to replenish and give us permission to pay the 
Government off with a private bond program. Finally, after several 
trips, we were successful in doing that, and TVA issued bonds and paid 
off the Federal Government, relieved them of that obligation.
  Already in this bill $42 million has been cut, whittled away. I do 
not like that, but I am willing to accept it. However, certainly, we 
are not going to destroy the viability of TVA. There is no money in any 
other agency to take over these obligations. In Wisconsin there are 14 
Corps of Engineers projects, spending some $15 million. I do not see 
any amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin to cut out the 
Corps of Engineers' projects in Wisconsin. That is what he is trying to 
do, to seven States in the Tennessee Valley area, to cut out and rape 
the TVA program. I think what is good for the goose is good for the 
gander. We should defeat his amendment. Defeat it we must, and defeat 
it we will.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 284, not voting 6, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 492]

                               AYES--144

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Burton
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     White
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--284

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs

[[Page H 6878]]

     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fields (TX)
     Fox
     Hefner
     Longley
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1731

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Longley for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Messrs. HOLDEN, VENTO, FATTAH, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CRAPO, and Mrs. 
CHENOWETH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. COOLEY, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. NEAL of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. BONO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  The Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501. Sec. 505 of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 
     1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and 
     section 208 of Public Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1986, are repealed.
       Sec. 502. Sec. 510 of Public Law 101-514, the Fiscal Year 
     1991 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, is 
     repealed.
       Sec. 503. Without fiscal year limitation and 
     notwithstanding section 502(b)(5) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act, as amended, or any other provision of law, a member of 
     the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board whose term has 
     expired may continue to serve as a member of the Board until 
     such member's successor has taken office.
       Sec. 504. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any applicable Federal law 
     relating to risk assessment, the protection of private 
     property rights, or unfunded mandates.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title V?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could get the attention of the gentleman from 
Texas, the majority whip. I have just run across a flyer here on the 
floor that says that we are going to be in session tomorrow evening, 
and we are not going to adjourn by 6 o'clock. We are going to be out 
Friday, but also it says that we are going to be in Monday, and I have 
already scheduled something out in my district, so I will have to make 
changes this coming Monday, and votes will begin by 5 o'clock. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct. I think the 
majority leader had every intention later on this evening to explain 
the new schedule.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Tonight we go to about midnight?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am advised that, yes, we intend to go to midnight 
tonight. We are going until we finish this bill for sure, and we are 
going tomorrow until we finish the Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The majority leader will come in and fully explain why 
on all of this?
  Mr. DeLAY. I think the majority leader had the intention of 
explaining the schedule later on this afternoon and this evening as the 
schedule applies to tomorrow, I mean, and next week.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. If the gentleman will yield, we will be discussing 
that later. I had a question: Many Members had scheduled that Monday. 
Is it possible to roll those votes until Tuesday?
  Mr. DeLAY. Certainly we can take that under advisement, but I think 
Members need to, right now, plan on votes after 5 o'clock on Monday.
  And if we can get a hold of some of the time on some of the 
amendments, maybe we can schedule the session a little earlier during 
the days of the week.
  Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield, may I ask the majority whip a 
question? Would it be possible tonight, instead of going into the 
amendment process, to take the rule, then have general debate and stop 
after general debate and begin the bill tomorrow? That way many Members 
will be enabled to go home at a fairly reasonable hour, about 10 
o'clock.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, to answer the distinguished 
ranking member of the interior appropriations bill, we, in looking at 
the amendments that have been published in the amendments, we 
understand that will be offered on the Interior bill and trying to 
extrapolate that over time of tonight and up through tomorrow, it looks 
that we have it pretty well scheduled to where we have to get into 
amendments in order to finish the Interior bill by tomorrow evening.
  Mr. YATES. You may have to go to midnight tomorrow night as well, 
because, as I understand it, there are 71 amendments to the Interior 
bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, we understand that, and if we have to go to midnight 
tomorrow night to finish the Interior bill, we will just have to do 
that. We lost a lot of time last week and the early part of this week, 
and we have every intention of passing every appropriations bill before 
and honor the August 4 adjournment date.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. If the gentleman will yield, why do you not look into 
having us come in next week and the week after, just to try to come in 
at 9 o'clock on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and work until 9 
o'clock, 12 hours a day? That gives Members a better time to plan, and 
it makes a lot of sense. I know that does not work very well around 
here. You ought
 to look at it from 9 to 9 and do it Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 
and it will certainly help Members.

