[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8309-H8319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time, and I appreciate all the work he has done, 
particularly on this bill, but also the staff, my staff and the 
committee's staff. They worked hard and have done an outstanding job.
  There are several things I want to talk about, but to be very brief 
about this, I want to focus on the fact that in this appropriations 
bill, like any other appropriations bill, we did not simply spread the 
pain evenly among the programs in our jurisdiction. Instead, we 
prioritized spending program by program based on their efficiency and 
national importance.
  I would just tell my colleagues that I am encouraged by the 
committee's foresight to fund the basic research and development 
programs at the budget request level. Furthermore, the committee has 
reduced funding for those programs that simply give subsidies to 
corporations for product development. We have all heard of corporate 
welfare, and it seems to be in defiance of a free and open market. The 
market is the best indicator, of course, of the value of a product.
  Programs such as the international solar energy program and the 
renewable energy production incentive program are an example, I 
believe, of the Federal Government defying the market by holding 
otherwise noncompetitive corporations afloat with Federal subsidies.
  I want to talk about important item which, frankly, is a concern I 
think of everybody. It is the environmental waste end of things where 
we spend something over $6 billion. If we look at the BEMR report, 
which was produced to give us an example of when this would come to an 
end, they are talking about the end of the next century. That is simply 
not acceptable.
  I am glad to see we have report language now that will give us a 
program to get on track and it expresses the committee's strong views, 
and also, I believe, DOE's, in terms of bringing to closure these sites 
around the country.
  In the report language for fiscal year 1998, the bill, and I 
certainly want to thank the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Myers, and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bevill, and all the 
committee for their work on this, we have in place a project closure 
fund.
  It means simply this. The committee then directs the Department of 
Energy to include in its budget request to Congress an account 
designated as the project closure fund. As the report indicates, the 
purpose of a closure project is within a fixed period of time to clean 
up and decommission a former defense nuclear facility, or portion 
thereof, and to make the facility safe by stabilizing, consolidating, 
and removing special nuclear materials from the facility.

  The site contractor must demonstrate and validate several criteria, 
including a project completion date, within 10 years of application. 
That is a lot shorter than the end of the next century. The amount of 
funding to be set aside for the project closure fund is 10 percent of 
the total defense EM Program. This funding would be available to site 
contractors who meet the criteria on a competitive basis.
  The project closure fund is the type of program that can save the EM 
from becoming a century long spending fiasco. What we need and what the 
project closure fund provides is a responsible, manageable cleanup 
program to bring closure to the EM Program and free up the Department 
of Energy's largest fiscal expenditure for budget deficit reduction.

[[Page H8310]]

  Closure of these former defense nuclear cleanup sites is mandatory if 
we are to achieve our highest goal, which is ensuring safety for the 
communities and the workers in close proximity to the sites.
  It also sends a message, I believe, to the Department of Energy and 
the site contractors that the time is now to close down the EM Program. 
We owe it to our Nation to come up with a better plan.
  Again, I sincerely want to thank Chairman Myers, Ranking Member 
Bevill, and all the crew, all the gang here that worked so hard to 
include the project closure fund in the report language. I am 
encouraged by this language, and I am glad to see we are turning the 
corner.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me this time, and I will make a rather 
short statement with regard to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it should not take a hike in the price of gasoline, 
such as we have experienced over the last year, for the Congress to 
remember its responsibilities to the energy supply and security of this 
Nation. However, because the last few years of relative calm in the 
energy markets have lulled us into complacency, perhaps this sharp jab 
resulting from these gasoline price increases may have been just what 
we needed.
  It is a fact that our only insurance policy against future energy 
security problems, against further pollution and degradation of the 
environment and jolts to the economy from gasoline price hikes is 
energy research and development, and yet the bill before us today cuts 
energy research and development rather drastically.
  I think that there may be some in this body who believe that the 
American public somehow will not notice that the Congress is cutting 
energy and renewables R&D even at this time of increased gasoline 
prices. Perhaps they think it is just too technical for the American 
public to grasp. However, poll after poll shows that the American 
public not only knows about these energy R&D programs but 
overwhelmingly supports them.

                              {time}  1645

  The American public expects the Federal Government to promote solar 
and renewable energy technologies and energy R&D, so that advances 
occur in the energy market sooner rather than later and so that current 
energy sources supply as much useful energy as they can. I am referring 
here, of course, to fossil.
  The public understands that we have too much at stake in energy 
security, in curbing pollution, and in creating and capturing high 
technology markets for us to curtail Federal efforts in energy R&D now.
  The bill before us risks just such a lack of attention to solar and 
renewables research, to nuclear energy strategy, to biological and 
environmental research and to fusion energy R&D.
  I understand very clearly that this is because of the current 
budgetary crisis that faces us, but it is time for us to look to the 
long-term future of our country, and I think that we should begin with 
the kind of bills that we have before us. For a country as dependent on 
energy as the United States, investment in R&D is the only prudent 
course of action. A strong energy R&D program allows us and our 
children to develop cheap and pollution-free energy sources. More 
importantly, if we do not make this investment, our children will 
continue to be plagued by the geopolitical and economic problems that 
concern us today.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the important contribution to the 
House and to this bill of the gentleman from Indiana, John Myers, and 
the gentleman from Alabama, Tom Bevill, who will soon retire. They have 
been leaders. They have been gentlemen. They have treated me with 
courtesy even though I was a pain in the neck most of the time, and I 
am very grateful to them for this. I want to wish them the very best in 
terms of a happy, well-earned retirement. I hope that I will not see 
the last of them after they retire, and I look forward to continuing 
our good relationship.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for his very kind and generous remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Frelinghuysen], a very hard working new member of this committee. 
He has made a great contribution in helping us ease the fusion problem.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extent his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3816 
making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 
1997. I would first like to thank Chairman John Myers and Ranking 
Member Tom Bevill for their leadership and direction. Although I have 
not had the pleasure of working with them as long as some of my 
colleagues, I am grateful that I have had 2 years to learn from them. I 
will miss both of them in the next Congress as they are retiring.
  I would also like to thank the dedicated staff of the subcommittee, 
without them our jobs would be tremendously more difficult. Their 
knowledge and professionalism is to be commended.
  The bill before the House today stresses national priorities while 
keeping our commitment to downsize the Federal Government, maintain 
funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and 
dredging harbors and waterways throughout our Nation. We have made some 
tough choices about where to reduce spending but I believe the $19.8 
billion that we have provided is targeted toward the areas that are the 
most important.
  I am particularly pleased with the subcommittee decision to flatly 
reject the President's proposal to end coastal protection and smaller 
navigation projects. These projects are very important to local 
economies all over the United States and especially New Jersey. The 
President's policy was shortsighted and would have resulted in hurting 
many communities that rely on promises the Federal Government has made 
to provide flood protection. And more often than not, they are projects 
that have been undertaken in partnerships with local and State 
governments. I am hopeful that the administration will abandon future 
efforts such as these and concentrate on providing the protection that 
our citizens deserve.
  In addition, this bill provides $225 million for magnetic fusion 
energy research. While this number is reduced from last year level, I 
am hopeful that as the bill moves through the legislative process the 
committee will be able to increase the number. I am also optimistic 
that the committee will be able to reach a compromise on language 
giving the Department the greatest flexibility in meeting the FEAC 
recommendations contained in this year's report. Scientists who work in 
this special area of fusion research tell me that the prospects for 
achieving practical fusion energy have never been greater. The progress 
over the past several years has been truly impressive. Fusion energy 
research needs to be continued if we have any hopes of finding future 
energy sources that do not harm our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents real progress toward setting 
national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our ranking Democrat on the House Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply make a few brief observations. 
I have some concerns about a number of items in this bill, including 
the international nuclear issues, the squeeze which is created on 
fusion research by earmarking, which means that you have left only $16 
million to fund $51 million worth of demand from research universities 
around the country. I am concerned about the reduction in solar and 
renewable energy and about a number of other items, one of which I will 
be dealing with in an amendment which I will be offering later in the 
game on the advanced light water reactor.
  My purpose in rising at this point, however, is to simply note with 
considerable regret the decision to retire that has been reached by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill]. We

