[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11502-H11513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1905, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 248, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 
1905), making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

[[Page H11503]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the conference 
report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of October 26, 1995, at page H10913.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 12 of this year, the House passed H.R. 1905, and 
on August 1, the Senate passed similar legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, after the August recess, our conferees, from both the 
House and Senate, started working through September and most of October 
trying to work out the differences in the bills between the two bodies.
  The major difference was that the Senate had about a billion and a 
half more 602(b) allocation than the House had to work with. We had a 
reallocation, but we still had some problems about the priorities of 
what programs we would fund and at what figure.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have worked diligently, and for this I thank the 
members of the conference and the staff who have been working almost 
daily since the middle of September trying to resolve the differences. 
We thank all of them and, again, I thank particularly the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. The gentleman and I have worked together for 
almost 30 years now, most of which have been on this subcommittee and 
under the chairmanship of the gentleman. More recently, under my 
chairmanship, we have continued to work together closely.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report is $19.3 billion, which is $654 
million more than the House-passed version; however, it is $833 million 
less than the Senate. The important thing is that the bill is $707 
million below the level appropriated for 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, we have moved in the right direction. The conference 
report is $1.23 billion less than the President requested. This is the 
lowest appropriations for energy and water since 1990. We are heading 
in the right direction.
  We have downsized Government. We have made some significant 
reductions. We have 35 programs that we have terminated. As has been 
mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], we have a few 
other programs that we intend to terminate next year, but we are giving 
warning that we just cannot continue to fund some of the 
responsibilities that rightfully could be the States', and should be 
the States', or that should not be funded at all.
  Mr. Speaker, in no instance did an agency or department funded by 
this energy and water bill receive appropriations exceeding last year's 
level. The one exception is in defense. The nondefense discretionary 
amount is $8.7 billion, which is a 13 percent reduction from last year.
  In those reductions, we reduced the Corps of Engineers by $138 
million from last year's level. The Bureau of Reclamation has been 
reduced by $31 million from last year's level. The Department of 
Energy, including defense, has been reduced by $173 million. ARC, the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, has been reduced by $102 million.
  The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] mentioned the Tennessee 
Valley Authority. We reduced that by $29 million. The Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission is reduced by $35 million. The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission was reduced by $52 million. This is to mention just a few of 
the significant reductions that we did make.
  However, we did increase defense spending. A lot of my colleagues do 
not realize that a large amount of our funding is in defense. Nearly 60 
percent of our bill is defense. Most of it, of course, is in the 
nuclear side of defense.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a 16-percent cut in DOE administrative costs 
with the exception of defense. We require the Department of Energy to 
reduce its support contracts by 50 percent. It is shocking to see how 
many employees they have. DOE has many more contract employees doing 
various types of work than they have of their own departmental 
employees.
  Defense spending is $10.6 billion. That is a $550 million increase 
from last year, all in defense. We have increased defense cleanup, 
environmental restoration and waste management. Last year we 
appropriated $4.9 billion, and this year we have included $5.556 
billion, which is an increase of 13.5 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the only dramatic increase that we have in our 
bill. It is the one area where we were probably a little bit more 
generous than we should have been. We recognize that there are some 
defense production sites in this country where there is a cleanup job 
to be done. But DOE has done a miserable job of cleaning up most of 
these sites.
  Mr. Speaker, they have been wasting money. More people and more money 
is just not the answer. We have somewhat of an agreement with the 
Senate that we are going to manage this a little bit better. We will 
have to help the DOE with some changes in legislation to help them do a 
better job, because there is an enormous job to be done here.
  We recognize that this bill is larger than the House passed bill. We 
have made some significant reductions that I have not mentioned. 
Reductions in fusion are larger than some people would have liked. I am 
sure we are going to hear about the reduction we made in solar. But we 
have no choice but to make these reductions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is not the bill that many of us 
would have liked to have seen, but it is a bill that I think we all can 
live with. I urge that all my colleagues support the conference report.
  Again, I thank those staff and members of the conference who 
struggled since August to get to this point today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 
1905, a bill making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 1905 is in my judgment, 
balanced and fair. It begins the difficult job of reducing the cost, 
size, and scope of Federal programs within the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. At the same time, the 
conference report continues to fund critical priorities and necessary 
governmental activities.
  At this time, I would like to thank my colleagues from the other body 
for their efforts in reaching agreement on this bill. The chairman of 
the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senator Pete 
Domenici, captained his maiden voyage aboard the S.S. Energy and Water 
with the skill of an old salt. The conference committee benefited from 
the experience and knowledge of Senator Bennett Johnston, ranking 
minority member and former chairman. Senator Mark Hatfield, the 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and Senator Robert 
Byrd, the ranking minority member, both actively participated in the 
conference and helped produce a balanced agreement.
  Special recognition is due the Members of the House Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development who participated as conferees. Their 
tenacity, fair-mindedness, and spirit of team play animated their able 
and vigorous representation of the House. The entire body owes them its 
gratitude. I am also appreciative of the efforts and guidance of the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Honorable 
Bob Livingston.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference committee on H.R. 1905 concluded its work 
on Wednesday, October 25 after 2 days of difficult negotiations. The 
biggest difficulty confronting the conferees concerned the overall size 
of the bill. The Senate-passed version of the bill totalled $20.2 
billion, nearly $1.5 billion more than the House total of $18.7 
billion. In the end, it was necessary for the House conferees to accept 
more spending than contained in the original House bill. Consistent 
with the budget resolution and the majority's commitment to national 
security, however, the increase was devoted almost entirely to the 
atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy.
  At $19.3 billion, the conference report is approximately $650 million 
higher than the House-passed bill. On the other hand, the conference 
report is: $833 million below the Senate-passed bill; $707 million 
below the fiscal year 1995 level; and $1.23 billion below the Senate-
passed bill; $707 million below the fiscal year 1995 level; and $1.23 
billion below the Administration's request. Most remarkably, the 
conference report is $272 million below the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation of new budget authority. In other words, the bill is 

[[Page H11504]]