  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I think the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi has a very good point, and we just may very 
well have to do that. We may very well have to look at working the 
weekend of the 28th and the 29th, through the weekend, in order to 
finish these bills. We do not intend to take away the privilege of any 
Member to offer any amendment to strike on an appropriations bill, and 
we want to make sure every Member of the House has the opportunity to 
do that, and as we look at the number of amendments that are being 
filed, it is obvious to us that many Members are taking advantage of 
that, and we have to adjust the schedule accordingly.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I would hope that the Republican leadership would look 
at rolling those votes until Tuesday. If we have a schedule where we 
make plans, even at this critical time, we should try and look at that.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant: At the end of the bill, 
     insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 505. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made. 

[[Page H 6879]]

       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this is an 
amendment that has been incorporated in all of the appropriations 
bills. It is the same amendment that has been approved on all others. 
It poses no controversy. It provides that we might even buy some 
American-made products and give a little notice encouraging same.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the author 
of the amendment, for yielding. This is an amendment that you have 
championed for a number of years, very successfully.
  This committee has accepted it in the past, and the Republicans 
accept your amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank the chairman. I support his bill.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have no objections.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. markey

  Mr. MARKEY. 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. Markey: Page 29, after line 25, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 505. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Energy 
     Supply, Research and Development Activities'', and increasing 
     the amount made available for ``Nuclear Waste Disposal fund'' 
     and ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' 
     (consisting of an increase of $200,000,000 and $11,000,000, 
     respectively), by $211,000,000.


                             point of order

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly raise a point of 
order against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to 
increase an appropriation not authorized by law and, therefore, is in 
violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI. Although the original account 
funding from nuclear waste fund is unauthorized, it was permitted to 
remain pursuant to the provisions of the rule we are now considering 
that provided for consideration of this bill.
  When an authorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general 
appropriation bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in 
order, but the rules of the House apply a merely perfecting standard to 
the items permitted to remain and do not allow insertion of a new 
paragraph not part of the original text permitted to remain, to change 
indirectly a figure permitted to remain. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts cannot be construed as merely perfecting, 
and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment 
out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. MARKEY. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, on page 81 of the committee report, 
committee states itself quite clearly that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 authorize a 
waste management system for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste from commercial and atomic energy defense 
activities.
  These laws establish the nuclear waste disposal fund to finance 
disposal activities through the correction of fees from the owners and 
generators of nuclear waste. The committee recommends $226 million to 
be derived from the fund in fiscal year 1996, et cetera, et cetera.
  Clearly, the underlying Nuclear Waste Policy Act has authorized, and 
the Waste Policy Act of 1987 have authorized the money. That is the 
platform legislation which we are using for discussion in this
 debate, and any ruling to the contrary would negate the long 
historical legislative record in this area that clearly makes the 
amendment which I have before the House in order this evening.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to be heard?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  If the gentleman would go over to page 124, the committee has 
recognized those programs and agencies that are not authorized by law. 
You will find, pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the 
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law, and nuclear waste 
disposal fund is about the sixth one down.
  Mr. Chairman, in title XLII, section 10222, paragraph (e), the 
administration of a waste fund, the last section, the Secretary may 
make expenditures from the waste fund subject to appropriations which 
shall remain available until expended. Appropriations shall be subject 
to triennial authorization, very clearly.
  I insist on my point of order.
  Mr. MARKEY. Clearly, there is an internal contradictory position 
which the committee has taken within its own document.
  Page 81, they make it quite clear that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
and the Nuclear Waste Policy of 1982 and of 1987 each have authorized 
the waste management system, and then within their own document they 
negate that conclusion by the arbitrary statement that the nuclear 
waste disposal fund is not authorized. Clearly, there is right now an 
ongoing excavation at Yucca Mountain. Clearly, there is an ongoing 
collection of funds from all the nuclear electric utilities in the 
United States, and clearly the whole subject of this debate is premised 
upon the authorized 1982 and 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Acts.
  The statement by staff in a committee report later on that this is 
not, in fact, authorized only seeks to make possible the point of order 
which the gentleman is making right now, but clearly the earlier part 
of this legislation that is the committee report had to be stated this 
way in order for the committee to proceed at all.

