[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8302-H8309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 483 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3816.

                              {time}  1605


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3816) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Oxley in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read for the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, your Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for 
the Committee on Appropriations brings this bill to the floor as the 
13th appropriations bill this year.
  Back when the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and I went on the 
committee many, many years ago, back in the dark ages, this was known 
as the Public Works Committee. The bill was also affectionately 
remembered as the all-American bill because it touches every 
congressional district, every area of the continental United States and 
the territories. It was called the all-American bill for that reason 
back then, but it is even more encompassing today in the fact that now 
we have energy programs that certainly touch all of us, not only in 
this country but from all over the world.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a bill that is not the bill that many of 
us would like to see. We have had to work very hard this year on it as 
was mentioned previously by the Rules Committee. When we got to 
allocations this year, we were originally $1.3 billion below last 
year's 602(b) allocation. Last year the House bill cut almost a half a 
billion dollars from our 602(b) allocation voluntarily and we cut 120 
programs out last year and finally the House in agreement with the 
Senate cut out about 50 new programs and reduced many more.

  This year we were expected to do even more with a $1.3 billion cut 
below last year. All of us are interested in balancing the budget, in 
cutting spending, but because each of these that we appropriate in this 
bill touches so many areas of concern, whether it be in the Department 
of Energy, be it in national defense, be it in water resources and 
conservation, the proper use of our water resources, all of these touch 
every one of us every day. It was just something that we could not cut 
that much. We did not bring that bill to the floor. We are today, 
instead of being the first bill as we were a great many years under the 
able leadership of my predecessor and now ranking member Tom Bevill, we 
were the first bill out and usually the first one signed by the 
President. I apologize to the House that we have taken so long, but 
there has been hard work and a great many people that we need to thank, 
including the members but particularly staff members who worked long 
hours here to bring this bill to the floor: Our chief of staff Jim 
Ogsbury who worked such very, very long hours and did a great job for 
us; Jeanne Wilson, Bob Schmidt, Don McKinnon, Roger Butler, Melanie 
Marshall, Don Medley, as well as Claudia Wear and Doug Wasitis of my 
personal staff. All of us put in a lot of long, hard hours of work to 
bring this bill to the floor.
  Today we bring before the House a bill totaling $19.4 billion. It is 
$95 million more than the final bill last year. But that is misleading, 
because of where some of the dollars find themselves.
  A lot of people do not realize and many Members do not realize that 
this bill contains a lot of money for national defense. We have $10.9 
billion in national defense items here. More than 56 percent of our 
bill is for national defense, having to do with nuclear weapons, with 
the naval reactors, just to name a few; the surveillance and the 
maintenance of our nuclear weapons, since we are not building any, we 
have to maintain the inventory and make sure that they are properly 
cared for and properly monitored. This is a tremendous responsibility 
that the Defense Department has and the Department of Energy has to 
supervise the control and inventory of our national weapons.
  Only $8.5 billion goes into domestic discretionary where we have 
actually any choice, $8.5 billion or slightly over 43 percent of our 
bill. So when we had the drastic cuts that were first imposed upon the 
committee, it just made it impossible for us to meet our 
responsibilities.
  The bill consists of 5 titles. Title I is the civilian, Corps of 
Engineers, water projects. This year we have $3,449,192,000, which is 
$156 million more than was requested by the administration. It is $83 
million more than last year.
  Title II is the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 
$830 million, $5.5 million less than last year.
  Title III is Department of Energy. This is where the big bucks are 
because this is where most of the defense dollars are--$15,279,926,000, 
which is $902 million less than last year. The biggest cut of our bill 
is in the Department of Energy.
  Independent agencies is $281,531,000, which is $48 million less than 
last year and title V is general provisions of the bill.
  Getting into what is in each of these titles, in title I, again the 
Corps of Engineers, their major responsibility is the more than 25,000 
miles of inland waterways, the major deep seaports of our United States 
that make our American industry competitive and able to do business in 
the rest of the world; flood control which has been mentioned here 
today already. Major floods hopefully can be avoided but flood control, 
municipal, and industrial water for many people in the country provided 
in the provisions of title I. We provide $1.035 billion for 
construction. Construction is going on by the Corps of Engineers in 38 
States and Puerto Rico.