[[Page H8311]]

have seen a number of stories written lately about why this institution 
seems to be so much more partisan and why it has become a much less 
pleasant place to work. It certainly has.
  I think if you want to know why that is happening, I think two 
reasons are simply that Members like Mr. Myers and Mr. Bevill are 
retiring. I think that will be a great loss to this institution because 
they both bring to this institution not only their considerable 
expertise in the programs with which they deal, but they also bring 
considerable grace to the way in which they perform their jobs.
  I have admired John Myers' ability to get along with everybody for as 
long as I have known him in this body. I do not think there is a mean 
bone in his body and I do not think there is a partisan bone in his 
body. He has, I think, genuinely shown that good guys can finish first, 
despite the admonition to the contrary by Leo Durocher a good many 
years ago.
  I think the same is true for Tom Bevill. Every one who knows Tom 
Bevill understands that he is a consummate gentleman. They understand 
that he is first and foremost interested in getting the job done and 
does not much cotton to partisan arguments one way or another. He has 
helped many a Member and many a community in this country to deal with 
problems that otherwise would have been beyond their reach.
  I will very much regret next year seeing that neither of them will be 
here, but they have done honor to this House. They have done honor to 
this country and they have done honor to their respective parties by 
the manner in which they have served their constituents in this body. I 
think we all owe them a standing round of applause.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for those very kind remarks. I hope we deserve 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3816, the 
fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Myers and Ranking Member Bevill 
for their hard work on this important legislation and the consideration 
that they have given to my region of the country. As a former staff 
member of this body, it is an honor to have had the opportunity to work 
with them for just the short time that I have been here. But I do 
appreciate it and we will miss their leadership.
  Devastating damage from floods is a clear reminder that our lives and 
our infrastructure and our economy depend on proper watershed 
management. I am pleased that H.R. 3816 includes vital funding for 
several flood control and navigational projects in the Houston area. 
These projects include Brays, Sims, and Breens Bayous and will provide 
much-needed protection for communities that have been plagued by severe 
flooding for decades.
  Funding is also included for the Port of Houston and Houston ship 
channel which are of great economic importance to our region and to the 
Nation.
  I would remind my colleagues that in 1994, the Clinton administration 
proposed a phaseout of Federal funding for local flood control 
projects. I and other Members of the Texas delegation worked with the 
chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee to reject 
this proposal, and I am pleased that once again they have chosen to do 
so. However, as Congress seeks to balance the budget, the scarcity of 
Federal dollars for flood control could threaten hundreds of projects 
in southeast Texas and the entire country.
  Although this committee has achieved what some would consider 
impossible in funding these projects, it is clear that Federal flood 
control policy must adapt to meet budgetary constraints without 
sacrificing public safety and environmental protection. That is why I 
have been working with the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure which overseas the authorization of water projects to 
restructure Federal watershed management and flood control policy and 
allow local entities to have more planning and construction 
involvement.
  I believe local agencies, such as the Harris County Flood Control 
District in my district can construct these projects more quickly and 
more cost-effectively if they are free from Federal regulation and 
given more responsibility in return for less Federal dollars. This 
should benefit both the families who live in the flood-prone areas as 
well as taxpayers.

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recently 
authorized the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization which 
includes language designating Harris County as a national test site for 
allowing local control over flood control. Under this plan, the Federal 
Government remains as partner in flood control but local governments 
will gain authority to respond more quickly and positively.
  It is my hope that the Committee on Appropriations will look 
favorably on these flood control reforms. The time has come for 
Congress to give local governments more opportunity to plan and 
construct Federal flood control projects and to make safer communities 
and good for the American taxpayers.
  I appreciate the work that the committee has done for the southeast 
Texas region. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to raise a 
very serious consideration about one aspect of this particular bill; 
that is, the fact that this bill cuts 36 percent from fiscal year 1995 
appropriations, the amount that it will spend in the next fiscal year 
on renewable energy research and development. This is a critical 
failure of the legislation. Keep in mind, a few years ago, we fought a 
war in the gulf. We fought that war for one purpose, because the gulf 
provides the world with the oil that it needs to run.
  Just a few weeks ago, we lost 19 American servicemen in Saudi Arabia. 
The reason those servicemen were stationed in Saudi Arabia is only one, 
and that is because so much of our energy in this country is imported. 
We are now importing more than 50 percent of our annual energy needs, 
the annual oil needs, from outside of the country. We are becoming 
critically dependent upon foreign oil once again.
  This is a very serious matter indeed. There is only one way for us to 
unhook ourselves from our dependence on gulf oil, one way to ensure 
that we do not fight more wars and lose more lives in Saudi Arabia and 
elsewhere in the gulf region. That is to remove ourselves from this 
dependence on gulf oil, Saudi Arabian oil particularly. We need to do 
that through research and development.
  The research and development industry, the industry for research and 
development in solar is about to explode. It is expected that this 
industry will grow by 70 percent over the next 5 years. Let us look at 
where we stand with regard to other countries in this area of research 
and development.
  Denmark spends more for wind research and development than does the 
United States. Japan spends twice as much on photovoltaic research and 
development than the United States, and Japan spends $150 million more 
on photovoltaic procurement.
  We need to reinvest in alternative energy. If we fail to do that, we 
are going to lose more American lives in the future.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1700

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, my congratulations to us and to the 
American people for having had the professional service of these two 
gentlemen who are leading this bill, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], who both have 
served 30 years each. Three decades they have given to our country in a 
very professional committed manner, demonstrating that civility is here 
and does have a place in the legislative process.
  Now commenting on the bill, Mr. Chairman: Within the energy and

[[Page H8312]]

water development appropriations bill, the Congress must ensure that we 
equip the Department of Energy to effectively meet our present and 
future energy needs. While the bill before us funds many critical 
programs, it would restrict the Department of Energy's ability to 
perform its mission by including a 30 percent reduction in the 
Department of Energy's departmental administration overall funding.
  DOE's departmental administration salary and expenses budget is 
reduced by more than 20 percent, a reduction of over $50 million in 
fiscal year 1997, and instead of allowing DOE to reallocate their 
reduced resources as they deem appropriate, it reduces 
DOE's departmental administration staff of 1,500 FTE's as full-time 
equivalents by another 500 FTE's, a cut of over one-third of their 
staff, and sets specific FTE targets for each office. So there is no 
flexibility for the right decisionmaking.

