[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.
____________________