                              {time}  1745

  So, any ruling by the Chair, notwithstanding the objection by the 
gentleman from Indiana, has to reflect the actuality that this 
committee has stated clearly, that the legislation has been--that this 
has been authorized and, in fact, has been authorized going back to 
1982, with continuing legislation in 1987, and the Chair in ruling, I 
think, should reflect the history of this entire area plus the very 
statement of the committee in their own document with regard to the 
authorizing of these funds.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, there has been long precedents in 
this House that conclusively establishes that the proponents of an 
amendment bear the burden of responsibility of establishing the 
appropriation added by the amendments is authorized in law. 
Nevertheless, I observe that the payments for the nuclear waste fund 
are subject to triannual, as we just cited in title XLII, 
authorization. Pursuant to the provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act of 1982, as amended, such authorization has not been enacted since 
1987, long past the established provisions of title XLII of the U.S. 
public health and welfare. It says they must be subject to a triannual
 authorization.

  I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. MARKEY. I wait for the Chair's ruling with great anticipation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] makes the point 
of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] violates clause 2 of rule XXI by providing an unauthorized 
appropriation.

[[Page H 6880]]

  The amendment proposes to insert a new paragraph on page 29 in title 
V that will indirectly change figures in three earlier paragraphs in 
title III on pages 16, 18, and 26. It would reduce the amount provided 
for energy supply, research and development, and increase the amounts 
provided for nuclear waste disposal and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
  The increases proposed by the amendment are not authorized by law. 
The Chair notes that the amounts already carried in the bill for those 
objects are likewise unauthorized, as indicated on pages 124 and 125 of 
the committee report and the law cited by the gentleman from Indiana, 
42 U.S.C. 10222(e). However, the unauthorized amounts in the bill were 
permitted to remain by House Resolution 171.
  Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a 
general appropriation bill, an amendment directly changing that amount 
in that paragraph, and not adding legislative language or earmarking 
separate funds for another unauthorized purpose, is in order as merely 
perfecting. But an amendment adding a further unauthorized amount is 
not in order.
  The precedents that admit a germane perfecting amendment to an 
unauthorized item permitted to remain--for example, Deschler's volume 
8, chapter 26, section 3.38--deal with actual changes in a figure 
permitted to remain. They apply a merely perfecting standard in the 
strictest sense of that phrase. None involve the insertion of a new 
paragraph--not part of the text permitted to remain--to change 
indirectly a figure permitted to remain.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot be 
construed as merely perfecting under the precedents. Accordingly, the 
Chair sustains the point of order.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee?
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255, 
noes 167, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 493]

                               AYES--255

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--167

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ackerman
     Browder
     Chapman
     Coburn
     Fox
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Longley
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1811

  Messrs. OWENS, KLECZKA, DURBIN, and BALDACCI changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FAZIO of California, DICKEY, HASTINGS of Florida, MFUME, and 
GORDON, and Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendment offered by mr. bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, preprinted, 
amendment No. 1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: At the end of the bill, 
     insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 505. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control 
     Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or 
     official to which the funds are made available that such 
     revision provides for an increase in the springtime water 
     release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow 
     melt period in States that have rivers draining into the 
     Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment which 
simply prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from revising the Missouri 
River Master Water Control Manual in such a way that it would increase 
the likelihood of springtime flooding.
  Such a commonsense amendment is needed to ensure that the corps does 
not repeat its previous mistake--a proposal which would have devastated 
farms, businesses, landowners, and countless communities along the 
Missouri River.