  Last year in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, Congress asked 
DOE headquarters personnel in certain programs to make significant cuts 
and changes. The departmental administration budget was cut by 15 
percent, which translates into a reduction of approximately 400 FTE's. 
Managers worked hard to administer this staff reduction without 
resorting to reductions in force. To save jobs, performance awards were 
eliminated, overtime was reduced by a half, furloughs were used to 
address further funding shortfalls. And despite substantial reductions 
in operating cost at headquarters, a two-thirds reduction since 1993, 
this legislation sets a general management and program support function 
at DOE at 47 percent less than last year and 20 percent less than the 
administration's request.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been a difficult year for Federal employees. 
They have endured shutdowns, downsizing, RIF's, uncertainty and reduced 
benefits. They are among the most resilient people that we know. We 
really should not hit them any harder.
  The negative ramifications of this unprecedented and punitive cut 
will affect the many important projects funded by this year's Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations bill. The bill targets cuts in the 
Environmental Management Program, Nonproliferation, and Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In addition, the 90-percent cut 
imposed on DOE's Policy Office will leave only 20 employees to perform 
critical technical and economic analysis. This cut will jeopardize 
strategic planning and implementation of management reforms, economic 
policy development, gasoline market impact analyses.
  Mr. Chairman, what I want to say is that I think we can ill-afford to 
have these cuts of the Federal employees, and I think it affects 
adversely the mission of the Department of Energy. I hope the 
conference committee will do something to ameliorate it. I feel that 
this important piece of legislation does have that damaging aspect of 
it.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was not present 19 years ago when the 
Tom Bevill-John Myers story began; the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] at that time being chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers] being the ranking minority member. I am very 
pleased that I was present, however, as a member of the subcommittee on 
the very last markup held by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], 
and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill]. These two gentleman are gentleman in the truest sense of the 
word, and with the national public debate that has been overtaken by 
cynicism, they are the two who we can point to in the House of 
Representatives and hold out as examples of people who can hold 
strongly held views and yet work 24 hours a day to find that 
responsible bipartisan middle ground.
  I say to the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Alabama, I 
respect you, I have a deep affection for you. You have been friends of 
mine. You have been more than generous, much more generous than I 
deserved, with me, and you will be sorely missed. You have my every 
best wish for good health, joy, and happiness for every day of your 
life, and it was a tremendous privilege to be able to serve, however 
shortly, on the subcommittee with both of you in leadership positions.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my remarks where my 
distinguished friend from Indiana left off. That is, attempting to 
recognize and thank the gentleman from the great State of Indiana, a 
fellow Hoosier, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], a friend 
on the Democratic side, for all they have contributed to this 
institution over their long years and their valuable years of service.
  Certainly we have many, many debates in this Chamber where oftentimes 
it is overtaken and overwhelmed by partisanship and by cynicism and by 
lack of respect for one another. These two gentlemen always would bring 
bills to this House floor where there was a comity, a respect and an 
institutional knowledge that lent credibility to this institution, and 
I thank them for that contribution in making this a better place to 
serve.
  Along those lines, Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage my 
colleagues to vote for an amendment that I will be offering later on in 
this debate on the energy and water bill where I will cut about $9.6 
million from the field laboratories. Now, certainly the Senate has done 
this already. They have said, we do not just cut things from 
Washington, DC, and the bureaucracy here, we have to cut from our own 
backyards as well too, and that means going out into the field where we 
have some of the money going for congressional pork. Let us make sure 
that as we cut and balance the budget in outyears, that we cut not just 
Washington, DC, bureaucracy but we cut some of the field offices, and I 
will be offering a bipartisan amendment to cut to where the Senate has 
cut.
  I would also encourage my colleagues to not overly micromanage in the 
area of fusion R&D, and there is report language in this bill that I 
think can be as harmful as some of the cuts that have taken place over 
the years in fusion. I would say let us not micromanage to our 
universities, big or small, exactly where each and every one of these 
dollars should go in fusion research.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say let us continue to put many of our 
resources in solar and renewable research. I am somewhat concerned with 
some of the cuts in this bill on solar and renewable. I know an 
amendment is going to be offered, a bipartisan amendment that I will 
strongly support, that will include restoring some moneys back into 
that very, very valuable account.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks, thank the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers] for his service to the great State of Indiana 
once again, and thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for his 
bipartisanship.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on several provisions in the 
House version of the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1997 that I hope will be fixed by House floor action or in 
conference.
  First, the energy and water bill continues the assault on civilian 
applied energy R&D initiated last year. From fiscal year 1995 levels, 
without factoring inflation, this bill cuts solar and renewables 
research by 44 percent, nuclear energy R&D by almost 60 percent, 
biological and environmental research by 6 percent, and fusion R&D by 
37 percent. This is unacceptable.
  These cuts devastate activities such as those that created solar cell 
modules that allow the United States to lead the world in sales of this 
technology with over one-third of the $300 million per year 
photovoltaics market; developed wind turbines that save the energy 
equivalent of 4.4 million barrels of oil each year in California alone; 
achieved a 50-percent increase in efficiency at nuclear powerplants, 
saving several million dollars per year per reactor; and made 
significant progress toward developing a fusion reactor that could help 
to create a worldwide supply of cheap energy for the 21st century.
  In addition to reducing energy costs, these same technologies also 
reduce pollution and help to preserve the environment. If technology 
development can invent a way out of

[[Page H8313]]

our pollution problems, it is surely a better approach than imposing 
Federal mandates and regulations.
  Another bonus of such technology development may be that the United 
States can become more self-sufficient and cease to depend on foreign 
energy sources. I, for one, don't want to fight another Persian Gulf 
war if we can avoid it. And I think that spending a little on energy 
R&D to avoid such a war in the future--even in the distant future--is 
well worth the price.
  Amendments will be offered later to add funds to the solar and 
renewables research efforts of the Department--I strongly support such 
amendments. In addition, I will be offering (an) amendment(s) to recoup 
savings from streamlining in the Department and its laboratories--and I 
strongly urge Members to listen closely to that debate and support 
returning those savings, not those from cuts to R&D, to the taxpayer.
  At the same time, some Members will offer amendments to eliminate 
further research and development of Advanced Light Water Reactors. I 
strongly oppose such a move. We need to complete the final year of the 
ongoing innovative public-private partnership to develop the next-
generation nuclear powerplants of the future. Otherwise we will concede 
the market to other countries with less stringent safeguards for 
environmental and health protection.
  Each of these issues will be the subject of further floor action. 
However, there are two issues that I'd also like to discuss now that I 
respectfully ask the eventual conferees to this bill to consider in 
conference.
  First, the report accompanying the Energy and Water appropriations 
bill details specific funding allocations within the fusion R&D 
account. These earmarks severely disadvantage the universities and 
small laboratories that participate in the program and threaten the 
balance between small and large experiments so important to its 
advancement. I appeal to the eventual conferees on this bill to negate 
this report language in conference. Such earmarking does not reflect 
well on the Congress and may do more harm to the Fusion R&D program 
than even the 40-percent cut it has received these past 2 years.

  Also within the bill's report language are detailed FTE allocations 
for the Department's headquarters staff. Not only do these levels 
severely hamper the ability of the Department to carry out its mission, 
but such directive language intrudes on the prerogative of the 
executive branch to organize and staff its offices as circumstances 
require. This language also does not reflect well on the Congress and I 
encourage the conferees for this bill to strike it in its entirety.
  Before I close, I would like to recognize the excellent work of 
Chairman Myers and Ranking Member Bevill. While there are several 
aspects of the bill with which I do not agree, I thank them heartily 
for their fine effort in the face of such a daunting task. Both John 
Myers and Tom Bevill will be sorely missed in this Congress after they 
retire and their institutional knowledge will be impossible to recover. 
While this is not yet the time for good-byes, I want to express my 
heartfelt appreciation for their important contributions to the 
Congress and to this bill, and not let my disagreement with certain 
actions taken in the bill reflect on the tremendous contribution that 
both Members bring to this House.
  Finally, I would like to close with an appeal to Members of the House 
to consider the long-term implications of reductions to applied R&D 
contained in this bill. Such R&D has proven time and again its worth to 
American society through environmental protection and economic gains. 
Furthermore, energy and environmental technologies will only grow to a 
greater economic engine in the global economy, as environmental 
problems and oil import concerns increase. We must not hamper the 
ability of the United States to compete and benefit from these 
developments. Otherwise, when we have balanced the budget, we will find 
that we are left with a knowledge deficit that places the American 
economy behind its competitors.
  I urge Members to vote on upcoming amendments to restore U.S. energy 
and environment R&D capabilities, while supporting bipartisan efforts 
to cut in the appropriate places--namely, administrative overhead at 
the Department and its laboratories.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we thank everyone who said nice 
words about the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and me, but this is 
about to conclude here.
  So at this time I yield the remaining time that we have on our side 
to the very distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. He is 
a very hard-working, valuable member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to join with all of our 
colleagues in the accolades that have preceded me in thanking the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the distinguished former 
chairman and now ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill], not just for their tremendous work on this bill, but for their 
many years of extraordinary service to the House and to our country. I 
think I speak for all our colleagues in saying that their collective 
wisdom and experience will be sorely missed in this House and am 
wishing them well in all their future endeavors.
  Later tonight during the appropriate titles of the bill, I want to 
talk on a couple of other subjects: Small harbor safety and fusion 
energy. But right now I want to focus on one action that I wish we had 
taken in committee but did not, and that is dealing with the growing 
problem of radioactive waste disposal. It is a problem that is not 
going to go away in this country. It is sort of like a ticking time 
bomb that gets more serious with every passing day. One in three 
diagnostic medical tests today uses radioactive materials. Eighty 
percent of all drugs are developed using some radioactive materials. 
Critical research on AIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis could not take 
place without radioactive materials. These benefits to society, though, 
come at a cost. We need responsible disposal sites for the waste that 
is generated by these activities.
  That is why I considered offering in committee, but was dissuaded by 
my good friend and distinguished chairman, considered offering the Ward 
Valley Land Transfer Act as an amendment to our bill. This would have 
affected the long-awaited transfer of land from the Department of 
Interior to the State of California to serve as a site for the storage 
of low-level radioactive waste.
  I regret that the transfer has become embroiled in election year 
politics. The Interior Department is reluctant to allow our State of 
California to manage its own waste disposal.
  Now, colleagues, we know the history of this particular issue. In 
1993, after years of environmental study, California licensed Ward 
Valley in the remote Mohave Desert as a disposal site for low-level 
waste. Since that time the State's actions have successfully passed the 
review of the National Academy of Sciences and the California Supreme 
Court. All that remains is the actual transfer of the land from the 
Department of Interior to the State of California. State officials led 
by our Governor, Pete Wilson, have acted in good faith and they have 
taken many difficult steps to carry out their duty to provide for the 
disposal of low-level waste. However, after originally supporting the 
Ward Valley land transfer, the administration has now taken the 
position that more study is necessary.