$272 million less than the conference committee was entitled to 
appropriate pursuant to the joint budget resolution for fiscal year 
1996.
  Before proceeding to specific highlights of the bill, I would remind 
the Members that H.R. 1905 passed the House on July 12 by a vote of 400 
to 27. The House conferees were mindful and appreciative of this 
overwhelming expression of support and sought to protect and fortify 
that support in conference. I believe we have produced an agreement 
that all Members can support and which the President can sign. The 
President, by the way, has not issued a veto threat in respect to H.R. 
1905.
  Title I of H.R. 1905 includes appropriations for the Army Corps of 
Engineers. At $3.2 billion, spending in this title is $138 million 
below the fiscal year 1995 level. Savings were accomplished through the 
elimination of several programs and projects that are ancillary to the 
principal missions of the Corps. Program terminations include: 
Environmental Service Partnerships; Economic Impacts of Global Warming 
Research; River Confluence Ice Research; and the Real Time Water 
Control Research Program.
  Significantly, both the House and Senate emphatically rejected the 
proposed new policy of the Corps of Engineers, which would have 
effectively eliminated the traditional role of the Corps in local flood 
control, beach protection, and small harbor maintenance. The conferees 
recognized the imperative to prioritize projects and realize savings in 
other areas before compromising core missions and functions of this 
critical agency.
  Title II of the bill contains funding for certain functions of the 
Department of the Interior, particularly the Bureau of Reclamation. 
Title II contains spending of $800 million, $31 million below the 
fiscal year 1995 level. The House and Senate both appropriated $10 
million for construction of the Animas-LaPlata project in Colorado. The 
conferees also included legislative language directing the Secretary of 
the Interior to proceed without delay with the construction of this 
important reclamation project. The conferees are hopeful that the 
promises of this project will be finally realized and that the terms of 
the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 will soon 
be fulfilled.
  Title III of H.R. 1905 contains funding for the Department of Energy. 
Major savings are realized through reductions in the domestic 
discretionary functions of the Department. In respect to these 
functions, the budget is reduced by $727 million or 13 percent from 
last year's level. Administrative operations are reduced by 
approximately 16 percent.
  Funding for specific programs includes: $275 million for solar and 
renewable energy programs, $148 million below the budget request; $231 
million for nuclear energy programs; $149 million below the budget 
request; $244 million for fusion energy, $119 million below the budget 
request; $792 million for basic energy sciences, $14 million below the 
budget request; and $981 million for general science and research, $31 
million below the budget request. Among other things, the conference 
agreement terminates the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor program, 
In-House Energy Management, and the Russian Replacement Power 
Initiative.
  The atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy are 
funded at a level of $10.6 billion, approximately $554 million above 
the fiscal year 1995 level. The largest increase in defense programs is 
for environmental restoration and waste management at the Nation's 
nuclear production facilities. The appropriation for this account is 
$5.56 billion, an increase of $665 million over the fiscal year 1995 
level. The agreement also includes $37 million, the same as the budget 
requests, for the National Ignition Facility.
  The conference agreement provides a total of $400 million for the 
Department's civilian radioactive waste program. The agreement makes 
$85 million of this total available only for an interim storage 
facility for nuclear waste and only upon the enactment of specific 
statutory authority. The conference committee deferred to the 
authorizing committees of jurisdiction to enact necessary programmatic 
reforms to both the nuclear waste disposal and clean-up programs.
  Title IV of the bill contains funding for several independent 
agencies. Total funding for these agencies is $312 million, a $144 
million or 32 percent reduction from the fiscal year 1995 level. The 
conference report requires dramatic decreases for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, -$102 million; the Tennessee Valley Authority, 
-$29 million; and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, -$52 million. 
Final year funding is provided for the Susquehanna River Basin 
Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate 
Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
  At the insistence of the Senate and with the support of House Members 
from the Pacific Northwest, the conference agreement includes a general 
provision to permit the Bonneville Power Administration to sell excess 
power, under certain contractual conditions, outside the Pacific 
Northwest. The provision also gives the Administrator of BPA the 
authority to offer certain separation incentives to facilitate agency 
downsizing.
  Mr. Speaker, I note that the Congressional Record of Thursday, 
October 26 contains numerous typographical errors in respect to the 
conference report on H.R. 1905 and the accompanying joint statement of 
managers that are printed in that edition. I ask that I may be 
permitted at this point in the proceedings to include an errata sheet 
correcting those errors. I would also like to include a tabular summary 
of the energy and water appropriations for fiscal year 1996 at this 
point in the Record.

   Errata Sheet for Congressional Record, Thursday, October 26, 1995

       On page H10914, column 3, line 42: insert a comma before 
     the word ``where''.
       On page H10914, column 3, line 64: insert the word ``be'' 
     after the word ``may''.
       On page H10915, column 1, line 22: strike ``Prestonburg'' 
     and insert ``Prestonsburg''.
       On page H10915, column 2, line 69: strike the period.
       On page H10915, column 2, line 70: strike ``And'' and 
     insert ``; and''.
       On page H10915, column 3, line 60: insert a period before 
     the word ``The''.
       On page H10916, column 1, line 50: insert the word ``and'' 
     after the word ``Planning''.
       On page H10916, column 3, line 69: strike the comma after 
     the word ``project'' and insert a period.
       On page H10918, column 1, line 82: strike ``$2,000,000'' 
     and insert ``$200,000''.
       On page H10918, column 3, line 77: strike ``wit'' and 
     insert ``with''.
       On page H10919, column 3, line 29-30: strike ``requirement. 
     Between'' and insert ``requirements between''.
       On page H10919, column 3, line 55: strike ``Prestonburg'' 
     and insert ``Prestonsburg''.
       On page H10936: Above the heading ``Alabama'', insert the 
     following center head: ``CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND 
     MAINTENANCE''.
       On page H10937-41: At the top of each page, strike ``FLOOD 
     CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES'' and insert 
     ``OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE''.
       On page H10949, column 1, line 69: strike ``is'' and insert 
     ``in''.
       On page H10949, column 3, line 18: strike ``Program'' and 
     insert ``Programs''.
       On page H10949, column 3, line 46: strike ``to'' and insert 
     ``the''.
       On page H10954, column 2, line 73: strike ``now'' and 
     insert ``nor''.
       On page H10955, column 2, line 38: strike ``for'' and 
     insert ``of''.
       On page H10955, column 2, line 72: strike ``will'' and 
     insert ``well''.
       On page H10956, column 1, line 26: strike ``and'' and 
     insert ``an''.
       On page H10956, column 2, line 68: strike ``fuel'' and 
     insert ``fuels''.
       On page H10956, column 3, line 39: strike ``other'' and 
     insert ``Other''.
       On page H10956, column 3, line 78: insert ``Reactor'' after 
     ``Research''.
       On page H10957, column 3, line 75: strike ``that'' and 
     insert ``than''.
       On page H10973, column 1, line 41: strike ``federal'' and 
     insert ``Federal''.
       On page H10973, column 1, line 64: strike ``$474,3000,000'' 
     and insert ``$474,300,000''.
       On page H10973, column 3, line 37: strike ``Hospital-
     passed'' and insert ``House-passed''.
       On page H10974, column 1, line 64: strike ``program'' and 
     insert ``progress''.
       On page H10974, column 2, line 15: strike ``Power'' and 
     insert ``power''.
       On page H10974, column 2, line 86: strike ``1966'' and 
     insert ``1996''.