[[Page H 6881]]

  Last year the corps issued its proposed changes to the Master Manual 
and made a colossal blunder by proposing to drastically increase the 
flow and water level of the Missouri River during the months of April, 
May, and June. These obviously are the very months when States such as 
Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri are already most vulnerable to 
flooding due to the mountain snow melt in the Rocky Mountain West and 
heavy spring rains swelling the immediate watersheds of the Missouri 
River tributaries in the four-State area.
  It's bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river 
have to contend with natural disasters. They shouldn't be forced to 
deal with the kind of man-made disasters which would have been caused 
by the corps' proposal. The floods of 1993 and the heavy rains this 
spring offer clear and convincing proof that the corps' recent proposal 
was seriously flawed.
  At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River basin 
region, many hundreds of participants expressed very strong, even 
vociferous and nearly unanimous opposition to a number of provisions in 
the corps' preferred alternative. One of the most detested provisions 
was the proposed increase in its so-called ``spring rise.''
   Mr. Chairman, following this massive opposition to the proposed 
changes, the corps acknowledged the flaws in the original proposal and 
expressed a willingness to reevaluate the issue. Hopefully, the corps 
has gotten the message loud and clear and now understands the 
devastation which would be caused by the spring rise they originally 
envisioned. However, this Member believes this common sense amendment 
is needed to make absolutely certain that the corps does not repeat 
this mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, I know a couple of my colleagues would also like to 
speak on this. I yield to a colleague and neighbor who has been working 
very diligently on this effort, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Bereuter 
amendment and to commend my colleague and friend from Nebraska on 
offering this amendment.
  The Bereuter amendment prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from 
spending any funds to implement changes in the corps' Missouri River 
Master Control Manual that would increase springtime water releases 
along the river or its tributaries.
  I have been pleased to work with Mr. Bereuter and roughly two dozen 
colleagues who represent areas downstream on the Missouri or Lower 
Mississippi Rivers to oppose the so-called ``preferred alternative'' 
for river management.
  This plan would have resulted in exactly the type of spring-time 
flooding increases the Bereuter amendment seeks to prevent.
  These spring rises coupled with fall flow reductions would have been 
extremely damaging to my constituents, their land and our local 
economy.
  Fortunately, the Army Corps' Omaha office, under the very able 
leadership of Cmdr. Mike Thuss, has come to the sensible conclusion 
that the ``preferred alternative'' is seriously flawed and a 
comprehensive revaluation of water control alternatives is needed.
  I hope as this effort continues, all my colleagues who represent 
districts where river navigation and flood control are important will 
work with Mr. Bereuter, Ms. Danner of Missouri other Members and myself 
who are interested in this issue to ensure that the Federal 
Government's historic commitment to flood control and river navigation 
continues.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska for yielding to me, and I rise in very strong support of his 
amendment and commend him for his action here.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bereuter amendment to 
prohibit any of the bill's funds from being used to make any changes in 
the Corps of Engineers' Missouri River Master Manual for their plan to 
increase spring-time water release along the Missouri River and its 
tributaries. The so-called ``Preferred Alternative'' is being touted by 
the Corps of Engineers on behalf of recreational interests and radicals 
in the environmental community who want to shut our inland waterway 
system down and restore the breeding ground for the ever-elusive Pallid 
Sturgeon. Put simply, this plan is misguided and ill-conceived. It 
would have a devastating impact on agriculture, flood control, and 
navigation on most of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
  The Missouri and Mississippi inland waterway system is a major link 
for commerce and industry in order to move goods and services 
throughout America and around the globe. In fact the Missouri River 
alone is responsible for the shipment of 2.5 million tons of commercial 
cargo each year. In addition, as its largest tributary, the Missouri 
River provides 45 percent to 65 percent of the water that flows into 
the Mississippi River between St. Louis, MO and Cairo, IL--a stretch 
responsible for tons of cargo valued at $16 billion annually. More than 
70 percent of the Nation's total grain exports are handled through 
Mississippi River port elevators and one half of the total grain 
exports eventually end up in New Orleans. The controversial plan that 
some political types would force the corps to foist on the public would 
significantly shorten the barge season in the fall when commerce and 
agriculture need water the most to carry their goods to market. It 
would put barge operators out of business and ruin river 
transportation. Quite clearly, agriculture and navigation are the 
targets here--clear them out and shut down the river.
  Moreover, the plan proposes to raise the level of water on the 
Missouri in the springtime--a time of the year when the river is at its 
highest level. After the Midwest floods of 1993 environmental 
extremists made ridiculous assumptions that it was the levees that 
caused the flooding and that we couldn't build them back. Well, I 
submit to you that if this plan were to go into effect we won't need 
the levees because each spring the corps will release an extra 20,000 
cubic feet per second of water during the flood-prone spring months and 
it will devastate communities protected along the river. All of this in 
the name of protecting water skiers and a fish.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the Environmental 
Protection Agency--a Federal agency whose work I rarely extol on this 
floor--has studied the corps' plan. They claim, and I quote, ``the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers draft environmental impact statement for the 
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual is environmentally 
unsatisfactory . . . contains inadequate information . . . and is 
likely to result in little, if any, improvement to the Missouri River 
ecosystem, including habitat for federally listed threatened or 
endangered species.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment 
and preserve our navigation, our flood control, and inland waterway 
system as we know it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I, too, wish to commend the gentleman from Nebraska for this amendment.
  As one who has suffered from the floods in the Missouri River Basin 
in the year of 1993 and again this spring, I realize that the master 
plan as originally drafted and if implemented by the corps would have 
meant the types of floods that we had in 1993 and again this spring in 
1995 would have been almost an annual thing in the spring, with the 
spring rains and all the thaws up north and the release of the waters 
from the reservoirs in the north. It would have meant that we would 
have had an annual flood. And it does not make sense in order to do so.
  It also would have meant that in the time frame of August through 
December, we would have such a low flow in the Missouri River that we 
would not have any ability to have barge transportation to move our 
agriculture products. It just did not make sense.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska. We have been working 
together, those of us from the States of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, 
Illinois, and others, in order to make sure that this does not happen. 
The gentleman has a very good amendment. I urge the House to adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, my sister has been sandbagging in the 
gentleman's district the last 2 years and hopefully she will not have 
to do it the third year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my wife was sandbagging in 1993 in my home 
town of Lexington. I point out that my home is on the Missouri River 
and, throughout my lifetime, I have seen the problems of the rising of 
the spring floods. And I want to commend the gentleman for this 
amendment.