  For General Investigations, we have $1.7 billion. This is to examine 
projects that are being considered for cost effectiveness and 
environmental issues. These general investigations are very necessary 
in the process before they ever go to construction. We have general 
investigations now in 41 States and again Puerto Rico.
  Title II of the bill again is the Bureau of Reclamation where we have 
in central Utah $43 million plus, Bureau of Reclamation General 
Investigation,

[[Page H8303]]

we have $14,518,000. We have 345 reservoirs operated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation in the Midwestern States. We have 54 hydrogenating stations 
generating 60 billion kilowatt hours per year, providing water for more 
than 28 million people in the West in the Bureau of Reclamation, a 
very, very large responsibility that the Bureau of Reclamation has. We 
have some construction going on there amounting to $398 million.
  Operation and maintenance of all of the water, all of the reservoirs 
on all the locks and dams that are operating in the West, providing the 
hydropower. We have $286 million for operation and maintenance.
  The loan program has been reduced this year to $13 million because we 
do provide loans for water conservation districts in the Western States 
to provide for these necessities. For irrigation the Bureau of 
Reclamation provides irrigation water for more than 10 million acres of 
agricultural land.
  Title III again going to the Department of Energy, $15.3 billion for 
the Department of Energy. Again $10.9 billion is for defense. The 
energy and supply research and development is $2.6 billion. This is 
$372 million less than was requested, a very large cut.
  We have solar energy, which has already been mentioned. From 1991 to 
1995, this committee increased the solar research by almost 100 
percent. Since last year, we reduced it by 26 percent because we 
reached the point where solar was no longer cost effective. We just did 
not feel it was necessary to continue putting more research into solar 
energy.