[[Page H11505]]
     TH31OC95.004
     


[[Page H11506]]
     TH31OC95.005
     

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not pay 
a special tribute to the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, 
the Honorable Tom Bevill. Mr. Bevill is one of the true gentlemen of 
the House who enjoys the respect and admiration of all his colleagues. 
I am particularly grateful that I had the opportunity to benefit from 
his counsel, his wisdom, and his friendship.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to vote ``aye'' on the 
conference report on H.R. 1905.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for 30 minutes.
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill today, and I recommend 
the approval of this bill.
  This bill, when it passed the House, received the biggest vote that 
this particular bill has ever received in its history. And the vote was 
400 to something like 23, I believe. I want to certainly commend the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], my colleague of many years and my 
friend. We have worked together for many years on this particular 
committee. This is the gentleman's first time to present this bill as 
chairman. I want to commend the gentleman. He has done a great job. He 
has been great to work with. We both recommend this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a nonpartisan bill. We are in 
agreement that we have to cut the size of our Federal Government. We 
are in agreement that we have to cut the spending and get our country 
back on a sound financial basis.
  With that in mind, 2 years ago this bill contained $22 billion. This 
year, it is $19.3 billion. So, the difference there is more than a $2 
billion difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I present this bill to you, with the reduction that has 
been made. As a matter of fact, since the 1994 bill, that amounts to 
13-percent below the 1994 appropriation bill. It is 6-percent less than 
what the President requested.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had to make some tough choices, but I want to 
say 

[[Page H11507]]

we recommend this bill to our colleagues as certainly reasonable under 
the circumstances. The circumstances are that we have to reduce and 
make these cuts and that has not been easy to do.
  Many good programs that we would like to have seen more fully funded 
are not being funded as well as we would like to see. All the way 
through the bill, we have made some tough choices. Fifty-four percent 
of this bill now is defense. This is all nuclear defense, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, and the nuclear waste cleanup and all of these. 
It plays a big role in the defense of our Nation. As a matter of fact, 
over half of the bill, 54 percent, is defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support and vote for this bill.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama 
[Mr. Bevill] for the nice words.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg], a very hard-working member of this subcommittee who 
attended every meeting that we had.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Chairman 
John Myers, ranking member Tom Bevill, and the rest of the conferees 
who worked long and hard on this bill.
  By legend, Halloween is a night filled with fear wrought by ghouls, 
ghosts, and goblins. Yet in contrast, tonight America should sleep a 
little sounder knowing their children's future is a little brighter. 
With a balanced budget in sight, America's children can look forward to 
achieving the American dream.
  In an effort to reduce the budget deficit, we have made real cuts in 
energy and water programs and produced a good bill.
  I understand that many Members would have cut further. Frankly, I 
would support deeper cuts in some areas. Others may have cut less. But 
we have produced a balanced bill, one that cuts wasteful spending, 
while maintaining important programs in the Department of Energy, the 
Department of Interior, and related agencies.
  This bill is far from business as usual. We cut the Department of 
Energy by $173 million and we cut the entire energy and water budget by 
$707 million. Our budget is $1.4 billion below the Clinton 
administration's budget request.
  We made cuts in several programs including: We cut $138 million for 
the Army Corps of Engineers; we cut $113 million in solar and 
renewables; we cut $119 million in fusion energy; we cut $29 million 
for the Tennessee Valley Authority; and we cut $102 million in the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
  I am encouraged by the progress we made toward reducing the costs of 
our Nation's energy and water programs. I look forward to making even 
deeper cuts in the following fiscal years as we work to eliminate the 
deficit.
  The Federal Government does not exist only to reduce the deficit and 
balance the budget. It has a responsibility to ensure the safe, 
economical, and productive stewardship of our national energy 
interests.
  But when the power of the Federal Government is abused; when the 
treasury of the Federal Government is wasted; when the size of the 
Federal Government is too large and too expensive, then it becomes 
imperative that we focus on reducing the deficit and regain control of 
our national priorities.
  So let the children get spooked a little tonight by the ghosts and 
goblins. But when it comes to our children's future, give them some 
hope and security. Vote in favor of deficit reduction. Vote in favor of 
the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Conference report.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the 
committee. This subcommittee works very hard and brings together a bill 
this year like so many other years that our President, whatever party 
he or she may be in, can sign.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], who chaired 
the committee for the first time, for maintaining the bipartisan spirit 
of the subcommittee and for really working together with the rest of 
the Members on both sides of the aisle to set priorities under very 
difficult budget restraints.
  This bill peaked in terms of funding in 1993 when we appropriated a 
little over $22 billion for the Corps of Engineers, the Department of 
Interior, the Department of Energy, and a variety of independent 
agencies. We have been tracking down for the last 3 years, now down for 
the first time since 1990, to below the $20 billion mark. It is a very 
important bill for many parts of the country, certainly because flood 
control, the providence of the Corps of Engineers, is contained in this 
bill.
  The corps' budget, I might show, is below 1995's by $137 million. It 
is below the President's budget of $106 million.
  For those areas of the country that are vulnerable to flooding, that 
have high flood insurance costs, the corps' program is essential. Yet I 
think it is fair to say, in the next few years at least and perhaps 
even longer, we are going to see its budget tracking further downward, 
and we are going to have to find a new way to allocate corps' funds 
across the spectrum.
  This, of course, is the bill that includes the environmental cleanup 
of the Department of Energy's defense-related functions. It includes, I 
think, a very important continuing ban on the sale of power marketing 
administrations; and it also, I think, meets with some sort of 
bipartisan satisfaction the need to proceed on renewable energy. The 
solar and renewable program which in my view is not enough was 
substantially improved in the conference committee, and I think it is 
now something all of us can stand behind.
  The conference also restored the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation funds which are so vital to salmon recovery efforts in the 
northwest and in northern California.
  But I want to say, once again, that this is a good example of how a 
committee made up of people of differing points of view can work 
together in a very contentious year, bringing about, I think, the 
bipartisan measure that I am so proud to support here today.
  I have been a member of this committee for 16 years, and I am still a 
junior member as it relates to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. I have been joined by a 
whole bunch of new Members in this Congress. But I think we have all 
learned to work together.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Bevill] in their positive example, their open-mindedness, their 
fairness to everybody, to every region of the country, really are the 
epitome of why the Committee on Appropriations is still where many 
Members want to be. I am very proud to be associated with them.
  The initiatives that we continue, in some cases limit in this bill, I 
see it as the model of what we ought to be doing, and I think is a good 
example of why this bill will once again be signed into law and will be 
something we can all look back on with pride.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for the very generous words.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Committee on Science that this 
committee works very closely with.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to follow the junior 
Member from California who just spoke.
  The fact is that this is a good bill, and I appreciate the work that 
the committee has done on this particular bill. We have enjoyed a very 
good partnership in the Committee on Science with the subcommittee on a 
number of these issues. I think this bill does reflect in large part 
the priorities of the authorization process, and we are very 
appreciative of the willingness, to work together toward addressing 
some of the priorities in the energy area.
  I particularly want to express my thanks to the gentleman from 
Indiana and the gentleman from Alabama for the work that they have done 
toward helping to increase the priority on the hydrogen program. I 
think this is something where research being done in the area of 
hydrogen is going to produce some results that will really benefit this 
country in the next century.
  The two gentlemen have really demonstrated a willingness to look 
beyond just the priorities for this year, to look out into the future 
and to help this Nation to achieve energy independence 