  Well, this is the good old bureaucratic paralysis by analysis, and it 
is blocking our enactment of a nuclear waste policy act, a policy in 
this country.
  We also have the same problem with respect to storing spent nuclear 
fuel, another problem that is not going away. Since 1983 the Federal 
Government has collected $11 billion from electric ratepayers 
throughout the country. Now the Federal Government is seriously behind 
schedule in meeting its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear 
fuel. If we do not enact legislation, legislation such as Yucca 
Mountain, 27 reactors will exhaust spent fuels storage capacity by 
1998, just 2 years away. This will subject ratepayers to billions of 
dollars more in unnecessary costs for onsite storage of spent fuel.
  So let me just tell my colleagues again that we need to be responsive 
in this body to the concerns of our fellow citizens. The Federal 
Government lacks a long-term policy for the disposal of nuclear waste. 
This is holding the benefits of nuclear medicine and nuclear energy 
hostage to politics.
  So I urge my colleagues to rise above election year expediency and 
help to properly manage its radioactive nuclear materials.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I regret the 
retirement of both the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee. The two of them always worked in a bipartisan manner. 
They are examples in this House of Representatives of what Members and 
chairman and ranking members truly should be, and I want to commend 
them for all their efforts.

[[Page H8314]]

  Particularly this year once again, just as an example of their 
forward thinking in my opinion, is the report language in this bill 
that once again rejects the policy that was suggested by the 
administration that we not, that the Federal Government cut back or 
eliminate its role in shore protection, beach replenishment and small 
navigation projects. I looked at the report language today, and I am 
very pleased to see that it does commend the administration for 
dropping its opposition to support Federal support of flood control 
projects; but as we know, we continue to see this distinction in the 
administration's eyes between flood control and beach erosion 
protection, and the administration even goes further and suggests that 
they would fund structural improvements along the coastal areas, but 
not sand replenishment projects.

  I just give you an example in my own district where the committee has 
once again funded a beach replenishment project that involves both a 
structural sea wall as well as sand replenishment. We cannot have one 
without the other. It makes no sense.

                             {time}   1715

  It makes no sense for the Federal Government to say they will pay for 
a seawall but not pay for the protective sand that is placed in front 
of the seawall. Once again, the subcommittee has rightly pointed out 
that it is essentially discriminatory to say that coastal areas cannot 
have that form of flood protection, whereas inland areas would, if the 
administration policy was to be continued and to be enacted.
  I also wanted to say the same thing is true for small navigation 
projects. There is really no distinction from an economic point of view 
for a State or locality with a small navigation project, which tends to 
be recreational, versus a large commercial project.
  In New Jersey, tourism is actually our No. 1 industry. More money is 
engendered in New Jersey through tourism than any other industry. To 
suggest that somehow small navigational programs are not important is 
not accurate.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am about to make a motion which I will explain. The 
Committee will rise at this time. The House will go back to a 
conference report on the welfare bill with instructions that will take 
a little over an hour, probably. So that the Members understand, we 
will come back about 6:30 or quarter to 7, and we will take this bill 
up again for amendments.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, as we discuss the efficacy and safety of 
pyroprocessing, also known as electrometallurgical treatment, it is 
extremely important to remember that this technology is still in its 
development phase. I find many of the arguments against pyroprocessing 
premature because we do not yet know how this technology may assist in 
reducing our country's nuclear waste. However, since 35 States 
currently host nuclear waste, and 22 percent of our Nation's 
electricity is generated by nuclear power, I think that it is 
imperative that we research new ways to dispose of our spent nuclear 
fuel. As we consider funding for further research into this technology 
and examine our options for safe disposal of nuclear waste, keep in 
mind that the National Academy of Sciences, which has been monitoring 
the progress of the pyroprocessing facility, recently gave a strong 
endorsement for further research into this technology and stressed that 
DOE should keep this program as a high priority.
  Before addressing the anticipated benefits of pyroprocessing, it is 
necessary to detail its origins. As many are aware, in 1994, the 
Appropriations Committee terminated the advanced liquid metal reactor 
or ALMR. This reactor would have manufactured, used, and recycled spent 
nuclear fuel. The concept of pyroprocessing was born out of the 
recycling phase of this project. It was almost discovered by accident. 
When the ALMR was shut down, pyroprocessing was used to safely prepare 
the spent fuel from the ALMR reactor. This process was then recognized 
as a potential technology that could be applied to safely dispose of 
all spent nuclear fuel. In addition, the budget numbers also show that 
pyroprocessing is not a reincarnation of the ALMR.
  Proposed funding for the ALMR for fiscal year 1995 was $70.5 million. 
Total proposed funding for further pyroprocessing research is $20 
million for fiscal year 1997--$15 million in defense funding for 
disposal of DOE spent fuel and $5 million in civilian funding for 
further research in this field. The additional $25 million that 
completes the $45 million mentioned in this amendment is to complete 
the termination of the EBR-II reactor that was part of the ALMR--it is 
not part of the funding for pyroprocessing research.

  Pyroprocessing technology prepares spent fuel by the degrading 
uranium and harnessing plutonium with transuranic and other fissionable 
products to render it inaccessible for proliferation purposes. 
Pyroprocessing has often been confused with enrichment. However, to 
relate these two technologies is like comparing a water wheel to a 
house plant--both need water to function but are very different.
  Enrichment and pyroprocessing both work with uranium. However, 
enrichment increases the radioactivity of the uranium while 
pyroprocessing decreases the radioactivity level. Pyroprocessing takes 
high-level uranium and converts it to low level, which makes it much 
easier and safer to dispose of. In addition, unlike enrichment, 
pyroprocessing produces minimal radioactive waste, so the whole process 
is relatively clean with results that are significantly safer and 
better for the environment than any other technology we have researched 
up to this point.
  As we know from other discussions in both the House and Senate, the 
safe disposal of nuclear waste is of urgent concern to our Nation. We 
keep producing more waste and yet we still do not have a permanent 
disposal facility. While we continue to develop the technology for such 
a facility, we need to contain our existing waste. Pyroprocessing may 
offer the answer to this critical problem. It reduces the inventory of 
highly enriched uranium, stores plutonium in a way that is not a 
proliferation risk, and does not create any new waste streams. 
Considering our waste disposal needs at this time, it would be 
premature to stop research of pyroprocessing technology.
  I encourage my colleagues to examine the true benefits of this 
technology as a solution to our nuclear waste disposal needs and vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by my friend Mr. Bereuter of Nebraska. We share many similar 
concerns about the management of the Missouri River and the revision of 
the Army Corps Master Manual currently underway. While I do not have 
any specific objection to his intent to prevent the corps from 
instituting a ``spring rise'' a part of the management of the river, I 
do object to legislating changes in the Master Manual through an 
appropriations bill.
  The Army Corps of Engineers currently is undertaking an exhaustive 6 
year $23 million study to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. This 
tremendous undertaking seeks to resolve contentious issues between all 
interests on the river, those upstream, in North Dakota and likewise 
those downstream in Missouri. This is no small endeavor. The corps has 
received exhaustive testimony and input on this revision and although 
the recently announced delay in the release of the revisions was 
disappointing, I am confident the process is steadily moving forward.
  This amendment is especially troubling given another attempt to 
circumvent the Master Manual process that will soon be before this 
body. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 contains language, 
inserted in the full committee, without hearing or input, that will 
have a devastating impact throughout the Missouri River basin. This 
language proposes to extend the navigation season on the river by 1 
month. While seemingly straightforward, the effect of this provision 
would be to lower upper basin water storage levels, threaten water 
supply and quality throughout the basin, increase flood risks from ice 
jams along the entire river, and wreak havoc with fisheries and 
endangered species populations.
  As my colleagues can see, this type of amendment sets a dangerous 
precedent. Instead of leaving water management up to the professional 
engineers at the Army Corps, amendments of this type transfer control 
of water management to the whims of Congress, regardless of impact. For 
that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman John Myers 
and ranking minority member Tom Bevill, not just for their work on this 
bill, but for their many years of service to the House and the country. 
I wish them well in their future endeavors.
  The energy and water development bill provides funds for programs 
that are critically important to preserving the environment and 
maintaining our national security. California is particularly affected 
by the programs in this measure. I am pleased that we were able to 
maintain the balance that most Californians want between environmental 
protection and continued economic growth. In my remarks today, I wish 
to focus on a few issues of concern to me and my constituents.

[[Page H8315]]

                          Small Harbor Safety

  One of the highlights of our consideration of this bill was the total 
rejection of Clinton administration recommendations to terminate the 
Army Corps of Engineers' role in shore protection and small navigation 
projects. This would have hurt coastal States like California. Instead, 
we will continue studies and construction projects that save lives and 
property.