                              {time}  1615

  We have photocoltaics now produced, and almost 100 industries are 
presently producing photovoltaics. We have more than 300 companies 
providing support for the solar industry, so it is a big, growing 
industry in this country. So we have cut back on solar, and we are 
going to hear about it in the amendment process later on.
  In the administrative account is where we made the significant cuts, 
and probably we are going to hear about this. Last year this committee 
did reduce the number of dollars for the administrative accounts, 
because today we are not producing nuclear weapons, we are not doing 
any testing of nuclear weapons.
  There are a lot of things that 10 years ago the Department of Energy 
was doing when it was first created in 1977 that they are not doing 
today. So we attempted last year, by cutting the funds in the 
administrative accounts for the Department of Energy, to help downsize 
DOE.
  Now DOE has been threatened to be eliminated. Most of us on this 
committee realize the necessity of energy for our children and 
grandchildren, the research we are doing today for the future of our 
energy, that we need a strong department. But we felt after last year, 
when we tried to downsize and, at the end of the year, realized that 
that had not been done, that we had to tighten the grip just a little 
bit. So we made about a one-third reduction in the Washington 
headquarters personnel who are not needed any longer, had people 
holding each other's hands.
  So we have cut and we have gone to micromanaging. We have told them 
specifically where they had to make the cuts, because after we made 
strong suggestions last year and cut the dollars, it was not 
accomplished by the Secretary or her staff, so this year we have gone 
much further and have directed where those cuts must be made.
  We have in the environmental management and waste the largest item in 
our budget today, $5,400,000,000 in the Department of Energy for 
management of the waste and growing each year. Last year we did reduce 
this account. We found after we reduced the account we got more bang 
for the buck.
  Most of this work is done by contract, not by Department of Energy 
personnel, but it is done by contracts. We have kept that to almost 
exactly what the President requested, $5,400,000,000.
  We have also the civilian waste management where we take care of the 
civilian waste, the environmental management. Here, what we are talking 
about is defense waste. But in environmental waste for civilian, we did 
make some reduction.
  In the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we provided that the waste 
would be removed from the utilities around the country, the nuclear 
waste, and taken to a repository someplace. In 1987, we started the 
examination of the Yucca Mountain in Nevada, exploring the 
advisability, the suitability of Yucca Mountain.
  That moved very slowly; in the last year, again they started moving 
more rapidly. But in the meantime the commitment in the 1982 act 
required that the U.S. Department of Energy would take the waste from 
the reactor sites, the nuclear reactors producing electricity, by 1998. 
That is fast coming upon us.
  So last year we made a decision there had to be something done about 
interim storage. This year we provide for $382 million for this waste 
problem, $182 million of it coming from the waste fund, which is paid 
into by every utility consumer who uses nuclear energy. The other $200 
million is to come out of general appropriated funds.
  The fusion program has been around here as long as the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and I have been here. Back 26 years ago when he 
and I first went on this committee, we were promised that we would have 
a fusion prototype reactor by now. We are not too much closer now than 
we were then. But, we are still strong supporters of fusion.
  We have fission now in many reactors, but we have not finally 
produced a fission reactor that is producing power but we are still 
supporting it.
  Last year we had $244 million for a fusion program; this year we have 
cut it back to $225 million. We still support fusion, but the Fusion 
Energy Advisory Committee has suggested a reorganization, realignment 
for the fusion program in the Department of Energy. We are not going 
quite as fast as they would like to see it, but we do provide for $225 
million, including funds for the ITER Program, which is an 
international fusion program; $55 million goes for the ITER Program.
  General science and research activities, that is all-encompassing. 
That is the advanced science, nuclear science, what makes up the matter 
of our Earth and our universe. It is rather vague. It is something that 
is not going to put bread on our tables, it is not going to introduce 
us tomorrow to something that is going to make the country a better 
place to live in, but over the long pull, these are scientific programs 
that will help make American industry more competitive. So we have put 
$996 million in this program because it is research and it is very 
vital.
  It will help the general science, it will help us understand the 
nature of matter, what makes up these atomic nuclei that are around us. 
So we do support the general science, which is very expensive.
  Title IV is independent agencies. We have reduced the Appalachian 
Regional Commission by $15 million this year from last, down to $155 
million. Many of the Members live under the authority of the Tennessee 
Valley Authority which provides power, electric power, as well as some 
recreation and navigation on streams in Kentucky, Tennessee, and 
Alabama. For TVA, we provide $97 million, which is $12 million less 
than last year.
  We are right at our 602(B) allocation right now. Anyone who offers an 
amendment for more dollars must have an offset. This committee feels, 
after months of hearings and examination, we have a bill that we hope 
every Member will support today, and hopefully Members will defeat any 
amendments that would weaken the bill.
  We had, I believe, 394 Members request programs or some help in this 
bill, the most we have ever had in the 25 years, the 26 years I have 
been on the committee, the most requests from Members. A great many 
Governors testified. A great many Members sent letters to us requesting 
programs. We could not do all of them.
  I realize there are going to be some people here today, some of our 
friends, who are going to ask for changes. I hope Members will 
understand it is just not possible. Using the best judgment we have 
been able to come up with, these are the highest priority items with 
the limited dollars that we had this year.
  So we ask for your support and we ask that our colleagues reject any 
amendments. We will have to summarily reject any amendments that

[[Page H8304]]

