[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.
____________________