                             fusion energy

  Within the Department of Energy, I do have some concerns about the 
Fusion Energy Sciences Program. Fusion is important to the Nation 
because it is one of our most promising future energy sources. I am 
pleased that there is a strong fusion presence in California, resulting 
in high technology jobs and spin-offs at universities, national 
laboratories, and industrial facilities.
  Funding for the fusion program has decreased significantly over the 
past 2 years. Last year, in connection with a $130 million cut, 
conferees asked the Department of Energy and its Fusion Energy Advisory 
Committee to restructure the program.
  This year, we adopted an amendment in subcommittee which gives 
guidance to the DOE on allocation of even more limited funds. While I 
supported the amendment, I am concerned that, in prescribing how 90 
percent of the fusion funds are to be spent, we may be contradicting 
some of our prior direction to the Department.
  It is entirely appropriate that the committee suggest to DOE how its 
fusion funds should be used. However, the restructuring that was put 
into place as a result of last year's budget, and the accompanying peer 
review process, have been widely praised.
  As we proceed to conference with the Senate, we need to evaluate how 
we can achieve the appropriate balance between identifying funding 
priorities and giving program managers necessary flexibility.


                           radioactive waste

  I finally want to focus on action I wish we had taken in committee, 
but did not--that is, dealing with our radioactive waste disposal 
problem.
  One in three diagnostic medical tests today uses radioactive 
materials. Eighty percent of all drugs are developed using some 
radioactive materials. Critical research on AIDS, cancer, and multiple 
sclerosis could not take place without radioactive materials.
  These benefits to society come at a cost. We need responsible 
disposal sites for the waste that is generated by these activities. 
That is why I considered offering the Ward Valley Land Transfer Act as 
an amendment to the pending bill. This would have effected the transfer 
of land from the Department of the Interior to the State of California 
to serve as a site for storage of low-level radioactive waste.
  I regret that the Ward Valley Transfer has become embroiled in 
election-year politics. The Interior Department is reluctant to allow 
the State to manage its own waste disposal.
  We have given the States responsibilities under the Low-Level 
Radioactive Waste Policy Act, just as we have under the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act. The State of California has acted responsibly to fulfill 
its obligations, but the Federal Government's reply has been 
irresponsible.
  In 1993, after years of environmental study, California licensed Ward 
Valley in the remote Mojave Desert as a disposal site for low-level 
waste. Since that time, the State's actions have successfully passed 
the reviews of the National Academy of Sciences and the California 
Supreme Court. All that remains is the transfer of the land from the 
Department of the Interior.
  State officials have acted in good faith and taken many difficult 
steps to carry out their duty to provide for disposal of low-level 
waste. However, after originally supporting the Ward Valley Transfer, 
the administration now has taken the bureaucratic low road, opting for 
``more study.''
  This failure of Federal leadership means that Californians--just as 
the citizens of other States--are faced with a growing accumulation of 
low-level waste at neighborhood hospitals, businesses and research 
facilities. Unless we respond, benefits from the use of radioactive 
materials will disappear.
  Paralysis by analysis is the same problem we are facing as we seek to 
enact a Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We must end costly delays in 
achieving a national policy for safely storing spent nuclear fuel.
  Since 1983, the Federal Government has collected $11 billion from 
electric ratepayers throughout the country. Now, the Government is 
seriously behind schedule in meeting its obligation to begin accepting 
spent nuclear fuel. If we do not enact legislation, 27 reactors will 
exhaust spent fuel storage capacity by 1998. This will subject 
ratepayers to billions of dollars more in unnecessary costs for on-site 
storage of spent fuel.
  We must assure that the Federal bureaucracy responds to the needs of 
our citizens. The benefits of nuclear medicine and nuclear energy 
should not be held hostage to politics. I urge my colleagues to rise 
above election year expediency and help the country properly manage its 
radioactive materials.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal 
year 1997 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. I know that Chairman 
Myers and Representative Bevill, the ranking minority member on the 
subcommittee, have had to work especially hard this year to report this 
legislation in light of their original allocation. Once again, they 
have done an incredible job of balancing the many requests they 
received with the available funding. As I noted earlier this year in 
hearings, I appreciate the outstanding leadership Chairman Myers and 
Representative Bevill have provided. They will be sorely missed.
   Mr. Chairman, this legislation includes $500,000 to complete a 
reconnaissance study for the Rio de Flag floodplain in Flagstaff, AZ. 
The residents of Flagstaff, AZ are grateful for the $200,000 provided 
by the committee last year to initiate this study. The Corps of 
Engineers anticipates beginning this study this spring. As a result of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency designating much of Flagstaff's 
downtown and southside areas as a special flood hazard area, Flagstaff 
is prevented from moving forward with new development or important 
redevelopment projects. The city of Flagstaff is aware of the cost-
sharing requirements associated with planning and constructing this 
project and is a willing partner.
  Finally, I want to note my strong support for an amendment offered by 
one of my colleagues from Arizona, Jim Kolbe. Representative Kolbe 
intends to offer an amendment which I believe is unprecedented. Instead 
of looking for ways to score easy political points by attempting to 
find spending cuts in someone else's backyard, he has looked to Arizona 
for ways to save money. Specifically, the amendment will cut over $20 
million from water projects in Arizona. I am proud of my colleague's 
courage and vision to offer this amendment and happy that I can stand 
with a unified delegation from Arizona in supporting it. I hope that as 
the House continues its efforts to balance the budget, other State 
delegations in Congress will follow our example.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Kolbe amendment and for final passage 
of this important legislation.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern for 
the future of our Nation's fusion program. First of all, I am 
disappointed with the funding level for fusion research in H.R. 3816. 
This cut from last year's funding level is significantly below the 
recommendation of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee's for a strong 
U.S. fusion program. The FEAC report warned that any sustained funding 
level below $250 million would adversely impact the productivity of the 
U.S. fusion facilities and severely strain our relationship with our 
international partners.
  What concerns me most about the fusion funding level is the language 
in the committee's report to H.R. 3816. On pages 82 and 83 of the 
report, the committee recommends that 90 percent of the $225 million 
for fusion research be allocated for specific programs of the fusion 
research program. While each of these specific projects are important 
aspects to a comprehensive U.S. fusion program, this language does not 
include key elements of the program plan outlined by the FEAC report 
and is inconsistent with the guidelines Congress provided the fusion 
community when ordering a restructuring of the program.
  The FEAC report's key component for the new domestic fusion program 
plan is the pursuit of new innovative approaches to fusion through 
small scale experiments at universities and laboratories throughout the 
country. This program element was explicitly mandated by Congress and 
was given top priority by FEAC even at budget levels below $250 
million. The committee report cannot support this priority area because 
there is simply not enough unspecified funding remaining in the fusion 
budget. The unfortunate consequence is that university experimental 
fusion research would be virtually eliminated from the fusion program.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and expectation that members of the 
House-Senate conference for this appropriation bill will take another 
look at the congressional guidelines to the fusion community as well as 
the FEAC report. This earmarking language must be reconsidered to 
ensure that the fusion community continues its peer review process and 
that vital small-scale university programs are maintained.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to take this 
opportunity to thank Chairman Myers of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water Development, and Ranking Member Bevill, for their 
long standing support of water development in South Dakota.
  Mr. Myers and Mr. Bevill, the announcement of your retirements will 
be a great loss to water development efforts in South Dakota and across 
the Nation. The two of you have demonstrated leadership, bipartisanship 
and