raise dollar programs without any offset.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 1997, is a fiscally austere and socially 
responsible bill. It makes significant contributions to deficit 
reduction while maintaining sufficient funding for programs and 
activities critical to the well-being of the Nation. It represents the 
best efforts of the committee to balance the multiple demands on the 
energy and water bill against a notably constrained allocation of 
budgetary resources.
  The energy and water development appropriations bill funds most 
programs of the Department of Energy--including atomic energy defense 
activities--and the water resources activities of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also funds several 
independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  The bill appropriates a total of $19.4 billion in new budget 
authority for fiscal year 1997. This amount, which is within the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, is a modest increase of $94.68 
million over the fiscal year 1996 level. Nevertheless, the bill is $800 
million less than requested by the administration and $887 million less 
than the energy and water development appropriations bill recently 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
  The grand total of the bill masks the measure's substantial 
reductions in funding for domestic discretionary programs. The bill's 
reduction of $147.58 million below last year's level is more than 
offset by its increase of $242.26 million for atomic energy defense 
activities. Discounting for the defense increases, the bill is largely 
a deficit reduction measure, having reduced new domestic outlays for 
programs within its jurisdiction by 16 percent over the last 2 years.
  In targeting these reductions, the bill terminates a number of 
programs and activities, including: the TVA Environmental Research 
Center, in-house energy management, and a number of low-priority 
research and development programs of the Department of Energy and water 
resource agencies. It also discontinues Federal appropriations for 
regional river basin commissions and effects significant reductions in 
programs throughout the bill. The committee has been especially 
conscientious in reducing administrative accounts and downsizing the 
bureaucracies of agencies within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water Development.
  The demands on the fiscal year 1997 energy and water development 
appropriations bill have been unprecedented. Hundreds of Members, 
associations, public interest groups, companies, agencies, and 
individuals have contacted the committee to communicate their 
priorities and concerns in connection with the energy and water bill. 
The committee has received over 2,500 discrete requests from Members 
alone. Unable to provide funding for all such requests, the committee 
has attempted to accommodate the interests of Members and the public to 
the extent possible within an extremely constrained budget allocation.
  Title I of the bill funds programs and projects of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. Total spending for the corps is $3.4 billion, $83 
million above last year and $156 million above the budget request.
  Last year, the administration proposed a new policy to severely limit 
the corps' role in local flood control, beach erosion, and small harbor 
maintenance. The committee and Congress soundly rejected that policy. 
This year, the administration has proposed a similar, albeit narrow, 
policy which would, among other things, essentially terminate corps 
assistance for beach erosion control activities. The committee has 
again rejected the administration's proposal and has funded a number of 
beach erosion control projects, notwithstanding the misguided policy.
  Although appropriations for the corps have increased, the additional 
funds are intended to save money over time by accelerating corps 
construction works in progress and by committing adequate resources to 
the operation and maintenance of completed projects. Funding for corps 
construction is $1.035 billing, $121 million over the budget request. 
Operation and maintenance funding is $1.7 billion, $38 million over the 
budget request.
  The administration's budget request demonstrably underfunds corps 
activities. Funding at the budget request would result in slipped 
construction schedules for works in progress and inadequate maintenance 
of completed projects.
  Title II provides funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of the Interior: the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central 
Utah Project Completion Account. Appropriations for title II total $838 
million, $15 million less than fiscal year 1996 and $5.5 million less 
than the budget request. Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is $794 
million, $14.5 million less than fiscal year 1996 and $5.5 million less 
than the budget request. These reductions continue the downsizing of 
the Bureau in recognition that the agency's original mission has been 
largely accomplished and that the Bureau's role in Western life will be 
increasingly diminished as more communities take responsibility for the 
operation of water delivery systems.
  Title III of the bill funds most programs and activities of the 
Department of Energy. Total funding for title III is $15.3 billion, 
including $10.9 billion for atomic energy defense activities.
  It has been somewhat despairing to witness the continuing meltdown of 
managerial accountability and responsibility at the Department of 
Energy. Among other things, this managerial breakdown is manifested by: 
failures to follow explicit congressional direction; liberal execution 
of reprogrammings without notification; improper augmentations of 
appropriations; travel process irregularities; an apparent absence of 
any corporate view or vision; a failure to ameliorate impacts of 
inevitable budget reductions; irresponsible budgeting; wasteful 
expenditures of scarce resources; and undue investments in 
congressional lobbying efforts.
  It is of especial concern that the Department's budget so closely 
conforms to the administration's model of unrealistic outyear 
projections. Pretending to support a balanced budget, the 
administration defers significant budget reductions to later years. If 
there were any intention whatsoever of actually effecting those 
reductions, then it would be unconscionable to request the substantial 
programmatic increases included in the fiscal year 1997 budget. 
Building programs up only to cut them down is shortsighted, 
unnecessarily disruptive, and fiscally irresponsible.
  The committee has been compelled to impose efficiencies on the 
Department through significant budget reductions. The Department must 
reverse course and sharpen its focus on a limited number of core 
missions. The Department, seduced by new wave management theories and 
wholly lacking resistance to the kudzu-like nature of bureaucratic 
growth, seems to have lost its way in a murky morass of visionless 
activity.
  It is in the domestic programs of the Department of Energy where the 
committee has made its most serious reductions. Energy supply, research 
and development, for example, is funded at $2.6 billion. This 
represents a reduction of $372 million below the budget request of $3 
billion. Included in this amount is a reduction of $132 million, or 36 
percent, from the request for solar and renewable energy programs. 
While this reduction may appear severe, it represents a correction of 
the dramatic, unjustified, and unsustainable increases that the 
programs have enjoyed in recent years. In fact, the recommendation of 
$231 million represents an 18-percent increase over the amount 
appropriated for these programs just 6 years ago.
  The energy supply, research and development account also includes: 
$225 million for fusion energy sciences, $379 million for biological 
and environmental research, $643 million for basic energy sciences, and 
$183 million for nuclear energy programs. The committee's decision to 
fully fund the budget requests for most basic research programs has 
required reductions to other programs throughout the account.
  The committee has done its best to preserve maximum funding for basic 
research and pure science activities of the Department. Operating in an 
environment of severe funding constraints, the committee has determined 
that these activities should receive higher priority than applied 
research and technology development, for which funding by private 
industry is more appropriate. The bill includes $996 million for 
general science and research activities of the Department of Energy. 
This is an increase of $15 million over the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1996.
  Funding for activities of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management totals $382 million. Of this amount, $200 million is 
appropriated as the Federal share of repository development for the 
disposal of high level defense waste. The remaining $182 million, 
appropriated from the nuclear waste fund, is available subject to 
authorization. The committee, which required the Department last year 
to focus its efforts on characterization activities, is pleased with 
recent progress in the analysis of Yucca Mountain. Nevertheless, there 
is great frustration that the Nation's nuclear waste policy remains 
unresolved. Consequently, the bill requires and anticipates the 
enactment of reforms to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by making the 
appropriation of funds from the nuclear waste fund subject to 
authorization.
  Atomic energy defense activities of the Department are, for the most 
part, funded at or near the requested levels. Defense Environmental 
Management, the program responsible for cleaning up the contaminated 
sites of the nuclear weapons production complex, is funded ats the 
budget request level of $5.4 billion. The bill also includes $3.7 
billion for weapons activities and $1.4 billion for other