[[Page H11508]]

with an absolutely clean fuel. I want to thank them for the work that 
they have done in that area.
  We have some challenges ahead that this bill does indicate. The 
fusion program is one that we are going to have to continue to work 
with, and I think we are going to have some problems with the 
Department of Energy as we attempt to move that program more into the 
international arena. This subcommittee and our authorizing committee 
are going to have to be very, very diligent about watching that program 
to assure that the right kinds of priorities get addressed there in the 
future.
  But this is a good bill. I congratulate the subcommittee for bringing 
it to the floor. I look forward to voting for the bill and urge other 
Members to do the same.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and 
especially of its flood control provisions. I would first like to thank 
Chairman Myers and ranking member Bevill for their hard work and for 
the opportunity to speak on this conference report.
  Earlier this year the Army Corps of Engineers proposed phasing out 
Federal funding for local flood control projects.
  I strongly opposed this plan, and I am pleased that the conferees 
have rejected this proposal in their report.
  In many coastal States, including my State of Texas, this plan would 
have been devastating.
  This year alone we have experienced a record number of hurricanes 
hitting our Nation's shores. These storms have destroyed the homes and 
businesses of thousands of Americans. But the damage would have been 
much worse without flood control efforts.
  For example, during October 1994, southeast Texas suffered some of 
the worst flooding our area had ever seen. In Houston, major highways 
transformed into treacherous rivers in a matter of hours. Several lives 
and millions of dollars in homes and property were lost.
  While flood control projects can't prevent all of the damage caused 
by these storms, these projects do protect lives and property in low-
lying areas, such as southeast Texas.
  Under the corp's original plan, badly needed projects in the Houston 
area, including Brays, Greens, and Clear Bayous, would not have been 
completed, because they were not considered nationally significant.
  This change would have threatened the safety of our constituents and 
their property and placed a heavy financial burden on our State and 
local governments. Local taxpayers would have to pay the lion's share 
of the cost needed to complete these projects.
  Even as this Congress considers turning over many responsibilities to 
State and local governments, I believe we should maintain Federal 
support for flood control. But, I also believe we can improve how we 
fund and manage these projects, and I hope to address this issue during 
consideration of the Water Resources and Development Act 
reauthorization bill sometime next year.
  Our safety, our infrastructure, and our economy depend on proper 
flood control. This conference report meets the needs of our 
communities and States, including southeast Texas. I thank Mr. Myers 
and Mr. Bevill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Frelinghuysen], a freshman member of our subcommittee; but by his work 
effort and output you would not know he is a freshman. The fusion 
dollars are where they are today because of his efforts and hard work.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time and for his kind remarks about New Jersey.
  I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1905, making 
appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1996. I 
thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for their leadership and guidance.
  As Chairman Myers said, this conference agreement is $1,23 billion 
below the President's budget request and is $707 million less than 
fiscal year 1995. This report moves the country one step closer towards 
a goal of balancing the Federal budget. It provides for essential 
national and regional priorities in programs at the Department of 
Energy and within the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Overall, the agreement reflects the changing priorities of the new 
Congress by reducing spending. We had to make the tough choices about 
where to cut spending, while supporting programs that are in the best 
interest of our country. As House conferees, we were successful in 
keeping the bill closer to spending in the original House bill than the 
bill which passed the Senate, which is $1.5 billion over the House-
passed bill.
  I am pleased that the conference agreement flatly rejected the 
President's new policy changes which would have ended the Federal role 
in flood control and coastal protection. By rejecting the President's 
policy, which was ill-conceived, New Jersey and other shore States and 
flood-prone areas will be protected again.
  Even though this agreement does not go as far as I would have liked 
in reforming some of our spending programs, it does represent real 
progress towards a smaller, smarter Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Chairman Myers. Chairman Myers has 
done a terrific job. It is a tough job that we are involved in.
  I would also like to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] have worked together as a team. 
The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] has been always fair over the 
years and worked hard and diligently to see that our tax dollars are 
being used wisely and in a nonpartisan fashion, and that is what the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is doing right now. I want to thank 
both of them for their good job. They have kept the faith with all of 
us this year, and I appreciate it.
  On appropriations for energy R&D, the conference report they have 
brought back looks remarkably like the bill that we passed in 
September. That means our conferees did a mighty good job in holding to 
the House position. This is good news for those of us who support 
funding for both fundamental scientific research and support a balanced 
budget.
  This bill reduces overall funding for the energy R&D account by $600 
million from the 1995 levels. Yet basic energy sciences and high energy 
physics accounts are increased by $61 million.
  Those who do not support the balanced budget say we are cutting 
science. But, as Members can see by those figures, something else is 
going on. We get most of our savings from programs that have little to 
do with scientific research, for example, demonstration projects, 
foreign assistance programs, market development and promotion programs, 
these things that belong in the private sector, or perhaps should not 
be funded at all.
  For example, we save $40 million off the President's request for 
something called solar technology transfer. All of the money in this 
program goes for direct commercialization efforts and educational 
outreach programs. There is no science or no research to be found in 
that $40 million.
  That is how we are saving money in order to make sure we balance the 
budget while at the same time preserving the basic scientific research 
programs on which this country depends.
  The priorities in this bill are the priorities that the House 
endorsed in passing both the authorization and appropriation bills. 
Should we be completely satisfied? No, we should not be completely 
satisfied. Of course not. A conference report is, by definition, a 
compromise.
  But this bill is a down payment on a balanced budget that we will 
have in 