[[Page H8316]]

statesmanship as you have helped America develop critically important 
infrastructure. I am proud to have served with each of you. I look 
forward to having one more opportunity to work with both of you to move 
forward on important water development efforts in South Dakota.
  Sound water development is crucial to our State, whether it is rural 
water delivery, wetland and wildlife enhancement, irrigation or flood 
control. These projects stabilize the rural economy and greatly 
contribute to rural economic development since water is a vital 
component to ensure future growth.
  I appreciate the time and hard work the members of the subcommittee 
and subcommittee staff have devoted to developing water infrastructure, 
especially the efforts in meeting the needs of South Dakota and rural 
America. I look forward to continued close cooperation with the 
committee to meet the needs of our Nation.
  Again, my heartfelt thanks to Chairman Myers and Ranking member 
Bevill for their distinguished service in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the Chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the Ranking Member 
of the subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  Also, in light of the impending retirements of the distinguished 
Chairman and the distinguished Ranking Member, this Member would like 
to take this opportunity to express his sincere gratitude for the 
dedication, good judgment and wisdom they have consistently 
demonstrated. The entire country has benefited from their hard work and 
outstanding leadership on the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee. This Member certainly appreciates the 
distinguished Chairman's and the distinguished Ranking Member's far-
sighted actions and equitable treatment which will continue to have a 
positive impact on America for many years to come. They have left a 
very impressive legacy.
  This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints 
made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. 
Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in 
creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary 
pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the 
subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1997 includes funding 
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
  First, this Member is very pleased that the bill includes $400,000 to 
complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the 
Pender, Nebraska Section 205 Logan Creek Project. There is an urgent 
need for this funding and this Member is particularly grateful to the 
Subcommittee for agreeing to this appropriations item during a time 
when the restrictions on available funding are exceedingly tight.
  The amount of money presently spent on the planning process to date 
is in excess of $350,000. The Village of Pender, a small municipality, 
and the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District have expended 
approximately $160,000 of their own funds to date. The Village has 
expended an additional approximate amount of $25,000 on the costs of 
engineering, project coordination, and other related costs. Without the 
flood control project the community will remain at risk and will be 
stymied from undertaking future developments in their community due to 
FEMA flood plain development restrictions (60 percent of Pender is in 
the floodplain and 40 percent is in the floodway).
  The plan calls for right bank levees and flood walls with a retention 
pond for internal storm water during flood periods. The project will 
remove the entire community from the FEMA 100-year flood plain. This 
project is needed to protect life and property, eliminate or greatly 
reduce flood insurance costs, and allow community and housing 
development.
  Mr. Chairman, quite simply, at great expense the State and local 
entities involved in the project have held up their end of the 
agreement. If federal-local partnerships are to work, Federal 
commitments need to be met; therefore, this Member is pleased that this 
legislation will greatly facilitate the completion of this project.
  In addition, this bill provides additional funding for other flood-
related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 
1st Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily 
closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal 
water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, 
Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased the Committee 
agreed to continue funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries 
Flood Control Study. This study should help to formulate and develop 
feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the 
Lower Platte River and tributaries.
  Additionally, the bill provides $175,000 in continued funding for an 
ongoing floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through the 
heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The purpose of the study is 
to find a solution to multi-faceted problems involving the flood 
control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing 
transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land 
use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in this 
project since this Member was responsible for stimulating the City of 
Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with 
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify and effective 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 ten-foot by twenty-foot (height and 
width) 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 control 
of flooding of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the condition 
of the underground conduit, make recommendations for any necessary 
repair, suggest the appropriate limitations of 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.
  Unfortunately, this legislation includes a significant reduction in 
funding for the Missouri River Mitigation Project. Despite the 
importance and effectiveness of this project, the Administration's FY97 
budget called for drastic reductions in its funding. The FY96 
appropriations measure provided $5.7 million for this project, but the 
Administration's budget slashed funding in FY97 to $1.6 million with 
the Omaha Corps District receiving only $100,000. Last year the Omaha 
District received $3.7 million for mitigation activities. This Member 
believes that funding at last year's level is fully justified.
  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 pre-
development days.
  The Missouri River Mitigation Project addresses fish and wildlife 
habitat concerns much more effectively than the Corps' overwhelmingly 
unpopular and ill-conceived proposed changes to the Missouri River 
Master Manual. Although the Corps' proposed plan was designed to 
improve fish and wildlife habitat, these environmental issues are 
already being addressed by the Missouri River Mitigation Project. In 
1986 the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri 
River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due 
to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan.
  This Member is pleased, however, that the bill provides $200,000 for 
operation and maintenance and $100,000 for construction of the Missouri 
National Recreational 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 H.R. 3816 also 
provides funding for a Bureau of Reclamation assessment of Nebraska's 
water supply ($100,000) as well as funding for Army Corps projects in 
Nebraska at the following sites: Harlan County Lake; Papillion Creek 
and Tributaries; Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; and Salt Creek 
and Tributaries.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their long-standing support of projects which are 
important to Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District, as well as to 
the people living in the Missouri River Basin.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Myers for his 
hard work

[[Page H8317]]

in crafting the Energy and Water Appropriations bill in light of our 
budget constraints. I also appreciate his support of fusion energy by 
providing $225 million for these programs.
  Fusion research takes place at a number of universities and 
institutions around the country. San Diego is particularly blessed: we 
host major programs at the University of California at San Diego and at 
General Atomics. In addition, we serve as the host to the U.S. team for 
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor--a major 
international science and engineering project.
  Last year's Energy and Water conference report called for a 
restructuring of the fusion program and set into motion an extensive 
and effective peer review process carried out through the Fusion Energy 
Advisory Committee. The restructured program and this ongoing peer 
review process has been widely praised and I believe the fusion 
community should be congratulated for a job well done.
  Because of the budget difficulties in achieving a higher level for 
fusion energy, the committee included prescriptive report language 
concerning fusion programs. This language is not consistent with the 
recommendations of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee and the ongoing 
peer review process. I am also concerned about its impact on university 
and other aspects of the fusion programs. For these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to support a higher funding level for fusion energy in 
conference. A higher level could enable the current fusion programs to 
continue their important work, thus making report language unnecessary 
to keep these programs intact.
  I appreciate the opportunity to bring these important issues to the 
attention of my good friend from Indiana, the distinguished chairman of 
the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, and to my other 
colleagues concerned about fusion programs. I hope my concerns will be 
kept in mind as the House works with the Senate in conference.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, the management of the 
Missouri River has been an ongoing source of conflict between interest 
groups of States both upstream and downstream for many years. The 
current Master Manual for the Missouri River was written in 1970 with 
only minor revisions taking place in 1975 and 1979. While almost 
everyone agrees that the revision of the outdated Master Manual is long 
overdue, differences of opinion continue to exist about what changes to 
the operating plan should be included in the revised Master Manual. 
Downstream States contend that more water needs to be released from 
upstream reservoirs to ensure that navigation interests are served on a 
regular basis, while South Dakota and other upstream States press for 
dependable water levels to support fish and wildlife management and the 
recreation/tourism industry.
  I rise today in opposition to Representative Bereuter's amendment. 
The amendment essentially ensures that the so-called ``spring rise'' 
proposed by the Corps in the first revision of the Master Manual is 
never implemented. While I do not necessarily oppose the intent of the 
amendment because I am not a strong advocate of a so-called ``spring 
rise,'' I strongly object to the amendment because it circumvents the 
Master Manual revision process that all interested parties have been 
actively engaged in for several years. Further, I do not believe it is 
appropriate nor good policy for the Congress to establish water 
management policy with little or no debate during consideration of an 
appropriations bill--especially when the Corps of Engineers is 
currently completing a 6-year, $23 million study to update the Manual. 
I have offered to work with Mr. Bereuter to address his concerns 
regarding the spring rise by working with the Corps on this issue. 
Unfortunately, he prefers to offer this amendment and so I must oppose 
it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 
energy and water appropriations bill and in particular the provision of 
$250,000 to begin the feasibility portion of the coastal erosion study 
on the North Shore of Long Island. I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], as well as the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], for their assistance 
in providing this funding for the North Shore.
  Mr. Chairman, the North Shore has a considerable history of tidal 
flooding, shore erosion, and damage to shorefront development. 
Hurricanes affecting the area occurred in 1938, 1944, 1954, and 1960. 
In addition, tropical storms occurred in the area in 1950, 1953, 1955, 
1962, and in 1992. Recent coastal storms have caused shoreline erosion 
resulting in storm damage to several communities, including Bayville in 
Nassau County and the Village of Asharoken in Suffolk County. The 
December 1992 Nor'easter inundated hundreds of residential and business 
properties with damages estimated at $12 million. In addition, 
approximately 300 people were evacuated, and sections of Bayville, the 
village of Asharoken and Eatons Neck were impassable for days.
  So far this year we have been lucky. There have been several severe 
storms in the northeast with some flooding but none has resulted in the 
extensive damage caused by the '92 Nor'easter. It is probably only a 
matter of time.
  In September last year, the Army Corps of Engineers completed the 
reconnaissance study of the North Shore which found that, based on a 
general assessment of coastal flooding and beach erosion, the area is 
particularly susceptible to storm damage and that the villages of 
Bayville and Asharoken typify the flooding and erosion problems in the 
study area.
  Finally, the study recommended that further feasibility studies for 
beach erosion control and storm damage reduction be conducted in order 
to formulate the most appropriate plan for any proposed storm damage 
protection project.
  The Federal interest in the North Shore is well documented. The Army 
conducted a study of hurricane damage to coastal and tidal areas in 
response to series of hurricanes in 1954.
  In 1963, the Army began a study of beach erosion and hurricane 
protection which was completed in 1969. Clearly the area has been much 
studied. It is time to move beyond identifying the problem to designing 
the solution.
  Last year's report identified two plans for Bayville and two for 
Asharoken both of which have positive benefit to cost ratios. The plans 
for Bayville use a combination of features including a buried seawall, 
a composite bulkhead/revetment and floodwalls. The plans for Asharoken 
use a combination of buried seawall and beach nourishment to provide 
erosion control and flood protection. The report went on to note that 
``a feasibility study having a greater level of detail is required to 
formulate the most appropriate plan for any proposed storm damage 
protection project.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Subcommittee saw fit to include 
funding for the next phase of the North Shore feasibility study. Now we 
can identify the solution to the North Shore's longstanding erosion 
problem.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to bring to my colleagues' attention 
an issue that is of great interest to the citizens of the State of 
Washington, that of the Hanford Thyroid Morbidity Study. The Hanford 
Thyroid Study is the first study of its kind and will determine the 
long-term thyroid disease effects, if any, of the releases of 
radioactivity from the Hanford nuclear site from 1949 to 1957.
  Over the course of the past 7 years, this study has been jointly 
funded by the Center for Disease Control and the Department of Energy. 
Due to be completed in 1998, this study is an excellent example of two 
Federal agencies--the Department of Health and Human Services and the 
Department of Energy--working together in the interest of the American 
people.
  By the end of fiscal year 1996, the Department of Health and Human 
Services will have spent a total of approximately $12 million and the 
Department of Energy will have spent $3.4 million since 1989. A 
combined $4,600,000 is necessary in fiscal year 1997 from HHS and DOE 
and a total of $2,700,000 would be necessary from these departments in 
1998 to complete the project. I am sure that my colleagues will agree 
that completion of this project is of paramount importance and 
necessary to bring 7 years of research data already collected to its 
natural conclusion.
  I was pleased to assist the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 
the contractor on the study, in 1995 when administrative delays 
threatened the release of funds under the DOE-HHS Memorandum of 
Understanding. We were successful in obtaining the release of the funds 
from the DOE. I am confident that we can keep this project on track in 
1997.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, nobody can doubt that this is a major bill, 
one that includes many items of national importance and also a number 
of things of particular interest to specific States and cities.
  I want to briefly discuss one part of the bill that's of great 
national significance, but that's also particularly important to 
Colorado--funding for the Energy Department's environmental restoration 
and waste management programs.
  These are the programs that pay for cleaning up the sites where 
America developed, produced, and tested the atomic and nuclear weapons 
that brought us first national security, and then victory, in the cold 
war. That mission was accomplished--but the job isn't finished. We 
still have to clean up these sites. That is very much a part of the 
job, and paying for it is very much a part of the price, of our victory 
in the cold war.
  One of these sites is in Colorado, at Rocky Flats. In fact, Rocky 
Flats, which houses tons of plutonium and other dangerous materials, 
sits only 15 miles from the center of the Denver metropolitan area, 
with a population of 2.3 million people. Obviously, it's of utmost 
importance to all Coloradans that the Congress give high priority to 
making sure Rocky Flats is safe and cleaned up.