[[Page H8305]]

defense activities. The bill fully funds the national ignition facility 
at $191 million. The committee will continue to scrutinize the 
facility, a centerpiece of the Department's stockpile stewardship 
program, to assure its cost-effectiveness and continued relevance to 
national defense needs.
  Administrative accounts throughout the Department are substantially 
reduced. Headquarters employees funded from the departmental 
administration account, for example, are reduced by one-third. 
Moreover, the bill prescribes FTE ceilings for certain headquarters 
offices. The Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental and Public 
Affairs, for instance, is reduced from 94 FTE to 35. The policy office 
is reduced from 172 FTE to 20.
  Title IV of the bill funds various independent agencies with energy 
and water resource responsibilities. Total funding for title IV is 
$281.5 million. This is a reduction of $30 million below fiscal year 
1996 and $48 million below the budget request.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission is funded at $155 million, a 
reduction of $15 million--or 8.6 percent--from the fiscal year 1996 and 
budget request level of $170 million. Appropriated programs of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority are funded at $97 million, a reduction of 
$12 million--or 11 percent--from fiscal year 1996 and $23 million--or 
19 percent--from the budget request. The bill also includes: $12 
million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; $472 million 
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and $2.5 million for the Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board.
  Mr. Chairman, although the energy and water bill will not please 
everyone, I am certainly proud of the bipartisan spirit in which the 
committee has worked to produce this legislation. It has been necessary 
to effect painful reductions, but the committee has exercised its best 
collective judgment to target these reductions to less essential 
activities of the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed to pay special tribute to 
the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development, the Honorable Tom Bevill. I don't know of anyone who would 
disagree with the observation that he is one of the finest and most 
honorable gentlemen ever to have served in this distinguished body. In 
his years of service as a Member of Congress and as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, he has always been fair 
and honest--a man of virtue and impeccable integrity. it has been an 
honor to follow in his footsteps. In my 2 years as chairman, I have 
attempted to continue Mr. Bevill's tradition of bipartisanship and fair 
treatment of all Members. I must say, though, that to match Mr. 
Bevill's record of dedicated service is a daunting task, to say the 
least. I wish my good friend the very best in his upcoming retirement 
and look forward to continuing our friendship for years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 3816, the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997.