[[Page H 6882]]

  I also wish to point out that had the master manual plan gone into 
effect, it would have been devastating for all of us, particularly for 
agriculture in the State of Missouri.
  The gentleman who has heard us in the Corps of Engineers, and I wish 
to pay tribute to him, Colonel Mike Thuss, has done a remarkable job of 
listening and hopefully his recommendations will be along the line that 
will be suitable for all of Missouri for agriculture and for those 
downstream people who depend so much upon the natural flow of this 
river.
  I thank the gentleman, and I support the amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. 
Pomeroy].
  (Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I recognize the legitimacy of the concern he seeks to address. Speaking 
from the upstream perspective on the Missouri River, there is a word of 
reservation I want to advance about dealing in an appropriations bill 
with the minutiae of the administrative branch, in this case the Corps 
of Engineers. The process has already worked as it should. The Corps of 
Engineers had extensive hearings on the spring rise proposal and 
received a ton of input, nearly all of it negative. They no longer have 
plans, as I understand it, to implement the spring rise proposal as 
initially advanced. They are back to the drawing board.
  Therefore, this kind of restriction imposed without hearing in the 
appropriations process is, in my opinion, not necessary, although I do 
acknowledge the gentleman's concern and would note that my wife, in 
1993, spent 3 weeks working in Iowa on the flooding there.
  Mr. Chairman, from its origins in Montana to its end near St. Louis, 
the mighty Missouri River is managed and controlled by the Army Corps 
of Engineers. Five years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers began a 
review of its river management plan, commonly called the master manual. 
This was the first major review of the manual since it was implemented 
in 1960.
  This fair and objective review process, now underway, has included 
Representatives of each of the States affected by the Missouri River 
and the master manual, including Mr. Bereuter. At this point, Congress 
should not alter this process within the energy and water 
appropriations bill.
  Last month, the corps informed Members of Congress of preliminary 
draft recommendations for reviewing and updating the master manual. The 
corps has received thousands of comments on its initial draft 
recommendation and is specifically concerned with its draft proposal as 
it relates the spring rise. The corps is addressing the spring rise 
issue in a revised draft that will be released in 1997.
  To be brief, the process is working as intended. The corps put forth 
a proposal that contained a number of flaws, including the spring rise. 
Now the corps is reexamining those issues to develop an alternative 
that will be acceptable to those affected by the spring rise and other 
Missouri River management concerns.
  This Congress should not get involved with the specifics of the 
master manual. Instead, we should allow the process to proceed as it 
has with input from all interested and affected parties.
  In fact, I do not necessarily oppose the intentions of my friend, Mr. 
Bereuter, in addressing his concerns of the spring rise. However, 
within the process of revising the master control manual we should not 
address specifics of revising the manual within this appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that as the elected 
Representatives of the people, they expect us to take action when 
appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from Missouri 
[Ms. Danner].
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's 
amendment. Let me say, for those of us who represent areas that have 
been flooded, not only in 1993 but in the other serious flood in 1995, 
we know that we have issues that need to be addressed.
  I believe that the gentleman's amendment does that. I am pleased to 
have been able to work with you during this period of time so that we 
could bring to the attention of the Corps of Engineers that there were 
some flaws in their proposal, flaws that needed to be corrected. I 
think that this will go a long way in that direction.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone: Page 29, after line 25 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 505. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for the 
     following account is hereby reduced by the following amount:
       (1) ``Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund'', aggregate amount, 
     $1,000.