[[Page H8318]]

  This was made clear by the Colorado Senate, which has formally urged 
that the Federal Government ``make a sustained commitment to completing 
environmental cleanup at Rocky Flats'' and has asked for ``full funding 
of all necessary cleanup activities at Rocky Flats.'' For the Record, I 
am including a copy of this document from our State's Senate at the end 
of my remarks.
  That's why I'm glad this bill provides the full amount of cleanup 
funds requested by the administration--something that makes it much 
better than last year's bill, which provided far too little for these 
crucial tasks. I want the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Meyers] and the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] to know that all of us in the 
Colorado delegation very much appreciate the fact that this part of the 
bill fully reflects our joint request.
  Chairman Meyers, I know, well remembers that I was very unhappy about 
the cleanup funding in last year's bill. I was then prepared to offer 
an amendment to increase those funds. Rather than put the Chairman to 
making a point of order on the amendment, I withdrew it after a 
colloquy with the chairman made it clear that the cuts made last year 
were done without prejudice for future years, that he agreed with me 
about the necessity for providing the resources to meet our national 
responsibilities in this area, and that he would work with me on it in 
connection with the bill for this year, 1997. The Chairman has kept his 
commitment in that regard, as I knew he would, and I want him to know 
that I greatly appreciate his cooperation and assistance. He will not 
be returning to the House next year--and he will be missed very much.

  Mr. Chairman, I'm also grateful that the Committee report 
appropriately points out that real progress is being made at Rocky 
Flats. Last week, for example, Federal and State officials came 
together in Colorado to sign a new cleanup agreement and a set of 
``vision'' documents for Rocky Flats--documents that lay the foundation 
for cleaning up the site in ten years, so that it can be converted to 
other appropriate uses. Establishment of a ``project closure fund'', as 
called for by the Committee, holds real promise for further expediting 
completion of the job at Rocky Flats, because I believe that Rocky 
Flats can and will meet the criteria to qualify for receiving the 
benefits of this important initiative. In short, this part of the bill 
is an improvement over last year not only in terms of funding, but also 
because it includes important initiatives that should help speed up the 
vital job of cleaning up Rocky Flats and other such sites around the 
country.
  Having said that, I have to say that I find other parts of the bill 
less satisfactory. In particular, I am concerned about the bill's 
failure to fund adequately very important solar and renewable energy 
programs. It's true that in Committee we restored some funds for wind 
energy and some other renewable-energy programs that would have been 
zeroed-out. But even so, the bill still calls for deep cuts in these 
programs--something that's very short-sighted. Investing in these 
programs pays big dividends, by reducing our dependence on imported 
fossil fuels, reducing federal spending on energy, and increasing 
opportunities for American business in the markets of the world.
  We can and should do better than this, and I hope that this part of 
the bill will be improved through the process of amendment and in 
conference. If that is done, and some other improvements are made, this 
bill will be one that deserves broad support in the House.


                          senate memorial 96-1

       By Senators Feeley, Norton, Hernandez, Linkhart, Matsunaka, 
     Pascoe, Thiebaut, Casey, Perlmutter, Rupert, and Weissmann.

 Memorializing Congress Regarding the Cleanup of Rocky Flats and Other 
            Nuclear Weapons Facilities in the United States