[[Page H8306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY96.000



[[Page H8307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY96.001



[[Page H8308]]

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana, 
Chairman Myers, for the tremendous job that he has done. Without any 
question, in my 30 years here, this has been the most difficult bill we 
have ever produced, of course, the reason being the shortage of funds. 
We were given a very low allocation, and this has caused many headaches 
and made it very difficult.
  As a matter of fact, we have many good projects that we know should 
be funded that are not funded. Many of the Members are very unhappy 
about the lack of funding for their projects, very good, approved and 
authorized programs that have not been funded; and so we have just had 
to do the best we could under the circumstances.
  But I do want to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Myers, 
for his outstanding leadership in making this bill possible, as well as 
the subcommittee members. We have all worked together on both sides of 
the aisle; and certainly our fine staffs on both sides of the aisle, 
the committee staffs, have done their usual great job.
  So we do have some good news, for example, in the operation and 
maintenance of the navigable waterways. As you know, we have the finest 
inland waterway system in the world, 25,000 miles of navigable 
waterways, and we are actually slipping on the operation and 
maintenance. This is, of course, false economics; it is like not 
putting oil in your automobile when it is needed. We know that that is 
not saving money.
  So we have a good bit of that, and this concerns me a great deal, 
because as you know, these 25,000 miles of inland waterways that we 
have transport 80 percent of all of our exports to foreign countries, 
transferring them to the harbors so they can be exported; and that is 
where our jobs are created. That is very important to the Nation's 
economy. Our waterways play a very important role, and we cannot afford 
to continue neglecting our infrastructure, which is so important to the 
economy of this country.
  In the Energy Department, of course, there is a lot of important 
research that this bill has protected. We have actually addressed the 
current needs fully, and our nuclear weapons program has been fully 
funded.
  We have come to grips with the Department of Energy's headquarters 
staffing problems. There are some inefficiencies there that the 
committee is not happy about. Getting back to the specific cuts, we 
hope to be helpful, and in the appropriation process before this bill 
actually goes to the White House. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was 
adequately funded.
  On a more personal note, I just want to thank each of my colleagues 
on the occasion of this, my last Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill. I would like to thank each of the Members for your 
support and friendship through the years. I admire your dedication to 
our country and to our constituents, and I wish for Members 
individually and as a Congress much success. The Members of this great 
institution have enriched my life and made it better.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to commend the fine job the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has done, and it has been my 
pleasure to work with him, side by side, to turn out a bill that is 
nonpartisan and worthy of support from each side of the aisle.
  In closing, I simply ask that Members consider that this bill was not 
an easy bill put together, just a delicate balance. As the chairman has 
pointed out, we have reached the limit of the funding, and so any 
amendments that may be offered would have to have an offset.

  All the compromises have been made, and we feel that we could not 
have a better bill under the circumstances.
  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 Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations, whom we thank for helping us get the 
increase in the 602(b). I know we caused him some heartache because we 
just could not go with a lesser figure.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana for 
yielding me the time. I want to take this opportunity to express my 
deep appreciation to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] who just preceded me. They have 
done extraordinary work on behalf of the American taxpayers, on behalf 
of the American people, not only in this, the 13th bill of the fiscal 
year 1997 appropriations cycle, the last bill in the appropriations 
cycle for the 104th Congress, but also the last bill that both of them 
will be handling on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
American people throughout both their very significant and 
distinguished careers as Members of this great body.