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana reserves a point of order.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is basically 
to reduce the amount of money that is set aside for interim storage of 
nuclear waste and essentially make the point that there is not enough 
funding for a permanent repository.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I 
believe we have a responsibility to both the taxpayers and the 
ratepayers of our county to ensure that we have a safe and 
environmentally sound permanent repository for our Nation's nuclear 
waste.
  I also believe that we need to make good on the Federal Government's 
commitment to utilities to assume responsibility for this waste.
  However, I do not think it is fair to anyone to sacrifice long-term 
disposal for short-term gain. In fact, in the course of two 
comprehensive hearings held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, it 
became abundantly clear that long-term storage was the priority for all 
interested parties. That is why I am concerned about the language that 
is in this bill that funds interim storage yet directs DOE to downgrade 
or terminate its activities at Yucca Mountain.
  This language, in addition to being at odds with existing law, I 
believe, jeopardizes the important gains we've made in the last 2 years 
toward siting a permanent repository by focusing funding on an 
unauthorized interim storage facility. The amendment I am offering 
makes a token reduction in the waste disposal fund, which is necessary 
for the amendment to be in order, but my intent is to redirect the 
focus of the program back to
 building a permanent waste repository.

  I understand the desire to have interim storage, even though onsite 
storage is safe, and I am not opposed to the idea of interim storage. 
However, I believe the Federal Government has a moral and statutory 
responsibility to continue with site characterization work for a 
permanent repository.
  My amendment would allow the Government to fulfill its responsibility 
to permanently dispose of nuclear waste by indicating the intent of 
Congress that funds appropriated in this bill for the DOE and NRC be 
used for site characterization of Yucca Mountain. This is the most 
responsible approach we can take at this time.
  I don't think I have to remind my colleagues that what we are talking 
about here is ratepayer money. This program is wholly funded by monies 
paid in good faith by the users of nuclear power. In fact, nuclear 
utility customers have paid billions of dollars into the fund beyond 
what has been spent and they continue to pay more each year than we 
appropriate. So restoring proper direction to this program is, in 
effect, only an effort to make good on the agreement we made with the 
ratepayers. These ratepayers provide us with more than $600 million in 
funding for this program each year: It's only fair that we use that 
money for the purpose it was intended.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee is willing to 
accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a 
point of order.

[[Page H 6883]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gunderson

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson: Page 29, after line 25, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 505. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 
     Waterway System Navigation Study may be used to study any 
     portion of the Upper Mississippi River located above Lock and 
     Dam 14 at Moline, Illinois, and Bettendorf, Iowa, except that 
     the limitation in this section shall not apply to the 
     conducting of any system-wide environmental baseline study 
     pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

  Mr. GUNDERSON (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 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
explained his amendment to the committee. We accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Oxley, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1905) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution No. 171, had directed him to report the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, 
nays 27, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 494]

                               YEAS--400

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--27

     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bilbray
     Brown (CA)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     McDermott
     Nadler
     Owens
     Parker
     Reed
     Roemer
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Vento
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Browder
     Fox
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Longley
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1847

  Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. TUCKER, and Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________