[[Page H11509]]

7 years. Basically, we are keeping our promises to the American people. 
We accomplish this without sacrificing our core scientific programs by 
cutting out the frills and the nonessentials.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Again, I congratulate the ranking member as well as the chairman of 
this committee for the hard work and good work they have done and the 
leadership they have provided.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the ranking member for the 
time and Chairman Myers for entering into this colloquy. I would also 
commend the chairman and ranking member for reporting a balanced bill, 
particularly in support of the biofuels research development program 
within the Department of Energy. And I would like to clarify the intent 
of the conference committee with regard to this program. Am I correct 
in understanding that nothing in the conference report prohibits 
continuing research, development, and demonstration on energy crops for 
fuels and electricity or in any way discourages a continuation of the 
ongoing biomass electric program in all States in parallel to the 
ongoing biomass fuels research, development and demonstration program, 
on the understanding that the expenditures for the biomass electric 
program do not reduce the conferees' allocations to other biofuels 
programs?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, your 
assessment is correct here. There are some great programs here, some 
very impressive programs being demonstrated.
  Mr. MINGE. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate your 
confirming the intent of the conference committee in this regard.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and one who has worked very closely with this 
subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I would like to 
engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a provision of this conference report 
which raises the concern of the conferees that the comprehensive 
management of our valuable salmon resources should be undertaken by the 
administration in the form of a memorandum of agreement. It is my 
understanding that the conference strongly encourages the 
administration to work with the Congress and interested parties in the 
development of the MOA. I, on behalf of my constituents in Washington's 
fifth district, want the opportunity to review and comment prior to its 
adoption, and I presume the administration will work with me and my 
other Northwest colleagues to that end. To the maximum extent 
practicable, this MOA should not result in increased electric or fish 
and wildlife costs in the region. Is that understanding correct?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from 
Washington is correct. The committee is very concerned about ensuring 
we do provide for the salmon problem and also about being careful as to 
who pays for it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Subsection 508(b)(1) of the conference report 
provides for the sale of excess Federal power outside the region. This 
section requires that the power be offered on the same essential rates, 
terms and conditions to customers outside the region as is offered to 
Northwest customers. I understand this language to require BPA to offer 
the terms and conditions to Northwest customers first. So that if BPA 
intends to offer contracts of certain terms outside the region, it must 
offer the same terms to customers inside the region. The intent is to 
give customers inside the region a right of first refusal on all of the 
essential rates, terms and conditions in any contract, before BPA 
offers for sale energy outside the region. Is this correct?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is 
correct. Your conferees grappled with this and tried to work out 
problems among parties from the region. We had some issues we had to 
work out with the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman very much for his hard work and 
certainly urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], with whom we have 
worked very hard trying to work out language on a problem.
  (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. Both of these gentlemen have worked 
extensively with myself and my staff as well as the staff of our 
Senators and other members of the Colorado delegation, to come to some 
type of compromise. I would also like to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] for his cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would rise to commend the remaining conferees on the 
energy and water appropriations bill for the action on the Animas-La 
Plata water project. The conference committee, led by the able 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Myers and the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Bevill, Senators Domenici and Johnston, have taken a decisive step 
toward expedient completion of the Animas-La Plata water project.
  The United States has an 1868, 1868 treaty obligation to provide 
water to the Ute Mountain, Ute Tribe, and the Southern Ute Tribe. In 
the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, the U.S. Congress 
reaffirmed this obligation and determined the Animas-La Plata project 
was the only viable alternative to providing water to the Ute Tribes 
and directed the Secretary of Interior to begin construction of the 
Animas-La Plata project.
  Today, 7 years after Congress directed the project be built and over 
a century after the original treaty was signed, the tribes are still 
waiting to receive their water. In fact, they are still waiting for 
construction to begin.
  It is that failure to execute the terms of the 1988 act in a timely 
fashion which led the conferees to include section 507 in the 
appropriations bill. This section provides, in order to ensure the 
timely implementation of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Act of 
1988, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to proceed without 
delay with construction of those facilities in conformance with the 
final biological opinion for the Animas-La Plata project in Colorado, 
and New Mexico, dated October 25, 1991.
  I would at this time, Mr. Speaker, like to engage in a very brief 
colloquy with the chairman about the intent of this language. First of 
all, does the chairman agree if the construction does not begin in 
fiscal year 1996 that the water rights settlement is in jeopardy?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, this is correct. I 
have been on this committee for more than 25 years. Animas-La Plata, 
has been on our platter all that time. We have tried to resolve it. We 
have tried to work out differences with the environmentalists. It has 
been through frequent litigation. It is in jeopardy unless we get it 
moving right now. The committee recognizes that.