                              {time}  1630

  We appreciate their service and wish them both long and happy 
retirements in the years that follow their departure from this 
institution. I thank the gentlemen very much for their service.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the last regular bill that the Committee on 
Appropriations will present from full committee in the 104th Congress. 
It is a pretty significant one.
  This Congress has chosen to cut back on the role of Government and 
fulfill the pledge of the President of the United States when he stood 
before this body several months ago and said to the American people 
that the era of big Government is now over.
  I have still not figured out whether he meant e-r-a or e-r-r-o-r, but 
the fact is he is right, and this Congress has borne his comments out.
  We have scaled back, and only with the help, in bipartisan fashion, 
frankly, of the Republicans and Democrats on the committee and the 
Republican and Democrat Members on both sides of the aisle in this body 
and the other body.
  I thank all of the Members for their forbearance, their corporation, 
their hard work and their performance to enable us to make what I 
believe to have been significant and historic changes. Government is 
being downsized significantly.

  Through the Committee on Appropriations' efforts beginning in fiscal 
year 1995, we have cut non-defense spending roughly $53 billion. In 
that process we have terminated some 330 programs, give or take a 
program or two, but I think that is significant, and it is progress 
again towards taking the President at his word.
  The era of big Government is now over. It is important, if we are to 
ever balance the budget and get the heavy of debt and escalating 
interest rates off the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, 
that we take this first step, as we have in this Congress, to make sure 
that Government no longer runs us into the red and burdens the ability 
of our people to pay for mortgages, to educate its children, to buy 
cars and be productive in this country.
  I am excited about the progress that we have made in this Congress, 
and I congratulate both the current chairman and the former chairman, 
who is now the ranking minority member, for their ability to work 
together in bipartisan fashion and hammer out what admittedly is a 
very, very difficult bill, but one which recognized the realities of 
the problems that face this country and has, in fact, helped us 
deescalate the cost of Government. I congratulate all Members.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] in a colloquy at this time, if I might.
  First, I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], for their hard work in this 
matter. I know their job has not been easy; however, I am concerned 
about a recent GAO report that identifies more than $180 million in 
unused construction funds from prior year appropriations at the 
Department of Energy. Among the GAO lists are 45 completed or 
terminated construction projects with carryover funds totaling around 
$46 million. It is my understanding that these funds can remain on the 
books for years and

[[Page H8309]]

that DOE can reprogram those leftover funds as the need arises, 
sometimes on projects completely unrelated to the original intent of 
Congress.
  In the current budget climate at present, it seems to me this 
accounting procedure may be flawed, and as we work toward balancing our 
books and exercise congressional prerogatives in terms of directing how 
these leftover funds are used, these unneeded carryover funds should be 
used for deficit reduction or at least to ease shortfalls that can 
occur in the otherwise austere budget climate.
  I would ask the chairman if we could work together to resolve this 
matter. As a member of both the Committee on National Security and the 
Committee on Science, I would welcome the opportunity to work with my 
colleagues on the Committee on Appropriation on this issue.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
bringing this to our attention. The committee is quite concerned about 
this problem. We have been concerned for quite some time, have tried to 
identify just how much there are in some of these unobligated funds. 
Most appropriations are good for just 1 year. Sometimes in defense they 
go a little longer, but we are deeply concerned about the same problems 
and share your concern. We get a different figure from DOE when we ask 
for it, but we share your concern and would be pleased to work with you 
and the other authorizing committee members in making certain we try to 
tie up this loose end.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that 
because I am concerned about the funding levels in the decontamination 
and decommissioning account, which funds environmental cleanup and 
decontamination and decommissioning activities at the Portsmouth, OH, 
Paducah, KY, and Oak Ridge, TN gaseous diffusion plants, plants, and 
the nondefense environmental restoration and waste management account.
  GAO, I would note, identifies more than $40 million in leftover 
unneeded funds to cancel construction projects funded in the 
environmental and waste management account.
  May I ask if the chairman believes that at least a portion of these 
carryover funds could be used to fund needed projects in the 
decontamination and decommissioning account and the nondefense energy 
restoration and waste management account?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, again we share his concern about this and we are trying to 
monitor this as closely as we can because this is one of the most 
rapidly growing accounts that we have and it will continue to be a 
problem for us. So we have to make sure every dollar is used 
effectively. We share the gentleman's concern and will be glad to work 
with him.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the service that both the 
gentlemen have rendered, and I thank the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Torkildsen) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________