       Whereas, for more than 40 years, the federal government 
     developed, produced, and tested nuclear weapons in a number 
     of government-owned facilities throughout the country, 
     including Rocky Flats in Colorado; and
       Whereas, contamination from these facilities has 
     contributed to environmental damage at the sites, including 
     radiological and hazardous surface and subsurface soil and 
     groundwater contamination at Rocky Flats; and
       Whereas, as a result of the end of the Cold War, the 
     federal government has shifted its focus to environmental 
     restoration and waste cleanup at the facilities; and
       Whereas, the Department of Energy has committed to clean up 
     the nuclear weapons complex; and
       Whereas, if the nuclear weapons complex is not cleaned up 
     in accordance with known health standards, citizens in 
     Colorado and across America will be affected directly or 
     indirectly by the dangers that will continue to exist; and
       Whereas, the cost of cleaning up the Rocky Flats site is 
     estimated to be $9 billion or more; and
       Whereas, to reach total cleanup, an increase in funding 
     over the next five years is needed but no commitment to this 
     funding has yet been made by the federal government; and
       Whereas, commitment by the federal government to the full 
     funding of the necessary costs associated with these cleanup 
     activities may be sacrificed as a result of current budget 
     discussions by Congress; now, therefore,
       Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixtieth General 
     Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of 
     Representatives concurring herein:
       That we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, urge 
     the federal government to recognize that cleanup of Rocky 
     Flats and other weapons facilities is a related expenditure 
     to the $4 trillion spent for the Cold war.
       Be It Further Resolved, That we urge the federal government 
     to:
       (1) Make a sustained commitment to completing environmental 
     cleanup at Rocky Flats and its other facilities at a 
     reasonable and justifiable pace that protects human health 
     and the environment;
       (2) Strive not only to comply with environmental laws, but 
     also to be a leader in the field of environmental cleanup, 
     including addressing public health concerns, ecological 
     restoration, and waste management; and
       (3) Consult with officials in Jefferson county, Colorado, 
     and other affected county governments regarding 
     transportation of cleanup materials.
       Be It Further Resolved, That we urge Congress and the 
     President of the United States to approve full funding of all 
     necessary cleanup activities at Rocky Flats and other nuclear 
     weapons facilities.
     Tom Norton,
                                          President of the Senate.
     Joan M. Albi,
                                          Secretary of the Senate.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 3816, the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act. The House Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee have drafted an excellent bill that meets 
our Nation's water resources and energy needs, and I urge its adoption 
by the House.
  Although H.R. 3816 contains many worthy provisions, I would like to 
bring to my colleagues' attention a project contained in the bill of 
particular important to the people of central New Jersey. The project 
to which I refer is the Green Brook Flood Control project.
  As my colleagues may recall, this project was authorized by Congress 
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662, Sec. 
401). During the past 10 fiscal years, Congress has appropriated over 
$23 million for this project. In fiscal year 1986, Congress 
appropriated $484,000; in fiscal year 1987, $1.37 million; fiscal year 
1988, $1.4 million; fiscal year 1989, $1.5 million; fiscal year 1990, 
$1.2 million; fiscal year 1991, $2 million; fiscal year 1992, $3.169 
million; fiscal year 1993, $3.5 million; fiscal year 1994, $2.8 
million; fiscal year 1995, $2 million; and fiscal year 1996, $3.6 
million. This bill appropriates $2.781 million for this project.
  Mr. Chairman, as the preliminary work for this project draws to a 
close, I requested that the Green Brook Flood Control Commission obtain 
resolutions of support from the communities this project impacts within 
New Jersey's Seventh Congressional District. Considering a decade has 
elapsed since Federal funds were first appropriated for this project, I 
wanted to make sure this project still enjoyed local support before it 
entered the more expensive construction phase. Moreover, these 
resolutions service the dual purpose of reminding local officials of 
the fiscal and physical impact this project will have on their 
community.
  To date, I have received resolutions of support from Bound Brook, 
Bridgewater, Warren, Watchung, Green Brook, North Plainfield, 
Plainfield, Scotch Plains, Middlesex, Union County, Middlesex County, 
and Somerset County. The only resolution I received in opposition to 
the project was from Berkeley Heights. I have asked the Commission and 
the Corps to work closely with the Berkeley Heights Township Committee 
to address and resolve, to the greatest extent possible, the concerns 
of the township.
  Mr. Chairman, while the need for flood control in the Green Brook 
Drainage Sub-basin still exists, this project should only proceed in 
the most environmentally sensitive manner possible. I grew up along the 
``Ridge,'' which is the term used to describe the communities along the 
Watchung Mountains, and I am acutely aware of the innate value of the 
Watchung Reservation. As the reservation is one of the largest green 
spaces left in my congressional district, I intend to zealously protect 
it from any unnecessary environmental degradation.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Myers and ranking minority member, 
Mr. Bevill, for again producing an excellent bill. Although their roles 
have been reversed since the last Congress, the subcommittee's work 
product remains undiminished. I wish these two distinguished Members, 
both of whom are leaving Congress this year, the best of luck in their 
retirement.
  I also commend my good friend and fellow New Jersey colleague, Rodney 
Freling- huysen, with the able assistance of his legislative director, 
Ed Krenik, for the outstanding

[[Page H8319]]

work on this bill. Representative Frelinghuysen has done an excellent 
job in ensuring our State's needs were addressed in this bill, and I 
look forward to working with him on these issues in the years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 
3861.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3814, the 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations for the upcoming year. This 
bill is particularly important among the measures we consider each 
year, because it funds what more and more Americans identify as their 
top priority: fighting time.
  This bill increases funding for the Justice Department at a time when 
hard choices have been made across the board. Nevertheless, we've 
committed to funding Law Enforcement Block Grants, which will help 
local public safety officials develop the kinds of programs they most 
need to prevent crimes and to solve them when they do happen.
  We've also fully funded the popular Community Oriented Policing 
Service [COPS] program. In my own community of Milwaukee and its 
metropolitan region, this program has had a significant impact, 
enabling us to hire 30 new police officers this year, and 500 statewide 
since the program began in 1994. This is something tangible that has a 
real impact on the cities and towns that we represent, and I am happy 
that the COPS program continues to receive congressional support.
  I think the American people will also be happy that we've funded the 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund that was included in last year's 
anti-crime bill. In addition, the Violence Against Women grants will 
receive a boost--helping stem domestic violence and strengthening 
police effectiveness in dealing with this national scourge.
  I'm pleased that the Congress was able to restore some of the funding 
for the Legal Services Corporation, which provides our Nation's poor 
and badly needed legal service. While the funding level is lower than 
last year, it will allow the Legal Services Corporation to fulfill its 
important mission.
  There is, however, much to support in this bill. I commend the 
committee for reporting strong legislation.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 
3816, the fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  As you may know, part of my district lies along New York's Atlantic 
Coast. Like coastal areas in many parts of the country, the barrier 
islands along the coast in my district have been hit extremely hard by 
the storms of the past few winters and remain in a delicate state, 
vulnerable to breaches and overwashes from future storms which could be 
devastating to the mainland of Long Island.
  The barrier islands protect Long Island in the same manner that the 
levees on the Mississippi River protect the river towns. A vulnerable 
barrier island system cannot protect Long Island's south shore, which 
has a multibillion dollar economy and significant public 
infrastructure. The barriers afford protection to the freshwater 
wetlands and waters of the back bays, thus nurturing the clamming and 
fishing industries. Furthermore, Fire Island, Jones Island, Long Beach 
Island and the rest of Long Island's barrier system provide recreation 
for the citizens of Long Island and tourists from all over the world. 
As the tourism industry is the largest employer on Long Island, loss of 
this vital resource will mean loss of jobs. Long Island's rich 
commercial and recreational fishing heritage would also be affected if 
these barrier islands are threatened.
  While the President's budget recommends that the Army Corps of 
Engineers get out of the business of local flood and shore protection, 
I believe the Army Corps has a cost-effective and justifiable role in 
these projects. Savings can surely be made in the way the Corps carries 
out its mission. But the mission itself is vital to the Nation's 
coastal communities, and it is not one that can be transferred to State 
or local governments. From the commercial fishermen to the seaside 
merchants, the engine that drives our economy, small business, relies 
on the protection afforded by these Army Corps projects. The shoreline 
protection projects in which the Corps are involved are vitally 
important to the livelihood of the communities they protect and will 
save taxpayers money in the long run.
  The first project funded by this bill would provide New York with 
accurate, real-time information on its coastal processes. Many coastal 
States already have monitoring systems in place, and such a system is 
essential for New York. A federally funded monitoring system was 
authorized for New York in the 1992 Water Resources Development Act, 
and appropriations have been made over the past 2 years to initiate its 
implementation.
  As the authorization states, successful implementation will take $1.4 
million for up to 5 years, at which time the State of New York will 
take over funding and program implementation. The fiscal year 1997 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill also allocates this 
amount.
  The second project in the bill, the reformulation study of the area 
from Montauk Point to the Fire Island Inlet, will provide valuable 
long-term information on the coastal processes of Long Island's south 
shore. It is expected to take approximately 10 years and $14 million to 
complete. Over the past 3 fiscal years, over $7 million has been 
appropriated by this committee for the reformulation study. This has 
provided important information and will lay the groundwork for possible 
interim projects needed to shore up Long Island's coastline. The fiscal 
year 1997 segment of the study will cost $2.5 million, and this amount 
was included in H.R. 3816.
  The third project in the bill will assist with navigation as well as 
coastal protection. The area involved, Fire Island Inlet, is the 
channel between Robert Moses and Jones Beach State Parks. This biannual 
dredging project, last completed in 1995, is essential to not only 
allowing marine traffic to flow smoothly between these barrier islands, 
but will also help nourish Gilgo Beach by depositing the dredged sand 
on this beach which will help prevent further erosion to this area. 
These two beaches provide the only line of protection for the State's 
Ocean Parkway, which runs along the south shore of Long Island and is 
an alternative route to the heavily traveled roads of the mainland. The 
fiscal year 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill 
allocates $5.3 million for this project.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I understand the fiscal 
constraints we face. I agree that every expenditure must pass stringent 
economic tests, and I am confident that, upon examination, expenditures 
for these projects will pass such tests. The importance of the 
waterways and the barrier islands to homes and businesses on Long 
Island and New York cannot be overstated. As history has shown us, the 
establishment of protective measures now will save the Federal, State, 
and local government millions of dollars in the long term. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Knollenberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. Oxley, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 38916) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________