  Mr. McINNIS. What would the conferees expect from the Secretary of 
the Interior with respect to the section 507?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. It is the intent of this committee to direct 
the Secretary to start construction immediately or as soon as possible, 
so we will fulfill the obligation we have to the Ute Indian Tribes who 
have given up their water rights through the years.
  Mr. McINNIS. I thank the chairman. I would again like to acknowledge 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers], not only on the merits of what you have said but on the 
importance that you have placed on the word that we gave to the native 
American tribes.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the words of our chairman on 
this 

[[Page H11510]]

matter, and he has stated the case well, and I concur with his 
interpretation of the language we adopted in the conference report.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record 
a letter dated September 27, 1995, from the Southern Ute Indiana Tribal 
Council, as follows:

                                               Southern Ute Indian


                                               Tribal Council,

                                  Ignacio, CO, September 27, 1995.
     Representative Scott McInnis,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Re HR-1905, 1996 energy and water development appropriations 
         bill.
       Dear Scott: In the very near future, the United States 
     Congress will be considering HR-1905, the 1996 Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Bill. Sufficiency Language 
     may be included in that legislation which will, at long last, 
     enable the United States government to fulfill a trust 
     responsibility to the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes by allowing 
     the Animas-La Plata Water Resources Development Project to 
     move forward, as promised by the Congress under the 
     provisions of the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights 
     Settlement Act.
       When you served in the Colorado legislature in the 1980's, 
     you were an important part of the Settlement Agreement. With 
     your assistance, the Colorado legislature appropriated almost 
     $60 million as the State's share of cost sharing with the 
     federal government for construction of the Animas-La Plata 
     Project. $42 million of those funds still remain in escrow, 
     ready to be spent to fulfill the State of Colorado's 
     commitment to the settlement of the Colorado Ute Indian water 
     claims.
       Now that you are in Congress, we are again seeking your 
     assistance to encourage your fellow congressmen to support 
     fulfillment of the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights 
     Settlement Act. I know how my ancestors must have felt when 
     the United States government repeatedly broke treaties with 
     the Colorado Ute Indians. First in 1863, then in 1868, 1873, 
     and finally in 1880. With each treaty the homelands of the 
     Utes were reduced in size. Finally, in 1880, Congress 
     confiscated all of the Ute lands in Colorado--over one-third 
     of the State of Colorado. In the 1930's a small remnant of 
     our aboriginal homelands in Southwestern Colorado were 
     restored to tribal ownership.
       Now the national environmental groups would have the United 
     States government breach the agreement that was entered into 
     in 1988. At that time, the Colorado Utes chose to negotiate 
     rather than litigate and entered into another treaty, or 
     contract with America, in return for deferring the Colorado 
     Ute senior Winters water rights on rivers in Southwestern 
     Colorado that cross the reservation. Congress and then 
     President Reagan said, ``We will build the Animas-La Plata 
     Project. The Utes will have wet water--not paper water 
     rights.'' Upon passage of the Colorado Ute Indian Water 
     Rights Settlement Act, the legislation was hailed as a model 
     for all tribes to follow--negotiate, do not litigate. Since 
     passage, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, the water 
     districts, the municipalities, and the Indian tribes, have 
     been strangled in a swamp of red tape and bureaucratic 
     backpeddling.
       Now comes the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, not unlike 
     the Indian givers of the last century. Do not honor our 
     commitment to the Indians. Ignore the trust responsibility 
     the United States government has under the Constitution of 
     the United States. Sacrifice the Indian water claims on the 
     alter of economics. It is too expensive to build the Animas-
     La Plata. Let's give the Indians ``wampum'' instead of water. 
     My ancestors were all too familiar with the ``beads for 
     Manhattan'' mentality of the early Indian traders. Colorado 
     Ute Indian tribes honorably negotiated the Colorado Ute 
     Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which mandates 
     construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. In his inaugural 
     message to the Congress, President Bush said ``Great men, 
     like great nations, must keep their promises. The Colorado 
     Ute Indian tribes expect this great nation to keep its 
     promise and construct the Animas-La Plata Project.''
           Sincerely,
                                       Leonard C. Burch, Chairman,
                                        Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the chairman and also the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for their 
support in this legislation, and urge support of the conference report.
  Let me say first of all that the conferees and certainly the House 
bill originally rejected the administration's proposed new role, 
limited role, I would say, for the Army Corps of Engineers in terms of 
flood control, shore protection, and also small navigation dredging 
projects. I am very pleased to see the conference adopted this approach 
and essentially rejected what the administration had proposed for the 
corps, because what it would have meant is that only projects that were 
nationally significant would have moved into subsequent phases and 
actually have been accomplished. Smaller projects would not have been 
done, whether they were flood control, shore protection, or dredging, 
and that would have meant essentially the States would have been left 
on their own to come up with funding and to provide the engineering for 
these kinds of projects.
  I said all along the State do not have the resources or ability to do 
that, and so effectively what the administration proposed would have 
meant these projects would not have been done.
  I think that the chairman and the ranking member understood this and 
that is why the policy is not articulated in this legislation. It would 
have also been particularly detrimental to coastal States, one of which 
I represent.
  I also wanted to praise the conferees for continued support for the 
continuing authorities program. They have instructed the Secretary to 
continue with all projects that are currently being conducted under the 
continuing authorities program, regardless of what stages they are in. 
This is again particularly beneficial to smaller communities like I 
represent. For relatively modest cost, the Federal Government puts 
money into these projects and lets a lot of the smaller towns do the 
projects, and they are very cost-effective. I have one in my district 
that I share actually with myself and the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Zimmer] on Poplar Brook. Again, a small amount of Federal dollars 
is used very cost effectively to achieve a good result.
  I just wanted to put in a word of praise to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], who spoke earlier. He 
really did an excellent job in supporting the projects in New Jersey, 
some of which, of course, are in my district. There has been a lot of 
support for the shore protection project along the Atlantic Coast which 
has been continuing for a number of years, has been very helpful to us, 
the tourism industry. We also were successful in getting the House 
version of funding on a lot of projects in New Jersey, some of which 
were not in the Senate bill, particularly the South River Dam, a flood 
control project, a very important project to me. I appreciate that.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report. I 
believe it represents a thoughtful approach to the difficult task of 
balancing our Nation's energy and water priorities in an era of fiscal 
restraint.
  I commend the chairman and the conferees for coming up with a great 
product.
  Included in this bill is a $5.5 billion appropriation for the 
Department of Energy's environmental restoration and waste management 
budget--this part of the bill is actually an increase in spending over 
last year's funding level and it represents an acknowledgment on the 
part of the Federal Government that it indeed, does have a 
responsibility to clean up hazardous waste sites that it created: in 
particular the Department of Energy's nuclear energy production 
facilities. Most of the land connected with the Fernald site, a former 
uranium processing center, lies in my congressional district. Thousands 
of people living near Fernald may have already been exposed to 
radioactive contaminants in the air, water and soil. With DOE 
oversight, some progress has been made at Fernald in cleaning up these 
hazards. But we still have a long way to go.
  My approach has been to be certain that these substantial taxpayer 
funds directed to Fernald are used in the most cost-effective manner 
possible to actually clean up the site.
  I have supported an accelerated and innovative cleanup plan to 
achieve these goals and I am pleased that the committee report 
expresses support for this approach. I am convinced it is the best 
plan. It has widespread local support, and could serve as a model for 
cleanup efforts around the country.
  And it actually saves taxpayer dollars: accelerating the schedule 
from 25 years to 10 years will result in a savings to the taxpayer of 
about $1.4 billion. Of course, it also cleans up the 

[[Page H11511]]

site sooner--protecting health and safety of the community. It's a good 
example of doing more with less.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. It helps us 
meet our energy and water priorities responsibly while still achieving 
the necessary savings to enable us to balance the Federal budget in 7 
years.
  I commend the chairman.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Iwould like to comment upon and then address a question to the 
subcommittee chairman with regard to section 507 of the conference 
report dealing with the Animus-La Plata project in southwestern 
Colorado. There was a good deal of back and forth on this language 
earlier, I believe, in the debate on the bill, and obviously in 
conference, and as I read it I just want to make sure I was putting the 
right interpretation on this language. While this is clearly intended 
to get the Secretary to expedite construction, it does not contemplate 
the waiver of any requirements of law under NEPA or other environmental 
statutes, as I read it. Is that the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, that is a correct 
interpretation, yes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. We are not waiving any legal right or statutory 
requirement?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. No.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.
  Let me also say I appreciate the efforts that have been made in the 
bill in another area, to accommodate the very pressing needs for 
funding for the cleanup of the nuclear weapons sites around the 
country. Our discussions when this bill was before the House earlier in 
the year were very helpful in indicating that the gentleman, while 
wanting to squeeze a little bit this year on that account because of 
some past problems, certainly contemplates fulfilling the obligation 
that we have to give the Department of Energy what it needs in order to 
complete the cleanup of these sites on as prompt a basis as is 
practicable, and I appreciate your contained commitment to that 
objective.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Conference Report for fiscal year 1996. Over the past 
year, I have repeatedly raised the issue of Energy Secretary Hazel 
O'Leary's proclivity to spend generously on herself and her aides in 
the course of what has been called or billed as official travel.
  Chairman Myers and I held a colloquy on this subject when H.R. 1905 
was originally considered on the House floor last July and I am 
gratified to say that the chairman has included provisions in the 
conference report to begin to bring Secretary O'Leary's travel excesses 
under control. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The report language is 
terrific.
  I am also pleased to note that as a result of the attention Congress 
has paid to the Secretary's travel that the Department has made some 
efforts to improve its travel operations. DOE has significantly 
improved in the area of recovering non-Federal costs associated with 
Secretarial travel. However, the Secretary and the Department have a 
long way to go, especially with respect to accounting for travel 
expenditures. For example, fully $150,000 of the total $700,000 cost of 
Secretary O'Leary's recent South Africa trip can not be accounted for. 
I am not accusing anyone of any illegal activity, but am pointing out a 
serious concern that would be unacceptable in the private sector.
  Furthermore, it has also come to my attention that the Secretary has 
frequently used taxpayer dollars to fly first class on her 
international trips when that was expressly prohibited by the White 
House in an April 19, 1993 bulletin.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to continue to vigorously review the Secretary's 
travel. I believe that this conference report will help us to do 
exactly that, and creates the mandates we need to go forward in this 
area. I really want to commend the chairman and thank him for his 
efforts in this area.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just make one closing remark here. This committee 
has worked very closely with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction 
in making sure any differences from the House-passed bill were 
understood. We believe that the President will sign this bill. I want 
to emphasize again it is 3.5 percent below last year's level, both in 
outlays as well as budget authority.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the energy and 
water appropriations conference report. It is my pleasure to support 
this bill which has been developed through the leadership of two of the 
finest members of this body, Chairman John Myers and Ranking Member Tom 
Bevill.
  The 19th District of Illinois is bordered by the Ohio River to the 
east and the Mississippi River at the west and south, the two great 
passageways for America's agricultural and industrial production. We 
have Rend Lake and Lake Shelbyville, which provide recreational 
opportunities and supply drinking water to our communities. And we have 
a host of smaller rivers and streams which require attention to combat 
erosion and to provide flood control.
  With the funding made available in this bill, the Army Corps of 
Engineers will continue to provide a safe transportation system and 
protection from natural disasters.
  I again wish to thank the managers of the bill for their efforts and 
urge support of the bill.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in view of continued attacks from 
the Republican side on the activities of Secretary of Energy Hazel 
O'Leary, I am compelled to address the House to set the record 
straight.
  Some people apparently think that the Secretary of Energy should not 
promote U.S. businesses overseas. Secretary O'Leary instead believes in 
using her office to create new opportunities for American businesses 
and more jobs for working Americans.
  By any objective standard, her trade missions overseas have been 
remarkably successful in promoting deals for U.S. companies and keeping 
us competitive in world markets.
  An example is the $9 million project that Dodson Lindblom 
International of Akron, OH landed as a result of Secretary O'Leary's 
trade mission to India. The total amount of deals signed by 23 U.S. 
companies on this one trade mission alone exceeded $1.4 billion. 
Another Ohio firm, AEP in Columbus, expanded their market as a result 
of a DOE trade mission to China, where over 50 companies were given an 
opportunity to promote their products and expand their markets.
  Secretary O'Leary correctly understands that investing small amounts 
of money in government-sponsored trade missions nets us huge returns in 
U.S. jobs and enhanced U.S. competitiveness. I applaud her efforts. She 
is doing an outstanding job and deserves our strong support.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want the record to reflect my 
support for the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996. This conference report addresses rate fairness and regional 
control for electric ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest. Both 
Representative John Myers, the subcommittee chairman, and Senator Mark 
Hatfield, the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman deserve great 
credit for this accomplishment.
  Earlier this year the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] the 
Federal Power Marketing Agency in charge of marketing power in the 
Northwest, unveiled its 5-year rate proposal schedule. The rate 
proposal would have increased rates for customers of private utilities 
by roughly 15 percent while simultaneously reducing rates offered to 
customers of public utilities in the region as well to direct service 
industries, mainly aluminum companies that buy power directly from BPA.
  I would have been remiss in my duties as a Representative if I had 
not opposed BPA's initial rate proposal since it would have adversely 
impacted my district. The power generated from our rivers is to be 
shared by all of the people of the Northwest. Yet BPA's initial rate 
proposal failed to sufficiently consider that perspective. I am pleased 
that my colleagues and I were able to provide a compromise provision in 
this bill that will protect customers of private utilities until 
September 30, 1997. We were able to negotiate what amounts to a 2-year 
safety by providing $145 million in fiscal year 1997 for the 
residential exchange rate so residents in the Northwest will be 
protected from dramatic rate increases at least until October 1997. 
This compromise is a first step in making sure that there is equity in 
future Northwest power rates.
  In the future, I will continue to pursue a rewriting of the 1980 
Northwest Power Act that addresses all the fundamental questions of 

[[Page H11512]]

how we fairly share the benefits of the Federal power system in the 
Northwest. I still do not believe that BPA's new rate proposal is fair 
to people in my district. Therefore I am duty bound to continue to seek 
a long-term solution by any means possible. I am optimistic that our 
region can rewrite the Northwest Power Act to accomplish two critically 
important goals: Equity among various ratepayer groups in the region, 
and regional control of the Northwest power system.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the conferees 
on increasing the amount the Wind Energy Systems Program will receive 
by $12.5 million. The money for this program is an investment into the 
economic and environmental future of the United States. Growing 
international markets for wind energy are currently worth $1 billion 
each year, and growing. The United States can and should be a major 
competitor in this environmentally sensitive industry. I support the 
increase for this clean renewable energy research program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this carefully and thoughtfully 
crafted energy and water conference report for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my friends 
and colleagues for their leadership on the Animas-La Plata project, and 
for the inclusion of section 507 of the fiscal year 1996 energy and 
water development appropriations bill. I also support this language, 
and I urge this Congress to take a stand and ensure construction of the 
Animas-La Plata project in a timely fashion to fulfill the settlement.
  In 1988, Congress determined that this project was the best 
alternative for meeting the needs and interests of the parties to the 
settlement agreement. We passed the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water 
Rights Settlement Act in order to ensure that the senior water rights 
of the two Ute tribes were satisfied.
  As the chairman of the authorizing committee, I have a message for 
the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary has the responsibility 
under the 1988 legislation to build the Animas-La Plata project. In 
hearings on the fiscal year 1994 energy and water development 
appropriations bill, Secretary Babbitt stated: ``I understand that 
Congress has mandated that this project get going, and I will comply 
with the mandate.''
  Mr. Secretary, you now have yet another mandate from the Congress, 
section 507 provides you with the necessary tools to move forward and 
build this project in accordance with obvious congressional intent. I 
urge you to move forward and build the Animas-La Plata project 
immediately so that the United States may preserve the integrity of the 
water rights settlement.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman form Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing his conference 
report to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member would begin by expressing appreciation that 
the fiscal year 1996 energy and water development appropriations 
legislation includes language which 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. This Member offered this provision as an amendment when the 
House approved the appropriations bill on July 12, 1995.
  This commonsense provision 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. 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 snow melt and heavy rainfall.
  It's bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river 
have to contend with natural disasters. They should not 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 proposal was seriously 
flawed.

  At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River basin 
region, 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 increased 
spring rise.
  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. However, this Member believes this 
commonsense provision is needed to make absolutely certain that the 
Corps does not repeat this mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints currently facing the Appropriations Committee. Difficult 
funding choices were necessary in order to stay within budget 
allocations. In light of these limitations, this Member is grateful and 
pleased that this legislation includes funding for several important 
water-related projects of interest to the State of Nebraska.
  The conference report provides funding for flood-related projects of 
tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional 
District. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 flooding temporarily closed Interstate-
80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is 
located along the Platte River near Ashland, NE. Therefore, this Member 
is extremely pleased the conference committee agreed to provide 
$441,000 in funding for the Lower Platte River and tributaries flood 
control study. This study should help to formulate and develop feasible 
solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower 
Platte River and tributaries.

  Additionally, the conference report provides continued funding--
$90,000--for a floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs 
through the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. This Member is 
responsible for initiating the 1994 House-passed appropriation for 
Antelope Creek and for coordinating the city of Lincoln, the Lower 
Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln's work with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify a 
flood control system for downtown Lincoln.
  Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream, 
became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and 
urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and 
created an unstable situation. A 10-foot by 20-foot closed underground 
conduit that was constructed between 1911 and 1916 now requires 
significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A dangerous flood 
threat to adjacent public and private facilities exists.
  The goals of the study are to anticipate and provide for the flooding 
of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the underground conduit 
and provide for any necessary repair, stimulate neighborhood and UN-L 
city campus development within current defined boundaries, eliminate 
fragmentation of the city campus, minimize vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle 
conflicts while providing adequate capacity, and improve bikeway and 
pedestrian systems.

  The conference report also provides funding for two Missouri River 
projects which are designed to remedy problems of erosion, loss of fish 
and wildlife habitat, and sedimentation. First, it provides $5.7 
million for the Missouri River mitigation project. This funding is 
needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the federally 
sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan 
era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the 
wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An 
estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and 
Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be 
only one-fifth of those which existed in predevelopment days.
  The conference report also provides $200,000 for operation and 
maintenance and $20,000 for construction of the Missouri national 
recreation river project. This project addresses a serious problem in 
protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and excessive erosion 
rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point 
Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous work on the river by 
the Federal Government.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member recognizes that the conference 
report also provides funding for a Bureau of Reclamation assessment of 
Nebraska's water supply--$75,000--as well as funding for Army Corps 
projects in Nebraska at the following sites: Wood River; Papillion 
Creek and tributaries; Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; Harlan 
County Lake; and Salt Creek and tributaries.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member 
of the subcommittee for their continued support of these projects which 
are important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well 
as to the people living in the Missouri River Basin.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.

[[Page H11513]]

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402, 
nays 24, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 748]

                               YEAS--402

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     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
     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
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     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
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     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
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--24

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Clement
     Filner
     Ford
     Gordon
     Hefley
     Jacobs
     Mica
     Nadler
     Rangel
     Reed
     Roemer
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Stearns
     Tanner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bereuter
     Fields (LA)
     Moakley
     Roth
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1423

  Mr. WARD and Mr. ROYCE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DINGELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________